VanNess
Aug 7, 04:13 PM
Ladies and Gentleman, Apple proudly presents the next release of Apple's groundbreaking operating system: OS X 10.5 "Leopard"
Hey, that don't look like no Leopard...
Hey, that don't look like no Leopard...
Bill McEnaney
Mar 1, 04:47 AM
"Homosexuality," Plato wrote, "is regarded as shameful by barbarians and by those who live under despotic governments just as philosophy is regarded as shameful by them, because it is apparently not in the interest of such rulers to have great ideas engendered in their subjects, or powerful friendships or passionate love-all of which homosexuality is particularly apt to produce." This attitude of Plato's was characteristic of the ancient world, and I want to begin my discussion of the attitudes of the Church and of Western Christianity toward homosexuality by commenting on comparable attitudes among the ancients.
Dr. Josiah B. Gould, the Plato scholar who taught me Ancient Philosophy, told us that, that although homosexuality was common among Greek aristocrats in ancient Greece, to them, sodomy was repugnant.
Dr. Josiah B. Gould, the Plato scholar who taught me Ancient Philosophy, told us that, that although homosexuality was common among Greek aristocrats in ancient Greece, to them, sodomy was repugnant.
obeygiant
Apr 27, 10:33 PM
I lost it a long time ago. Trump is an asshat that should just shut the **** up and go back to diddling eastern european models and building casinos (is that christian right compliant I wonder?).
The truth is if Barack Obama was instead Piers Morgan or Simon Cowell and a republican candidate, there would have been an uproar if anyone had dared to ask if they were actually Americans by birth. Its racism, period. The right doesn't want a liberool n***** in the white house. That is it in the ****ing list. Anyone saying that's not what this is about is a ****ing liar.
**** the ****ing ****ers.
Obama's birth certificate's got a big ol butt.. das rite
Obama's birth certificate's got a big ol butt..
Holla!
The truth is if Barack Obama was instead Piers Morgan or Simon Cowell and a republican candidate, there would have been an uproar if anyone had dared to ask if they were actually Americans by birth. Its racism, period. The right doesn't want a liberool n***** in the white house. That is it in the ****ing list. Anyone saying that's not what this is about is a ****ing liar.
**** the ****ing ****ers.
Obama's birth certificate's got a big ol butt.. das rite
Obama's birth certificate's got a big ol butt..
Holla!
mBox
Apr 6, 08:44 AM
Folks there are cheaper options out there if you really need this.
If your a real professional then get a BD-drive plus Toast.
If your making tons of money then chances are you can afford Production or Master CS from Adobe.
Back in the day if we wanted to do high-end video, the peripherals for Mac alone would cost twice to three times the cost of the Mac itself.
Dont even bring up that other PC mfg have BD built in.
There is a reason for that :P
If your a real professional then get a BD-drive plus Toast.
If your making tons of money then chances are you can afford Production or Master CS from Adobe.
Back in the day if we wanted to do high-end video, the peripherals for Mac alone would cost twice to three times the cost of the Mac itself.
Dont even bring up that other PC mfg have BD built in.
There is a reason for that :P
mjsanders5uk
Apr 5, 05:02 PM
and Mac Pros!
and entry level MacBook!
and Mac minis!
and ...
Not again..
NAB is for broadcast professionals - its doubtful there will be computer releases here.
and entry level MacBook!
and Mac minis!
and ...
Not again..
NAB is for broadcast professionals - its doubtful there will be computer releases here.
skunk
Mar 4, 04:43 PM
Are they affiliated with WBC?
SevenInchScrew
Aug 12, 11:05 AM
similar genre given racing, but one is a simulator - the other is, a bit more fictional (in a sense).
but anyway, thats a technicality. no doubt that NFS seems to be higher grossing and more popular, as GT targets a pretty acute market. i wonder if GT5 will change that at all.
My point is, he was trying to use GT's high sales as a quantifier of the series greatness. Then, when I showed 2 examples of other racing game series with higher sales, he said they were different types of racing games, and that they don't count. Which is understandable, because they are not the same type of game. But then, ultimately, as I said before, if you don't count those other types of racing games, you're really only comparing GT to Forza, since that is the only other similar game.
But what does that prove? A game series that has been out for almost 13 years has sold more than a similar type of game series that has only been out for a little over 5 years. Big shock there. I'll be the first to admit that Forza isn't even remotely close to as big of a sales hit as the GT series. But, like I've said before, liking a game is a subjective thing, and everyone is entitled to their own choices. But sales are an objective thing, that has no relevance to somethings greatness.
but anyway, thats a technicality. no doubt that NFS seems to be higher grossing and more popular, as GT targets a pretty acute market. i wonder if GT5 will change that at all.
My point is, he was trying to use GT's high sales as a quantifier of the series greatness. Then, when I showed 2 examples of other racing game series with higher sales, he said they were different types of racing games, and that they don't count. Which is understandable, because they are not the same type of game. But then, ultimately, as I said before, if you don't count those other types of racing games, you're really only comparing GT to Forza, since that is the only other similar game.
But what does that prove? A game series that has been out for almost 13 years has sold more than a similar type of game series that has only been out for a little over 5 years. Big shock there. I'll be the first to admit that Forza isn't even remotely close to as big of a sales hit as the GT series. But, like I've said before, liking a game is a subjective thing, and everyone is entitled to their own choices. But sales are an objective thing, that has no relevance to somethings greatness.
Chundles
Jul 20, 08:20 AM
Why not? Introduction of world's first commercial 8-core system. Live via webstream, with an awesome keynote, and a presentation of Final Cut Pro using all eight cores to maximum effiency with a live render at a geecktacular speed:)
Would be a very long keynote too:
- release date of 10.5 revealed - possibly more stuff revealed
- new software (considerable update to iWork if the rumours are true)
- iMac/MacBook updates
- iPod/iTunes stuff
Would be a very long keynote too:
- release date of 10.5 revealed - possibly more stuff revealed
- new software (considerable update to iWork if the rumours are true)
- iMac/MacBook updates
- iPod/iTunes stuff
shamino
Jul 14, 05:13 PM
What about support for 2 30" cinema displays? You need two video cards to do that, right?
Nope. The GeForce 6800 card Apple offered on their AGP-based G5 towers had two dual-link DVI ports.
Today's high-end PCIe offering - an ATI Quadro 4500 - also does, but it consumes two slots (one card, but the fan is too large to allow anything in the slot next to it.)
Looking at PC product offerings by ATI (http://www.ati.com/products/workstation/fireglmatrix.html), you can see that they also offer video cards with two dual-link DVI ports on a single card. You can even get this on a Radeon X1900 series card (http://www.ati.com/products/radeonx1900/radeonx1900xtx/specs.html).
Given that this is easily available for the PC world, there's no reason why it can't also be made available for the Mac (aside from someone deciding to write the device driver, of course.)
Nope. The GeForce 6800 card Apple offered on their AGP-based G5 towers had two dual-link DVI ports.
Today's high-end PCIe offering - an ATI Quadro 4500 - also does, but it consumes two slots (one card, but the fan is too large to allow anything in the slot next to it.)
Looking at PC product offerings by ATI (http://www.ati.com/products/workstation/fireglmatrix.html), you can see that they also offer video cards with two dual-link DVI ports on a single card. You can even get this on a Radeon X1900 series card (http://www.ati.com/products/radeonx1900/radeonx1900xtx/specs.html).
Given that this is easily available for the PC world, there's no reason why it can't also be made available for the Mac (aside from someone deciding to write the device driver, of course.)
JoshH
Aug 7, 02:06 PM
Looks like a good time to let my PM D1.25Ghz G4 retire... The new MP must be at least 10 times faster. :eek:
Apple store up again. The old PM G5 seem to be gone.
Me too. I've tortured my poor PM dual 867 long enough. Retirement would be good.
... in a nice place where she'd be treated well, of course.
Apple store up again. The old PM G5 seem to be gone.
Me too. I've tortured my poor PM dual 867 long enough. Retirement would be good.
... in a nice place where she'd be treated well, of course.
Multimedia
Aug 19, 12:33 PM
And I'm not convinced this is only an application problem. When I run Handbrake on the Quad G5 alone it uses just over two cores 203% @ about 100fps analysis (1st Pass of 2) speed. If I add a Toast encode while that is happening, Handbrake takes a huge hit down to below 150% @ 70-80 fps analysis while Toast can only use about 130% instead of more alone. So the Tiger OS X seems to have difficulty managing more than one multicore application's core usage allocation up to its maximum capability - IE Tiger is not so MultiCore Enabeled as it could be IE Leopard probably will be much moreso - let's hope that is one of its TOP SECRETS.
When I ran tests on the Mac Pro at the Apple Store last Saturday between Toast and/or Handbrake, their use of more cores alone and together was much better. Handbrake alone can analyze up to around 134fps while writing at about 107 fps using about 1.5-1.75 cores. So while not yet fully optimized for Mac Pro yet, it's already outperforming the Quad G5 significantly. Handbrake would appear to analyze files about 33% faster while writing them about 15% faster while using 1.5 to 1.75 cores. Quad G5 does analysis @ about 100fps and writes about 93 fps (2nd Pass) using up to about 2.2 cores.
Toast 7.1 UB uses Mac Pro cores much more than it does Quad cores - in the range of 280 - 310% IE about 3 cores compared to only about 1.5 cores on the Quad G5 as well as on the Dual Core G5. Unfortunately I didn't have encode times for each of the sample files I brought with me from the Quad so I don't know the real time how much faster that really amounts to. Running simultaneously on the Mac Pro, Toast would use over 2.5 cores while handbrake would use only one or less than one at best.
Together simultaneously on Mac Pro 2.66 it's
Toast/Handbrake
2.7 cores/1 core best
2.5 cores/.75 core worst
Handbrake during Toast is down to as few as 60fps but sometimes up to 100fps as well. Toast meanwhile is Still consuming up to almost 3 cores with Handbrake running at the same time. So Toast would appear to be much more optimized for the Mac Pro's MultiCores than it is for the Quad G5's Multicores. Same could be said for Handbrake - especially since it is not really fully Optimized for Mac Pro yet.
When I ran tests on the Mac Pro at the Apple Store last Saturday between Toast and/or Handbrake, their use of more cores alone and together was much better. Handbrake alone can analyze up to around 134fps while writing at about 107 fps using about 1.5-1.75 cores. So while not yet fully optimized for Mac Pro yet, it's already outperforming the Quad G5 significantly. Handbrake would appear to analyze files about 33% faster while writing them about 15% faster while using 1.5 to 1.75 cores. Quad G5 does analysis @ about 100fps and writes about 93 fps (2nd Pass) using up to about 2.2 cores.
Toast 7.1 UB uses Mac Pro cores much more than it does Quad cores - in the range of 280 - 310% IE about 3 cores compared to only about 1.5 cores on the Quad G5 as well as on the Dual Core G5. Unfortunately I didn't have encode times for each of the sample files I brought with me from the Quad so I don't know the real time how much faster that really amounts to. Running simultaneously on the Mac Pro, Toast would use over 2.5 cores while handbrake would use only one or less than one at best.
Together simultaneously on Mac Pro 2.66 it's
Toast/Handbrake
2.7 cores/1 core best
2.5 cores/.75 core worst
Handbrake during Toast is down to as few as 60fps but sometimes up to 100fps as well. Toast meanwhile is Still consuming up to almost 3 cores with Handbrake running at the same time. So Toast would appear to be much more optimized for the Mac Pro's MultiCores than it is for the Quad G5's Multicores. Same could be said for Handbrake - especially since it is not really fully Optimized for Mac Pro yet.
Enigmac
Aug 7, 03:24 PM
Remember guys, these are only a few of the MANY features that Leopard will have to offer... including the top secret one. Steve made that clear.
printable coloring pages for
printable coloring pages for
printable coloring pages for
printable coloring pages for
printable coloring pages for
printable coloring pages for
printable coloring pages for
KnightWRX
Apr 20, 10:05 AM
http://cultofmac.cultofmaccom.netdna-cdn.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/Screen-shot-2011-04-19-at-8.37.05-PM.png
feel free to point out how difficult it is to see any similarities...
You're talking about the Trademark claims for the icons, which as I've pointed out in the other thread, Apple must pursue. I've never made any claims as far as the validity or lack thereof of this claim over the icons.
My point was about the trade dress claims about the device, specifically, the screen bevel, shape of the phone, position of buttons, "icon grid". Again, not all models of Galaxy S seem to be infringing on the iPhone and thus it is quite bizarre that Apple is including all them in their claims, and also quite handy that the Apple biased media is only using pictures showing the "similar" models.
The particular model I posted does not look anything like an iPhone.
Feel free to discuss the same things I am next time so that we can actually have a meaningful debate about it.
feel free to point out how difficult it is to see any similarities...
You're talking about the Trademark claims for the icons, which as I've pointed out in the other thread, Apple must pursue. I've never made any claims as far as the validity or lack thereof of this claim over the icons.
My point was about the trade dress claims about the device, specifically, the screen bevel, shape of the phone, position of buttons, "icon grid". Again, not all models of Galaxy S seem to be infringing on the iPhone and thus it is quite bizarre that Apple is including all them in their claims, and also quite handy that the Apple biased media is only using pictures showing the "similar" models.
The particular model I posted does not look anything like an iPhone.
Feel free to discuss the same things I am next time so that we can actually have a meaningful debate about it.
enda1
Jul 27, 01:37 PM
How long do you people think it will be before merom is put in the macbook?
Really want one befor i go back to college but it looks lokie i might have to splurge for an MBP instead.
Poor me....
Really want one befor i go back to college but it looks lokie i might have to splurge for an MBP instead.
Poor me....
skunk
Aug 6, 01:48 PM
good catch - I still think it won't matter...But it would be impossibly risky to give the machines a name which might be disallowed.
andy721
Mar 25, 11:57 PM
Mac OS 10.7 is out but for developers so its not GM yet, it's 3.35GB
ergle2
Sep 14, 01:17 PM
True (today anyway; in the NT era they were indeed separate platforms though. Which brings me to my next point..)
Point of total (and obnoxious) pedantry here -- XP and W2K3 Server aren't strictly the same codebase; The latter was a huge rewrite job with some fairly significant internal changes.
XP 64bit is based on W2K3, and Vista originally started out on the XP code base and then was scrapped, and was started over using the W2K3 codebase.
It doesn't invalidate your point in any way and the latter is most definitely descended from the former, but unlike previous products they weren't released in parallel. I mention it purely because I find it interesting, and it's also an example of how Windows is "evolving", so to speak.
I think people who say stuff like that are exhibiting a syndrome common to Mac folk who've never spent any time in the PC world -- they take negative comments they remember regarding versions of Windows or the PC experience from about 5 years back and assume they apply to today. XP, for example, really was for the most part a window-dressing of Windows 2000, but that is not the case for Vista. You see similar statements regarding "blue screens of death", overall system stability, etc, which suggest they haven't seen or used a PC since the late 90s/early 00's.
This is very common on both sides of the divide. Many Mac-only people seem to think Windows is still stuck in the Win9x days, and many of the Windows-only types seem to think MacOS is still in the 8.x days.
I guess it's a little like when your friend has kids and you don't see them for a few years, and you're surprised that instead of still being little kids they're teenagers... :)
Point of total (and obnoxious) pedantry here -- XP and W2K3 Server aren't strictly the same codebase; The latter was a huge rewrite job with some fairly significant internal changes.
XP 64bit is based on W2K3, and Vista originally started out on the XP code base and then was scrapped, and was started over using the W2K3 codebase.
It doesn't invalidate your point in any way and the latter is most definitely descended from the former, but unlike previous products they weren't released in parallel. I mention it purely because I find it interesting, and it's also an example of how Windows is "evolving", so to speak.
I think people who say stuff like that are exhibiting a syndrome common to Mac folk who've never spent any time in the PC world -- they take negative comments they remember regarding versions of Windows or the PC experience from about 5 years back and assume they apply to today. XP, for example, really was for the most part a window-dressing of Windows 2000, but that is not the case for Vista. You see similar statements regarding "blue screens of death", overall system stability, etc, which suggest they haven't seen or used a PC since the late 90s/early 00's.
This is very common on both sides of the divide. Many Mac-only people seem to think Windows is still stuck in the Win9x days, and many of the Windows-only types seem to think MacOS is still in the 8.x days.
I guess it's a little like when your friend has kids and you don't see them for a few years, and you're surprised that instead of still being little kids they're teenagers... :)
mentholiptus
Apr 10, 10:15 PM
Impossible.
The iPad is not a serious computer. This will never happen.
It's just a fad.
Ignore the big-name game titles for iOS. Ignore the upcoming Photoshop app. Ignore the millions of sales. Ignore the copycats in the market.
It'll all go away very soon.
Unless, like I posted earlier, the iPad app functions as a UI for the main application over the network. The Mac (or cluster of macs) takes care of the heavy lifting, and the iPad is used to make edits remotely, and broadcast to HDTV's.
AirPlay & AirEdit.
If you had a cluster of Mac Pro's using thunderbolt (or whatever...ethernet, fibre, etc) to talk to each other, and you used the iPad as a remote UI, you could edit, compress, and broadcast from anywhere.
Apple has all the pieces in place to do this. AirPlay, AppleTV, iPad, iTunes as a media hub for all the devices to communicate, Qmaster, etc...
This has been a long time coming. I remember in 2006-2007 hearing rumors that Apple was working on a tablet like controller for logic. It was to be used to edit the timeline, or act as a virtual mixer, etc. This has been brewing for years, and I think it's almost a reality.
The iPad is not a serious computer. This will never happen.
It's just a fad.
Ignore the big-name game titles for iOS. Ignore the upcoming Photoshop app. Ignore the millions of sales. Ignore the copycats in the market.
It'll all go away very soon.
Unless, like I posted earlier, the iPad app functions as a UI for the main application over the network. The Mac (or cluster of macs) takes care of the heavy lifting, and the iPad is used to make edits remotely, and broadcast to HDTV's.
AirPlay & AirEdit.
If you had a cluster of Mac Pro's using thunderbolt (or whatever...ethernet, fibre, etc) to talk to each other, and you used the iPad as a remote UI, you could edit, compress, and broadcast from anywhere.
Apple has all the pieces in place to do this. AirPlay, AppleTV, iPad, iTunes as a media hub for all the devices to communicate, Qmaster, etc...
This has been a long time coming. I remember in 2006-2007 hearing rumors that Apple was working on a tablet like controller for logic. It was to be used to edit the timeline, or act as a virtual mixer, etc. This has been brewing for years, and I think it's almost a reality.
depperl
Aug 7, 04:30 PM
if leopard is not enough here's some more new features: Leopard-Server (http://www.apple.com/server/macosx/leopard/)
i think leopard-server is going to have some cool things for the enterprise-market :rolleyes:
i think leopard-server is going to have some cool things for the enterprise-market :rolleyes:
applebb
Apr 7, 11:27 PM
You people don't know the facts and are jumping to conclusions. You need to realize that this is a RUMOR site....
�algiris
Mar 31, 02:30 PM
This is a smart move. It had to happen sooner or later.
John Gruber would eat Steve Job's ***** if he could. His opinion is extremely biased.
Doesn't mean he's not right on this one.
John Gruber would eat Steve Job's ***** if he could. His opinion is extremely biased.
Doesn't mean he's not right on this one.
nunes013
Mar 25, 10:34 PM
maybe they will release it in late july instead of late august like snow leopard. does anyone remember how much leopard cost. snow leopard wasnt really a new OS. just a speed bump from leopard so thats why it was $30. i just want to get an idea of what they price lion at because i heard $120 a while ago.
manu chao
Apr 27, 08:53 AM
No it isn't. They say they are not logging your location. This is correct. If it were incorrect, they would be keeping a database of your phone's exact GPS location. Instead, as they state, they are keeping a cache of the cell towers and wifi hotspots in order to aid the A-GPS system. So, no, they are not logging your (and by your, I mean an identifiable log) exact locations and beaming it home to watch you like big brother.
They are instructing your iPhone to log your approximate location. And I am sure anybody in this thread (ie, those really knowing about the details) knows the difference between 'Apple is logging your location on its servers' and 'Apple is instructing your iPhone to log your location on your iPhone and computer'.
They are instructing your iPhone to log your approximate location. And I am sure anybody in this thread (ie, those really knowing about the details) knows the difference between 'Apple is logging your location on its servers' and 'Apple is instructing your iPhone to log your location on your iPhone and computer'.
epitaphic
Aug 18, 11:46 PM
So you think they put an extra processor in across the line just to be able to say they had a quad? Even the AnandTech article you used as a source showed here (http://www.anandtech.com/mac/showdoc.aspx?i=2816&p=18) that PS took advantage of quad cores in Rosetta
Yes under some specific results the quad was a bit faster than the dual. Though with the combo of Rosetta+Photoshop its unclear what is causing the difference. However, if you compare the vast majority of the benchmarks, there's negligible difference.
Concerning Photoshop specifically, as can be experienced on a quad G5, the performance increase is 15-20%. A future jump to 8-core would theoretically be in the 8% increase mark. Photoshop (CS2) simply cannot scale adequately beyond 2 cores, maybe that'll change in Spring 2007. Fingers crossed it does.
Your points about latency and FSB are not separate negatives as you have made them. They are redundant theoretical concerns with implications of unclear practical significance.
I beg to differ. If an app or game is memory intensive, faster memory access does matter. Barefeats (http://barefeats.com/quad09.html) has some benchmarks on dual channel vs quad channel on the Mac Pro. I'd personally like to see that benchmark with an added Conroe system. If dual to quad channel gave 16-25% improvement, imagine what 75% increase in actual bandwidth will do. Besides, I was merely addressing your statements that Woodcrest is faster because of its higher speed FSB and higher memory bus bandwidth.
I am not worried. Everything anyone has come up with on this issue are taken from that same AnandTech article. Until I see more real-world testing, I will not be convinced. Also, I expect that more pro apps such as PS will be able to utilize quad cores in the near future, if they aren't already doing so. Finally, even if Conroe is faster, Woodcrest is fast enough for me ;).
Anandtech, at the moment, is the only place with a quad xeon vs dual xeon benchmark. And yes, dual Woodcrest is fast enough, but is it cost effective compared to a single Woodcrest/Conroe? It seems that for the most part, Mac Pro users are paying for an extra chip but only really utilizing it when running several CPU intensive apps at the same time.
I think you misread that. They were comparing Core 2 Extreme (not Woodcrest) and Conroe to see whether the increased FSB of the former would make much difference.
You're absolutely right about that, its only measuring the improvement over increased FSB. If you take into account FB-DIMM's appalling efficiency, there should be no increase at all (if not decrease) for memory intensive apps.
One question I'd like to put out there, if Apple has had a quad core mac shipping for the past 8 months, why would it wait til intel quads to optimize the code for FCP? Surely they must have known for some time before that that they would release a quad core G5 so either optimizing FCP for quads is a real bastard or they've been sitting on it for no reason.
Yes under some specific results the quad was a bit faster than the dual. Though with the combo of Rosetta+Photoshop its unclear what is causing the difference. However, if you compare the vast majority of the benchmarks, there's negligible difference.
Concerning Photoshop specifically, as can be experienced on a quad G5, the performance increase is 15-20%. A future jump to 8-core would theoretically be in the 8% increase mark. Photoshop (CS2) simply cannot scale adequately beyond 2 cores, maybe that'll change in Spring 2007. Fingers crossed it does.
Your points about latency and FSB are not separate negatives as you have made them. They are redundant theoretical concerns with implications of unclear practical significance.
I beg to differ. If an app or game is memory intensive, faster memory access does matter. Barefeats (http://barefeats.com/quad09.html) has some benchmarks on dual channel vs quad channel on the Mac Pro. I'd personally like to see that benchmark with an added Conroe system. If dual to quad channel gave 16-25% improvement, imagine what 75% increase in actual bandwidth will do. Besides, I was merely addressing your statements that Woodcrest is faster because of its higher speed FSB and higher memory bus bandwidth.
I am not worried. Everything anyone has come up with on this issue are taken from that same AnandTech article. Until I see more real-world testing, I will not be convinced. Also, I expect that more pro apps such as PS will be able to utilize quad cores in the near future, if they aren't already doing so. Finally, even if Conroe is faster, Woodcrest is fast enough for me ;).
Anandtech, at the moment, is the only place with a quad xeon vs dual xeon benchmark. And yes, dual Woodcrest is fast enough, but is it cost effective compared to a single Woodcrest/Conroe? It seems that for the most part, Mac Pro users are paying for an extra chip but only really utilizing it when running several CPU intensive apps at the same time.
I think you misread that. They were comparing Core 2 Extreme (not Woodcrest) and Conroe to see whether the increased FSB of the former would make much difference.
You're absolutely right about that, its only measuring the improvement over increased FSB. If you take into account FB-DIMM's appalling efficiency, there should be no increase at all (if not decrease) for memory intensive apps.
One question I'd like to put out there, if Apple has had a quad core mac shipping for the past 8 months, why would it wait til intel quads to optimize the code for FCP? Surely they must have known for some time before that that they would release a quad core G5 so either optimizing FCP for quads is a real bastard or they've been sitting on it for no reason.
