Comments on: UK Apple Store Accidentally Reveals 8-core Mac Pro

By: Eureka Company Eureka Superlite Vacuum 442B

Eureka Company Eureka Superlite Vacuum 442B — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 17:22:49 +0000

http://astore.amazon.com/bissellcleaner-20/detail/B001QUUX96 Eureka Company Eureka Superlite Vacuum 442B http://astore.amazon.com/bissellcleaner-20/detail/B001TBFHD4 Eureka Company Eureka Vacuum Sweeper, Old Model 886B / 886D / 886F / 886E

By: Lift Off Bagless Vacuum Belt - Style 8 - 2 Pk

Lift Off Bagless Vacuum Belt - Style 8 - 2 Pk — Sun, 28 Jun 2009 21:21:31 +0000

http://astore.amazon.com/bissellcleaner-20/detail/B001KMXJZK Lift Off Bagless Vacuum Belt – Style 8 – 2 Pk http://astore.amazon.com/bissellcleaner-20/detail/B000UGLHME BISSELL 1698 BRUSH BELTS

By: yykEAubHNbPFYZHFVu

yykEAubHNbPFYZHFVu — Sat, 27 Jun 2009 02:54:21 +0000

http://astore.amazon.com/bissellcleaner-20?_encoding=UTF8&node=111bissell proheathttp://astore.amazon.com/bissellcleaner-20?_encoding=UTF8&node=113bissell spotlifter

By: bissell 6591

bissell 6591 — Mon, 15 Jun 2009 15:51:44 +0000

http://astore.amazon.com/bissellcleaner-20?node=110 bissell 6591 http://astore.amazon.com/bissellcleaner-20?node=110 bissell 6579

By: Vasyu

Vasyu — Fri, 08 Aug 2008 17:54:45 +0000

SoUDfG Vasyu testit vasyu.net

By: gingerman

gingerman — Mon, 09 Jun 2008 13:51:28 +0000

No that’s an illustration agency as I remember.

it’s apple.com/uk

By: kormoc

kormoc — Thu, 22 Mar 2007 20:11:25 +0000

Blah:

That’s right… given most major engines from quake 3 were smp just fine (all the UT’s from 2003+, quake 3, doom 3, quake 4, etc)…

By: JD

JD — Wed, 21 Mar 2007 15:53:04 +0000

Grammar matters you illiterates. If grammar doesn’t matter to you stop typing on the Internet.

By: HA

HA — Sun, 18 Mar 2007 22:06:21 +0000

“Red” ‘Eats, Shoots and leaves’? Thats funny in a post about dumbing down grammar. I suppose spelling isn’t grammar though.

By: Grammar Nazi

Grammar Nazi — Sat, 17 Mar 2007 15:27:02 +0000

Derek and Brendan castigating Andrea because she doesn’t like bad grammar? If I were to take Brendan’s advice, I’d have to stop reading newspapers, books, and stay off the internet, too. People who consistenty use bad grammar are dumbing down the English language and no one seems to care. BLAH begins his comment with “your getting only . . .” when he should have said “you’re only geting . . .” Our teachers are not emphasizing good grammar these days and our print media and the general public are the worse for it. Red “Eats, shoots, and leaves” for a good take on what’s right.

By: Blah

Blah — Fri, 16 Mar 2007 22:49:01 +0000

Xlink:

Your only getting 40% CPU utilization while gaming because most games are not yet as multithreaded as they could be. Also you fail to realize many games are using engines that are not setup for multithreading and they aren’t going to rebuild whatever engine they are licensing.

I suggest you take a look at the specs on the newer game engines and you will see most now support multithreading on a larger scale.

As for OSX not scaling well with multiple processors….I’d love for you to provide any evidence of this. It scales as well if not better then most windows versions, if all your judging by is CPU utlization then your argument is completely flawed

What aspects of OSX do not scale well. The gui processes? The underlying darwin components? Please explain which nix process is causing the bottleneck otherwise your just using 100% speculation

By: Dia A.

Dia A. — Fri, 16 Mar 2007 13:33:53 +0000

A very informative article. I wrote about this in our site. Here’s the url: http://www.qj.net/Mac-Pro-to-go-8-core-/pg/49/aid/86383

By: xlink

xlink — Fri, 16 Mar 2007 13:13:51 +0000

yeh..

that’s why i’m only getting around 40% cpu utilization while gaming…

because programming has been going this way for years.

believe it or not, most apps HAVE not been optimized for SMP, and osx is not well optimized for it either. if it were the case, servers would have many more sockets and cpus but slower processsors

By: Kid is silly

Kid is silly — Fri, 16 Mar 2007 13:08:44 +0000

Might want to do some reasearch there KID

Unless Mac programmers are years behind the times, most programs have been written for multiple threads for over 5 years now.

With the advent (not starting windows/mac bs) of Windows 2000 supporting multiple processors on both a server and desktop environment, it would be silly for a someone to not program/compile multithread apps.

I would assume this would apply for the Macs as well.

By: Matt

Matt — Fri, 16 Mar 2007 05:37:51 +0000

I just may have to switch to a Mac if these come out :)

By: Fatty McButterpants

Fatty McButterpants — Fri, 16 Mar 2007 04:51:57 +0000

Thiz be da shiznet!! Yo, da bombastic nuclear boom diddy bang!!

Grammar nazi that.

Anyway, the accidental posting of the quad-core page might have been a test page that a developer was prepping for the inevitable system release.

Only time will tell… yo.

By: xlink

xlink — Fri, 16 Mar 2007 04:42:39 +0000

wow 8 cores…

welcome to 1985…

this doesn’t amaze me, multi-core technology is nothing new, and using two Xeons on a 2P board isn’t exactly amazing, I could build a system capable of such myself.

it’s just a shame OSX scales to poorly, chances are it can’t really utilize past 4 cores in an efficient manner. I hope apple fixes their OS.

By: Kid

Kid — Fri, 16 Mar 2007 04:32:21 +0000

One mistake: The more cores you have, the more programs you can run faster, it does not make one program run faster, as only one CPU can run a program at a time, the expection being if the program is divided between more than one CPU, but as of right now this is rare and not found in common programs such as games or Photoshop.

By: Brendan

Brendan — Fri, 16 Mar 2007 03:22:11 +0000

Seriously Andrea, if bad grammar bothers you that much, you should probably stay away from the internet.

By: Derek

Derek — Fri, 16 Mar 2007 02:31:35 +0000

Andrea the grammar Nazi.
yep, you’re that person.