Small White Car
Apr 12, 08:44 PM
I know this thread is probably full of pro video geeks so don't eat me alive here. What's the primary difference between FCP and Express aside from the fact that Final Cut Pro is packaged in a suite of applications?
Pro takes more video formats. It has a few other tools, I think.
It's basically designed so that if you really are a hobbyist with an HDV camcorder you really won't notice a difference between the 2 since the extra things FCP has are things you'd never use anyway.
Pro takes more video formats. It has a few other tools, I think.
It's basically designed so that if you really are a hobbyist with an HDV camcorder you really won't notice a difference between the 2 since the extra things FCP has are things you'd never use anyway.
lordonuthin
Dec 17, 04:50 PM
well i'm finally in the top 10 for our team. just gotta keep it goin
Way to go!
Way to go!
EagerDragon
Nov 16, 12:53 PM
Previous question: How hard could it be to take advangate of the multi-cores.
The first thing is that it depends on what you are starting with. If you have zero code out there, you can come up with a nice design for your program that takes advantage of as many cores as you throw at it. If on the other hand you have large chunks of legacy code that was written in the time of single cores, it may be close to a re-write to fully take advantage of the hardware. In some cases it will be easier in some cases to throw the old code away.
But some of it is imagination, if you can look at a problem and the solution you orginaly came up with, and using your imagination look at the problem at hand in inovative ways, parts of the programs could be re-written to take advantage of the hardware and other parts can be left alone (for the short term). This is an incremental step, you gain X% in one area and little to nothing in another area. The key is to determine what your program spends most of it time doing and re-write/re-design that section of the code for the biggest short-term gains.
I remeber working in assembler and selecting the correct combination of instructions based on their function and the number of CPU cycles it took to execute each instruction. Sometimes a set of 12 instructions was faster than a different set of 8 instructions in accomplishing the same result. Use your imagination and look at the problem from a different angle. If your brain only sees a number of serialized steps, you won't be able to come up with anything that takes advange of the hardware.
What you start with (old code) and your imagination can get you there quicker or slower.
Short answer: It depends.
The first thing is that it depends on what you are starting with. If you have zero code out there, you can come up with a nice design for your program that takes advantage of as many cores as you throw at it. If on the other hand you have large chunks of legacy code that was written in the time of single cores, it may be close to a re-write to fully take advantage of the hardware. In some cases it will be easier in some cases to throw the old code away.
But some of it is imagination, if you can look at a problem and the solution you orginaly came up with, and using your imagination look at the problem at hand in inovative ways, parts of the programs could be re-written to take advantage of the hardware and other parts can be left alone (for the short term). This is an incremental step, you gain X% in one area and little to nothing in another area. The key is to determine what your program spends most of it time doing and re-write/re-design that section of the code for the biggest short-term gains.
I remeber working in assembler and selecting the correct combination of instructions based on their function and the number of CPU cycles it took to execute each instruction. Sometimes a set of 12 instructions was faster than a different set of 8 instructions in accomplishing the same result. Use your imagination and look at the problem from a different angle. If your brain only sees a number of serialized steps, you won't be able to come up with anything that takes advange of the hardware.
What you start with (old code) and your imagination can get you there quicker or slower.
Short answer: It depends.
ABernardoJr
Apr 2, 08:41 PM
I believe! But I'm still not buying one.
"This is what we believe. Technology alone is not enough. Faster, thinner, lighter...those are all good things. But when technology gets out of the way, everything becomes more delightful...even magical very nice. That's when you leap forward. That's when you end up with something like this."
Now THAT'S what I call marketing... :D
"This is what we believe. Technology alone is not enough. Faster, thinner, lighter...those are all good things. But when technology gets out of the way, everything becomes more delightful...even magical very nice. That's when you leap forward. That's when you end up with something like this."
Now THAT'S what I call marketing... :D
lordonuthin
Jan 26, 09:55 PM
Originally Posted by SciFrog
Our PPD has dropped 20% from the peak, I lost a big unit this week due to a reboot, same old annoying problem...
Can't wait for Gulftown and GPU3...
I've lost 2 big units lately for the same reason, power loss & reboots and another one wasn't picked up in stats :confused:
yeah i've noticed the team has been down. again, i believe the less we chat on this forum, the less members will fold. right now, if one of our top users goes down, our whole team does basically.
i think we need to be more involved on here, and more people will fold.
sorry to hear you lost a big unit. yeah gulftown and gpu3 will be great!
It's hard to stay interested but it really doesn't take any effort to keep going. Maybe too many discover performance issues after they start and only have their main machine to fold with? Maybe as people get newer machines with multiple cores there will be fewer dropouts due to perfomance problems... which reminds me of one of my pet peeves - everyone talks about how not very many applications can take advantage of multi core machines - multiple aplications CAN take advantage of multiple cores... and thus performance is vastly improved when running many apps. my two cents - get as many cores as you can! :D
Our PPD has dropped 20% from the peak, I lost a big unit this week due to a reboot, same old annoying problem...
Can't wait for Gulftown and GPU3...
I've lost 2 big units lately for the same reason, power loss & reboots and another one wasn't picked up in stats :confused:
yeah i've noticed the team has been down. again, i believe the less we chat on this forum, the less members will fold. right now, if one of our top users goes down, our whole team does basically.
i think we need to be more involved on here, and more people will fold.
sorry to hear you lost a big unit. yeah gulftown and gpu3 will be great!
It's hard to stay interested but it really doesn't take any effort to keep going. Maybe too many discover performance issues after they start and only have their main machine to fold with? Maybe as people get newer machines with multiple cores there will be fewer dropouts due to perfomance problems... which reminds me of one of my pet peeves - everyone talks about how not very many applications can take advantage of multi core machines - multiple aplications CAN take advantage of multiple cores... and thus performance is vastly improved when running many apps. my two cents - get as many cores as you can! :D
miles01110
Sep 6, 08:48 AM
Hmm... the Mini still has no Core 2 Duo? That does not sound too promising for MacBook (Pro) updates... unless Apple only wants to use the Core 2 Duo for the high end laptops (MacBook Pro) of course... Or are they waiting untill Leopard has been released?
I didn't think they would put the Core 2 Duo in the mini before the MBP.
I didn't think they would put the Core 2 Duo in the mini before the MBP.
Umbongo
Mar 25, 04:13 PM
Intel's TDPs are not actual power consumed. So yes, the 130 W scenario still kicks.
Correct, the power consumed is less than any of the TDP ratings.
Like I said, yes it is, but under a certain level of strain you do not want to run it. Also, we are not talking about a DIMM, we are talking about the capacity of RAM per module. It's a safe assumption to assume 20W per each 1GB of RAM. So if a module has 2GBs, then its 40 W. Now you can also say 10W, but 20W is much better for maximum scenarios. If your PSU can handle a maximum scenario it will not be strained.
No you're just overestimating the power required for the GPU and are very wrong about the memory. DDR3 is around 4-5W per DIMM, not 10W-20W per GB.
Correct, the power consumed is less than any of the TDP ratings.
Like I said, yes it is, but under a certain level of strain you do not want to run it. Also, we are not talking about a DIMM, we are talking about the capacity of RAM per module. It's a safe assumption to assume 20W per each 1GB of RAM. So if a module has 2GBs, then its 40 W. Now you can also say 10W, but 20W is much better for maximum scenarios. If your PSU can handle a maximum scenario it will not be strained.
No you're just overestimating the power required for the GPU and are very wrong about the memory. DDR3 is around 4-5W per DIMM, not 10W-20W per GB.
Bengt77
Sep 1, 01:32 PM
**THIS IS NOT A RUMOR** There will be a new iMac with Merom and probably 23". Sounds like it will be a 2.33 ghz but not sure.
Aw, man! I was sooooo ready to shell out for a new 23" iMac, might it come out. But now it's on the verge of actually doing so, I'm starting to get greatly mostly underwhelmed by the rumours. Merom? What? I want a Conroe, at least in the 23" top model. And 2,33GHz? The Conroe goes way up to 2,93GHz. I'm sure the Merom line goes higher than 2,33GHz...
Bleh... maybe I should wait for the rumoured headless iMac. Maybe that machine actually will come with a Conroe.
Aw, man! I was sooooo ready to shell out for a new 23" iMac, might it come out. But now it's on the verge of actually doing so, I'm starting to get greatly mostly underwhelmed by the rumours. Merom? What? I want a Conroe, at least in the 23" top model. And 2,33GHz? The Conroe goes way up to 2,93GHz. I'm sure the Merom line goes higher than 2,33GHz...
Bleh... maybe I should wait for the rumoured headless iMac. Maybe that machine actually will come with a Conroe.
faroZ06
Apr 3, 02:15 AM
I just realized how bad "magical" sounded in that!!!
Way to ruin the ad, whoever wrote that into the script :mad:
Anyway I never see Apple ads on TV, and I don't know which channels they are on :confused:
Way to ruin the ad, whoever wrote that into the script :mad:
Anyway I never see Apple ads on TV, and I don't know which channels they are on :confused:
M-Life
Sep 4, 08:09 PM
Would something in this realm be feasible for the mini updates? Just wondering while waiting for updates. Of course this is very vague on my part.
$499: Core solo - 1.5
$599: Core duo Yonah - 1.66
$699: Core duo Yonah - 1.83
$799: Core 2 duo Merom - low end (Not sure what that is)
$499: Core solo - 1.5
$599: Core duo Yonah - 1.66
$699: Core duo Yonah - 1.83
$799: Core 2 duo Merom - low end (Not sure what that is)
Maldini
Jan 12, 12:04 AM
I don't see the benefit of a MacBook Slim.
Can someone pursued me or tell me why it would be better then just having a MacBook?
Exactly, it doesn't make any sense.
Can someone pursued me or tell me why it would be better then just having a MacBook?
Exactly, it doesn't make any sense.
louis Fashion
Mar 22, 06:43 PM
We'll just see what happens. I bought the 160 not too long ago so i won't be upgrading but it's good to know it's still around. 4571 songs of uncompressed audio and counting. gotta love the classics.
Uncompressed. That IS the key. Friends don't let friends buy compressed faux music. And play your uncompressed music with your tube amps and AR 3a speakers. Howz that for classic?
Uncompressed. That IS the key. Friends don't let friends buy compressed faux music. And play your uncompressed music with your tube amps and AR 3a speakers. Howz that for classic?
Decker
Mar 22, 05:14 PM
Apple is totally a lone player in this market of HDD-based high capacity MP3 player. The only thing prohibiting me from nabbing one of these is the highly scratchable chrome back. If Apple goes with full unibody aluminum enclosure, I'll nab one for sure.
It would be interesting how long would Apple keep this before updating it. The iPod classic already missed one cycle of update. Maybe Apple is waiting for SSD to drop in price? An SSD based Classic would be awesome (in addition to the unibody aluminum casing).
Just put it in a YoTank case like I did. You can drive your car over it without damaging the iPod.
http://www.substrata.ca/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/CJE3140.jpg
More pics here (http://www.substrata.ca/blog/uncategorized/portable-music-rig/).
It would be interesting how long would Apple keep this before updating it. The iPod classic already missed one cycle of update. Maybe Apple is waiting for SSD to drop in price? An SSD based Classic would be awesome (in addition to the unibody aluminum casing).
Just put it in a YoTank case like I did. You can drive your car over it without damaging the iPod.
http://www.substrata.ca/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/CJE3140.jpg
More pics here (http://www.substrata.ca/blog/uncategorized/portable-music-rig/).
sbrage2000
Apr 12, 10:19 PM
Some definite improvements but I wouldn't go as far as to call it a "jaw-dropper". I was really hoping to see more about how it integrates with the rest of the suite.
Evangelion
Aug 25, 05:49 AM
At least another USB port would be nice. Two was pathetic, three's OK, but
four is more realistic number nowadays!
Um, the Mini does have four USB-ports, and a FireWire-port.
four is more realistic number nowadays!
Um, the Mini does have four USB-ports, and a FireWire-port.
bketchum
Sep 1, 01:58 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Caitlyn
It needs:
Glossy Screen (Even if it's only an option)
Up to 3GB RAM (at least; 4GB would be nice)
Merom (Obviously)
Why Merom (Obviously). Honestly, Apple have been using a laptop processor in all their machines since January (until the Mac Pro). because only the Yonah was available.
Would you honestly be happy spend a shed load of money on a 23" Imac that STILL has a laptop processor? Come on, Conroe will be in the new iMacs
Gawd, I hope so.
Originally Posted by Caitlyn
It needs:
Glossy Screen (Even if it's only an option)
Up to 3GB RAM (at least; 4GB would be nice)
Merom (Obviously)
Why Merom (Obviously). Honestly, Apple have been using a laptop processor in all their machines since January (until the Mac Pro). because only the Yonah was available.
Would you honestly be happy spend a shed load of money on a 23" Imac that STILL has a laptop processor? Come on, Conroe will be in the new iMacs
Gawd, I hope so.
guzhogi
Nov 15, 01:03 PM
You are not a developer, I take it?
Are you seriously suggesting that a developer should ship a product with features that are not only untested, but haven't even been tried out?
What do you prefer: Unpack 8 core Mac Pro, install Handbrake, run it, 50 percent CPU usage, or unpack 8 core Mac Pro, install Handbrake, run it, kaboom!
I don't think that's what he meant. I think he means instead of hard coding a program to use 8 (or however many cores), have the program dynamically use however many cores are in your computer. So if he wrote it on a 2 core machine, the program would use 2 cores. When he puts it on an 8 core computer, it'll automatically use all 8 w/o having to reprogram. The programmer should still test it and make corrections as necessary.
Are you seriously suggesting that a developer should ship a product with features that are not only untested, but haven't even been tried out?
What do you prefer: Unpack 8 core Mac Pro, install Handbrake, run it, 50 percent CPU usage, or unpack 8 core Mac Pro, install Handbrake, run it, kaboom!
I don't think that's what he meant. I think he means instead of hard coding a program to use 8 (or however many cores), have the program dynamically use however many cores are in your computer. So if he wrote it on a 2 core machine, the program would use 2 cores. When he puts it on an 8 core computer, it'll automatically use all 8 w/o having to reprogram. The programmer should still test it and make corrections as necessary.
WeegieMac
Apr 2, 02:39 AM
As far as I know, Snow Leopard "fixed" what Leopard started. Mac OS X Lion is a completely new OS with new features, most of which are not present in Snow Leopard.
See, I would have to disagree with that.
All of the framework, the underlaying core system changes, were done in Leopard and then refined in Snow Leopard.
All Lion is adding, from what I've seen, is interface changes and some new features that, lets be honest, not every user is going to bother with. Sure, Launchpad looks nice, even in it's frame rate lacking beta form, and Mission Control is a new take on Expose, but other than that it's iOS inspired UI changes, a new version of Safari, and some application interface changes (Mail & iCal come to mind).
I don't think Lion will be a �29/$29 upgrade, but I think given that it'll launch on the Mac App Store, it will follow the example of iLife and Aperture and be cheaper to purchase online than it is off the shelf in a box.
See, I would have to disagree with that.
All of the framework, the underlaying core system changes, were done in Leopard and then refined in Snow Leopard.
All Lion is adding, from what I've seen, is interface changes and some new features that, lets be honest, not every user is going to bother with. Sure, Launchpad looks nice, even in it's frame rate lacking beta form, and Mission Control is a new take on Expose, but other than that it's iOS inspired UI changes, a new version of Safari, and some application interface changes (Mail & iCal come to mind).
I don't think Lion will be a �29/$29 upgrade, but I think given that it'll launch on the Mac App Store, it will follow the example of iLife and Aperture and be cheaper to purchase online than it is off the shelf in a box.
QCassidy352
Aug 24, 06:13 PM
the new intel integrated graphics isn't ready, is it? So these will be merom minis with a GMA 950?
quaternio
Mar 25, 07:05 PM
Wireless controllers for iPad and TV dock or something please.
Actually, I don't think there's any reason someone couldn't develop a way to use a PS3 controller with an iOS device. It would probably take some work, and Apple wouldn't allow it in the App Store, but I don't see why it can't be done right now. I mean, I use a PS3 as a mouse for my TV Mac Mini.
Actually, I don't think there's any reason someone couldn't develop a way to use a PS3 controller with an iOS device. It would probably take some work, and Apple wouldn't allow it in the App Store, but I don't see why it can't be done right now. I mean, I use a PS3 as a mouse for my TV Mac Mini.
Sydde
Mar 1, 08:54 PM
Wikipedia states the Toyota Prius 3rd Gen gets a combined AFE of 50 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toyota_Prius#Third_generation_.28XW30.3B_2009.E2.80.93present.29) mpg (4.7L US gallons) if the diesel Cruze gets 37/48, that would give it a median AFE of 42.5 — 85% of what the Prius gets.
OTOH, they say "Drive a Toyota, you'll never stop!" and, "Toyota, the last car you'll ever drive."
OTOOH, Chevy? Yeesh. You might as well have XP on an Acer.
OTOH, they say "Drive a Toyota, you'll never stop!" and, "Toyota, the last car you'll ever drive."
OTOOH, Chevy? Yeesh. You might as well have XP on an Acer.
kdarling
Apr 27, 07:10 AM
Other operating systems, (mobile based included) refer to software as "Programs". This has gone back as far as the days of DOS and Atari/Amiga.
Yes, "program" was popular, but "application" was used as well.
"App" as an abbreviation has been used by application engineers for decades. "Killer App" dates back to the early 1980s.
"Application" is also long used in Windows to describe executables (see below). Both it and its abbreviation were commonly used in articles, for example the Feb 2000 webpage below captured by the Wayback Machine (http://web.archive.org/). It's a waste of effort to try to claim that "app" is somehow new or can be claimed by Apple alone. The only discussion should be about "app store".
Yes, "program" was popular, but "application" was used as well.
"App" as an abbreviation has been used by application engineers for decades. "Killer App" dates back to the early 1980s.
"Application" is also long used in Windows to describe executables (see below). Both it and its abbreviation were commonly used in articles, for example the Feb 2000 webpage below captured by the Wayback Machine (http://web.archive.org/). It's a waste of effort to try to claim that "app" is somehow new or can be claimed by Apple alone. The only discussion should be about "app store".
econgeek
Apr 12, 09:05 PM
http://www.tuaw.com/2010/10/22/timeline-tweak-returns-imovie-11-to-old-school/
The funny thing is, I'd swear you could always do that. I know I was doing that in when I edited a feature using iMovie. (I was fascinated by the little scaling animation Apple does when you switch between layouts... )
The funny thing is, I'd swear you could always do that. I know I was doing that in when I edited a feature using iMovie. (I was fascinated by the little scaling animation Apple does when you switch between layouts... )
KnightWRX
Mar 24, 01:59 PM
Not if they redesign the Macbooks so the video signal goes back the other way down the thunderbolt cable and directly to the display.
So wait, you'd have to dongle a video card to the thunderbolt port to get a decent GPU for the internal monitor, if the signal can travel both ways (going out the port to get processed by this external GPU and then come back to get displayed on the internal screen).
No, just no. That's a terrible idea.
Although using a 2GB HD 6970 on a 1280x800 display is a bit silly.
How is it silly ? We're talking about a GPU. Even at 1280x800, the Intel GPU sucks, why would it be silly to want to run games on high settings ?
So wait, you'd have to dongle a video card to the thunderbolt port to get a decent GPU for the internal monitor, if the signal can travel both ways (going out the port to get processed by this external GPU and then come back to get displayed on the internal screen).
No, just no. That's a terrible idea.
Although using a 2GB HD 6970 on a 1280x800 display is a bit silly.
How is it silly ? We're talking about a GPU. Even at 1280x800, the Intel GPU sucks, why would it be silly to want to run games on high settings ?
No comments:
Post a Comment