toddybody
Apr 6, 11:40 AM
what do you think Games on a Mac are? Jeeze dude, thats why I own a gaming PC. You couldnt dream of playing the majority of current titles at max settings on a mac...they need to start giving them real GPU's
Dr.Gargoyle
Aug 11, 10:50 AM
These iPhone rumours continue to persist. I admit to being a sceptic, but maybe I'm wrong! I just hope that if they do do it, they do it well.
It is an absolute necessity for Apple to introduce something like the iPhone. Especially after the introduction of cellphones like e.g. SE W810i which basically includes a top-of-the-line 4Gb Nano. The swan song of portable-mp3-only-players has begun.
I am sure Rokr just was a big public hard/software test and not really intended to amaze the market as iPod once did.
The upcoming iPhone on the other hand... I guess THAT is a whole different story.
It is an absolute necessity for Apple to introduce something like the iPhone. Especially after the introduction of cellphones like e.g. SE W810i which basically includes a top-of-the-line 4Gb Nano. The swan song of portable-mp3-only-players has begun.
I am sure Rokr just was a big public hard/software test and not really intended to amaze the market as iPod once did.
The upcoming iPhone on the other hand... I guess THAT is a whole different story.
samcraig
Apr 27, 09:32 AM
How is the talk of slower performance because the database isn't as large any different than the discussion about the data in the first place.
Several people were criticizing people for having tin foil hats when it came to what the data was being used for, etc
And now the same people are wearing the same tin foil hats/complaining about some mythological "slow down" by having a smaller database.
Hypocrisy LOL
Several people were criticizing people for having tin foil hats when it came to what the data was being used for, etc
And now the same people are wearing the same tin foil hats/complaining about some mythological "slow down" by having a smaller database.
Hypocrisy LOL
magbarn
Apr 10, 03:23 AM
The backlit keyboard thing kinda makes me laugh. Every macbook Ive ever owned has not had the backlit keyboard. I even bought a aluminum unibody and still got screwed out of a backlit keyboard. Finally I got a 2010 mac pro and got the backlit keyboard. what did i do? enjoy it for 2 days then turn it off to save battery life. the keyboard light is always off now and the brightness is set to minimum. so much for that.
Sorry not all of us are blessed with 'night vision' I dunno about your advanced genetics, but using my MBA on minimum setting will give me a headache in about 3 minutes.
Sorry not all of us are blessed with 'night vision' I dunno about your advanced genetics, but using my MBA on minimum setting will give me a headache in about 3 minutes.
SuperCachetes
Mar 23, 04:23 PM
"Is it your position that Libya represents a larger danger to American assets/security than Iraq? If not, is it your suggestion that America should be involved in every humanitarian crisis with brutal dictators worldwide, or at least those comparable to Libya? If so, why aren't we in North Korea? Why aren't we in any number of African nations?
I think this is a fair point, and it really doesn't matter if it's the United States making the calls, or the United Nations. We are essentially playing "God" with the other nations of the world. My complaint on the first page revolved around the lack of a quantifiable threshold for intervention. We inadvertently play favorites, and the world has every right to wonder about the motivation any time the USA takes action against a sovereign state. We should either stay out of ALL interference, or else put on the damn star-spangled cape and superhero tights and get to business already. Wherever evil is, we must go and fight it! :rolleyes:
Why you keep on referring to Iraq when the scale of action in scope of resources and time isn't remotely on the size of the Iraq invasion, is a complete mystery. If you're attempting to make this Obama's 'Iraq' folly, then you will fail. This will be off the front pages of US papers in terms of US engagement within a week or two.
Quite right. So far the whole Libya affair has a lot more in common with Desert Fox (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Iraq_(December_1998)) than Iraq...
I think this is a fair point, and it really doesn't matter if it's the United States making the calls, or the United Nations. We are essentially playing "God" with the other nations of the world. My complaint on the first page revolved around the lack of a quantifiable threshold for intervention. We inadvertently play favorites, and the world has every right to wonder about the motivation any time the USA takes action against a sovereign state. We should either stay out of ALL interference, or else put on the damn star-spangled cape and superhero tights and get to business already. Wherever evil is, we must go and fight it! :rolleyes:
Why you keep on referring to Iraq when the scale of action in scope of resources and time isn't remotely on the size of the Iraq invasion, is a complete mystery. If you're attempting to make this Obama's 'Iraq' folly, then you will fail. This will be off the front pages of US papers in terms of US engagement within a week or two.
Quite right. So far the whole Libya affair has a lot more in common with Desert Fox (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Iraq_(December_1998)) than Iraq...
samcraig
Apr 27, 11:19 AM
News on slashdot.org:
77 Million Accounts Stolen From Playstation Network.
Earth will not stop turning, but I think this is just slightly, slightly worse than a file that shows where you haven't exactly been at some point in the past if someone steals your iPhone.
See title of the thread: "Apple addresses controversy". There is and there never was a problem, but the idiocracy forced Apple to act to end the controversy. Right now, who do you think should worry more, iPhone owners or PS3 owners?
Both are issues. Both are being addressed. Why must someone (you) throw one company under the bus in favor of supporting another. Both had/have issues and both are responding.
77 Million Accounts Stolen From Playstation Network.
Earth will not stop turning, but I think this is just slightly, slightly worse than a file that shows where you haven't exactly been at some point in the past if someone steals your iPhone.
See title of the thread: "Apple addresses controversy". There is and there never was a problem, but the idiocracy forced Apple to act to end the controversy. Right now, who do you think should worry more, iPhone owners or PS3 owners?
Both are issues. Both are being addressed. Why must someone (you) throw one company under the bus in favor of supporting another. Both had/have issues and both are responding.
eMagius
Aug 7, 07:36 PM
As others have said, Time Machine is likely either a direct port of Sun's ZFS, or an equivalent implementation in HFS+.
I don't think we can say exactly how things work underneath. Windows 2003 offers differential snapshots without making massive changes to NTFS, for example. It would be neat if Apple did throw its weight behind ZFS, but I'm pretty sure it's not going to happen with 10.5.
According to today's keynote, Apple has finally added support for network drives. But I wonder -- does this mean only other Leopard Macs, or any shared drive that the Mac can connect to? Can I index a Windows shared drive from my Mac, or even a Unix NFS mount? Or is it only other Macs? Once again, if it's limited to other Leopard Macs, then this would be useless for a lot of people (mostly ME! :D).
I don't see how this would work for anything other than other Leopard (maybe Tiger, with a software update) Macs. Spotlight has to have the indexes pre-generated, after all.
Finally, gotta wonder what those "top secret" features are, and why so secret?
Call me a cynic, but I'd say Apple either hasn't implemented them yet or hasn't thought of them yet.
I don't think we can say exactly how things work underneath. Windows 2003 offers differential snapshots without making massive changes to NTFS, for example. It would be neat if Apple did throw its weight behind ZFS, but I'm pretty sure it's not going to happen with 10.5.
According to today's keynote, Apple has finally added support for network drives. But I wonder -- does this mean only other Leopard Macs, or any shared drive that the Mac can connect to? Can I index a Windows shared drive from my Mac, or even a Unix NFS mount? Or is it only other Macs? Once again, if it's limited to other Leopard Macs, then this would be useless for a lot of people (mostly ME! :D).
I don't see how this would work for anything other than other Leopard (maybe Tiger, with a software update) Macs. Spotlight has to have the indexes pre-generated, after all.
Finally, gotta wonder what those "top secret" features are, and why so secret?
Call me a cynic, but I'd say Apple either hasn't implemented them yet or hasn't thought of them yet.
ezekielrage_99
Sep 13, 08:14 AM
Do you really need that amount of power? I'm guessing yes ;)
I'd love to see the performance on the Clovertown Mac Pro.
I'd love to see the performance on the Clovertown Mac Pro.
prady16
Aug 26, 04:13 PM
Yippee.....
Definitely buying a MBP asap.....not gonna wait for santa rosa!
Definitely buying a MBP asap.....not gonna wait for santa rosa!
EagerDragon
Nov 29, 05:12 AM
Just tell them that they are getting the same deal they had before, or they can sell their music elsewhere. Apple is not a new comer to the industry like Microsoft.
Standard response from the music industry, "Our customers are thieves, and have iPods full of illigal music". Tell them to Stick it where .......
Standard response from the music industry, "Our customers are thieves, and have iPods full of illigal music". Tell them to Stick it where .......
jettredmont
Apr 10, 05:47 PM
A bit of selective hearing on the part of MacRumors with the quotes they chose to use. At first the video sounds great, dude is hyping what he saw from Apple. But later he gets called out from another speculating Apple is making a very significant change and distancing Final Cut from the real 'pro' users, dumbing it down, etc, and the guy who has seen it gets real quiet.. He is asked if he will update his editing studio's workflow to the new Final Cut, and he basically danced around the question, pleaded the 5th, and made it pretty clear that he is holding back some reservations about how the industry will adapt to the changes.
I'm assuming you've never dealt with Apple, or probably any NDA situation. In "leaking" this information, I'm sure he thought very carefully about what he was going to say and how, in order to stay within his NDA and on the "good side" of Apple. He rehearsed that (I'm sure the quotes weren't summoned on the spot), and presented what he'd rehearsed. This approach makes sure you get the most cool information out there without stepping over bounds. However, it leaves nothing for Q&A, as you see here. No, he won't say he'll commit to a new FCP workflow because he's not sure if he should acknowledge any kind of new workflow. He can't talk about if the interface has been "dumbed down" because discussing that intelligently ("dumbing down" is not exactly a precisely defined term) would require going into details on the interface he was likely expressly forbidden from discussing.
Personally I'm very interested to see what they do, I'm sure it will have huge improvements on real time rendering and performance, sounds like the whole thing is being rewritten. But it does worry me that the program could become more for mass audience and no longer the pro application it has been for the past decade.
No sense in debating before it's revealed, but I'd welcome a few "mass audience" nods so long as they enhance existing workflows. The last couple releases have had several features which catered to the "mass audience" more than to the "FCP Expert" audience, and I think they've made a much stronger product. IMHO, what is needed here is really a deep-down codebase cleanout, but any interface improvements would be nice.
I'm assuming you've never dealt with Apple, or probably any NDA situation. In "leaking" this information, I'm sure he thought very carefully about what he was going to say and how, in order to stay within his NDA and on the "good side" of Apple. He rehearsed that (I'm sure the quotes weren't summoned on the spot), and presented what he'd rehearsed. This approach makes sure you get the most cool information out there without stepping over bounds. However, it leaves nothing for Q&A, as you see here. No, he won't say he'll commit to a new FCP workflow because he's not sure if he should acknowledge any kind of new workflow. He can't talk about if the interface has been "dumbed down" because discussing that intelligently ("dumbing down" is not exactly a precisely defined term) would require going into details on the interface he was likely expressly forbidden from discussing.
Personally I'm very interested to see what they do, I'm sure it will have huge improvements on real time rendering and performance, sounds like the whole thing is being rewritten. But it does worry me that the program could become more for mass audience and no longer the pro application it has been for the past decade.
No sense in debating before it's revealed, but I'd welcome a few "mass audience" nods so long as they enhance existing workflows. The last couple releases have had several features which catered to the "mass audience" more than to the "FCP Expert" audience, and I think they've made a much stronger product. IMHO, what is needed here is really a deep-down codebase cleanout, but any interface improvements would be nice.
freeny
Jul 20, 08:18 AM
I wonder what they're going to call them, Quad sounds cool but "Octa or Octo" just sounds a bit silly.
MacPro8?
The Mactopus??
Ive already trademarked "OctoCore" and "CoreOcto";)
Just keep saying it to yourself. After about the 12th time it just starts rolling off your tongue...
MacPro8?
The Mactopus??
Ive already trademarked "OctoCore" and "CoreOcto";)
Just keep saying it to yourself. After about the 12th time it just starts rolling off your tongue...
padr�
Sep 19, 12:39 PM
thx for your reply,
i will go for the mac pro quad know (i'm updating my home computer wich is a G3, but i'm used to work on a dual G5 for my projects) and yeah i will allways be able then to update later, but how about ram, when DDR3 comes out, i read that its going to replace FB-DIMMs so will that be upgradeble too???
cause these FB-DIMMS are so ********** expensive :) thx
i will go for the mac pro quad know (i'm updating my home computer wich is a G3, but i'm used to work on a dual G5 for my projects) and yeah i will allways be able then to update later, but how about ram, when DDR3 comes out, i read that its going to replace FB-DIMMs so will that be upgradeble too???
cause these FB-DIMMS are so ********** expensive :) thx
Snowy_River
Jul 31, 10:37 AM
Now you've got some skills. I especially like the shadowing, reflections and detail on the back side. Very nice.
I agree with your size assessment.
Actually, our designs are quite close, differing primarily in cosmetics. What I'm refering to is my earlier design, (which I suspect you missed) not boncellis'. boncellis wished to see a wider, flatter version for use in home entertainment, so I conjured that 2nd one up for visualization. While that form factor has grown on me somewhat, I still like the taller version, as I had done earlier, and you've shown here, as well.
Here's my initial design, from earlier in this thread.
http://img92.imageshack.us/img92/9648/macandmacminipx9.jpg
The size of mine is a little smaller (narrower) - I wanted the whole thing less than 8" wide, though it could go back a little deeper, i.e. not necessarily square.
Also, see possible/hoped for product specs earlier in the thread.
Personally, I think I still prefer the smoother Mini-like skin than the perforated look of the Pro, but I'm just quibbling.
Thanks for the imagery.
-Dan
Thank you. I had fun doing it. Although I realized later that my MP is missing the Apple Logo on the side. Oh well.
I did see your earlier design, actually. I had though that it was meant to be the same footprint as the Mac Mini. Seeing it again, I can see that I was mistaken. By comparison, my design is 10"W x 11"D x 4"H. I think to bring it down to the MP 8.1"W, it would have to be made taller, to be reasonable.
Also, in the vein of quibbling, I think that the perforated look of the MP allows for much better cooling, and therefore hotter components, such as extra boards, faster processors, higher-end GPU, etc. That's the reason I went with it... :)
Maybe now I should draw a scene with the Mac++, a keyboard, a mouse, and an ACD. What do you think?
I agree with your size assessment.
Actually, our designs are quite close, differing primarily in cosmetics. What I'm refering to is my earlier design, (which I suspect you missed) not boncellis'. boncellis wished to see a wider, flatter version for use in home entertainment, so I conjured that 2nd one up for visualization. While that form factor has grown on me somewhat, I still like the taller version, as I had done earlier, and you've shown here, as well.
Here's my initial design, from earlier in this thread.
http://img92.imageshack.us/img92/9648/macandmacminipx9.jpg
The size of mine is a little smaller (narrower) - I wanted the whole thing less than 8" wide, though it could go back a little deeper, i.e. not necessarily square.
Also, see possible/hoped for product specs earlier in the thread.
Personally, I think I still prefer the smoother Mini-like skin than the perforated look of the Pro, but I'm just quibbling.
Thanks for the imagery.
-Dan
Thank you. I had fun doing it. Although I realized later that my MP is missing the Apple Logo on the side. Oh well.
I did see your earlier design, actually. I had though that it was meant to be the same footprint as the Mac Mini. Seeing it again, I can see that I was mistaken. By comparison, my design is 10"W x 11"D x 4"H. I think to bring it down to the MP 8.1"W, it would have to be made taller, to be reasonable.
Also, in the vein of quibbling, I think that the perforated look of the MP allows for much better cooling, and therefore hotter components, such as extra boards, faster processors, higher-end GPU, etc. That's the reason I went with it... :)
Maybe now I should draw a scene with the Mac++, a keyboard, a mouse, and an ACD. What do you think?
FearlessFreep
Apr 11, 01:31 PM
I still don't get why people just don't follow the components to figure out the timing. If the touchscreen size is indeed going to change, then it has to be manufactured in sufficient quantity before launch. Otherwise you end up with not enough product in the pipeline to meet demand (see Ipad, 2).
There's outside factors at work here as well - namely the Japan disaster which has constrained supplies.
Apple may not have any choice but to wait until Fall.
There's outside factors at work here as well - namely the Japan disaster which has constrained supplies.
Apple may not have any choice but to wait until Fall.
fatfish
Aug 7, 09:06 PM
When I first saw this feature I thought great. I do regular back ups, but some of my AW docs keep corrupting (probably something to do with keep duplicating the same old document and modifying rather than starting anew). Time Machine will help me no end. I was also thrilled that windows had nothing like this........ until I read through these posts.
Then it seemed very similar to what was coming in Vista and I felt a bit dissapointed that Apple had made such a point about M$ copying them, but seemed to do the same themselves with Time Machine.
However on closer examination this is not the case and my confidence in Apple's innovative skills is restored.
Firstly, there has always been back up and restore apps, so if you want to take this copying thing to a ridiculous level, of course you can do. Copying in my book is when an app does and looks the same (just like the screenshots in the presentation, safari RSS/IE7 RSS, ical/M$ calender etc). It appears to me Time Machine does much more than anything before it and has it's own unique UI to boot.
Secondly, I would imagine work on Time machine started long before a beta of Vista was released, even if the two utilities were more or less identical it would be coincidence not copying.
Thirdly, it seems quite clear that Vista's restore (whatever it's called) will not do what Time machine will do. Ultimately you may well be able to restore any deleted or modified file in Vista, but it doesn't appear to occur with the same ease or functionality.
If I create a file, modify it and move it several times, rename it, convert it, modify it some more, move it several times and finally delete it, I rather suspect it would be an absolute nightmare to recover in Vista, whereas it seems that Time Machine would have little problem.
I don't see how it is possible in Vista to perform the recovery with either the same simplicity or pizzaz as Time Machine. Perhaps if M$ had not abandoned their intended file system for Vista it might have been possible, but as it is I doubt it.
Finally it does not appear that Vista has the option to restore within a database application (i.e. iphoto, mail, address book), no doubt if you understand how a particular database works, the possibility exists to restore a particular photo, but let's not pretend it will be easy or anywhere near the experience of time machine.
And finally, finally, although I agree the UI may appear a little childish, this is exactly the sort of thing that makes it so easy to use.
Then it seemed very similar to what was coming in Vista and I felt a bit dissapointed that Apple had made such a point about M$ copying them, but seemed to do the same themselves with Time Machine.
However on closer examination this is not the case and my confidence in Apple's innovative skills is restored.
Firstly, there has always been back up and restore apps, so if you want to take this copying thing to a ridiculous level, of course you can do. Copying in my book is when an app does and looks the same (just like the screenshots in the presentation, safari RSS/IE7 RSS, ical/M$ calender etc). It appears to me Time Machine does much more than anything before it and has it's own unique UI to boot.
Secondly, I would imagine work on Time machine started long before a beta of Vista was released, even if the two utilities were more or less identical it would be coincidence not copying.
Thirdly, it seems quite clear that Vista's restore (whatever it's called) will not do what Time machine will do. Ultimately you may well be able to restore any deleted or modified file in Vista, but it doesn't appear to occur with the same ease or functionality.
If I create a file, modify it and move it several times, rename it, convert it, modify it some more, move it several times and finally delete it, I rather suspect it would be an absolute nightmare to recover in Vista, whereas it seems that Time Machine would have little problem.
I don't see how it is possible in Vista to perform the recovery with either the same simplicity or pizzaz as Time Machine. Perhaps if M$ had not abandoned their intended file system for Vista it might have been possible, but as it is I doubt it.
Finally it does not appear that Vista has the option to restore within a database application (i.e. iphoto, mail, address book), no doubt if you understand how a particular database works, the possibility exists to restore a particular photo, but let's not pretend it will be easy or anywhere near the experience of time machine.
And finally, finally, although I agree the UI may appear a little childish, this is exactly the sort of thing that makes it so easy to use.
JonD25
Aug 8, 04:18 AM
This may have already been discussed somewhere, but the vast amount of threads on all the new Leopard stuff and the 10 pages of this thread are a bit to search through, so just ignore me if someone already brought it up.
Did anyone notice the new iChat got rid of the brushed metal? One of the things I was dissapointed to not see was the talk about an improved/different UI, particularly the banishment of brushed metal. Could this be a preview of that fact? Perhaps part of the "top secret" features to come?
Did anyone notice the new iChat got rid of the brushed metal? One of the things I was dissapointed to not see was the talk about an improved/different UI, particularly the banishment of brushed metal. Could this be a preview of that fact? Perhaps part of the "top secret" features to come?
rolandf
Aug 7, 07:47 PM
Good lord. Whatever happened to simplicity? It looked like a three ring circus up there today.
Now come on. Time machine? With a picture of outer space and stars? This looks so gimmicky. They are getting to be like Microsoft and just adding new features instead of making things easier and streamlined. Why not just improve the Backup program that comes with .Mac or include it for free? Do we really need another interface? To me it looks like form over function.
Not very innovative so-far. The Intel change took the OS's soul and the inspiration. Very disappointing. Mail, completely overloaded, like MS office.
No mentioning of resolution independent GUI, etc. There are a couple of UNIX OS's out there that are more innovative.
All in all, Apple seems on the wrong track.
Now come on. Time machine? With a picture of outer space and stars? This looks so gimmicky. They are getting to be like Microsoft and just adding new features instead of making things easier and streamlined. Why not just improve the Backup program that comes with .Mac or include it for free? Do we really need another interface? To me it looks like form over function.
Not very innovative so-far. The Intel change took the OS's soul and the inspiration. Very disappointing. Mail, completely overloaded, like MS office.
No mentioning of resolution independent GUI, etc. There are a couple of UNIX OS's out there that are more innovative.
All in all, Apple seems on the wrong track.
SuperCachetes
Feb 28, 09:45 PM
Correct I have no idea what causes homosexuality, neither do scientists.
And yet you seem quite certain how the human brain works and what is normal/ not normal. :rolleyes:
My original point was that you made an assertive, sweeping generalization without any backup. Just a very matter-of-fact "Hey, all you humans, here is how your body was designed. All you gays, you are not the default. Trust me, I'm from teh internetz."
It's clumsy and insensitive at best, and just more religion-based trolling at worst.
And yet you seem quite certain how the human brain works and what is normal/ not normal. :rolleyes:
My original point was that you made an assertive, sweeping generalization without any backup. Just a very matter-of-fact "Hey, all you humans, here is how your body was designed. All you gays, you are not the default. Trust me, I'm from teh internetz."
It's clumsy and insensitive at best, and just more religion-based trolling at worst.
ergle2
Sep 15, 01:08 PM
On an unrelated note, wouldnt it been cool to effectivly install a whole OS on RAM. That would be noticably quicker....
The OS would be faster but unless you had tons of RAM, the Apps ... :)
Modern OSes use RAM not used by apps to cache recently used files/data, since it makes more sense to keep around stuff the system mind need again. Most OS files aren't needed (just look at the size of the OS itself on any system!).
Of course, back in my Amiga days, pretty much all the OS was running from ROM/RAM, and it had pre-emptive multitasking but no VM system. As a result, it was incredibly snappy to use, despite being a 7.14MHz 68K. I've occasionally seen real Amigas since then and I'm always impressed by how "fast" it feels, even if the system itself seems rather primative by modern standards.
I imagine the early Macs were somewhat similar in this regard, but I didn't use one properly til the early 90's, by which time I was more interested in Unix, VMS, etc.
The OS would be faster but unless you had tons of RAM, the Apps ... :)
Modern OSes use RAM not used by apps to cache recently used files/data, since it makes more sense to keep around stuff the system mind need again. Most OS files aren't needed (just look at the size of the OS itself on any system!).
Of course, back in my Amiga days, pretty much all the OS was running from ROM/RAM, and it had pre-emptive multitasking but no VM system. As a result, it was incredibly snappy to use, despite being a 7.14MHz 68K. I've occasionally seen real Amigas since then and I'm always impressed by how "fast" it feels, even if the system itself seems rather primative by modern standards.
I imagine the early Macs were somewhat similar in this regard, but I didn't use one properly til the early 90's, by which time I was more interested in Unix, VMS, etc.
chatin
Aug 18, 08:42 PM
From the time the Apple logo is displayed. There is a pause before that starts, I'd say only 10 seconds or so.
ClimbingTheLog
Jul 20, 01:04 PM
I hate to burst everyone's bubble, but Kentsfield will not be appearing in any of the Pro machines for some time.
Apple will be using them exclusively in the Xserves, at for the most part of 2007. This will finally give Apple another way to distinguish their server line from their pro line.
Apple doesn't get to operate in a bubble anymore - in Intel Land you have to compete. If they executed your plan, Dell would just go and make a "workstation" with dual Kentsfield and Apple will get crushed in Photoshop benchmarks. No way they're going to allow that.
Apple will be using them exclusively in the Xserves, at for the most part of 2007. This will finally give Apple another way to distinguish their server line from their pro line.
Apple doesn't get to operate in a bubble anymore - in Intel Land you have to compete. If they executed your plan, Dell would just go and make a "workstation" with dual Kentsfield and Apple will get crushed in Photoshop benchmarks. No way they're going to allow that.
Rt&Dzine
Feb 28, 04:49 PM
Excellent post.
Yes, sex in merely civil marriage is fornication
You can pretend that particular fornication sessions are sacred because some guy wearing a white collar said so.
Yes, sex in merely civil marriage is fornication
You can pretend that particular fornication sessions are sacred because some guy wearing a white collar said so.
SevenInchScrew
Sep 1, 11:38 AM
Time will tell i suppose, but it just doesnt make sense for them to gimp standard cars for no reason.
I think "gimping" the Standard™ cars is the wrong way to look at it. To me, it looks like they just chose to spend A LOT of effort modeling the Premium™ cars, and then just reuse what they had from before for the Standard™ cars.
Ideally, we would have 1,000 Premium™ cars, but that would either take a staff of about 500 people, or we'd be waiting for GT5 until 2015. Compromises had to be made. They could have done all 1,000 cars at an average detail level, or they could do a handful of them VERY high-res, and reuse some older cars. They obviously chose the 2nd option.
I think "gimping" the Standard™ cars is the wrong way to look at it. To me, it looks like they just chose to spend A LOT of effort modeling the Premium™ cars, and then just reuse what they had from before for the Standard™ cars.
Ideally, we would have 1,000 Premium™ cars, but that would either take a staff of about 500 people, or we'd be waiting for GT5 until 2015. Compromises had to be made. They could have done all 1,000 cars at an average detail level, or they could do a handful of them VERY high-res, and reuse some older cars. They obviously chose the 2nd option.
No comments:
Post a Comment