NY Guitarist
Apr 5, 07:23 PM
I hope the next release of FCS integrates the different apps within the suite under a single UI.
The whole "Send to" export concept always seemed like an awkward workaround for using this package as a "suite".
As sad as it was to see Apple kill off Shake, my hope is that it will be reborn inside FC as the node based compositor portion of the package. Motion inherited some of Shake's features, notably SmoothCam, so hopefully more of Shake will live on in FCP.
I'd really like to see FCS become of a single app where the "suite" of apps becomes more of a "mode" of operating. In other words if you choose to do editing the UI can switch to a mode that focuses on that, as with compositing, titles (LiveType) or audio editing (Soundtrack).. and so on.
The whole "Send to" export concept always seemed like an awkward workaround for using this package as a "suite".
As sad as it was to see Apple kill off Shake, my hope is that it will be reborn inside FC as the node based compositor portion of the package. Motion inherited some of Shake's features, notably SmoothCam, so hopefully more of Shake will live on in FCP.
I'd really like to see FCS become of a single app where the "suite" of apps becomes more of a "mode" of operating. In other words if you choose to do editing the UI can switch to a mode that focuses on that, as with compositing, titles (LiveType) or audio editing (Soundtrack).. and so on.
barkomatic
Mar 31, 04:00 PM
not when Google blocks handset makers from releasing innovations that would be good for consumers but bad for google. they may have tried to do such strong-arming -- a geo-services company claims it was shut-out by the makers due to google not wanting makers to license optional alternatives to google services.
From the sounds of it, Google is trying to prevent the release of phones that run poorly and are *bad* for consumers. Google is a private company and they can do what they want--just like Apple. Handset makers can go back to their lousy proprietary mobile operating systems--but I really doubt they will. This is a win for consumers in the long run.
It's a temporary lose for those who like to tinker though.
From the sounds of it, Google is trying to prevent the release of phones that run poorly and are *bad* for consumers. Google is a private company and they can do what they want--just like Apple. Handset makers can go back to their lousy proprietary mobile operating systems--but I really doubt they will. This is a win for consumers in the long run.
It's a temporary lose for those who like to tinker though.
pavetheforest
Sep 15, 09:44 PM
Dude I'm going to sell my dell.
geerlingguy
Aug 16, 11:24 PM
When rendering in FCP, it's all about the CPU.
Fast hard drives contribute to real-time effects, but do NOT contribute to rendering.
Ram helps a little bit.
However, depending on what kind of rendering you're doing, the hard drive can be a limiting factor.
Say you're just rendering ten minutes worth of a blur effect on video�the CPU says 'gimme all you got' and goes to town on the frames, blurring each one quickly. But the hard drive may have a hard time keeping up with the CPU, because 10 minutes of footage needs to be read, then re-written to the drive. For HD-resolution video, that can be a couple gigs of data. And that data also has to pass through the RAM (which acts like a high-speed buffer).
However, in the case of these benchmarks, one would think the testers would choose some more CPU-intense rendering, which would allow the hard drive to take it's time while the CPU is overloaded with work.
But, to anyone configuring a graphics or video workstation: Everything�CPU, Hard Drives, RAM, and even the GPU for some tasks�should be as fast and ample as possible. "A chain is only as good as it's weakest link." If you pair up a Quad 3.0 GHz Xeon with a 5400 rpm USB 2.0 drive, you will be disappointed.
Fast hard drives contribute to real-time effects, but do NOT contribute to rendering.
Ram helps a little bit.
However, depending on what kind of rendering you're doing, the hard drive can be a limiting factor.
Say you're just rendering ten minutes worth of a blur effect on video�the CPU says 'gimme all you got' and goes to town on the frames, blurring each one quickly. But the hard drive may have a hard time keeping up with the CPU, because 10 minutes of footage needs to be read, then re-written to the drive. For HD-resolution video, that can be a couple gigs of data. And that data also has to pass through the RAM (which acts like a high-speed buffer).
However, in the case of these benchmarks, one would think the testers would choose some more CPU-intense rendering, which would allow the hard drive to take it's time while the CPU is overloaded with work.
But, to anyone configuring a graphics or video workstation: Everything�CPU, Hard Drives, RAM, and even the GPU for some tasks�should be as fast and ample as possible. "A chain is only as good as it's weakest link." If you pair up a Quad 3.0 GHz Xeon with a 5400 rpm USB 2.0 drive, you will be disappointed.
Malligator
Mar 31, 03:49 PM
And the Apple haters do yet another 180...
1. Macs
1995 to 2007: Don't use a Mac. Noone uses Macs.
2007 to Present: Don't use a Mac. Everyone uses a Mac.
2. Apps
1995 to 2/22/2011: Don't use Apple. There is no software and they can't do anything.
2/22 to Present: Apps? Who needs Apps as long as you have a robust UI?
3. Open
2007 to Today: Apple is a walled garden that only stupid lemmings use.
Today going forward: Controlling the OS is necessary and good for the consumer.
1. Macs
1995 to 2007: Don't use a Mac. Noone uses Macs.
2007 to Present: Don't use a Mac. Everyone uses a Mac.
2. Apps
1995 to 2/22/2011: Don't use Apple. There is no software and they can't do anything.
2/22 to Present: Apps? Who needs Apps as long as you have a robust UI?
3. Open
2007 to Today: Apple is a walled garden that only stupid lemmings use.
Today going forward: Controlling the OS is necessary and good for the consumer.
Erasmus
Aug 27, 04:08 AM
Except they get pissed off if you give them ideas.
Or was that Nintendo?
Both, probably. Legalities.
OK, that's wierd. Who would get angry about having research into what the public wants done for them???
No wonder Nintendo sucks so much.
BTW, Congrats on ur 500 Posts!
Or was that Nintendo?
Both, probably. Legalities.
OK, that's wierd. Who would get angry about having research into what the public wants done for them???
No wonder Nintendo sucks so much.
BTW, Congrats on ur 500 Posts!
law guy
Aug 5, 09:49 PM
I'd like to predict an unanticipated show stopper - a new Mac ultraportable that weighs something like 2.2 lbs and is around the thickness of a magazine. The new notebook would not be breaking new ground - there are intel PC notebooks that fit this / similar descriptions, for example the Q2010 offering by Fijitsu (illustrated in Q2010 pics that follow). http://common.ziffdavisinternet.com/util_get_image/13/0,1425,sz=1&i=134331,00.jpg http://www.fujitsu-siemens.com/Resources/35/2097637765.jpg But, new gound or not, it would be an exciting addition to the MacBook Pro line up. It would also be fun to have a product like that to catch everyone off guard.
I do have a bit of keynote fever. How do they do it? I'm not going to buy anything for a few years, and yet I can't wait to see what is unveiled. This time around, the fever pitch seems more acute than it's been since perhaps MWSF 2003 (when the Alu 12 and 17" PBs came out) - even more anticipation than then because of all of the new products expected. This is also the time when MR really shines - this is the core of the site: rumors about Macs - I love it.
I do have a bit of keynote fever. How do they do it? I'm not going to buy anything for a few years, and yet I can't wait to see what is unveiled. This time around, the fever pitch seems more acute than it's been since perhaps MWSF 2003 (when the Alu 12 and 17" PBs came out) - even more anticipation than then because of all of the new products expected. This is also the time when MR really shines - this is the core of the site: rumors about Macs - I love it.
bagelche
Apr 5, 09:31 PM
I think it won't be released yet, but they've got it to a strong showable point. Underlying architecture probably relies on a few features tied to Lion (QT stuff and more?). Maybe we'd need to upgrade to Lion for it. Ready to go in June or whenever Lion actually hits.
xxBURT0Nxx
Apr 7, 09:54 AM
It's not false per say, at least not 100%. Of course, graphics in such systems are usually IGPs, but before the Core iX line of processors, anyone could license and build chipsets for these processors and include a different IGP than Intel did. Intel however refused to license this for the new processors, including the SB line and thus nVidia who was making chipsets could not produce an IGP for the new platform.
So yes, essentially Intel told Apple they had to use the 3000 HD as an IGP, where before, Apple was using nVidia's tech. There was even a massive lawsuit about all of this, between Intel and nVidia which ended with nVidia stepping out of the chipset business alltogether.
So the poster you were replying to wasn't 100% wrong at all. It is in fact a testament to Intel's incompetence how all of this was handled, since an old MBA with a 320m outpaces new SB machines that have a much more powerful CPU in graphics performance.
I know about the whole nvidia/intel lawsuit, but to say that intel forced apple to use the IGP is not correct imo. Yes they may have said if you want to use integrated graphics, they must be our integrated graphics on sandy bridge, but obviously apple could still have chosen to use discrete graphics as they did in some of the macbook pros, however seeing them absent on the airs and the 13" mbp shows that apple didn't have enough space to include discrete on top of the new processors. I see what you are saying, but the op said intel made apple use their graphics in a machine that costs this much!?!? not true apple could have easily added amd graphics if they wanted to, however due to cost/design/whatever they use integrated graphics in their smaller laptops!
So yes, essentially Intel told Apple they had to use the 3000 HD as an IGP, where before, Apple was using nVidia's tech. There was even a massive lawsuit about all of this, between Intel and nVidia which ended with nVidia stepping out of the chipset business alltogether.
So the poster you were replying to wasn't 100% wrong at all. It is in fact a testament to Intel's incompetence how all of this was handled, since an old MBA with a 320m outpaces new SB machines that have a much more powerful CPU in graphics performance.
I know about the whole nvidia/intel lawsuit, but to say that intel forced apple to use the IGP is not correct imo. Yes they may have said if you want to use integrated graphics, they must be our integrated graphics on sandy bridge, but obviously apple could still have chosen to use discrete graphics as they did in some of the macbook pros, however seeing them absent on the airs and the 13" mbp shows that apple didn't have enough space to include discrete on top of the new processors. I see what you are saying, but the op said intel made apple use their graphics in a machine that costs this much!?!? not true apple could have easily added amd graphics if they wanted to, however due to cost/design/whatever they use integrated graphics in their smaller laptops!
Macsterguy
Mar 26, 04:47 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_mL1k4Zwf1I
^squirrel^
Jul 15, 02:21 PM
Good: Dual-Core 2GHz Intel Xeon, 512MB DDR 667, ATI Radeon X1600 Pro, 250GB Hard Drive,$1799
Better: Dual-Core 2.33GHz Intel Xeon, 1GB DDR2 667, ATI Radeon X1800 Pro, 320GB Hard Drive, $2499
Best: Two Dual-Core 2.66 Intel Xeon, 1GB DDR2 667, ATI Radeon X1800 Pro, 320GB Hard Drive, $3299
I wonder if i'll be able to upgrade to the X1900?
Better: Dual-Core 2.33GHz Intel Xeon, 1GB DDR2 667, ATI Radeon X1800 Pro, 320GB Hard Drive, $2499
Best: Two Dual-Core 2.66 Intel Xeon, 1GB DDR2 667, ATI Radeon X1800 Pro, 320GB Hard Drive, $3299
I wonder if i'll be able to upgrade to the X1900?
spydr
Mar 31, 10:05 PM
Google is really trying hard to anything but their big motto. :eek:
obeygiant
Mar 17, 01:03 PM
Obeygiant, you have a way of distilling issues down to their core. The funny thing is, I don't think Lee even realizes he's doing it.
Yeah I'm pretty sure I'm on his ignore list. lol
Yeah I'm pretty sure I'm on his ignore list. lol
hulugu
Mar 24, 02:05 AM
Amazing to see how most Democrats are willing to lie to themselves and ignore the hypocritical truth all around them... the leftist side of the antiwar movement is all but gone, but not because the policies have changed, only because the man has changed.
...We have complicated thoughts about the use of force in the world, which leads us to appear hypocritical when all things are made to appear equal to make straw....
How does that Nobel Peace Prize taste now? Hopey? Changey?
You would benefit from reading Obama's speech in Oslo:
...We must begin by acknowledging the hard truth: We will not eradicate violent conflict in our lifetimes. There will be times when nations -- acting individually or in concert -- will find the use of force not only necessary but morally justified.
Dior Fires John Galliano
John Galliano with model
John Galliano
John Galliano was arrested by
British fashion star John Galliano arrested over #39;racist attack#39; on Jewish woman - Worldnews.com
...We have complicated thoughts about the use of force in the world, which leads us to appear hypocritical when all things are made to appear equal to make straw....
How does that Nobel Peace Prize taste now? Hopey? Changey?
You would benefit from reading Obama's speech in Oslo:
...We must begin by acknowledging the hard truth: We will not eradicate violent conflict in our lifetimes. There will be times when nations -- acting individually or in concert -- will find the use of force not only necessary but morally justified.
cloudnine
Aug 25, 05:02 PM
Well, recently there have been problems with people having their mail bounced back to them because somehow the dotMac smtp servers were blacklisted by spamcop and a few other services. They have been having pretty bad, though geographically localized, service disruptions. Friends of mine have also complained that mail they send to me are sometimes bounced back with a "This account doesn't exist" error message even though they have sent me mail before and after the event (yes, they verified the email address).
So, in summary, there are a lot of problems that shouldn't occur with a $100 a year service. DotMac should be at least a 99% uptime service for that kind of money.
Wow... I had no idea. *crosses fingers* I hope that doesn't happen to me :/
So, in summary, there are a lot of problems that shouldn't occur with a $100 a year service. DotMac should be at least a 99% uptime service for that kind of money.
Wow... I had no idea. *crosses fingers* I hope that doesn't happen to me :/
randyharris
Sep 18, 11:59 PM
It would be fantastic for the MacBook to have the Core 2 Duo, (MacBookPro is a given), the fact is, Apple needs to do this update to stay in the same ballpark as the pc notebook makers.
Now if they could just give the MacBook a real graphics card, I'd be a taker.
Randy at MacSeven.com (http://www.MacSeven.com)
Now if they could just give the MacBook a real graphics card, I'd be a taker.
Randy at MacSeven.com (http://www.MacSeven.com)
Viggy
Aug 27, 07:07 PM
HI!
Anyone knows if jointly with this rumor is the rumor of the upgrade of graphic cards on MacBook (not Pro) to Intel GMA 965 (I think is this the reference...)?
Thanks!
Anyone knows if jointly with this rumor is the rumor of the upgrade of graphic cards on MacBook (not Pro) to Intel GMA 965 (I think is this the reference...)?
Thanks!
HBOC
Apr 7, 10:24 PM
haha. Now they will have to upsell more BS to make up for this loss. I can see them advertising to connect your PS3 or XBOX 360 to your TV/monitor and hook up an ethernet cable for $149 again... :rolleyes:
2nyRiggz
Dec 1, 09:41 AM
I'm enjoying the game so far, any racing wheel will make this game/simulator boss. I'm not into racing games so I skipped alot of them but I decided to buy a racing wheel & GT5 and its been great.
I didn't come into this game expecting true to life graphics but I knew the gameplay would be as close to reality as they could get and I'm not disappointed. My only gripe about this this game/simulator(cause I can't really class this as a game) is its made for hardcore car nuts and I really can't fault it for going AFTER ITS TARGET AUDIENCE(I'm completely loss trying to purchase parts to mod my car)
This game/simulator is the real bang for the buck...I haven't touch online/kart/Nascar yet and I'm enjoying the s*** out of it.
Poly simply went after their target audience and from what I'm hearing its still on point.
Bless
I didn't come into this game expecting true to life graphics but I knew the gameplay would be as close to reality as they could get and I'm not disappointed. My only gripe about this this game/simulator(cause I can't really class this as a game) is its made for hardcore car nuts and I really can't fault it for going AFTER ITS TARGET AUDIENCE(I'm completely loss trying to purchase parts to mod my car)
This game/simulator is the real bang for the buck...I haven't touch online/kart/Nascar yet and I'm enjoying the s*** out of it.
Poly simply went after their target audience and from what I'm hearing its still on point.
Bless
skier777
Mar 26, 11:38 AM
I hope apple follows microsofts lead and lets students upgrade for 30 bucks in the first few months of release.
The only reason I upgraded from XP to windows7 was the student discount. It would be really nice if i could do the same for lion, otherwise SL is probably gunna be fine forever.
What if you skip releases. Will it be the same price to upgrade from Leopard as SL?
The only reason I upgraded from XP to windows7 was the student discount. It would be really nice if i could do the same for lion, otherwise SL is probably gunna be fine forever.
What if you skip releases. Will it be the same price to upgrade from Leopard as SL?
simie
Aug 17, 05:22 AM
I think that these tests are poor regardless of the results. Testing is all based on evidence and I see none, just what they say are the results.
When you run a test you normally document the process for the test conditions. You don't just say Photoshop CS2 - MP aware actions, but which ones - why didn't they use the Photoshop test.
"For FCP 5, we rendered a 20 second HD clip we had imported and dropped into a sequence."
Does this mean they imported a 20 second clip into a sequence and had to render the clip before it would play with the rest of the sequence.
They basically used the render tools in the sequence menu. Why measure something like that.
When you run a test you normally document the process for the test conditions. You don't just say Photoshop CS2 - MP aware actions, but which ones - why didn't they use the Photoshop test.
"For FCP 5, we rendered a 20 second HD clip we had imported and dropped into a sequence."
Does this mean they imported a 20 second clip into a sequence and had to render the clip before it would play with the rest of the sequence.
They basically used the render tools in the sequence menu. Why measure something like that.
aly
Aug 27, 01:38 PM
Just a few hours left, let's hope we see new MacBook Pros tomorrow, I think we'll see the new iMacs with Merom in Paris, because it's a very good announcement for consumers, and get the Pro MB's tomorrow.
As in Paris Expo? Cause I do believe that apple aren't going to be making a keynote speech. And won't make any annoucements at all or am I still believing in old news proved wrong?
As in Paris Expo? Cause I do believe that apple aren't going to be making a keynote speech. And won't make any annoucements at all or am I still believing in old news proved wrong?
fastlane1588
Jul 30, 10:36 PM
why not just upgrade a new macpro w/ ur hard drives and all that stuff, and then just bootcamp into windows....ud have a pretty sweet pc if the mac pros have all the goodies that people keep saying they will have
janstett
Oct 23, 11:44 AM
Unfortunately not many multithreaded apps - yet. For a long time most of the multi-threaded apps were just a select few pro level things. 3D/Visualization software, CAD, database systems, etc.. Those of us who had multiprocessor systems bought them because we had a specific software in mind or group of software applications that could take advantage of multiple processors. As current CPU manufacturing processes started hitting a wall right around the 3GHz mark, chip makers started to transition to multiple CPU cores to boost power - makes sense. Software developers have been lazy for years, just riding the wave of ever-increasing MHz. Now the multi-core CPUs are here and the software is behind as many applications need to have serious re-writes done in order to take advantage of multiple processors. Intel tried to get a jump on this with their HT (Hyper Threading) implementation that essentially simulated dual-cores on a CPU by way of two virtual CPUs. Software developers didn't exactly jump on this and warm up to it. But I also don't think the software industry truly believed that CPUs would go multi-core on a mass scale so fast... Intel and AMD both said they would, don't know why the software industry doubted. Intel and AMD are uncommonly good about telling the truth about upcoming products. Both will be shipping quad-core CPU offerings by year's end.
What you're saying isn't entirely true and may give some people the wrong idea.
First, a multicore system is helpful when running multiple CPU-intensive single-threaded applications on a proper multitasking operating system. For example, right now I'm ripping CDs on iTunes. One processor gets used a lot and the other three are idle. I could be using this CPU power for another app.
The reality is that to take advantage of multiple cores, you had to take advantage of threads. Now, I was doing this in my programs with OS/2 back in 1992. I've been writing multithreaded apps my entire career. But writing a threaded application requires thought and work, so naturally many programmers are lazy and avoid threads. Plus it is harder to debug and synchronize a multithreaded application. Windows and Linux people have been doing this since the stone age, and Windows/Linux have had usable multiprocessor systems for more than a decade (it didn't start with Hyperthreading). I had a dual-processor 486 running NT 3.5 circa 1995. It's just been more of an optional "cool trick" to write threaded applications that the timid programmer avoids. Also it's worth noting that it's possible to go overboard with excessive threading and that leads to problems (context switching, thrashing, synchronization, etc).
Now, on the Mac side, OS 9 and below couldn't properly support SMP and it required a hacked version of the OS and a special version of the application. So the history of the Mac world has been, until recently with OSX, to avoid threading and multiprocessing unless specially called for and then at great pain to do so.
So it goes back to getting developers to write threaded applications. Now that we're getting to 4 and 8 core systems, it also presents a problem.
The classic reason to create a thread is to prevent the GUI from locking up while processing. Let's say I write a GUI program that has a calculation that takes 20 seconds. If I do it the lazy way, the GUI will lock up for 20 seconds because it can't process window messages during that time. If I write a thread, the calculation can take place there and leave the GUI thread able to process messages and keep the application alive, and then signal the other thread when it's done.
But now with more than 4 or 8 cores, the problem is how do you break up the work? 9 women can't have a baby in a month. So if your process is still serialized, you still have to wait with 1 processor doing all the work and the others sitting idle. For example, if you encode a video, it is a very serialized process. I hear some work has been done to simultaneously encode macroblocks in parallel, but getting 8 processors to chew on a single video is an interesting problem.
What you're saying isn't entirely true and may give some people the wrong idea.
First, a multicore system is helpful when running multiple CPU-intensive single-threaded applications on a proper multitasking operating system. For example, right now I'm ripping CDs on iTunes. One processor gets used a lot and the other three are idle. I could be using this CPU power for another app.
The reality is that to take advantage of multiple cores, you had to take advantage of threads. Now, I was doing this in my programs with OS/2 back in 1992. I've been writing multithreaded apps my entire career. But writing a threaded application requires thought and work, so naturally many programmers are lazy and avoid threads. Plus it is harder to debug and synchronize a multithreaded application. Windows and Linux people have been doing this since the stone age, and Windows/Linux have had usable multiprocessor systems for more than a decade (it didn't start with Hyperthreading). I had a dual-processor 486 running NT 3.5 circa 1995. It's just been more of an optional "cool trick" to write threaded applications that the timid programmer avoids. Also it's worth noting that it's possible to go overboard with excessive threading and that leads to problems (context switching, thrashing, synchronization, etc).
Now, on the Mac side, OS 9 and below couldn't properly support SMP and it required a hacked version of the OS and a special version of the application. So the history of the Mac world has been, until recently with OSX, to avoid threading and multiprocessing unless specially called for and then at great pain to do so.
So it goes back to getting developers to write threaded applications. Now that we're getting to 4 and 8 core systems, it also presents a problem.
The classic reason to create a thread is to prevent the GUI from locking up while processing. Let's say I write a GUI program that has a calculation that takes 20 seconds. If I do it the lazy way, the GUI will lock up for 20 seconds because it can't process window messages during that time. If I write a thread, the calculation can take place there and leave the GUI thread able to process messages and keep the application alive, and then signal the other thread when it's done.
But now with more than 4 or 8 cores, the problem is how do you break up the work? 9 women can't have a baby in a month. So if your process is still serialized, you still have to wait with 1 processor doing all the work and the others sitting idle. For example, if you encode a video, it is a very serialized process. I hear some work has been done to simultaneously encode macroblocks in parallel, but getting 8 processors to chew on a single video is an interesting problem.
No comments:
Post a Comment