Wattage in a laptop is limited by packaging, heat dissapation and battery life. Apple needs a G5 that consumes the right amount of power for all those reasons and I don't think liquid cooling is a special enabler there. Heat pipes are very commonly used in laptops already.
Clearly, a superior cooling system could be a real competitive advantage if a manufacturer could leverage it. Apple is doing that here by processor speed bumps. If it has pumps then it will be expensive and less reliable than simple forced air. You have to weigh that against the speed benefit.
Dry sump oiling is a big advantage in racing engines but you rarely see it in automobiles. Quite a reasonable analogy really.
Of course, 1MB of cache is enormous compared to all of system memory at the time of x86 design. Still, the point is valid. You can argue successfully that x86 requires less memory bandwidth to perform well so I find it curious that P4 requires so much.
Fact is, the instruction decoder for an x86 is very difficult compared to more modern designs, but several companies know how to do it and do it very well. With the 64-bit extensions, x86 gains a reasonable number of GPR's so even that criticism goes away. It's clear at this point that it takes far more than a more efficient decoder to cause x86 to become obsolete and that was Intel/HP's thinking when they went with EPIC. EPIC hasn't done too well so far but at least it has a chance at being a compelling alternative.
I would think that a 2.5GHz 970 would be quite competitive even if poeple view it as a disappointment.
Yes, I read that but considered it marketing material and assumed it could be misleading (even intentionally). I was looking for specific proof that a pump existed but wasn't certain that was it.
I could imagine claiming that changes heat generation would directly alter the flow rate of the liquid and that OS X could control the heat generation (and the fan speed). Marketers, being skilled liars, could make a claim like this. Not saying they did, of course.
I wonder why controlling pump speed would even be desirable. My experience is that these devices aren't the noisiest but perhaps that's the issue.
For a company that prides itself on its intuitive UI's, I find it surprising that they would even consider such a technique that suggest something so bad to a naive user. If MS had done that I'm sure many get a lot of mileage out of the criticism.
As it stands, it sounds like Windows and OS X are comparable in how this is accomplished. The orignal poster suggested that you had to go through an elaborate and unintuitive set of nested menus which is entirely untrue.
I could be mistaken on the exact windows numbers. I know that high res laptop displays don't work quite right with high dpi settings in windows.
Absolutely sucks means that you have to go through settings in several places using undocumented or poorly documented techniques including possibly the use of command line arguments to the X server. Anyone who thinks that X is easy to get font sizing right is looking through free software goggles.
I can run photoshop on a mac or even linux but I run it on windows because that's the platform that supports my specialized monitor. I see how that could change but I don't expect that it will any time soon.
and I think Apple will abandon it as soon as they can. No manufacturer would prefer such a setup if they could get by without it. That assumes it's actually different than heat pipes in common use already.
G5's require too much power for passive cooling to be a reasonable option. That's clear by Apple's design considering their past history or preferring passive cooling. G5's are not unreasonable in power consumption considering what they are but don't pretend they are a low power part.
I think the text said that flow of the liquid varies with processor load. Not quite the same. Don't know why you would need to OS to vary pump speed (assuming there is a pump).
Have you seen where Apple documents that they actually use pumps? Their diagram suggests a heat pipe and nothing in the text actually refers to a pump being used. Like to see this better explained.
Of course, liquid cooling is something you'd rather not have to use (as a major PC manufacturer)...
Of course, Apple doesn't design the processors, they just integrate them.
I think that you should also say that "PowerPC has the advantage of a modern intruction set" rather than "Apple has the advantage of RISC". PPC's instruction set may be classified as RISC but is hardly "Reduced". Besides, the whole RISC/CISC argument was discredited long ago. Processor architectures and instruction sets are not closely coupled any more.
Incidently, the x86 instruction set is, in fact, incredibly efficient. Not ridiculously inefficient as you say. It was designed to be compact and powerful bit is quite hard to decode compared to RISC apporaches. Memory space is not as precious as it once was so x86's primary advantages are no longer valuable.
If you actually need RAID arrays of more than two drives its hard to believe that they must be internal. If you are working with uncompressed HD I can't see how you would consider an internal array as a requirement. On the other hand, compressed HD work could certainly be done on a more modest storage system.
It's a shame that such a large system can't hold more drives though.
I don't accept that MS publishing magazines is proof that they advertise to CIO well beyond what Apple does. MS does clearly engage in slimy business practices but that doesn't mean that cheat in the type of marketing that you suggest they do.
It's OK to hate MS if that's your preference, but you've hardly backed up you specific claim. In any event, its clear that Apple's relatively static market share (the original point) is influenced mostly by factors besides innovation and for good reason. One could argue that it's because MS cheats, but I think it's more a matter of Apple's choice to complete with a closed, vertical platform against an open one in an extremely high volume market.
People don't lie about their Windows screen dpi to get fonts sized properly. They lie about it because 72 and 100 are the only sizes that work right. Of course, that's better than what Linux/X11 has. Getting the same thing accomplished there really sucks.
Windows provides far greater device support (and timelier as well) and much better still/video editing tools. OS X arguably provides these tools but not the breadth of device support.
I agree that Linux useful for many things but it's not suitable as a digital photography/videography workstation. That's what keeps me on Windows.
You think MS is more guilty of this than Apple? I can think of no company that thinks they know better than the user (and everyone else) than Apple. That's not a knock on your choice, but OS X is hardly "any way you like". That menu bar across the top of the screen is an atrocity that's sadly being emulated more and more by wrong-thinking people. Screen have way too much res now for that to be efficient.
Way easier perhaps (easier than what?) but hardly intuitive. Why would anyone associate such an action with dismounting/ejecting when intuitively it would suggest deletion?
In Windows, unmounting the same device involves clicking on an icon and selecting the device from a popup menu. You may feel that's harder but at least there's no suggestion that you're about to do irrepairable damage.
So does Apple. Business as usual. It's good that you recognize that it's not about tech and it's not a conspiracy though.
I'd be interested in your proof that MS does this, not that it doesn't, especially if it suggests that they are somehow much slimier at it than everyone else. Of course, MS is not the competitor for products being discussed here.
So Microsoft's advertising is better than Apple's then?
In any case, it's not "the industry" that "punishes" Apple by failing to respond with increased market share. That would be the customers as I said.
Apple "markets" itself as an innovative company and is successful at that with a portion of the population. That's evidenced by the fact that people believe the iPod and this thing are innovative when they're in fact derivative (but shiny). I think Apple is rewarded proportionate to their value.
A 90 day warranty doesn't mean the product fails after 3 months. I don't consider warranty when buying such devices but I find it interesting that you feel the iPod *needs* a longer warranty before you would feel comfortable. Are you expecting the iPod to fail?
Mine's lasted a lot longer than 90 days and is built well enough. It can be sensitive to drops due to the exposed knob on the upper right.
Compared to the iPod, it doesn't come with a sleeve that scratches the display every time you use it and its battery doesn't self-discharge in 2 days. It has a real on-off switch and lasts nearly twice as long as the iPod on a fresh charge. Its sync software is the best I've used. The PC software for the iPod stinks although xPod is good.
I'd say the UI's are pretty comparable. The Karma has the toggle+stick which are not as good theoretically as the wheel, yet the iPod's controls are dorky and unreliable (and there are too few buttons). Having been and owner of all 3 generations of iPods I feel the first generation was easily the best (but mine's dead now). I much prefer the Karma to the current iPod.
...and you can see all the nice design touches added to provide range. The nonexistent antenna and the integral wall plug should make it ideal for the task you describe.
Bose and Bang & Olufsen? Is that like shit and sterling silver?
Seriously, those two companies couldn't more unrelated though I could see Apple being compared to the latter. Lots and lots of gloss but the performance is pretty disappointing.
It's not the industry you refer to but the customers and they apparently don't agree that Apple innovates "like hell" considering their spending habits.
Apple's not the first with a streaming mp3 adapter thingy. They may be first to integrate it with an AP but that doesn't seem like that great a virtue. The reasonable cost may appeal to some.
Slashdot Mirror
Wattage in a laptop is limited by packaging, heat dissapation and battery life. Apple needs a G5 that consumes the right amount of power for all those reasons and I don't think liquid cooling is a special enabler there. Heat pipes are very commonly used in laptops already.
Clearly, a superior cooling system could be a real competitive advantage if a manufacturer could leverage it. Apple is doing that here by processor speed bumps. If it has pumps then it will be expensive and less reliable than simple forced air. You have to weigh that against the speed benefit.
Dry sump oiling is a big advantage in racing engines but you rarely see it in automobiles. Quite a reasonable analogy really.
Of course, 1MB of cache is enormous compared to all of system memory at the time of x86 design. Still, the point is valid. You can argue successfully that x86 requires less memory bandwidth to perform well so I find it curious that P4 requires so much.
Fact is, the instruction decoder for an x86 is very difficult compared to more modern designs, but several companies know how to do it and do it very well. With the 64-bit extensions, x86 gains a reasonable number of GPR's so even that criticism goes away. It's clear at this point that it takes far more than a more efficient decoder to cause x86 to become obsolete and that was Intel/HP's thinking when they went with EPIC. EPIC hasn't done too well so far but at least it has a chance at being a compelling alternative.
I would think that a 2.5GHz 970 would be quite competitive even if poeple view it as a disappointment.
Yes, I read that but considered it marketing material and assumed it could be misleading (even intentionally). I was looking for specific proof that a pump existed but wasn't certain that was it.
I could imagine claiming that changes heat generation would directly alter the flow rate of the liquid and that OS X could control the heat generation (and the fan speed). Marketers, being skilled liars, could make a claim like this. Not saying they did, of course.
I wonder why controlling pump speed would even be desirable. My experience is that these devices aren't the noisiest but perhaps that's the issue.
You edit uncompressed HD using portable equipment?
Of course, many PC's can do that but I doubt that's very helpful.
I agree with you that a box that big should be capable of taking more than two drives.
For a company that prides itself on its intuitive UI's, I find it surprising that they would even consider such a technique that suggest something so bad to a naive user. If MS had done that I'm sure many get a lot of mileage out of the criticism.
As it stands, it sounds like Windows and OS X are comparable in how this is accomplished. The orignal poster suggested that you had to go through an elaborate and unintuitive set of nested menus which is entirely untrue.
I could be mistaken on the exact windows numbers. I know that high res laptop displays don't work quite right with high dpi settings in windows.
Absolutely sucks means that you have to go through settings in several places using undocumented or poorly documented techniques including possibly the use of command line arguments to the X server. Anyone who thinks that X is easy to get font sizing right is looking through free software goggles.
Yes, of course it's market share.
I can run photoshop on a mac or even linux but I run it on windows because that's the platform that supports my specialized monitor. I see how that could change but I don't expect that it will any time soon.
and I think Apple will abandon it as soon as they can. No manufacturer would prefer such a setup if they could get by without it. That assumes it's actually different than heat pipes in common use already.
G5's require too much power for passive cooling to be a reasonable option. That's clear by Apple's design considering their past history or preferring passive cooling. G5's are not unreasonable in power consumption considering what they are but don't pretend they are a low power part.
I think the text said that flow of the liquid varies with processor load. Not quite the same. Don't know why you would need to OS to vary pump speed (assuming there is a pump).
Have you seen where Apple documents that they actually use pumps? Their diagram suggests a heat pipe and nothing in the text actually refers to a pump being used. Like to see this better explained.
Of course, liquid cooling is something you'd rather not have to use (as a major PC manufacturer)...
Of course, Apple doesn't design the processors, they just integrate them.
I think that you should also say that "PowerPC has the advantage of a modern intruction set" rather than "Apple has the advantage of RISC". PPC's instruction set may be classified as RISC but is hardly "Reduced". Besides, the whole RISC/CISC argument was discredited long ago. Processor architectures and instruction sets are not closely coupled any more.
Incidently, the x86 instruction set is, in fact, incredibly efficient. Not ridiculously inefficient as you say. It was designed to be compact and powerful bit is quite hard to decode compared to RISC apporaches. Memory space is not as precious as it once was so x86's primary advantages are no longer valuable.
If you actually need RAID arrays of more than two drives its hard to believe that they must be internal. If you are working with uncompressed HD I can't see how you would consider an internal array as a requirement. On the other hand, compressed HD work could certainly be done on a more modest storage system.
It's a shame that such a large system can't hold more drives though.
I don't accept that MS publishing magazines is proof that they advertise to CIO well beyond what Apple does. MS does clearly engage in slimy business practices but that doesn't mean that cheat in the type of marketing that you suggest they do.
It's OK to hate MS if that's your preference, but you've hardly backed up you specific claim. In any event, its clear that Apple's relatively static market share (the original point) is influenced mostly by factors besides innovation and for good reason. One could argue that it's because MS cheats, but I think it's more a matter of Apple's choice to complete with a closed, vertical platform against an open one in an extremely high volume market.
People don't lie about their Windows screen dpi to get fonts sized properly. They lie about it because 72 and 100 are the only sizes that work right. Of course, that's better than what Linux/X11 has. Getting the same thing accomplished there really sucks.
Windows provides far greater device support (and timelier as well) and much better still/video editing tools. OS X arguably provides these tools but not the breadth of device support.
I agree that Linux useful for many things but it's not suitable as a digital photography/videography workstation. That's what keeps me on Windows.
You think MS is more guilty of this than Apple? I can think of no company that thinks they know better than the user (and everyone else) than Apple. That's not a knock on your choice, but OS X is hardly "any way you like". That menu bar across the top of the screen is an atrocity that's sadly being emulated more and more by wrong-thinking people. Screen have way too much res now for that to be efficient.
Way easier perhaps (easier than what?) but hardly intuitive. Why would anyone associate such an action with dismounting/ejecting when intuitively it would suggest deletion?
In Windows, unmounting the same device involves clicking on an icon and selecting the device from a popup menu. You may feel that's harder but at least there's no suggestion that you're about to do irrepairable damage.
So does Apple. Business as usual. It's good that you recognize that it's not about tech and it's not a conspiracy though.
I'd be interested in your proof that MS does this, not that it doesn't, especially if it suggests that they are somehow much slimier at it than everyone else. Of course, MS is not the competitor for products being discussed here.
So Microsoft's advertising is better than Apple's then?
In any case, it's not "the industry" that "punishes" Apple by failing to respond with increased market share. That would be the customers as I said.
Apple "markets" itself as an innovative company and is successful at that with a portion of the population. That's evidenced by the fact that people believe the iPod and this thing are innovative when they're in fact derivative (but shiny). I think Apple is rewarded proportionate to their value.
A 90 day warranty doesn't mean the product fails after 3 months. I don't consider warranty when buying such devices but I find it interesting that you feel the iPod *needs* a longer warranty before you would feel comfortable. Are you expecting the iPod to fail?
Mine's lasted a lot longer than 90 days and is built well enough. It can be sensitive to drops due to the exposed knob on the upper right.
Compared to the iPod, it doesn't come with a sleeve that scratches the display every time you use it and its battery doesn't self-discharge in 2 days. It has a real on-off switch and lasts nearly twice as long as the iPod on a fresh charge. Its sync software is the best I've used. The PC software for the iPod stinks although xPod is good.
I'd say the UI's are pretty comparable. The Karma has the toggle+stick which are not as good theoretically as the wheel, yet the iPod's controls are dorky and unreliable (and there are too few buttons). Having been and owner of all 3 generations of iPods I feel the first generation was easily the best (but mine's dead now). I much prefer the Karma to the current iPod.
...and you can see all the nice design touches added to provide range. The nonexistent antenna and the integral wall plug should make it ideal for the task you describe.
Bose and Bang & Olufsen? Is that like shit and sterling silver?
Seriously, those two companies couldn't more unrelated though I could see Apple being compared to the latter. Lots and lots of gloss but the performance is pretty disappointing.
Perhaps because not everyone agrees with you?
It's not the industry you refer to but the customers and they apparently don't agree that Apple innovates "like hell" considering their spending habits.
Apple's not the first with a streaming mp3 adapter thingy. They may be first to integrate it with an AP but that doesn't seem like that great a virtue. The reasonable cost may appeal to some.