November 2009 - apple-list - University of Manitoba Mailing Lists

INTEREST: Intel processor roadmap leaked...
by billing 29 Nov '09

29 Nov '09

...from: http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/09/11/29/intels_six_core_gulftown_proc… Sunday, November 29, 2009 Intel's Six-Core 'Gulftown' processor revealed, possibly headed to Mac Pro By Brian Garner Published: 01:10 AM EST Performance numbers of Intel's new six-core Xeon were prematurely revealed by Polish website PCLab, showing strong increases in performance for the chip rumored to be in the next iteration of the Mac Pro. Hardmac reported that test and performance results of Intel's new 6-core Xeon chips code-named "Gulftown" were briefly featured on PCLab before being taken down at the request of Intel. According to the test results, the new chips are nearly 50% faster than the previous quad-core Xenon during parallel tasks, and use up to 50% less power. This chip will, according to sources, be featured in future Mac Pro models that could arrive as early as the first quarter of 2010. The "Gulftown" chip will be sold under the Core i9 name and will be Intel's first six-core, dual-socket processor. The 32 nanometer chips feature 12MB of L3 cache. If paired with another chip, as Apple usually does in its high-end workstations, the processors will offer 12 physical and 24 logical cores. In a previous story, Hardmac reported that the new Mac Pro will have a modified motherboard with a 10Gbit/second Ethernet port and will support 8GB and 16GB RAM modules, allowing for a maximum of 128GB of RAM. The report also stated that it is likely that Apple would have short-term exclusive use of the i9 processor. Apple has enjoyed short-term exclusivity during the release of the previous two Mac Pro lines. ....roadmap graphic: http://www.engadget.com/2009/11/29/intels-desktop-roadmap-leaked-with-faste…

1 0

INTEREST: Top-of-the-line iMac takes crown as fastest stock Mac model
by billing 29 Nov '09

29 Nov '09

...from: http://www.macworld.com/article/143970/2009/11/core15_imac.html?lsrc=nl_mww… Nov 19, 2009 6:30 pm70 Comments+ 54 RecommendationsShareThis 27-inch Core i5 iMac (with Core i7 option) Top-of-the-line iMac takes the crown as fastest stock Mac model ever by James Galbraith, Macworld.com When Apple announced new iMacs last month, it included a major step forward amid the subtle-but-welcome refinements in most of the models: the first ever iMac to offer a quad-core processor. The new high-end 27-inch iMacs are the first to use Intel’s Core i5 and Core i7 quad-core processors, and they were not available at the time of the announcement. But finally, the wait is over, and the Core i5 and Core i7 27-inch iMacs have arrived—and let me tell you, it was worth the wait. PRODUCT: 27-inch Core i5 iMac RATING (Scale) PROS Impressive speed; amazingly fast Core i7 option; great image quality from display at any angle; improved speaker system; new SD card slot. CONS Glare and reflections from screen may frustrate some users; FireWire 400 peripherals require an adapter; Apple Remote not included. COMPANY Apple PRICE AS RATED $1999; $2199 with i7 processor BEST CURRENT PRICE $1,999.00 There are four standard iMac configurations, three of which have 3.06GHz Core 2 Duo processors and were reviewed recently. The fourth standard configuration is a $1999 model that has the same 27-inch screen, 1TB hard drive, and 4GB of RAM as the $1699 27-inch 3.06GHz Core 2 Duo iMac (), but features a more powerful ATI Radeon HD 4850 graphics card with 512MB of GDDR3 memory and Intel’s Core i5 quad-core processor running at 2.66GHz. The Core i5 has 8MB of L3 cache shared among the processing cores. The Core i5 features a technology Intel calls Turbo Boost. If an application isn’t using every available core, the cores that are idle shut off, and the active cores speed up. According to Apple, this allows the processor to run up to 20 percent faster under heavy workloads; that translates to 3.2GHz in this iMac. As an upgrade option to the Core i5 iMac, you can swap in a 2.8GHz Core i7 quad-core processor for $200 more. The Core i7 also features Turbo Boost (for speeds of up to 3.46GHz), and it also has Hyper-Threading technology that can present itself to highly threaded applications as having eight virtual cores. New 27-inch Core i5 and 27-inch Core i7 iMacs: Speedmark scores Longer bars are better. Blue bars in italics represent reference systems. Macworld Lab testing by James Galbraith, Chris Holt, Helen Williamson, and Roman Loyola. To see how well the new quad-core iMacs perform, we ran our overall system performance test suite, Speedmark 6, and the results were quite impressive. In fact, with a Speedmark 6 score of 209, the 2.66GHz Core i5 iMac is the fastest standard configuration Mac we’ve ever tested. It was three percent faster overall than the 2.66GHz Quad-Core Mac Pro (), and 1.5 percent faster overall than the 2.26GHz 8-core Mac Pro (). Comparing the Core i5 iMac’s Speedmark 6 scores to its iMac siblings, the Core i5 iMac was 27 percent faster overall than the second fastest iMac we’ve tested, the recently released 21.5-inch 3.06GHz Core 2 Duo iMac with 1TB hard drive and ATI graphics (). Since the Core i5 iMac has the same hard drive as two of the other three new iMacs, we didn’t see a big difference in our file duplication test, and our unzipping test results were pretty flat across the board. However, we did see a 25 percent improvement in the Core i5 iMac’s Compressor score when compared to the 21.5-inch 3.06GHz iMac, a 26 percent increase in Call of Duty frame rates, a whopping 71 percent improvement in our HandBrake test, an 88 percent faster performance in our Cinebench multiple CPU test, and the new Core i5 iMac posted a MathematicaMark score more than twice as high as the 3.06GHz iMac. That’s a lot of performance bang for an extra $200. Comparing the new Core i5 iMac to the Mac Pro models, we see the speed advantage going the iMac’s way in our Zip, iTunes, iMovie export, Call of Duty frame rates, and Compressor tests. The Mac Pros stood their ground on our HandBrake, iMovie import test, Cinebench CPU test, and MathematicaMark trials. Our tests of the built-to-order Core i7 iMac (which, other than the processor, has identical specifications as the stock Core i5 iMac) showed even greater performance prowess. With a Speedmark 6 score of 225, the $2199 Core i7 iMac was nearly 8 percent faster than the Core i5 iMac. The Core i7 was nearly 11 percent faster than the $2499 2.66GHz Quad-Core Mac Pro and 9 percent faster than the 2.26GHz 8-Core Mac Pro, which sells for $1100 more. In our tests, there were a few tasks where having eight physical processing cores was beneficial, like our MathematicaMark and Cinebench CPU tests. 27-inch Core i5 and 27-inch Core i7 iMacs benchmarks Speedmark 6 Finder Finder Finder iTunes 9 iMovie '09 iMovie '09 Call of Duty 4 iPhoto '09 Photoshop CS4 Compressor 3.0.4 Handbrake 0.9.3 Cinebench R10 Mathematica- Mark 7 Parallels 5 World Bench 6 Aperture 2.1.4 SCORE DUPLICATE 1GB FILE ZIP 2GB FOLDER UNZIP 2GB ARCHIVE AAC TO MP3 ENCODE IMPORT CAMERA ARCHIVE SHARE TO ITUNES: MOBILE FRAME RATE IMPORT 150 JPEGS SUITE ENCODE RIP DVD CHAPTER MULTIPLE CPU TEST SCORE MULTITASK TEST WINDOWS IMPORT 27" iMac 2.66GHz Core i5 209 0:21 3:01 0:43 1:07 1:22 1:03 86.9 0:26 0:39 5:44 1:22 1:12 9.64 6:07 1:50 27" iMac 2.8GHz Core i7 225 0:20 2:43 0:42 0:59 1:04 0:59 87.1 0:22 0:39 5:40 1:16 0:58 11.65 4:28 1:41 21.5" iMac 3.06GHz Core 2 Duo (ATI) 164 0:23 2:55 0:43 1:16 2:16 1:18 69.1 0:32 0:41 7:41 2:20 2:15 4.42 4:47 2:32 27" iMac 3.06GHz Core 2 Duo 162 0:22 3:00 0:39 1:16 2:17 1:16 66.2 0:32 0:42 8:16 2:23 2:15 4.28 4:45 2:34 24" iMac 2.66GHz Core 2 Duo (early 2009) 134 0:25 3:42 0:51 1:28 1:40 1:53 19.2 0:36 0:47 9:03 2:24 2:33 4.22 4:57 3:08 Mac Pro 2.66GHz Quad-Core Xeon (3GB RAM) 203 0:22 3:08 0:44 1:10 1:09 1:18 49.3 0:27 0:38 6:17 1:15 1:00 11.13 4:27 1:36 Mac Pro 2.26GHz 8-Core Xeon (6GB RAM) 206 0:23 3:27 0:41 1:14 0:57 1:24 50.4 0:28 0:42 6:33 1:10 0:45 19.53 5:00 1:45 Best results are in bold. References systems are in italics. How we tested. Call of Duty score is in frames per second (higher is better). MathematicaMark is a performance score (higher is better). All other scores are in minutes:seconds (lower is better). Speedmark 6 scores are relative to those of a 2.13GHz Core 2 Duo MacBook, which is assigned a score of 100. All systems were tested with 10.6.1 except for the Core 15 and Core 17 iMacs, which had 10.6.2. All Macs were tested with 4GB of RAM except as noted. We duplicated a 1GB file, created a Zip archive in the Finder from the two 1GB files and then unzipped it. We converted 90 minutes of AAC audio files to MP3 using iTunes’ High Quality setting. In iMovie '09, we imported a camera archive and exported it to iTunes using the Mobile Devices setting. We ran a Timedemo at 1024-by-768 with 4X anti-aliasing on in Call of Duty 4. We imported 150 JPEGs into iPhoto '09. The Photoshop Suite test is a set of 14 scripted tasks using a 50MB file. Photoshop’s memory was set to 70 percent and History was set to Minimum. We used Compressor to encode a .mov file to the application's H.264 for video podcast setting. In HandBrake we ripped a DVD chapter to the hard drive. We recorded how long it took to render a scene with multiprocessors in Cinebench. We ran the Evaluate Notebook test in MathematicaMark 7. We ran the WorldBench 6 multitasking test on a Parallels 5 VM running Windows 7 Professional. We timed the import and thumbnail/preview creation time for 150 photos in Aperture.—Macworld Lab testing by James Galbraith, Chris Holt, Helen Williamson, and Roman Loyola. The new quad-core iMacs are outwardly identical to the 27-inch 3.06GHz Core 2 Duo iMac released last month. The quad-core iMacs feature an LED backlit screen covered with glass at a 16:9 aspect ratio, an integrated iSight camera, four USB 2.0 ports, one FireWire 800 port, a Mini DisplayPort, and a new SD memory card slot. In terms of connectivity all new iMacs offer gigabit Ethernet, 802.11n wireless networking, and Bluetooth 2.1 + Enhanced Data Rate. The 27-inch iMacs ship with a 1TB 7200rpm Serial ATA hard drive, with a 2TB hard drive option available for an extra $250. Macworld’s buying advice With the new 2.66GHz Core i5 iMac and the 2.8GHz Core i7 iMac, Apple has not only blurred the line between consumer and professional systems, it's darn near erased it. The 2.66GHz Core i5 iMac offers faster performance at most tasks than the 2.66GHz Quad-Core Mac Pro. The Core i5 iMac also has more memory and more storage space than the 2.66GHz Quad-Core Mac Pro, while being $500 less (plus you get a 27-inch screen with the iMac). Unless you absolutely require additional PCI cards, multiple internal hard drives, or a lot of RAM, the Core i5 iMac makes a strong case for the being the go-to system for most Mac professionals.

1 0

INTEREST: Psystar found guilty of infringing Apple's copyright
by billing 15 Nov '09

15 Nov '09

First, a quick backgrounder: ...from: http://arstechnica.com/apple/news/2008/07/apple-finally-sues-unlicensed-mac… Apple finally sues unlicensed Macintosh cloner Psystar By David Chartier | Last updated July 15, 2008 11:24 AM CT [...] This past April, Psystar made instant waves by announcing a bargain-basement Mac clone for $399 that could run Leopard, the latest version of Apple's Mac OS X. Psystar's PC is an upgradeable tower with a respectable amount of features which, at face value, starts $200 lower than Apple's cheapest—and highly unconfigurable—Mac mini at $599. Despite drawbacks like incompatibility with some Apple software updates, a flood of orders brought the company's site down for days at a time. [...] ....Apple has finally filed suit against Psystar in the US District Court for the Northern District of California. The lawsuit accuses Psystar of violating Apples licenses and trademarks, as well as copyright infringement. [...] ...from: http://www.engadget.com/2009/11/14/apple-wins-copyright-infringement-case-a… Apple wins copyright infringement case against Psystar in California by Nilay Patel posted Nov 14th 2009 at 5:59PM Well, well. Apple's won its copyright infringement claim against would-be Mac cloner Psystar in California. Anyone surprised? As we've been saying all along, the key argument wasn't the OS X EULA or Psystar's failed monopoly claims, but pure, simple copyright infringement, since Psystar was illegally copying, modifying, and distributing Apple's code. Psystar was also dinged for circumventing Apple's kernel encryption in violation of the Digital Millenium Copyright Act, but that's just another nail in the coffin, really. There's still some legal fireworks to come, as Apple's various other claims like breach of contract, trademark infringement, and unfair competition weren't addressed in this ruling, but those are all secondary issues now -- and we'd expect this decision to have quite an impact on the other case currently ongoing in Florida. We've broken down the highlights after the break, hit up the read link for the PDF and follow along. Okay -- got your popcorn? Let's do this thing. (We're skipping right to the analysis section, but the key piece of info from the facts section is that Psystar didn't install OS X from its purchased DVDs, but from a Mac mini "imaging station.") Copyright infringement. The court agrees with Apple right down the line here -- Psystar is illegally copying, modifying, and distributing Mac OS X, and the court basically slams the whole license-vs-own argument into the ground, saying, "Even assuming arguendo that Psystar was the owner of a copy... the copies at issue here were not lawfully manufactured with the authorization of the copyright owner." Psystar was making multiple copies of OS X from its imaging station, and you just can't do that without permission. Furthermore, Psystar's argument that it includes a purchased copy of OS X with all of its computers fell flat, as the version of the OS on the machines was often different than the version on the disc, and several of the machines examined didn't have discs included at all. Oops. Creation of derivative works. This is part of copyright infringement, but we're going to break it out because it's a major key to the case. In order to boot OS X on a hackintosh, Psystar replaced the OS X bootloader, disabled and removed Apple kernel extensions, and added its own kernel extensions. That was enough variation from Apple's code to warrant a finding of copyright infringement all on its own -- Psystar was essentially selling a custom version of Apple's copyrighted code, and you're not allowed to do that without permission. What does that mean? It means that you can throw out all the arguments about EULAs and ownership and fair use, because Psystar's main business -- hacking OS X to run on non-Apple hardware -- is illegal. What can we say? We told you so. Copyright misuse. After Psystar's antitrust and monopoly arguments were thrown out, it tried to argue that Apple was misusing its copyright on OS X by limiting it to Apple hardware. It was an interesting and ballsy argument, and the court didn't buy it for a second: "Apple has not prohibited others from independently developing and using their own operating systems. Thus, Apple did not violate the public policy underlying copyright law or engage in copyright misuse." Put another way, as long as Apple doesn't try to prevent OS X owners from buying Windows PCs, it can sell OS X however it wants. DMCA violations. Everyone's favorite section of copyright law gets some time in the sun -- the court found that Psystar illegally circumvented the OS X kernel encryption when it hacked OS X and booted it on non-Apple hardware. Amusingly, Psystar tried to argue that Apple's encryption wasn't effective because the keys are available on the internet, but that's just not how the law works at all. "Here, when the decryption key was not employed, the encryption effectively worked to prevent access to Mac OS X. And that is all that is required." Ouch. Relief. Psystar's gonna pay, but we don't know how much, because the court hasn't decided yet. Stay tuned -- that's going down next month. Remaining issues. Apple's complaint contained a number of other claims besides copyright infringement, and they're still on for trial. The big one is breach of contract, which is the fight over the OS X EULA -- but since Psystar has already been found liable for straight copyright infringement, we don't think it stands a chance of invalidating the EULA. There's also a number of trademark claims and unfair competition claims, none of which will affect the main ruling here. In short: things don't look so good for Psystar. Now, this case only covered Leopard; Apple and Psystar are fighting a separate case over Snow Leopard in Florida, which means we haven't heard the end of this yet. If we were betting, though, we'd say that case will end up just like this one -- to quote Groklaw, "Judges notice if you were just found guilty of a similar cause of action in another state." Yeah. ....and the GROKLAW article with all the gory details: http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20091114101637997

1 0