javajedi
Oct 10, 10:28 PM
Originally posted by ddtlm
javajedi:
Yes, the JVM is the deciding factor here. If the Java takes that damn long on a G4 but goes fast on a P4, can can rest assured that the JVM Apple is distributing sucks compared to whatever one the x86 machines are using.
There is no way in heck that the performance delta can be so large without a large difference in quality of JVM. G4's may be slower, but they are not as slow as those number indicate.
Like I've been saying, when you start to see 5x leads by the PCs you need to start asking questions about the fairness of the benchmark. The G4 is better than 1/5 the speed. There are very few things were a P4 can get better performance per clock than a G4.
BTW:
Your G3 results as bizzarre as well, because of the contrast between them and the G4 results. Do not take it as proof one way or the other of the G3 or other IBM chips being superior to the G4. What we have here are raw numbers that defy a simple explanations. We should ask why these numbers are popping up, rather than running off with them as if they were uttered by a great voice in the sky or somthing.
I should note that the 90 second and 72 second results I just recently posted are from my cocoa implementation, not java.. so the jvm is out of the picture now on the mac.
Do not take it as proof one way or the other of the G3 or other IBM chips being superior to the G4.
Don't worry, I don't make assumptions like that. And no, I don�t think this does defy simple explanations. I will say that, what we are starting to see here is evidence that the scalar units (integer and fpu) in the IBM 750FX (G3) are more efficient than those in the Motorola G4.
If this is true, then my program hit it right on the nail. Also if this is true, it means there exist theoretical situations when using non altivec code that it would be faster on one of these newer G3 chips.
Also what alex said about how tedious it was to make altivec code, I would agree there is some truth to this. When you vectorize code (either for the P4 or G4), if you don't watch your p's and q's you can actually slow *down* your code. Just because you use the nice and special vector registers on these G4 and Pentium 4 processors does not mean you gain 5 times the speed. You literally have to take your methods back to the drawing board. You will only get peak performance out of pipelined, fully vectorized code.
None the less, scalar operations on both G3/G4 are miserable compared to x86. The JVM is no longer the deciding factor in the performance delta. It's out of the equation on the Mac since the benchmark is now a 100% native cocoa application with c code and no longer java. Mean while on the x86, the benchmark remains java.
70-ish seconds navtive on a G3
90-ish seconds on a native on a G4
5.9-6-ish seconds running under JVM 1.4.1 on a P4
javajedi:
Yes, the JVM is the deciding factor here. If the Java takes that damn long on a G4 but goes fast on a P4, can can rest assured that the JVM Apple is distributing sucks compared to whatever one the x86 machines are using.
There is no way in heck that the performance delta can be so large without a large difference in quality of JVM. G4's may be slower, but they are not as slow as those number indicate.
Like I've been saying, when you start to see 5x leads by the PCs you need to start asking questions about the fairness of the benchmark. The G4 is better than 1/5 the speed. There are very few things were a P4 can get better performance per clock than a G4.
BTW:
Your G3 results as bizzarre as well, because of the contrast between them and the G4 results. Do not take it as proof one way or the other of the G3 or other IBM chips being superior to the G4. What we have here are raw numbers that defy a simple explanations. We should ask why these numbers are popping up, rather than running off with them as if they were uttered by a great voice in the sky or somthing.
I should note that the 90 second and 72 second results I just recently posted are from my cocoa implementation, not java.. so the jvm is out of the picture now on the mac.
Do not take it as proof one way or the other of the G3 or other IBM chips being superior to the G4.
Don't worry, I don't make assumptions like that. And no, I don�t think this does defy simple explanations. I will say that, what we are starting to see here is evidence that the scalar units (integer and fpu) in the IBM 750FX (G3) are more efficient than those in the Motorola G4.
If this is true, then my program hit it right on the nail. Also if this is true, it means there exist theoretical situations when using non altivec code that it would be faster on one of these newer G3 chips.
Also what alex said about how tedious it was to make altivec code, I would agree there is some truth to this. When you vectorize code (either for the P4 or G4), if you don't watch your p's and q's you can actually slow *down* your code. Just because you use the nice and special vector registers on these G4 and Pentium 4 processors does not mean you gain 5 times the speed. You literally have to take your methods back to the drawing board. You will only get peak performance out of pipelined, fully vectorized code.
None the less, scalar operations on both G3/G4 are miserable compared to x86. The JVM is no longer the deciding factor in the performance delta. It's out of the equation on the Mac since the benchmark is now a 100% native cocoa application with c code and no longer java. Mean while on the x86, the benchmark remains java.
70-ish seconds navtive on a G3
90-ish seconds on a native on a G4
5.9-6-ish seconds running under JVM 1.4.1 on a P4
skunk
Apr 24, 11:16 AM
Don't forget it's thought the Caliph Umar ordered the burning of the Library at Alexandria.Among other theories:Destruction
Ancient and modern sources identify four possible occasions for the partial or complete destruction of the Library of Alexandria:
Julius Caesar's Fire in The Alexandrian War, in 48 BC
The attack of Aurelian in the 3rd century AD;
The decree of Coptic Pope Theophilus in AD 391;
The Muslim conquest in 642 AD or thereafter.
Ancient and modern sources identify four possible occasions for the partial or complete destruction of the Library of Alexandria:
Julius Caesar's Fire in The Alexandrian War, in 48 BC
The attack of Aurelian in the 3rd century AD;
The decree of Coptic Pope Theophilus in AD 391;
The Muslim conquest in 642 AD or thereafter.
thisisahughes
Apr 8, 10:15 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8G4 Safari/6533.18.5)
I cannot wait. I've been waiting for this, for years.
I cannot wait. I've been waiting for this, for years.
Sodner
Mar 13, 09:07 AM
It todays world as fossil fuels become more scarce and more expensive, nu.clear power is a great alternative. This was a huge and rare natural disaster that caused the problems. Under anything close to normal circumstances they are 100% safe
snoopy
Oct 11, 12:01 PM
Hate to drop in late like this, but the G3 had the same FPU as the 603, not the better one in the 604. When Motorola built the G4, they did not upgrade the FPU, but added AltiVec. This is what I understand. So, yes, double precision floating point does run poorly, with that old 603 FPU.
ddtlm
Oct 10, 01:10 PM
alex_ant:
Great to see you fighting the good fight!
others:
As true as it is that the G4 is slower than most of its compeditiors, when it is performing as bad as the numbers that some people have posted here then I can just about assure you that the Mac is at a severe software disadvantage. I mean really, look at the specs of a G4, the worst case performance delta between it and a top-of-the-line PC should be maybe 4x or 5x, not these 10x and higher numbers. There are very few situations when a G4 should do less work per clock than a P4.
So lets try to remain realistic here. It is virtually gaurenteed that the actual performance potential of a 1.25ghz G4 falls between that of a 1.3ghz P4 and the 2.8ghz P4.
EDIT:
Almost forgot to talk about SPEC. Some time ago, the only SPEC results that I know of for Macs were obtained by c't:
http://www.heise.de/ct/english/02/05/182/
In these they showed the G4 was more or less the same speed as a P3 of equal clock (1.0ghz) in the integer tests, when both where done done with GCC. Intel's compiler can give the P3 at 30% edge or something, so we know that the quality of compiler is hurting the G4 here. It is not fair to look at SPEC and declare other chips to be a zillion times faster than the G4, simply because they are all using very good compilers whereas Apple is stuck with GCC. Apple is working to improve GCC however, so things may get better.
(In SPEC FP the G4 get beat worse, I might add. Compilers played a role for sure, but can't explain the whole loss.)
Great to see you fighting the good fight!
others:
As true as it is that the G4 is slower than most of its compeditiors, when it is performing as bad as the numbers that some people have posted here then I can just about assure you that the Mac is at a severe software disadvantage. I mean really, look at the specs of a G4, the worst case performance delta between it and a top-of-the-line PC should be maybe 4x or 5x, not these 10x and higher numbers. There are very few situations when a G4 should do less work per clock than a P4.
So lets try to remain realistic here. It is virtually gaurenteed that the actual performance potential of a 1.25ghz G4 falls between that of a 1.3ghz P4 and the 2.8ghz P4.
EDIT:
Almost forgot to talk about SPEC. Some time ago, the only SPEC results that I know of for Macs were obtained by c't:
http://www.heise.de/ct/english/02/05/182/
In these they showed the G4 was more or less the same speed as a P3 of equal clock (1.0ghz) in the integer tests, when both where done done with GCC. Intel's compiler can give the P3 at 30% edge or something, so we know that the quality of compiler is hurting the G4 here. It is not fair to look at SPEC and declare other chips to be a zillion times faster than the G4, simply because they are all using very good compilers whereas Apple is stuck with GCC. Apple is working to improve GCC however, so things may get better.
(In SPEC FP the G4 get beat worse, I might add. Compilers played a role for sure, but can't explain the whole loss.)
dduff617
Sep 20, 01:31 AM
given what i know of the device, including it's form factor, i am skeptical about the report the it contains a hard drive.
dethmaShine
May 2, 09:24 AM
Hate to break it to you, but it's someone at Apple that flagged "Zip files" as safe for Safari to open ;)
That guy needs his head examined.
That's very true and has a lot of potential.
But as far as I understand, the extracted .zip in finder returns a folder which contains all the files.
Ain't that true?
But even if that's not true and for a second we believe that the finder does not automatically extract .zip archives; what if a person himself opens a .zip archive to look for files?
There's a certain potential with that kind of behavior itself.
That guy needs his head examined.
That's very true and has a lot of potential.
But as far as I understand, the extracted .zip in finder returns a folder which contains all the files.
Ain't that true?
But even if that's not true and for a second we believe that the finder does not automatically extract .zip archives; what if a person himself opens a .zip archive to look for files?
There's a certain potential with that kind of behavior itself.
Iconoclysm
Apr 20, 08:12 PM
You mean just like unix operating systems have "so many" viruses and it's a completely open source environment? In fact OSX is based on BSD unix. LOL
Yeah, because they hold the largest marketshare, right?
Yeah, because they hold the largest marketshare, right?
MacCoaster
Oct 12, 05:34 PM
JustAGuy: Okay, I modified that for 5000 and compiled on my Athlon-Tbird. Runs in about one second on average.
In fact, put back the 20000 values in both and compile it using:
gcc -mcpu=7450 -O2 -pipe -fsigned-char -maltivec -mabi=altivec -mpowerpc-gfxopt -funroll-loops -o benchmarker benchmarker.c
Or hell, use this C code:
#include <stdio.h>
int main()
{
double x1, x2, x3;
int result, startTime, finishTime;
startTime = time(NULL);
for (x1 = 1; x1 <= 20000; x1++)
{
for (x2 = 1; x2 <= 20000; x2++)
{
x3 = sqrt(x1*x2);
}
}
finishTime = time(NULL);
result = finishTime - startTime;
printf("This computer processed the double precision test in %d seconds.\n", result);
return 0;
}
And also, ddtlm, PLEASE tell us how you compiled your asm files and such so we can duplicate the results.
In fact, put back the 20000 values in both and compile it using:
gcc -mcpu=7450 -O2 -pipe -fsigned-char -maltivec -mabi=altivec -mpowerpc-gfxopt -funroll-loops -o benchmarker benchmarker.c
Or hell, use this C code:
#include <stdio.h>
int main()
{
double x1, x2, x3;
int result, startTime, finishTime;
startTime = time(NULL);
for (x1 = 1; x1 <= 20000; x1++)
{
for (x2 = 1; x2 <= 20000; x2++)
{
x3 = sqrt(x1*x2);
}
}
finishTime = time(NULL);
result = finishTime - startTime;
printf("This computer processed the double precision test in %d seconds.\n", result);
return 0;
}
And also, ddtlm, PLEASE tell us how you compiled your asm files and such so we can duplicate the results.
PghLondon
Apr 28, 03:52 PM
Are you? Why do you think Windows 7 sells so well? All Mac users need to buy one.
Wow. Just... wow.
Wow. Just... wow.
blastvurt
Apr 28, 09:57 AM
I just think Apple is making a mistake by not making some low end machines.
I know many here go OMG SHOCK HORROR about anything not made from Aluminium and Unicorn Horn Dust, but in reality, it would pay them, long term to make some nice looking plastic low end machines.
You can make plastic and metal trim things still have a nice finish.
Families walk into stores in the UK, I'm not sure about the US and look at the vast, and I mean VAST array of nice, in their mind, looking PC Laptops, perhaps to buy one for the wife, or one for the kids at school. They may walk past the small Apple table, see the near �1000 price tag, and think, yeah, right, like we're going to get one of those. I could get two good spec'd windows Laptops for that price.
I know people here will disagree as many are in a different wage bracket to "normal consumers" but I can tell you, most people are not going to throw down a grand for a computer for the kids to take to school.
As the only REAL difference between a PC and a Mac these days is the OS it's running, there is no reason Apple could not make a laptop directly at the price point of a medium to low end Windows laptop and then, people may buy them, and perhaps get used to OS X and in years to come go for an iMac.
When you head to the lower end of the market in terms of price, the margins tend to get slimmer, when looking at Apple's pricing and product designs it suggests its not how they operate.
I know many here go OMG SHOCK HORROR about anything not made from Aluminium and Unicorn Horn Dust, but in reality, it would pay them, long term to make some nice looking plastic low end machines.
You can make plastic and metal trim things still have a nice finish.
Families walk into stores in the UK, I'm not sure about the US and look at the vast, and I mean VAST array of nice, in their mind, looking PC Laptops, perhaps to buy one for the wife, or one for the kids at school. They may walk past the small Apple table, see the near �1000 price tag, and think, yeah, right, like we're going to get one of those. I could get two good spec'd windows Laptops for that price.
I know people here will disagree as many are in a different wage bracket to "normal consumers" but I can tell you, most people are not going to throw down a grand for a computer for the kids to take to school.
As the only REAL difference between a PC and a Mac these days is the OS it's running, there is no reason Apple could not make a laptop directly at the price point of a medium to low end Windows laptop and then, people may buy them, and perhaps get used to OS X and in years to come go for an iMac.
When you head to the lower end of the market in terms of price, the margins tend to get slimmer, when looking at Apple's pricing and product designs it suggests its not how they operate.
milo
Apr 13, 11:30 AM
Folks who are criticizing people who are expressing their concern about the new version, please read this post.
People who are expressing "concern" that is completely based on wild assumptions with no basis in fact deserve the criticism.
Really, I can't imagine anything more ridiculous than assuming that every feature that wasn't shown in this (fairly short) demo has been removed from the app.
I haven't seen a single specific on what's a step down from the previous version other than the price tag and the look.
I'm not too familiar with the FC app, but I'm wondering if this FCSX is the newer version of the previous $999 application... Why'd they drop the price by ~$700?
Part of it may be that they're switching from a bundle of multiple apps to selling them separately (or not, we don't know yet). Or maybe they just want to sell more copies and get more of the market share.
People who are expressing "concern" that is completely based on wild assumptions with no basis in fact deserve the criticism.
Really, I can't imagine anything more ridiculous than assuming that every feature that wasn't shown in this (fairly short) demo has been removed from the app.
I haven't seen a single specific on what's a step down from the previous version other than the price tag and the look.
I'm not too familiar with the FC app, but I'm wondering if this FCSX is the newer version of the previous $999 application... Why'd they drop the price by ~$700?
Part of it may be that they're switching from a bundle of multiple apps to selling them separately (or not, we don't know yet). Or maybe they just want to sell more copies and get more of the market share.
panzer06
Jun 19, 03:48 PM
In testing throughout the SE, I find I consistently get dropped calls when using my iphone on AT&T. Granted many are in areas with lots of trees or mountain roads, however, if I take the spare (non-iphone) still on AT&T I do not have the problem. iPhone dropped calls happen in strong signal or weak. We have two 3G and one 3GS. I truly believe there is something wrong in the iphone's voice circuitry. It is something we've learned to live with at home and work (where many co-workers have iphones).
Unless the CDMA technology employed by Verizon and Sprint is so different from GSM based carriers I imagine Verizon customers would experience the same poor service. Touting Verizon as the magic fix to these problems is foolish (unless GSM/iphone combo is the culprit) and people who switch to a Verizon iphone will most likely be disappointed. Additionally, even if a CDMA iphone was free of dropped calls, no one is going to keep that technology around for much longer.
Bashing AT&T is pointless. The problem is global. You can search google for iphone dropped calls in UK, AU, DE and any other country and find massive complaints and some lawsuits about iphones dropping calls.
What's remarkable is Apple's ability to sell millions upon millions of these devices and have people come to accept dropped calls as just an unfortunate by-product of having a superior application/web/data experience. The switch to texting, e-mail and social networks as primary communications outlets have made talking on the phone obsolete for many. Perhaps this is part of the reason such a serious problem has been pretty much ignored (even while the complaints continue) and sales of the iphone have grown.
Cheers,
Unless the CDMA technology employed by Verizon and Sprint is so different from GSM based carriers I imagine Verizon customers would experience the same poor service. Touting Verizon as the magic fix to these problems is foolish (unless GSM/iphone combo is the culprit) and people who switch to a Verizon iphone will most likely be disappointed. Additionally, even if a CDMA iphone was free of dropped calls, no one is going to keep that technology around for much longer.
Bashing AT&T is pointless. The problem is global. You can search google for iphone dropped calls in UK, AU, DE and any other country and find massive complaints and some lawsuits about iphones dropping calls.
What's remarkable is Apple's ability to sell millions upon millions of these devices and have people come to accept dropped calls as just an unfortunate by-product of having a superior application/web/data experience. The switch to texting, e-mail and social networks as primary communications outlets have made talking on the phone obsolete for many. Perhaps this is part of the reason such a serious problem has been pretty much ignored (even while the complaints continue) and sales of the iphone have grown.
Cheers,
Aduntu
Apr 15, 12:27 PM
Deuteronomy 22:23-24
"If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her; Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city."
Just to clarify: the latter passage says that if a woman is raped in a city, she must be stoned to death.
I realize this is off topic, but I felt compelled to reply.
You've taken that completely out of context. The point is that a person being raped, while conscious and aware of the situation, would do everything they could to stop it from happening. By not screaming, did she do all she could to keep it from happening? The verse right after that gives an example of a woman in the country, instead of in the city. She is raped, but makes an effort to scream in order to attract help from someone, but there is no one else around to hear her screams. If a person is being raped but doesn't try to resist or call for help, can she really be compared to the one that did call for help?
This is by no means intended to be all inclusive, but demonstrates that there were in fact protections in the law for those who were raped and not those having sex while not married and claiming to be raped.
"If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her; Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city."
Just to clarify: the latter passage says that if a woman is raped in a city, she must be stoned to death.
I realize this is off topic, but I felt compelled to reply.
You've taken that completely out of context. The point is that a person being raped, while conscious and aware of the situation, would do everything they could to stop it from happening. By not screaming, did she do all she could to keep it from happening? The verse right after that gives an example of a woman in the country, instead of in the city. She is raped, but makes an effort to scream in order to attract help from someone, but there is no one else around to hear her screams. If a person is being raped but doesn't try to resist or call for help, can she really be compared to the one that did call for help?
This is by no means intended to be all inclusive, but demonstrates that there were in fact protections in the law for those who were raped and not those having sex while not married and claiming to be raped.
vincenz
Apr 16, 12:52 PM
No resolution independance sucks on mac, but think im right in saying lion will fix that.
I don't think there have been any reports on this confirmed for Lion.
edit: Apparently there was a rumor about it on here, but has it been actually CONFIRMED?
I don't think there have been any reports on this confirmed for Lion.
edit: Apparently there was a rumor about it on here, but has it been actually CONFIRMED?
bobbleheadbob
Apr 9, 10:28 AM
I'd love for Pokemon to be on iOS devices.
My kids would love that, too. Only problem would be trying to get my iPhone or iPad away from them! ;)
My kids would love that, too. Only problem would be trying to get my iPhone or iPad away from them! ;)
PghLondon
Apr 28, 01:40 PM
Really?
So I can take an iPad out of the box and use it without ever involving a "pc?"
If so, I must have a defective iPad since mine was completely useless until I connected it to iTunes ON A PC... :eek:
As has been stated (literally) hundreds of times:
Any Apple retailer will do your initial sync, free of charge.
So I can take an iPad out of the box and use it without ever involving a "pc?"
If so, I must have a defective iPad since mine was completely useless until I connected it to iTunes ON A PC... :eek:
As has been stated (literally) hundreds of times:
Any Apple retailer will do your initial sync, free of charge.
bugfaceuk
Apr 9, 03:38 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_2_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8C148 Safari/6533.18.5)
He took your advice and said "great" in agreement and you call him a d**k? Sounds like your projecting? Maybe we didn't get the whole story?
You're certainly not getting the whole story.
He took your advice and said "great" in agreement and you call him a d**k? Sounds like your projecting? Maybe we didn't get the whole story?
You're certainly not getting the whole story.
twoodcc
Sep 20, 09:36 AM
well i'm very glad that you can hook up or put in a hard drive. maybe it will be worth me buying after all
JoEw
Jan 20, 11:22 PM
i really divided on the matter i think android has a possibility of surpassing iphone market share only because android platform is on more then just 1 smart phone. However iphone is simplistic and has the app store which has way more developer backing then android does at the moment. Mainly because there is money to made from the app store where android simply does not have enough popularity for developers to make money from its store. I think the biggest thing hurting the iphone is the fact that it is locked on ATT. I think it needs to be on all major US cell networks or at least on verizon.
zarusoba
Aug 30, 08:48 AM
The fact is that there is no industry or organisation that does not depend on healthy ecosystems for its survival and growth. Therefore, even those who lack any moral imperative to protect the environment must surely choose to do so out of sheer logic.
Greenpeace's report is not necessarily correct. Lest we forget that old adage: "You can't believe everything you read." However, organisations like Greenpeace fulfill an essential role and provide an opening for debate and for the development of effective environmental standards.
The Montreal Protocol that prohibited CFC production is an example of a successful environmental treaty that benefits everyone by placing appropriate limitation on industry.
"Wealth can provide no shield from pollution."
Ronald Wright, "A Short History of Progress" (http://www.cbc.ca/ideas/massey/massey2004.html)
Greenpeace's report is not necessarily correct. Lest we forget that old adage: "You can't believe everything you read." However, organisations like Greenpeace fulfill an essential role and provide an opening for debate and for the development of effective environmental standards.
The Montreal Protocol that prohibited CFC production is an example of a successful environmental treaty that benefits everyone by placing appropriate limitation on industry.
"Wealth can provide no shield from pollution."
Ronald Wright, "A Short History of Progress" (http://www.cbc.ca/ideas/massey/massey2004.html)
torbjoern
Apr 23, 09:54 PM
You do not think it takes any faith to say that NO God exists? Or that NO supernatural power exists? That you can 100% prove a lack of God?
Frankly, it doesn't take much faith to claim that nothing and no-one stands above nature (i.e. being supernatural). Everything we can see is derived from nature. Status quo should be that there is no God - in the sense of an almighty God who stands above nature, far less a God by whom nature would be created and defined. Where would God come from then? You see - we might as well accept that the laws of nature are the highest order in the entire universe. If there are spiritual entities which stand above us humans, they do certainly not stand above these laws. It doesn't make sense, and was never even supposed to make sense to the human mind in the first place (ask any priest about the latter, he will confirm it).
Why should I believe something which isn't even supposed to make sense to me?
Frankly, it doesn't take much faith to claim that nothing and no-one stands above nature (i.e. being supernatural). Everything we can see is derived from nature. Status quo should be that there is no God - in the sense of an almighty God who stands above nature, far less a God by whom nature would be created and defined. Where would God come from then? You see - we might as well accept that the laws of nature are the highest order in the entire universe. If there are spiritual entities which stand above us humans, they do certainly not stand above these laws. It doesn't make sense, and was never even supposed to make sense to the human mind in the first place (ask any priest about the latter, he will confirm it).
Why should I believe something which isn't even supposed to make sense to me?
aiqw9182
Apr 12, 10:19 PM
They should have just called this iMovie pro, because that's what it is. So, Apple Color is left to die the death of Shake, huh? Wow, crazy. I bet Avid is pretty thrilled with this. It's almost like they said "Let's leave the big installs to Avid"
It's iMovie Pro yet it retains all features of the previous Final Cut and then some in a modern UI with massive performance gains? OK bro, whatever helps you sleep at night.
It's iMovie Pro yet it retains all features of the previous Final Cut and then some in a modern UI with massive performance gains? OK bro, whatever helps you sleep at night.
No comments:
Post a Comment