Slashdot Mirror
Apple Launches New Magical Trackpad, 12 Core Macs
theappwhisperer writes "The Magic Trackpad is basically a larger version of the MacBook Pro touchpad, with 80% more surface area for all your swiping and pinching. The entire surface acts as a button, so it's also a possible mouse replacement. And all of the expected gestures are here: two-finger scrolling, pinch to zoom, fingertip rotation, and three- and four-finger swipes. You can enable and disable gestures at your discretion from System Preferences." They also launched 12-core Mac Pros coming in August.
All but the highest-end iMac are dual-core. The lowest-end Mac Pro is quad-core. If someone is going to drop $5K+ on a Mac Pro with 12 cores, they either have money to throw around or they know what they're doing.
A lot of the time with both laptops and PCs the cores are entirely unused.
So? That is more a problem of application programmers than hardware designers.
Since processing is largely a duopoly of AMD and Intel, both have been guilty of marketing their hardware by highlighting the core numbers.
This does not even make sense. Why shouldn't a company tout the fact that they have more cores on a chip than before? And this is Apple's advertising anyway, not AMD/Intel. The price alone would keep most people from buying the high-end, as it always has. However, for my work in radar signal processing using heavily-threaded applications, this machine would be a great addition to my desktop since I would no longer have to run my signal processing streams distributed over several hosts; one host could do the job just fine.
These have an actual physical click, and tap to click is always off by default on a Mac.
Grand Central Dispatch.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Central_Dispatch
Can Photoshop and Illustrator and Final Cut use an arbitrarily large number of cores efficiently?
Arbitrarily large numbers of cores? No, not a chance, certainly not on a shared memory architecture like the system in question. 12 cores is probably going to be OK, but when you pass 16 cores you'll start to notice the memory bottleneck; once you are at 64 cores you are basically at the limit of usefulness for shared memory architectures, and you have to be careful about memory access patterns or your software will be slower. Even "embarrassingly parallel" can suffer if the memory access patterns are bad.
There is a reason that almost all of the supercomputers in use today use some sort of NUMA or distributed memory architecture.
Palm trees and 8
If only Apple would finally get around to inventing something cool for OS X to do that. It'd make it so much easier for the developer. Knowing Apple they'd probably make it so that it was really simple. Like a few lines of code.
It'd be even more awesome if they could make it open source so that other operating systems could have a chance to use it.
One can dream, right?
If you've just spent $6k on a new Mac Pro, and you *really* need USB-3, just spend another $40 and plug the card in. It's a Mac Pro. It has expansion ports. Use them and feel happy.
... and if you want e-sata, just buy an extender cable for the two extra on-board sata channels in the Mac Pro. That'll cost you the princely sum of $19.
Sure, you can argue it ought to have come with them (and I'd agree, for what it's worth) but the cost of implementing it yourself is hardly the end of the world.
Simon
Physicists get Hadrons!