New Clovertown 8-Core

What new capabilities does this 8-core architecture bring?

On a single core processor, instructions for the CPU are put onto a stack, and executed one instruction at a time. With multiple processors, or multiple cores, instructions can be executed in parallel. (Note: this is not going to mean that instructions are executed any faster. The processing cores still run a 3.0Ghz, it simply means that more instructions can be processed at once).
So for example, if your iDVD encode is maxing out Core 1, things you do in the background can be relegated to Core 2, and won't have to wait in line to be processed. So yes, multiple core processing does open itself up to multi-tasking better than single core.
But please be aware that multi-threading software is an incredibly complex topic. Programs have to be specfically written to take advantage of multiple cores, which is a very challenging thing to do. There are also tons of little hardware details involving memory and bus speed/access that are involved in making sure each processor works as advertised. It's really not as simple as saying eight 3.0Ghz processors delivers eight times the performance of one 3.0Ghz processor.
From watching the processor load on my quad core using Compressor, it seems that programs are mostly likely to evenly distribute load over all 4 cores.
Mac Pro 2.66Ghz - 3GBs RAM - X1900XT   Mac OS X (10.4.8)  

Similar Messages

  • Who has a brand spanking new MacBook Pro Core 2 Duo?  Comments?

    Hi,
    Ok, it's been almost 3 months since I posted a similar post asking for experiences with the new MacBook Pro Core 2 Duo.
    Please let me know how things are working, whether you went 5400 or 7200 internal (my main concern), pros and cons, size of screen (15" or 17"), etc...
    Got my eyes on a 17", but don't know which internal to do.
    Thanks!
    PS - I may go iMac 24" (because it has Firewire 800) and keep this ol' PB G4 1 gightz for portability... thoughts?

    If you want to use Logic, then 15 inch screen is a must. There is not enough > space on the 13 inch to view Logic, especially when you open the soft synths.
    well yes... or, in my case, the 15 inch screen was still not enough so I went for the 17. it has exactly the same res as the 20" cinema display which I was already used to with logic, so I'm happy. plus I never use this machine as my laptop to carry around (I kept my powerbook for that) so I didn't need to compromise on getting something that was still not too big to be a comfortable laptop. but I think if you do want to work with logic effectively and still have a laptop that's a practical size to use as a general laptop, the 15" is the right choice.
    what internal speed drive did you go with? 5400 or 7200
    I went for the 7200rpm drive. have you read all the information out there on the net about the new PMR technology that's used on the 160/5400 and 200/4200 drive options in the MBPs? there are some very comprehensive benchmarks that have been run which show that there's not as much of a dramatic difference anymore between the 7200 and the 5400. for some operations under certain conditions, the 5400 actually appeared to be faster.
    you're not planning to use the internal drive for audio though, are you?
    my reasoning for getting the 7200 drive is the following. OSX permanenty and automatically uses disk-based virtual memory just in regular operation. it is constantly creating and reading swap files, as well as just referencing little bits of whatever data that the apps and the system need to run. this VM use becomes heavier the more your actual physical RAM starts being used up. now seeing as I know that I'm going to be running heavy logic sessions, using up as much RAM as I can get with samples and just general everything.. I decided I needed to have the snappiest system drive I could get. even given the benchmarks for the PMR drives, I still felt that fast read/write access speeds and the fastest seek time possible is what I needed to have optimal performance. sure a 5400rpm PMR drive might have great specs for a lot of things. but when the system needs to be able to find whatever swap files or system resource as quickly as possible, I still think you can't beat a disk that is just physically spinning faster.
    the other thing I've done is this. when I first got the machine, I reformatted it and did my own custom install of OSX. traditional drives perform best when they are less than half full. from what I've read, anything down to 30% full is still on an improving curve, and maybe it gets better still even less full. so I scaled back the install to as lean a system as I could. I've installed only the most important apps that I need, and I definitely did not install the iwork and office trial software. after that, I used software called monolingual to remove even more language localizations (which are added with app support) on top of what I had already left out in my custom install. this got me back almost another GB of space. also, my itunes library is not on my MBP.. I've kept it on my powerbook. the only times I ever want to listen to music from my itunes library on the MBP is when the powerbook is nearby anyway, seeing as the powerbook is the only machine that I ever take anywhere. so, the library just appears in itunes on the MBP as shared music. my iphoto library is locally stored on my MBP though, because iphoto runs so much faster on this machine.. but this is the only concession to include personal files that I've made on the MBP. so, out of a 100GB system drive, I still have 62GB of free space left, and I'll keep it as close to that as I can.
    as for my project audio and my sound library, it's all on an external FW800 drive. but I'm also considering getting an e-SATA card and getting a drive for that, because it will be even faster and will free up the FW bus to have full-bandwidth use of something like liquid mix. we'll see.
    anyway, so far so good. like I said in my first post, logic is running like a demon. in general, this machine is running real fast for everything, like a fast desktop.
    but I think the problem with your question is.. it's going to be hard for anyone to be able to tell you how it would have been had they gotten a different drive. I have no idea if my system would be running logic any less fast if I'd gone with the 5400. my instincts tell me that maybe it'd have slightly less of an edge, but I can't really say. it's probably true that if I was using my 7200 drive less cautiously than I am, and that it was getting close to full, then it would probably slow down a bit more dramatically than a 5400 would have, if I had one of those and it was getting full. this is to do with the fact that higher data density on the same sized platter can mean faster seek times only when they are starting to get fuller, and also to do with aspects of how PMR disks work. but I think that a well managed and lean 7200 drive that is much more than half full will still give you a slightly perkier system than a 5400 PMR drive used at its best. there's not really any way I can know this for sure though.
    end of the day, I don't honestly think logic would run like a dog with a 5400rpm PMR drive. but if you want the absolute best performance you can get, you're better off keeping a lean system drive, trying to keep it at least only half full or better.. and then using a fast external for your projects and sound library. in that case, I don't see the point of getting a 160GB internal drive, just so that you have more space to keep empty.
    but if you want to use the machine for multiple purposes and you could really use that extra disk space, then I still think logic will run more than fine. compared to your powerbook, there's no way you'll be dissapointed.. it's like having a dual 2.5ghz G5, if not faster, only in a less than one inch thick case that you can carry in your bag.

  • Now who has a brand new MacBook Pro Core 2 Duo?

    Hi,
    Keep checking each week or so for experiences with the new MacBook Pro Core 2 Duo.
    Please let me know how things are working, whether you went 5400 or 7200 internal, pros and cons, size of screen (15" or 17"), etc...
    Got my eyes on a 17", but don't know which internal to do.
    Thanks!

    david, to be perfectly honest I think the primary advantage of the trio is its convenience. no fuss, well thought out monitoring. a dumbed down (in terms of controls) compression and EQ section on the mono mic preamp strip. easy to use talkback, monitor switching and 2 separate headphone amps.
    the compressor and EQ do sound nice, the circuitry is lifted from their high end gear, but it's more intended just for getting a decent sound easily and quickly, I'm sure some corners were cut. the EQ bands are preset, the compression control is one knob (plus gain as another way to drive it), but it's a variable mu compressor design so it's normal that there's no threshold and attack/release settings. for what it is, it sounds nice, and I have on occasion chosen to use it over the avalon 737sp because it had the sound I wanted. it sounds good, but as a vocal producer I'm sure you know that for precision work, if its compressor and EQ don't let you tune in to just the right sweet spots in your source due to only having a single preset variable mu threshold/attack/release curve and preset HF and LF EQ, then it won't cut it on that day. you'll need more precise control.
    that said, you can bypass its comp/eq by inserting another one, so if you have your fancy rack of golden preamps and channel strips you use for single mic recording, you can stick that in the chain and just benefit from the trio's nicely implemented ease-of-use and record away using all the glorious sounding input and control you get on the channel strip of your choice.
    I've found the sound of its converters pretty good too. I haven't A/B'd it with a rosetta or with a digi 192 but I doubt it is in either of those leagues. still, it's clean. stereo field is good.
    what would you be looking at it for exactly? if it's for your idea sketchpad setup I'd say check one out, no hesitation. for that kind of use it could hardly be better. and as I mentioned above, you can effectively swap out its channel strip for the best one you have, so it can also be used for tracking of material that you will still be pleased with taking through to mix stage, for those days you aren't tracking in a 2000 dollar a day studio. even the internal comp/EQ is good enough for this if its tuning happens to gel with your source.
    one thing I have noticed though is that it's not the quietest pre in terms of hiss. not talking anything as horrible as say the cavernous white background noise of the worst mixer ever made, the yamaha pro 1? I have banished the name from memory.... it's just a subtle thing, comes up more obviously when you wind in HF EQ, obviously.. not even a real issue for rock/pop/dance vocals, maybe more so for recording your favourite baritone at carnegie hall, but you wouldn't really be bringing a small all in one tracking/monitoring box to a session like that anyway, it wouldn't pass dress code. and again, the channel strip is bypassable for a better one anyway, so bye bye to its sound, hello to the sound of your choice.
    as for build quality etc, well I think it feels a bit more solid than it looks in photos. although once or twice I had to switch it off and back on again cos the sound died, on a very hot day in a very not airconditioned room.
    anyway there you go. if you want better advice, tell me what you actually would want to use it for and I'll tell you what I think. an RME may be a better idea depending on what you need.
    btw had a look at your site. looks like you've done your share of nice work. I'd love to play you some of my vocal production work some time (part of me wants to be a vocal producer when I grow up). are you based in LA? I'll likely be there at some point in the new year on a project, always a pleasure to meet fellow music heads.
    take care,
    antonio

  • Add new item in core menu of blog - SharePoint 2013

    Hello All
    I want to insert new item in core-menu of blog using visual studio just below to "Edit". I want to achieve this using visual studio, not by Javascript.
    please find below image which will provide you detail idea.

    Hi Kedar,
    Thanks for posting your issue, Kindly browse the below URLs to get the code for your requirment. It has code for list Context Menu similarly you can add Context Menu in blogs
    http://www.sharepoint-journey.com/custom-actions-in-sharepoint-2013.html
    http://www.thorntontechnical.com/tech/sharepoint/sharepoint-2010-context-menu-item-with-custom-code#.VDvegfk0Wm4
    I hope this is helpful to you, mark it as Helpful.
    If this works, Please mark it as Answered.
    Regards,
    Dharmendra Singh (MCPD-EA | MCTS)
    Blog : http://sharepoint-community.net/profile/DharmendraSingh

  • 128-bit floating point numbers on new AMD quad-core Barcelona?

    There's quite a lot of buzz over at Slashdot about the new AMD quad core chips, announced yesterday:
    http://hardware.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/02/10/0554208
    Much of the excitement is over the "new vector math unit referred to as SSE128", which is integrated into each [?!?] core; Tom Yager, of Infoworld, talks about it here:
    Quad-core Opteron? Nope. Barcelona is the completely redesigned x86, and it’s brilliant
    Now here's my question - does anyone know what the inputs and the outputs of this coprocessor look like? Can it perform arithmetic [or, God forbid, trigonometric] operations [in hardware] on 128-bit quad precision floats? And, if so, will LabVIEW be adding support for it? [Compare here versus here.]
    I found a little bit of marketing-speak blather at AMD about "SSE 128" in this old PDF Powerpoint-ish presentation, from June of 2006:
    http://www.amd.com/us-en/assets/content_type/DownloadableAssets/PhilHesterAMDAnalystDayV2.pdf
    WARNING: PDF DOCUMENT
    Page 13: "Dual 128-bit SSE dataflow, Dual 128-bit loads per cycle"
    Page 14: "128-bit SSE and 128-bit Loads, 128b FADD, 128 bit FMUL, 128b SSE, 128b SSE"
    etc etc etc
    While it's largely just gibberish to me, "FADD" looks like what might be a "floating point adder", and "FMUL" could be a "floating point multiplier", and God forbid that the two "SSE" units might be capable of computing some 128-bit cosines. But I don't know whether that old paper is even applicable to the chip that was released yesterday, and I'm just guessing as to what these things might mean anyway.
    Other than that, though, AMD's main website is strangely quiet about the Barcelona announcement. [Memo to AMD marketing - if you've just released the greatest thing since sliced bread, then you need to publicize the fact that you've just released the greatest thing since sliced bread...]

    I posted a query over at the AMD forums, and here's what I was told.
    I had hoped that e.g. "128b FADD" would be able to do something like the following:
    /* "quad" is a hypothetical 128-bit quad precision  */
    /* floating point number, similar to "long double"  */
    /* in recent versions of C++:                       */
    quad x, y, z;
    x = 1.000000000000000000000000000001;
    y = 1.000000000000000000000000000001;
    /* the hope was that "128b FADD" could perform the  */
    /* following 128-bit addition in hardware:          */
    z = x + y;
    However, the answer I'm getting is that "128b FADD" is just a set of two 64-bit adders running in parallel, which are capable of adding two vectors of 64-bit doubles more or less simultaneously:
    double x[2], y[2], z[2];
    x[0] = 1.000000000000000000000000000001;
    y[0] = 1.000000000000000000000000000001;
    x[1] = 2.000000000000000000000000000222;
    y[1] = 2.000000000000000000000000000222;
    /* Apparently the coordinates of the two "vectors" x & y       */
    /* can be sent to "128b FADD" in parallel, and the following   */
    /* two summations can be computed more or less simultaneously: */
    z[0] = x[0] + y[0];
    z[1] = x[1] + y[1];
    Thus e.g. "128b FADD", working in concert with "128b FMUL", will be able to [more or less] halve the amount of time it takes to compute a dot product of vectors whose coordinates are 64-bit doubles.
    So this "128-bit" circuitry is great if you're doing lots of linear algebra with 64-bit doubles, but it doesn't appear to offer anything in the way of greater precision for people who are interested in precision-sensitive calculations.
    By the way, if you're at all interested in questions of precision sensitivity & round-off error, I'd highly recommend Prof Kahan's page at Cal-Berzerkeley:
    http://www.cs.berkeley.edu/~wkahan/
    PDF DOCUMENT: How JAVA's Floating-Point Hurts Everyone Everywhere
    http://www.cs.berkeley.edu/~wkahan/JAVAhurt.pdf
    PDF DOCUMENT: Matlab's Loss is Nobody's Gain
    http://www.cs.berkeley.edu/~wkahan/MxMulEps.pdf

  • I just bought a new dell quad core 5i and HAVE DOWNLOADED THE TRIAL VERSION OF PHOTO SHOP - its Slow to open up a small file and equally as slow to print why?

    HELP I just bought a new dell quad core 5i and HAVE DOWNLOADED THE TRIAL VERSION OF PHOTO SHOP - its Slow to open up a small file and equally as slow to print why?

    Use Photoshop menu Help>system Info... use its copy button and paste that info in an append here.
    Supply pertinent information for quicker answers
    The more information you supply about your situation, the better equipped other community members will be to answer. Consider including the following in your question:
    Adobe product and version number
    Operating system and version number
    The full text of any error message(s)
    What you were doing when the problem occurred
    Screenshots of the problem
    Computer hardware, such as CPU; GPU; amount of RAM; etc.

  • Generation 4 iPod Connection to new iMac intel core 2 duo

    Okay, first of all heres all my technical information:
    -new iMac Intel Core 2 Duo
    -Gen 4 iPod, non color diplay
    -running iTunes 7.0.2
    -sadly, no iPod power brick(although i think i need it to solve the problem)
    Okay, now to the problem, I tried to connect the iPod to my new iMac, and it worked after leaving it alone for 15 minutes. It is formated to windows and i wanted the music to stay on it, so i disconnected it. Afterward i just thought, screw it, and connected it hoping to restore it, but it never showed up in iTunes or the finder. I thought this was odd, then i looked at the iPod and it displayed a image of a iPod power brick going into an outlet. i havent been able to get to the apple store and thought there must be an easier way to do this, so i went to get the old install disc for my iPod that came with it. Hoping this would finally work, i tried to run the package installer for the iPod to install the drivers, and it displayed(after it evaluated my comp) "Cannot be installed on this computer, missing Mac OSX Networking Update" I've looked all over the Downloads area of the Apple site and havent been able to find it. Can someone please help me!?!

    I have the new 24" flat screen imac and a new IPOD video. I was using the ipod on an old mac with 10.4 and it was working ok with a few sync issues. But when I tried it with the new mac I get very bad results. Itunes hangs and I need to do a hard power reset. Then the ipod once hung up and I had to do a restore on my old mac. Still have not successfully used the ipod with the new mac.
    my system is the following
    Machine Name: iMac
    Machine Model: iMac6,1
    Processor Name: Intel Core 2 Duo
    Processor Speed: 2.16 GHz
    Number Of Processors: 1
    Total Number Of Cores: 2
    L2 Cache (per processor): 4 MB
    Memory: 1 GB
    Bus Speed: 667 MHz
    Boot ROM Version: IM61.0093.B01
    SMC Version: 1.10f2
    Serial Number: W86380PXWSG
    any ideas?

  • What's the Best Photoshop CS5 Scratch Disk Setup for New MacPro 12 Core?

    Hello all...
    I'm awaiting delivery of a new MacPro 12 Core with 16GB of RAM and a 512GB SSD drive (Bay1) + 2TB (Bay2) + 2TB (Bay3). Normally I would partition about 60GB of one of the 2TB drives to make an exclusive scratch disk for Photoshop to ensure optimum performance.... with the new spec MacPro and especially the new 512GB SSD, do I still need to do this..?
    Any suggestions of comments most welcome... as I want to try to get my new machine set up as best I can before I start copying over my existing data and filling hard drives etc. Photoshop CS5 and Quark Express 8 are my two core apps that I use daily.
    Regards,
    Anthony MacCarthy
    Irish MacUser and MacAddict

    ScarCrow 28 wrote:
    …Well yes, technically you've got me on that I will admit.  I'll try to rephrase to be a bit more accurate. The best scratch disk is one you don't need to rely on performance wise, by having enough RAM to handle the data performance needy tasks that would otherwise be sent to the scratch disk, when enough RAM can't be accessed by Photoshop…
    …Hows that?
    Still wrong, alas.  
    The scratch disk is used always.
    See this very short (two-message) thread:
    http://forums.adobe.com/message/2847996#2847996
    Excerpt:
    [Chris Cox writes:]
    …Photoshop needs to allocate scratch space for data, in case it needs to
    write that data to disk later -- otherwise you would randomly fail with
    "out of scratch space" in the MIDDLE of an operation…
    Furthermore, Photoshop sets the size of the scratch disk ahead of time—the instant you open an image file or create a new document—basing it on assumptions the application makes taking into account your usual, past workflow practices, your settings and the pixel dimensions of the document.
    Bottom line:  the scratch disk always plays a part.
    Do a forum search filtering the options with Chris Cox in the "Who" box, "scratch" as key word, and Photoshop Macintosh as the forum.  You'll find some enlightening reading.  Examples:
    http://forums.adobe.com/search.jspa?q=scratch&resultTypes=MESSAGE&resultTypes=COMMUNITY&pe opleEnabled=true&dateRange=all&communityID=3341&username=Chris+Cox&numResults=15&rankBy=10 001
    I'm not just insisting on arguing; I honestly want you and others to have a better Photoshop experience.  Really. 
    Wo Tai Lao Le
    我太老了

  • Install windows 7 in a new iMac 27 core i5

    Hello, someone knows how to Install windows 7 in a new iMac 27 core i5 ?

    As a new iMac hasn't got the SuperDrive, you have to buy the Apple USB SuperDrive or another external optical drive to install Windows on your computer. If you need help, print this PDF > http://manuals.info.apple.com/en_US/boot_camp_install-setup_10.7.pdf
    Also, if you have a Windows .iso file, you can use it and burn it into a USB drive. To do this, open Boot Camp Assistant and follow its steps

  • New iMac Duo Core or Newest G5 any better on Video?

    Think about buying the new G5 Duo Core processor over the current G5, I have a older G5 17" and want a new 20" to use as a music movie server in a Home Theater. I didn't see any screen issues with my model G5 that I just sold to my sister and I was in a local Apple Store and the G5 I saw, screen looked pretty **** good, no flicker or grain to the picture. In no hurry right now and I can wait awhile considering I just purchased there new MacPro Powerbook. Burning my CD using Apple Lossless, but that is for another discussion. Thanks...

    Doctor: Thanks for the input, much appreciated! Going to wait a little while till they take care of a couple of bugs that I don't want to deal with. Front Row glitch in Front Row and a few other Apps. I will wait a few months and then buy one. Besides I just bought a new Macbook Pro.
    Thanks again.
    GW

  • New 24 in. core 2 duo

    Hi, I've just bought a new 24 in. core 2 duo.
    I've installed the software, but when I check with Network Utility Info the Model Wireless Adapter shows 802.11 a/b/g no "n" any ideas.
    Thanks
    John

    Follow the instructions in KB 305074, How to tell if 802.11n-enabling software is installed.

  • IMac PowerPC G4 (OS X 10.4.11) migration to new iMac Intel Core i5 (OS X 10.7)

    I have a iMac PowerPC G4 (OS X 10.4.11) and want to migrate my files over to my new iMac Intel Core i5 (OS X 10.7). I have a FireWire 800/400 cable. Is this the correct cable? Migration assistant doesn't seem to p/u old HD but it shows on desktop of new computer. Am I doing this correctly? I can't get past where the migration assistant is looking for computer.

    You have the correct cable, use Target Disk Mode and bring all your data over to the new machine.

  • New I7 quad-core takes longer to boot up than old imac?

    Just got my new I7 quad-core last night. (Looks gorgeous, by the way.) Transferred everything over from my old 24" 2.33GHz iMac.... all is well, only had one app hiccup so far (had to reinstall iTunes for some reason).
    Anyway, did a side-by-side startup this morning, and the old iMac basically kicked the new one's butt - it started up about 50% faster.
    Does this seem right? Is there a reason the new iMac, running basically the same exact system with same apps, preferences, etc, would take longer to boot up?

    i think the new one was rebooting from a bootable backup i had created. changed that in startup disc settings... seems faster rebooting now.
    and i transferred everything over via migration assistant (allowed it to move everything upon my first startup when it asked if i wanted to transfer data from another mac)....

  • New Mac-quad core or 8 core for youth club studio...

    Hi there.
    I have some money to kit out a studio in a youth club. I'm going the Mac route and Logic pro will be one of the programs we run. Once ive spent the cash thats it, so I'm hoping to go as powerful as possible.
    I am looking at the new Nehalem quad core and 8 core models. At first I was going to opt for the 8 core (this may seem like overkill for a youth club, but I have worked with them for some years and we finally have a chance to get some really tasty kit!), but then I read the following article that suggested on paper that the 2.66ghz quad core is actually faster than the 2.26ghz 8 core;
    http://www.macworld.com/article/139507/2009/03/macpro2009.html
    I have been trying to find out if Logic Pro is a program that can make use of the extra cores. I am guessing not, but have not been able to find confirmation on this.
    Question is, for longevity and a super fast machine, what would you recommend. I could get a slightly faster quad core than the base unit, but I am guessing in the future to go up to 8 core, you would need a completely new machine pretty much rather than upgradeing. I have mostly been a PC user, so these top end macs are a bit new to me.
    Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated
    Many thanks
    Smoulders

    I disagree that Logic fully uses all 8 cores (16 including the hyperthreading cores). Logic seems to max out at 8 threads, and it is able to take advantage of hyperthread cores. The result of this is that while it uses 8 cores on an octo machine, it also uses 8 cores on a quad machine (4 cores plus 4 HT cores), and the difference between the two is considerably less than it should be.
    Hopefully soon there will be a version of Logic that uses 16 threads and takes advantage of HT on the octo machines, but in the meantime, much of the available CPU power is going unused. An octo can max out at 1600% cpu use, but logic is lucky to make it to 400%. It can reach that same level on a quad core i7. Same goes for Logic benchmarks, the difference in actual processing power isn't much, especially if the quad is at a higher clock speed.
    Anyone who has an 8 core machine can test this, there's a Processor control panel that lets you disable cores (or hyperthreading). If you disable four cores, it will just use the hyperthreading cores instead with only a minimal loss of CPU power in Logic.

  • Pointer jumps all over the screen erratically on new MacPro Quad Core

    I just powered up my new MacPro Quad Core Xeon for the first time today. For the monitor, my new Viewsonic VG2230. I noticed that my new mighty mouse was skipping all over the screen and it was hard to get the pointer on the place on the screen I wanted to click. It got much worse when I added the second monitor (Viewsonic VA1912), and didn't want to move across from one screen to another at first.
    I thought maybe it was the mouse, and put on my old Razor Pro mouse, which I know and love. Same problems. I switch USB ports still the same.
    According to Viewsonic, both monitors are compatible, and I have used the VA1912 successfully on my old PowerMac. I thought it was odd that the number of screens affected the problem, which is why I am concentrating on the monitors, but I wonder if it isn't a problem with my Mac.
    Any ideas?

    Hello g:
    Welcome to Apple discussions.
    I suspect a faulty mouse. However, try two things first. Trash a preference file (com.apple.bluetooth.plist) and restart. Reset the PRAM:
    http://support.apple.com/kb/HT1379
    Second, after assuring Apple this really was a problem, i got the ultimate insult. "If you would like to lodge a technical support ticket, we will need your credit card. This call will cost you $150.00."
    You see, I bought this thing four months ago. Apparently you only get a 90 day free call period. After that you're warranty is actually a cost per call scenario…..
    There is no Apple charge for a warranty issue and the mouse has a one year warranty. Call Applecare back (or take it to a store if they have one close to you). Unless I am badly mistaken, Apple will replace the mouse and pay for shipping both ways (I had one fail a couple of years ago myself). Do identify the call as a warranty issue.
    Barry

Maybe you are looking for