Jump to content

TheSage79

Member
  • Posts

    31
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Reputation Activity

  1. Agree
    TheSage79 got a reaction from thechinchinsong in October 18th Apple Event - Unleashed - Apple Silicon, MacBook Pro upgrades, HomePod mini, AirPods 3rd Generation   
    A lot of people seem to misunderstand what the purpose of vRAM really is. vRAM isn't some grand innovation to speed up graphics, its a stop gap measure because of the inefficiencies of a typical PC's memory structure. The whole reason it exists is because regular RAM had to be channeled through the CPU's memory controller and then to the GPU back through the CPU and then back to the RAM if the GPU wanted to use RAM - which is very inefficient. The PC's solution? Give the GPU its own RAM so it doesn't have to do that. Unified memory on the other hand basically bypasses this by letting the GPU have direct access to the systems RAM - much more efficient. This also means that the RAM itself can function as a communication channel between the CPU and GPU. The catch? Unified Memory (and the OS) has to coordinate the CPU's and GPU's calls to the RAM correctly to realize these gains meaning the RAM (currently) basically has to be built in to the system and can't be modified. The PC's architecture, on the other hand, can be customized however the user wants it.  
     
    For the record, Apple didn't come up with the concept of unified memory. The concept is as old as the hills. 
  2. Agree
    TheSage79 got a reaction from rikitikitavi in October 18th Apple Event - Unleashed - Apple Silicon, MacBook Pro upgrades, HomePod mini, AirPods 3rd Generation   
    A lot of people seem to misunderstand what the purpose of vRAM really is. vRAM isn't some grand innovation to speed up graphics, its a stop gap measure because of the inefficiencies of a typical PC's memory structure. The whole reason it exists is because regular RAM had to be channeled through the CPU's memory controller and then to the GPU back through the CPU and then back to the RAM if the GPU wanted to use RAM - which is very inefficient. The PC's solution? Give the GPU its own RAM so it doesn't have to do that. Unified memory on the other hand basically bypasses this by letting the GPU have direct access to the systems RAM - much more efficient. This also means that the RAM itself can function as a communication channel between the CPU and GPU. The catch? Unified Memory (and the OS) has to coordinate the CPU's and GPU's calls to the RAM correctly to realize these gains meaning the RAM (currently) basically has to be built in to the system and can't be modified. The PC's architecture, on the other hand, can be customized however the user wants it.  
     
    For the record, Apple didn't come up with the concept of unified memory. The concept is as old as the hills. 
  3. Informative
    TheSage79 got a reaction from Bensemus in October 18th Apple Event - Unleashed - Apple Silicon, MacBook Pro upgrades, HomePod mini, AirPods 3rd Generation   
    A lot of people seem to misunderstand what the purpose of vRAM really is. vRAM isn't some grand innovation to speed up graphics, its a stop gap measure because of the inefficiencies of a typical PC's memory structure. The whole reason it exists is because regular RAM had to be channeled through the CPU's memory controller and then to the GPU back through the CPU and then back to the RAM if the GPU wanted to use RAM - which is very inefficient. The PC's solution? Give the GPU its own RAM so it doesn't have to do that. Unified memory on the other hand basically bypasses this by letting the GPU have direct access to the systems RAM - much more efficient. This also means that the RAM itself can function as a communication channel between the CPU and GPU. The catch? Unified Memory (and the OS) has to coordinate the CPU's and GPU's calls to the RAM correctly to realize these gains meaning the RAM (currently) basically has to be built in to the system and can't be modified. The PC's architecture, on the other hand, can be customized however the user wants it.  
     
    For the record, Apple didn't come up with the concept of unified memory. The concept is as old as the hills. 
  4. Agree
    TheSage79 got a reaction from RockSolid1106 in October 18th Apple Event - Unleashed - Apple Silicon, MacBook Pro upgrades, HomePod mini, AirPods 3rd Generation   
    Apple had me literally drooling over their new laptops right up until they announced the prices... YIKES! I will stick with my regular M1 MacBook Pro. 
  5. Funny
    TheSage79 got a reaction from leadeater in October 18th Apple Event - Unleashed - Apple Silicon, MacBook Pro upgrades, HomePod mini, AirPods 3rd Generation   
    Apple had me literally drooling over their new laptops right up until they announced the prices... YIKES! I will stick with my regular M1 MacBook Pro. 
  6. Like
    TheSage79 got a reaction from leadeater in October 18th Apple Event - Unleashed - Apple Silicon, MacBook Pro upgrades, HomePod mini, AirPods 3rd Generation   
    A lot of people seem to misunderstand what the purpose of vRAM really is. vRAM isn't some grand innovation to speed up graphics, its a stop gap measure because of the inefficiencies of a typical PC's memory structure. The whole reason it exists is because regular RAM had to be channeled through the CPU's memory controller and then to the GPU back through the CPU and then back to the RAM if the GPU wanted to use RAM - which is very inefficient. The PC's solution? Give the GPU its own RAM so it doesn't have to do that. Unified memory on the other hand basically bypasses this by letting the GPU have direct access to the systems RAM - much more efficient. This also means that the RAM itself can function as a communication channel between the CPU and GPU. The catch? Unified Memory (and the OS) has to coordinate the CPU's and GPU's calls to the RAM correctly to realize these gains meaning the RAM (currently) basically has to be built in to the system and can't be modified. The PC's architecture, on the other hand, can be customized however the user wants it.  
     
    For the record, Apple didn't come up with the concept of unified memory. The concept is as old as the hills. 
  7. Agree
    TheSage79 got a reaction from WereCat in October 18th Apple Event - Unleashed - Apple Silicon, MacBook Pro upgrades, HomePod mini, AirPods 3rd Generation   
    A lot of people seem to misunderstand what the purpose of vRAM really is. vRAM isn't some grand innovation to speed up graphics, its a stop gap measure because of the inefficiencies of a typical PC's memory structure. The whole reason it exists is because regular RAM had to be channeled through the CPU's memory controller and then to the GPU back through the CPU and then back to the RAM if the GPU wanted to use RAM - which is very inefficient. The PC's solution? Give the GPU its own RAM so it doesn't have to do that. Unified memory on the other hand basically bypasses this by letting the GPU have direct access to the systems RAM - much more efficient. This also means that the RAM itself can function as a communication channel between the CPU and GPU. The catch? Unified Memory (and the OS) has to coordinate the CPU's and GPU's calls to the RAM correctly to realize these gains meaning the RAM (currently) basically has to be built in to the system and can't be modified. The PC's architecture, on the other hand, can be customized however the user wants it.  
     
    For the record, Apple didn't come up with the concept of unified memory. The concept is as old as the hills. 
  8. Agree
    TheSage79 got a reaction from TechGod in Alienware no longer shipping high end gaming PCs to certain US States, citing new power consumption regulations   
    This one is really on Dell, not the state of California. Dell was literally IN the group who decided these standards - they have zero excuse for following the standards they helped create. They should stop buying cheap, proprietary, power supplies for their systems. As for California, I think it is a good standard. All it does is ensure that computer systems that are in their low power states are actually in a low power state that is meaningful. It doesn't limit what computers can do when they are active. If you want to run your system at 2000 watts while active, then California is fine with that. Its only when the computer is in a lower power state that California steps in and says, "That better actually be a low power state"
  9. Agree
    TheSage79 got a reaction from divito in Judge delivers split decision on Epic vs Apple - more positive than negative for Epic   
    A couple of things...
     
    1) The judge never decreed any such thing. You have a fundamental misunderstanding of what a TRO is if you think that. Judges simply don't make those kinds of decrees with a TRO. The judge is *only* maintaining a status quo that she knows is doable for both companies until she can sort things out - nothing more. She did not, and will not, make any qualitative decrees on the legal questions of the case, for a long time to come.
     
    2) For Epic to prevail in its lawsuit, Epic would have to prove that the original contract, under normal conditions, is anti-trust. Epic can't just can't arbitrarily break its contract with Apple (like they did) and then complain that Apple practices anti-trust because Apple broke off its business relationship with them for being a bad actor. No anti-trust law gives Epic the right to break its contract. Epic is the legally the bad actor here (has the unclean hands as the lawyers would say) and therefore the UE problem is a problem entirely of Epic's own making. Epic is perfectly able to resolve any problems with UE development by simply getting back in compliance with the contract they originally agreed to - Apple even said so itself in its own filing. In fact, theoretically speaking, Epic's UE customers could sue Epic to get an injunction against Epic to force Epic to do just that. Remember, just as Apple has a monopoly over iOS, Epic has a Monopoly over the UE. Its not like there are a bunch of competing 3D engines out there for them to choose from. 
  10. Agree
    TheSage79 got a reaction from EChondo in Apple threatens to kill Unreal Engine on iOS, Fornite may never return   
    Legally speaking, if you make a market small enough, every company has a monopoly over something - which is not illegal. Let me explain...
     
    Linus Tech Tips has a monopoly over all LTT videos when you "shrink" the online video market to include only LTT content. Best Buy has a monopoly over all Best buy sales when you "shrink" the electronics store market to only Best Buy stores. Apple has a monopoly over the iOS App Market when you "shrink" the Smart Phone market to be only iPhones. Etc etc etc. You can always "shrink" a market to create a monopoly. The legal question that will be considered is if Apples App Store constitutes a "harmful monopoly". Chances are, Epic has quite an uphill battle to win this case.
     
    Consider the following:
    1) Epic *does* have a market choice when it comes to the Smart Phone Market. They can skip iPhone and just go Android. The fact that Android has higher market share doesn't help Epic's case at all. Afterall, if a game developer doesn't like Microsoft's terms for the X-Box, they can simply go Sony, or vice versa. As long as both companies don't conspire to artificially force the developer to do something, the developer has a valid choice to develop for one, or the other, or both, or neither. 
     
    2) There is no precedent to force one store to provide for and contain another. Epic says it wants to create a competing app market to Apple's on iOS, but that would be like Best Buy being forced to have Microcenter kiosks - there is no precedent for that. 
     
    3) Epic has no inherent right to be allowed on Apple's platform. Again, just as Best Buy gets to choose what goes on its own shelves, Apple gets to choose what goes on its own platform. It's not as if Sony can force Best buy to carry its headphones.
     
    Long story short, Apple is perfectly within its right to control its own platform - even if it's a monopoly over its own market. Except...
     
    Where Apple may be in trouble:
    1) The fact that Apple has conditions in its terms of service which dictate prices outside of the iPhone market gives the terms a good chance of being considered "harmful" interference in other markets. It is not as if Best Buy can force Sony to sell its headphones at a certain price on Sony's own website. This is probably Epics best legal argument. 
     
    2) Apple does not allow apps to advertise a "suggested retail price" or the software app equivalent. Its not as if Best Buy can dictate whats on Sony's own packaging - even if they want to put a suggested retail price 
     
    Again, not taking sides here. Just some legal insight. 
     
  11. Like
    TheSage79 got a reaction from Junel in Apple threatens to kill Unreal Engine on iOS, Fornite may never return   
    Actually, it hurts Epic's legal argument. Let me explain...
     
    Epic, like all developers, essentially entered into a contract with Apple when it joined Apple's iOS App Store. Remember, in the law, a contract is a contract is a contract. When Epic put that extra payment option in Fortnight, and this is key here, it *willfully* violated that contract. Apple, in response to this violation, and again that fact that it was a *willful* violation is key here, then started to enforce the terms of the contract by fulfilling the consequences laid out in the terms of the contract. Remember, due to precedent, Apple basically has to enact the consequences of its terms because if it doesn't, it *may* lose its ability to due so in the future. (Basically, this precedent protects contractees from a company having a term in a contract it does not generally enforce, but suddenly decides to enforce, by allowing the contractee to argue that the company never intended said term to be enforced in such a way because company had never enforced it that way before when given the opportunity).
     
    Simply put, the fact that Epic *willfully* violated the contract, and not Apple, means that this is a situation is entirely of Epic's own creation. (I might add, the fact they had a publicity campaign and a 60 page legal document prepared before hand really doesn't help them here). Since there is nothing stopping Epic from suing Apple for anti-trust, while adhering to its legal obligations under the contract with Apple, the courts will generally consider this is a self inflicted wound if you will. In almost all circumstances I am aware of, Courts have never allowed for injunctions to stop self inflicted wounds by the litigants. In fact, if anything, any company who stands to suffer harm due to Epic's breach of contract, including Apple, stands a decent (though not certain) chance of getting an injunction against Epic, forcing Epic to stop willfully violating its contract. Apple, in its own court response to Epic's injunction request, even said it would allow all of Epic's properties back on the App store, even during the entirety of the lawsuit, so long as Epic stopped willfully violating its legal obligations under the contract - thus giving Epic a perfect remedy to the situation. Because this situation is entirely of Epics own creation, and because Apple has offered Epic a perfect remedy, I give this injunction about a 5% chance of success - though no one knows for certain how any judge will rule. 
     
    Not taking sides here, just throwing out some legal insight. 
  12. Agree
    TheSage79 got a reaction from TopHatProductions115 in can Mac users be tech savvy   
    I can't speak for anyone else, but I live completely inside the Apple ecosystem because I am tech savy (I help develop and test industrial electronics). When I get home from work, the absolute last thing I want to deal with is some stupid tech problem like a Windows update that doesn't work, GPU driver issue, Android power management bug, or whatever. Apple, for all its restrictiveness (and dat price), has done a fantastic job of building a "just works" ecosystem that does everything I need it to and requires little to no interference from me. I can just go home, work on my computer, make phones calls in my iPhone, listen to my music on my HomePod, without any hassles. Even if I do run into an issue, I have an Apple Store about 10 minutes away by car where I can just drop off the offending component and pick it up a few days later fixed. Its not that I can't build my own systems, we do that at my workplace all the time; its just that when I get home, I just don't want too. 
×