[Macworld]

Post your comments for Analysis: Intel developer forum introduces your next Mac here

[flybynight]

Not saying that we should ignore new technologies like SSDs, but for the average person, they are very expensive... and the average person is doing more and more with photos, video, etc, so 500Gb and 1Tb (or higher) hard drives are not overkill for some "consumers" these days. No mention of the 6Gb/s SATA standard or 1.5Tb or higher drives that are coming? Just going to shove the more expensive SSDs down people's throats when existing technology is more affordable and more plentiful?
That would be as silly as forcing people to pay more for alternative forms of energy today when we have tons of oil that we aren't tapping... oh wait, nevermind...

[Myslewski]

Y'know, flybynight, your "oil that we aren't tapping" comment may be more a counterpoint to your point than you may think -- that is, in the fact that it implies "Hey, why on earth should we be thinking about the future and preparing for it?"

SSDs may not -- yet -- be affordable for Joe and Jane user, but think of the immense power savings that a bank of SLC SSDs in a high-traffic data center could provide.

But, hey, we have all that oil and coal, why should we even think about saving power -- right, Mr. Fly?

[flybynight]

My first line said that I do NOT think we should ignore new technologies. It does not at all imply that we should not think about and prepare for the future... that's just what you read into it. What it says is "why should we hobble ourselves with higher prices now, when it's not necessary?" If we can save money now by using cheap, available sources, then we'll have more money to invest into bringing new technologies to market. Instead, you want to force everyone into using unproven, costly methods and lower everyone's standard of living... especially those of lower income who's energy costs are a significant percentage of their take-home pay.
My point was not at all that we shouldn't be researching and preparing... just that we shouldn't be forcing it on people before it's ready. But, hey, maybe I'm just backwards in my thinking that people should have a choice.
When the technology is viable and competitive on it's own, it will work. Until then, it's too costly and will prevent other technology from emerging if we are forced to use it.
For your data center example, the article states that the server-grade drive capacity is going to lag for quite a while, so you would have to have a lot more drives to get the same capacity. The cost would be huge and the power savings would be negative. Someday it will happen and it will be great. And I'll be glad that I saved my money by buying magnetic platter drives while the SSD tech was still emerging.
I only hope that I can have the same choice with the energy for my family.

[iollmann]

Ah, but you are ignoring the cost of drilling for more oil. Wouldn't it be better to spend that money on alternative energy now, rather than spend it on oil, then spend more money on the alternative energy that everyone knows we need? More importantly, once you extract the oil for fuel, it will inevitably be converted to CO2. If you leave it in the ground, it wont be. Once the oil is burned, it is very costly to put the genie back in the bottle again, so better not to burn it in the first place. Personally, I'd rather build a strong domestic alternative energy industry that is a source of GDP, rather than import bajillions of barrels that add to the trade deficit.

This is all highly irrelevant to the article at hand, and the list Moms would be entirely justified to remove this whole conversation from the article comments.

[Frumius]

Flyb, you will and do have that choice for your family. Are you out buying expensive hybrids or electric cars and keeping America's oil dependence down, or are you driving an SUV or other pure gas vehicle? You have that choice now, and others will pave the way for you by buying those budding new technologies. Consumers buying the new technologies pays for them; using the old technologies does not pay for them.
It's wishful thinking when you say, "If we can save money now by using cheap, available sources, then we'll have more money to invest into bringing new technologies to market." Who is this "we?" Clearly it's not you. I think you meant that manufacturers will put money toward making SSD's cheaper for you while you continue to use the old technology. In reality, it's the consumers who fund it.
Remember when that DVD burner that comes in practically all computers used to cost $400 or $500 all by itself? Remember how much CD burners used to cost before that? People buying them are the ones who paid for the maturation of those technologies. Those tech pioneers and nerds jumped in and paid big, thus helping fund the technology, while those who waited were able to finally buy the devices cheaply. Those who waited didn't help fund the technology, but then they didn't have the drives early, either.
I just hope there are enough forward-looking people making our energy policies. Oil and coal are dead ends. So are hard drives.

[kyle988]

Intel may want everyone to Move to IPv6, but there is a reason no one has moved to it. No one can understand the darn addressing scheme!!!!
Im studying Networking Technology at my Community College part time and they refuse to teach courses on IPv6 because not even the networking instructors can grasp its concepts well enough to use it, let alone teach it.
So until someone can come up with a better, easier to understand version of IP its not going to see widespread adoption.

[adobephile]

Aside from all this silly quibbling over these new technologies being too expensive or too hard to understand (gimme a break), I'm excited about them as well as their potential impact and benefit they'll have on our daily lives.
It seems that Apple and Intel are together poised to be offering some significant new products and technologies in the near future which promise to keep rocking our respective worlds for the better (assuming we take advantage of them in positive, constructive ways).

[JakeB]

Oh, crap. I was gonna buy a new MacBook Pro, but now I'll wait over a year for Nahalem to debut - it'll be a much faster computer for the money.
Wait! What was I thinking when I wrote that last sentence??? Forget Nahalem -- Larrabee's gonna kick its ass. I should wait til 2010, maybe early 2011, then I'll have a REALLY powerful computer.
So glad I found this article before buying.
Jake

[ukmacuser]

Macworld said:

Now that memory is no longer flowing over the FSB, Intel decided to dump it and replace it with what it calls the QuickPath Interconnect (QPI). I could talk for an hour about the glories of this fine technology...

Please don't...this is starting to sound like an Intel promotional piece. As for "radical" technology...isn't moving the memory controller into the microprocessor something AMD did years ago with the Athlon?

Quote

Very fast: around 25.6GB per second?that?s more than twice the speed of the Mac Pro?s 1600MHz FSB. Bottom line: You guessed it?a Nahalem-based Mac will be fast. Very fast.

The proof of the pudding is in the eating. No doubt it will be faster, but how many times have we seen theoretical figures that bear no relation to real-world benchmarks. Let's see what happens when we have many-core CPUs being asked to handle applications with little capacity for multi-threading optimization because they are based on 2+ year-old code bases. That and various other non-CPU bottlenecks will probably dilute the boost of the faster front-end buses when it comes to proper benchmarks.

Quote

Mac OS X, by the way, is already IPv6-capable. Ah, Apple ? always one step ahead of the pack.

Yes, because everyone knows that there are no other IPv6-capable OS available...and haven't been for years. Sheeesh....pass me the sickbag!

[flybynight]

Quote

Personally, I'd rather build a strong domestic alternative energy industry that is a source of GDP, rather than import bajillions of barrels that add to the trade deficit.

I'd rather produce bajillions of barrels of oil here to reduce the trade deficit, maybe export a little and let the oil/energy companies make money so they can invest in new options.

Quote

Flyb, you will and do have that choice for your family. Are you out buying expensive hybrids or electric cars and keeping America's oil dependence down, or are you driving an SUV or other pure gas vehicle?

Hybrids and electric cars are not that much better yet. I just looked at some hybrids on the lot this weekend... the mileage was no better than the same vehicle that runs on "pure gas" - actually a little worse than the 4-cylinder version! So, right now, I could make that choice for a hybrid and people would THINK that I am "greener" but I would in fact be using more gas and would have spent more money for the vehicle upfront. Not the most practical solution.

Quote

Who is this "we?" Clearly it's not you.

This "we" is everyone in our country. If we are forced to pay for more for solutions that aren't ready, "we" as a nation will be less strong, financially. Emerging countries like China, Russia, India, etc have no interest in expensive, alternative energy and they will march right past us if we are all paying double for our energy.

Quote

Oil and coal are dead ends. So are hard drives.

Back on topic, I think you under-estimate how far behind SSD technology is. And the fact that hard drives are not slowing down, much less dead. They keep getting larger and cheaper.
To sum up... competing technologies are a great thing, but look at all of the options and decide what is best for you, not what "progressive" people tell you is right. Just because something is new, doesn't mean that it's better until it can actually prove itself.

[MrLarrity]

To fly and everyone else in this forum, each of you have valid points of view on the use of energy and emerging tech, as result, all of you sound highly intelligent. However, points of view are relative based on where you stand currently. I personally like how fly pointed out how emerging tech can have adverse effects on the poor.

I know that each of us here is at least middle class, (thus the Mac ownership and pride). I am new to the Mac family (June purchase of a Macbook and free iPod Touch) and very proud to be. I also know that I am comfortablly middle class and can embrace new tech easily at my liesure. Unfortunately many Americans can not join in on the fun of SSD's and purchasing costly hybrid cars. I know that we all should, for many longterm reasons, but if you are lower income or working class it is a struggle.

I was born working class to a single mom who struggled to get me to where I am now. My point is, poor people live day to day. There is not much room to look far ahead because the daily goal is survival. Fly is not among the poor, but he obviously has the mindset of save money now, or just survive while looking forward to a time when the tech is more affordable.

There is nothing wrong with fly's perspective as a realist. He may be miss-guided on a few points, but his intent is clear. I wish that instead of fighting over everyone choosing a side, that we find a way to locate compromises between the two points of view.

The area of compromise is where real progress is put into motion. I am impressed by the intellect of all of you, as you give me true hope for the future.

[flybynight]

Well said, MrL!
And that's the great thing about this country... we can have different points of view, exchange them freely and not worry about being shot or blown up most of the time. I'm just glad that we are in a position to have these debates. I have my points of view (and feel strongly about them) and others have theirs. It's good to hear the "other" side from time to time, no matter which side of an issue you are on. Thanks everyone for the spirited volley... and sorry to the MW forum police for sidetracking the forum so much with my one-line zinger! ;^)

[n8mac]

I also echo the sentiments of MrLarrity. I would love an SSD, a Lexus hybrid, or even a new Prius. But the fact is I can't afford them. That doesn't mean when I buy a hard drive or gas guzzler that that's my vote.
Also note that it would take several SSD's to equal the capacity of one new hard drive. The price difference in those terms is huge. I think it is safe to say that is the number one factor in it's adoption.