millerb7
May 6, 07:26 AM
Of course they will move to ARM, everyone will. Google is allready running their data centres on ARM based servers, Windows 8 will run on ARM as well, Apple is investing huge amount of money into their A4, A5 chips. The main problem of computers nowadays is power efficiency and not computing power, because most of the computers allready are overpowerd for what their users usually do with them.
Citation needed. Especially in light of this 2 month old article :
Intel, Google Doubt ARM and Atom Have Chances in Servers (http://www.cpu-wars.com/2011/03/intel-google-doubt-arm-and-atom-have.html)
And how did you go from that acquisition to "Google are running their datacenters on ARM" might I ask ?
Not to mention my article is 2 months old, yours is more than 1 year old. ;)
Nope, you'll have to retract your "facts". As far as we know, Google doesn't run their datacenters on ARM at all.
Best response of the whole thread.
Yeah... ARM servers are like JUST coming to light... let alone actually being used by google in their data centers... that won't come for YEARS.
Hell the CEO even says so...
Arm Holdings chief executive officer Warren East told EE Times Wednesday that servers based on ARM multicore processors should arrive within the next twelve months. The news confirms previous speculation stemming from Google's acquisition of Agnilux and a recent job advertisement posted by Microsoft. East said that the current architecture, designed for client-side computing, can also be used in server applications.
"The architecture can support server application as it is," he said while discussing the company's first quarter financial results. "The implementations [of ARM] have traditionally been aimed at relatively low performance optimized for minimum power consumption. But we are seeing higher speed, multicore implementations now pushing up to 2 GHz. The main difference for a server processor is the addition of high-speed communications interfaces."
Can ARM stand up against rivals Intel and AMD in the server market? In regards to raw processing power, the current ARM processors can't compete with x86. But with a growing concern to reduce the amount of energy consumed by servers and server farms, ARM processors pose as a viable candidate, especially the multi-core options in the higher range.
"We are seeing people experimenting with multiple ARM cores on a chip," East said. "They have the option to use our A9 at 2 GHz, and four cores. So people can do server experiments with the existing technology at the high-end of the road-map."
East did not elaborate on the parties considering ARM-based servers. Softpedia also points out that there was also no indication that the company plans to go head to head with Intel's Xeon and AMD's Opteron series. Instead ARM may limit its options to the print and storage server market.
Citation needed. Especially in light of this 2 month old article :
Intel, Google Doubt ARM and Atom Have Chances in Servers (http://www.cpu-wars.com/2011/03/intel-google-doubt-arm-and-atom-have.html)
And how did you go from that acquisition to "Google are running their datacenters on ARM" might I ask ?
Not to mention my article is 2 months old, yours is more than 1 year old. ;)
Nope, you'll have to retract your "facts". As far as we know, Google doesn't run their datacenters on ARM at all.
Best response of the whole thread.
Yeah... ARM servers are like JUST coming to light... let alone actually being used by google in their data centers... that won't come for YEARS.
Hell the CEO even says so...
Arm Holdings chief executive officer Warren East told EE Times Wednesday that servers based on ARM multicore processors should arrive within the next twelve months. The news confirms previous speculation stemming from Google's acquisition of Agnilux and a recent job advertisement posted by Microsoft. East said that the current architecture, designed for client-side computing, can also be used in server applications.
"The architecture can support server application as it is," he said while discussing the company's first quarter financial results. "The implementations [of ARM] have traditionally been aimed at relatively low performance optimized for minimum power consumption. But we are seeing higher speed, multicore implementations now pushing up to 2 GHz. The main difference for a server processor is the addition of high-speed communications interfaces."
Can ARM stand up against rivals Intel and AMD in the server market? In regards to raw processing power, the current ARM processors can't compete with x86. But with a growing concern to reduce the amount of energy consumed by servers and server farms, ARM processors pose as a viable candidate, especially the multi-core options in the higher range.
"We are seeing people experimenting with multiple ARM cores on a chip," East said. "They have the option to use our A9 at 2 GHz, and four cores. So people can do server experiments with the existing technology at the high-end of the road-map."
East did not elaborate on the parties considering ARM-based servers. Softpedia also points out that there was also no indication that the company plans to go head to head with Intel's Xeon and AMD's Opteron series. Instead ARM may limit its options to the print and storage server market.
iliketyla
Mar 29, 04:09 PM
Yeah while talking about Japan's protectionism of their agricultural production really adds to the topic of discussion... cause everyone here who clicks on this thread via the main page wants to hear about Japan's agriculture.
Let's "evolve" the thread to encompass kamikaze pilots, kabuki theatre, zen Buddhism, sushi and whale hunting too...:rolleyes:
Well the beauty of this is that you don't make the rules. So if a topic changes and people want to talk about, simply disregard the comments.
;)
Let's "evolve" the thread to encompass kamikaze pilots, kabuki theatre, zen Buddhism, sushi and whale hunting too...:rolleyes:
Well the beauty of this is that you don't make the rules. So if a topic changes and people want to talk about, simply disregard the comments.
;)
Moyank24
May 3, 11:13 PM
I don't know what you guys mean by leaders. We make our decisions individually in the thread, right?
Interactions with the Game Masters:
All heroes interact in the thread. If they split up, they all have telepathic powers, given to them by the Wizard, so they know what is happening with the other team. A leader will be designated by the team at the beginning of the game (and at the time of a split) who will report to the Game Masters the desired actions. The rules state that actions will be taken with a vote, but the Game Masters will not keep track, they will trust the designated leader. If drama ensues, this is a desired possible result. Honesty is obviously highly desired.
From the OP
So we really need to vote on a leader so we can get this thing moving forward. If you don't want to split up, I suggest voting for someone other than DP
Interactions with the Game Masters:
All heroes interact in the thread. If they split up, they all have telepathic powers, given to them by the Wizard, so they know what is happening with the other team. A leader will be designated by the team at the beginning of the game (and at the time of a split) who will report to the Game Masters the desired actions. The rules state that actions will be taken with a vote, but the Game Masters will not keep track, they will trust the designated leader. If drama ensues, this is a desired possible result. Honesty is obviously highly desired.
From the OP
So we really need to vote on a leader so we can get this thing moving forward. If you don't want to split up, I suggest voting for someone other than DP
Multimedia
Aug 2, 11:40 PM
you act like the Core Duo (Yonah) is terribly slower than Core 2 Duo (Merom), but benchmarks have showed that they are very similar in performance. i don't see the big deal about upgrading all of them now, when the current chip has plenty of powerSorry. That was not the intent of my meaning. I agree with you. But now that Core 2 are shipping, the 64-bit character of this new generation of processors will in the long term make a difference in the OS as well as in the Pro apps. There are also large energy management differences between Yonah and Merom giving the portables noticably longer battery life immediately.
KnightWRX
Apr 23, 05:18 PM
Instead of pixel based images that are just bigger, why not simply ship vector based icons/wallpapers ?
KDE supported SVG as a format for wallpapers and icons something like 10 years ago... That way, it doesn't matter what the display resolution is, the icon always looks sharp and non-pixelated.
I'd rather Apple work on making SVG the standard graphics format for graphics ressources than just bumping up the pixel count (and the file size!).
Heck, if they don't like SVG (which is just a bunch of XML), they could go with one of the other vector based image formats or come up with one of their own.
KDE supported SVG as a format for wallpapers and icons something like 10 years ago... That way, it doesn't matter what the display resolution is, the icon always looks sharp and non-pixelated.
I'd rather Apple work on making SVG the standard graphics format for graphics ressources than just bumping up the pixel count (and the file size!).
Heck, if they don't like SVG (which is just a bunch of XML), they could go with one of the other vector based image formats or come up with one of their own.
mi5moav
Sep 11, 09:11 AM
Can't wait, especially for photokina. Hopefully, that new Apple VideoCamera will make it's appearance. I need one so badly. My brother is having a kid and I need something youtube. Can't wait Can't wait.
lilo777
Apr 18, 03:47 PM
Well isn't that just embarassing? lol 10 times the money and they can't find SHI*T :mad:
Annual revenues:
Apple - $65.23 billion (2010)
Samsung Electronics - $117.4 billion (2009)
Annual revenues:
Apple - $65.23 billion (2010)
Samsung Electronics - $117.4 billion (2009)
ZorPrime
Nov 26, 12:34 AM
[QUOTE=MikeTheC;3091231]Ok, how about this:
you read my mind! :eek: :)
you read my mind! :eek: :)
acslater017
Apr 18, 02:57 PM
couldn't Samsung simply get back at Apple by NOT making Apple's stuff? I mean, come on.
It's a two-way relationship. By "getting back" at Apple, they'd probably be giving up their biggest customer.
All of these companies are interconnected. They support each other when it's beneficial, they attack when it's beneficial. The "wars" between game consoles, HD discs, and other competitions make strange bedfellows...
It's a two-way relationship. By "getting back" at Apple, they'd probably be giving up their biggest customer.
All of these companies are interconnected. They support each other when it's beneficial, they attack when it's beneficial. The "wars" between game consoles, HD discs, and other competitions make strange bedfellows...
Macintosheux
Apr 23, 06:29 PM
We at Consomac.fr have shared this very information last Tuesday. I clearly remember sending you guys an e-mail about this. I'm very disappointed we are again not cited as original source for an exclusive news we've published... :(
Automatic English translation: http://translate.google.com/translate?js=n&prev=_t&hl=fr&ie=UTF-8&layout=2&eotf=1&sl=fr&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fconsomac.fr%2Fnews-1129.html
French original: http://consomac.fr/news-1129.html
Automatic English translation: http://translate.google.com/translate?js=n&prev=_t&hl=fr&ie=UTF-8&layout=2&eotf=1&sl=fr&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fconsomac.fr%2Fnews-1129.html
French original: http://consomac.fr/news-1129.html
Tailpike1153
Apr 21, 02:36 PM
I want to believe! (X-files reference). The death of the xServe made me a little sad. Glad to see that Apple is trying to work out alternatives. I realize that MacPro isn't a "proper" server but it does have more expansion capablities than the xServe. Perhaps the MacPro Serve 2011/2012 will give us faith in Apple.
relimw
Aug 7, 03:34 PM
Anyone drop one of these in their cart and press order yet?
Yup :)
Dual 3Ghz, 4GB ram, bluetooth/airport, everything else stock.
Yum. :)
Yup :)
Dual 3Ghz, 4GB ram, bluetooth/airport, everything else stock.
Yum. :)
fivetoadsloth
Apr 10, 07:25 PM
Mathematica 8. As far as I am concerned the most powerful math software available. People don't shell out thousands of dollars for a product that can't do basic math.
288.
288.
corywoolf
Aug 4, 01:08 AM
I'm gonna go on record and say they will NOT intro new MBP at wwdc. Some sales of the current MBP are better than none and if they they intro a new one they will not sell any and probably just take pre orders. Not gonna happen. They will wait until late August or early September to announce them when they are actually ready.
word
word
wordoflife
Mar 28, 09:56 AM
On second thought, I don't believe it. I think someone was just over analyzing this.
ECUpirate44
Mar 28, 10:39 AM
Most phone consumers do not get a new phone on the day their contracts expire. That's yet another geek misconception about how the world works.
I'd be shocked if Apple loses "many" of their customers to Android in 2011. Why on earth would they switch when they already have an iPhone that they love?
I'll give you that. I should have said "some." In any case, I still think it's something to consider.
I'd be shocked if Apple loses "many" of their customers to Android in 2011. Why on earth would they switch when they already have an iPhone that they love?
I'll give you that. I should have said "some." In any case, I still think it's something to consider.
bhtooefr
Apr 30, 10:56 PM
OK, so a few things about this that I'm seeing...
3200x2000 background: A bit odd choice of resolution, but I think they're making a 16:10 resolution that they'll crop to 16:9 for the machine with an actually 3200px wide display.
But, that does indicate a few things.
3200x1800 makes sense if you're pixel quadrupling a 1600x900 display, which is what a 15.6" 16:9 MBP at current pixel densities would be. But, it DOESN'T make sense for pixel quadrupling the 17" MBP, or any of the desktop displays.
If the 15.6" or 15.4" MBP gets this, and the 17" doesn't... that means that (and this is pure conjecture here) the 17" isn't long for the world. How well do they sell, anyway?
As for display technology supporting a pixel-quadrupled iMac, we've had the technology for a pixel-quadrupled 21.5" iMac since 2001. The IBM T221, a 3840x2400 22.2" monitor, is the same density as that theoretical display. It was $18,000 when it came out, and by the time IBM pulled the plug on IDTech, a Viewsonic-branded version of the T221, the VP2290b, was in the $4000 ballpark in 2005. So, had the T221 followed a curve influenced more by technology improvements than by the market getting saturated with unusable monitors, we'd be seeing these panels in the $2000 range nowadays, as a standalone monitor, I think.
Now, to look at all the machines that Apple has. Keep in mind that I think that only pro hardware will get this, and Apple likes to stick to around 100-110 PPI for desktops, and 110-130 PPI for laptops.
I'll go ahead and speculate on theoretical 16:9 variants of existing models, too.
MacBook Air 11.6": Currently 1366x768, 135 ppi, retina at 25.4" - would be 2732x1536, 270 ppi, retina at 12.7"
MacBook Air 13.3": Currently 1440x900, 128 ppi, retina at 26.9" - would be 2880x1800, 255 ppi, retina at 13.5"
MacBook and MacBook Pro 13.3": Currently 1280x800, 113 ppi, retina at 30.3" - would be 2560x1600, 227 ppi, retina at 15.1"
MacBook Pro 15.4" low-res: Currently 1440x900, 110 ppi, retina at 31.2" - would be 2880x1800, 221 ppi, retina at 15.6"
MacBook Pro 15.4" high-res: Currently 1680x1050, 129 ppi, retina at 26.7" - would be 3360x2100, 257 ppi, retina at 13.4"
MacBook Pro 17.0": Currently 1920x1200, 133 ppi, retina at 25.8" - would be 3840x2400, 266 ppi, retina at 12.9"
iMac 21.5": Currently 1920x1080, 102 ppi, retina at 33.6" - would be 3840x2160, 205 ppi, retina at 16.8"
iMac/Cinema Display 27": Currently 2560x1440, 109 ppi, retina at 31.6" - would be 5120x2880, 218 ppi, retina at 15.8"
Theoretical 13.3" 16:9 low-res: 1366x768, 118 ppi, retina at 29.2" - would be 2732x1536, 236 ppi, retina at 14.6"
Theoretical 13.3" 16:9 high-res: 1600x900, 138 ppi, retina at 24.9" - would be 3200x1800, 276 ppi, retina at 12.4"
Theoretical 15.6" 16:9: 1600x900, 118 ppi, retina at 29.2" - would be 3200x1800, 235 ppi, retina at 14.6"
Theoretical 17.1" 16:9: 1920x1080, 129 ppi, retina at 26.7" - would be 3840x2160, 258 ppi, retina at 13.3"
Hrm. I am noticing a problem here for getting consistent resolutions when getting 16:9 into the mix... and, interestingly, Apple stayed on 16:10 for the 13.3" MBA. So, I wonder if this could even be a red herring of some kind? Because 3200x2000 doesn't really match up with any expected 16:10 resolution...
(Current lineup can do 255-270 ppi, which is fairly tight, ignoring the 13.3" MB(P) and the low-res 15.4" MBP, but going to 16:9, either desktop area would shrink for many users (and even then, the 11.6" and 17.1" wouldn't fit in well), or there would be a wide variance in ppi.)
Another thing to consider is the $3.9 billion that Apple pumped into LCD makers... possibly to secure a supply of retina panels?
(In case you can't tell, I'm SERIOUS about my high ppi displays. Looking at a IDTech IAQX10N, a 2048x1536 15.0" 171 ppi IPS display right now, and I'm stuck on a 5 year old machine because of it. Whoever makes something roughly equivalent or better gets my business, unless they're Sony.)
3200x2000 background: A bit odd choice of resolution, but I think they're making a 16:10 resolution that they'll crop to 16:9 for the machine with an actually 3200px wide display.
But, that does indicate a few things.
3200x1800 makes sense if you're pixel quadrupling a 1600x900 display, which is what a 15.6" 16:9 MBP at current pixel densities would be. But, it DOESN'T make sense for pixel quadrupling the 17" MBP, or any of the desktop displays.
If the 15.6" or 15.4" MBP gets this, and the 17" doesn't... that means that (and this is pure conjecture here) the 17" isn't long for the world. How well do they sell, anyway?
As for display technology supporting a pixel-quadrupled iMac, we've had the technology for a pixel-quadrupled 21.5" iMac since 2001. The IBM T221, a 3840x2400 22.2" monitor, is the same density as that theoretical display. It was $18,000 when it came out, and by the time IBM pulled the plug on IDTech, a Viewsonic-branded version of the T221, the VP2290b, was in the $4000 ballpark in 2005. So, had the T221 followed a curve influenced more by technology improvements than by the market getting saturated with unusable monitors, we'd be seeing these panels in the $2000 range nowadays, as a standalone monitor, I think.
Now, to look at all the machines that Apple has. Keep in mind that I think that only pro hardware will get this, and Apple likes to stick to around 100-110 PPI for desktops, and 110-130 PPI for laptops.
I'll go ahead and speculate on theoretical 16:9 variants of existing models, too.
MacBook Air 11.6": Currently 1366x768, 135 ppi, retina at 25.4" - would be 2732x1536, 270 ppi, retina at 12.7"
MacBook Air 13.3": Currently 1440x900, 128 ppi, retina at 26.9" - would be 2880x1800, 255 ppi, retina at 13.5"
MacBook and MacBook Pro 13.3": Currently 1280x800, 113 ppi, retina at 30.3" - would be 2560x1600, 227 ppi, retina at 15.1"
MacBook Pro 15.4" low-res: Currently 1440x900, 110 ppi, retina at 31.2" - would be 2880x1800, 221 ppi, retina at 15.6"
MacBook Pro 15.4" high-res: Currently 1680x1050, 129 ppi, retina at 26.7" - would be 3360x2100, 257 ppi, retina at 13.4"
MacBook Pro 17.0": Currently 1920x1200, 133 ppi, retina at 25.8" - would be 3840x2400, 266 ppi, retina at 12.9"
iMac 21.5": Currently 1920x1080, 102 ppi, retina at 33.6" - would be 3840x2160, 205 ppi, retina at 16.8"
iMac/Cinema Display 27": Currently 2560x1440, 109 ppi, retina at 31.6" - would be 5120x2880, 218 ppi, retina at 15.8"
Theoretical 13.3" 16:9 low-res: 1366x768, 118 ppi, retina at 29.2" - would be 2732x1536, 236 ppi, retina at 14.6"
Theoretical 13.3" 16:9 high-res: 1600x900, 138 ppi, retina at 24.9" - would be 3200x1800, 276 ppi, retina at 12.4"
Theoretical 15.6" 16:9: 1600x900, 118 ppi, retina at 29.2" - would be 3200x1800, 235 ppi, retina at 14.6"
Theoretical 17.1" 16:9: 1920x1080, 129 ppi, retina at 26.7" - would be 3840x2160, 258 ppi, retina at 13.3"
Hrm. I am noticing a problem here for getting consistent resolutions when getting 16:9 into the mix... and, interestingly, Apple stayed on 16:10 for the 13.3" MBA. So, I wonder if this could even be a red herring of some kind? Because 3200x2000 doesn't really match up with any expected 16:10 resolution...
(Current lineup can do 255-270 ppi, which is fairly tight, ignoring the 13.3" MB(P) and the low-res 15.4" MBP, but going to 16:9, either desktop area would shrink for many users (and even then, the 11.6" and 17.1" wouldn't fit in well), or there would be a wide variance in ppi.)
Another thing to consider is the $3.9 billion that Apple pumped into LCD makers... possibly to secure a supply of retina panels?
(In case you can't tell, I'm SERIOUS about my high ppi displays. Looking at a IDTech IAQX10N, a 2048x1536 15.0" 171 ppi IPS display right now, and I'm stuck on a 5 year old machine because of it. Whoever makes something roughly equivalent or better gets my business, unless they're Sony.)
Chundles
Aug 3, 01:21 AM
It's not a "chintzy marketing ploy by Intel". It's a scientific test conducted by two Intel Marketing engineers which I always believe because Intel employees are honest people with families and friends who love them. :)
It's not scientific at all. No way in hell is it scientific. I should know, I'm a scientist, got a degree and everything.
I would expect Merom to show greater performance but with a similar battery life.
Unless.....Apple are bringing back the old modular battery compartments... :eek:
It's not scientific at all. No way in hell is it scientific. I should know, I'm a scientist, got a degree and everything.
I would expect Merom to show greater performance but with a similar battery life.
Unless.....Apple are bringing back the old modular battery compartments... :eek:
antic
Apr 24, 04:44 AM
Ok, I'll try this question, which is a fair question...............
Everyone says again and again, Apple does not aim for the high end.
If we put Mac Pro's to one side as they are the proper PC's of the Apple Mac world.
Let's speak about iMac's
They are Apple mass consumer, man/woman in the street computers.
They type of customers who just want to enjoy their computer and be able to get the jobs they want done in a nice and easy way.
I think that's a fair statement.
Also, as has been said, over and over and OVER again, these customers, that the iMac's are aimed at, are not Nerds, Not Tech Freaks, Not spec junkies.
They are just normal people who probably don't want to be worried about specs and to be honest as long as it looks nice and moves smoothy on screen, don't care what's inside the case.
Given this. If these "typical consumers, who don't care or really know about specs" are today, looking at their current 1920x1080 screens, or 1920x1200 screens, and they cannot see the individual pixels from their normal, let's say two feet away viewing distance, then what on earth would be the point in increasing costs, and slowing down an iMac by lumbering it with a higher resolution screen?
What is the point, for these consumers, to increase the screen resolution when they can't make out the individual pixels currently?
In the not too distant future we will be getting convertible iMac's. You have all seen the patents that Apple have applied for, where the screen tilts into a more horizontal position on your desk and is usable as a touch screen device.
When in this mode the screen will be a lot closer to your eyes and would greatly benefit from being higher resolution
Everyone says again and again, Apple does not aim for the high end.
If we put Mac Pro's to one side as they are the proper PC's of the Apple Mac world.
Let's speak about iMac's
They are Apple mass consumer, man/woman in the street computers.
They type of customers who just want to enjoy their computer and be able to get the jobs they want done in a nice and easy way.
I think that's a fair statement.
Also, as has been said, over and over and OVER again, these customers, that the iMac's are aimed at, are not Nerds, Not Tech Freaks, Not spec junkies.
They are just normal people who probably don't want to be worried about specs and to be honest as long as it looks nice and moves smoothy on screen, don't care what's inside the case.
Given this. If these "typical consumers, who don't care or really know about specs" are today, looking at their current 1920x1080 screens, or 1920x1200 screens, and they cannot see the individual pixels from their normal, let's say two feet away viewing distance, then what on earth would be the point in increasing costs, and slowing down an iMac by lumbering it with a higher resolution screen?
What is the point, for these consumers, to increase the screen resolution when they can't make out the individual pixels currently?
In the not too distant future we will be getting convertible iMac's. You have all seen the patents that Apple have applied for, where the screen tilts into a more horizontal position on your desk and is usable as a touch screen device.
When in this mode the screen will be a lot closer to your eyes and would greatly benefit from being higher resolution
daneoni
Sep 11, 11:55 AM
Not to add onto the whining about merom notebooks, but I thought people a little while back were saying they'd be coming on the apple event on the 12th...:confused:
Yeah, that was prior to the invites sent out. Jobs from experience will be pitching the movie store hard..meaning the laptop updates have to take a back seat for now. I mean they announced a 24" iMac quietly just to give you an idea of how important this is to them. Laptop updates? i wouldnt count on it...at least for now
Yeah, that was prior to the invites sent out. Jobs from experience will be pitching the movie store hard..meaning the laptop updates have to take a back seat for now. I mean they announced a 24" iMac quietly just to give you an idea of how important this is to them. Laptop updates? i wouldnt count on it...at least for now
Digital Skunk
Apr 18, 03:32 PM
Wow, that does look familiar!
It looks just like the original Palm UI....
Maybe HP should sue Samsung instead :rolleyes:
--t
Wrong... Apple didn't invent the concept of the touch UI, they bought most of what they have and own very little rights to it.
Dang it!
Ya'll beat me too it.
It's nice to know though, that there are some at Macrumors that actually KNOW where Apple got most of their "innovation" from.
And I hope no one goes mentioning the Newton . . . when a simple Wikipedia search will do.
It looks just like the original Palm UI....
Maybe HP should sue Samsung instead :rolleyes:
--t
Wrong... Apple didn't invent the concept of the touch UI, they bought most of what they have and own very little rights to it.
Dang it!
Ya'll beat me too it.
It's nice to know though, that there are some at Macrumors that actually KNOW where Apple got most of their "innovation" from.
And I hope no one goes mentioning the Newton . . . when a simple Wikipedia search will do.
M-Life
Aug 4, 12:35 PM
please let it be in the mac mini...
2nd that notion. I waited last summer for updated Ibooks and this summer for an updated mini.
At the very least, Apple is making my summers seem very very slow, and that I can't complain about.
2nd that notion. I waited last summer for updated Ibooks and this summer for an updated mini.
At the very least, Apple is making my summers seem very very slow, and that I can't complain about.
emotion
Aug 11, 10:26 AM
Quite incorrect actually. The dfifference is not minimal and this isn't just a "speed bump". If you read up on the Yonah and Merom chip architectures, you'll see that that Merom has significant architectural improvements over Yonah, including a 4MB L2 cache and most notably 64-bit support over Yonah's 32-bit support. This is very significant since Jobs is pushing Leopard and its 64-bit goodness. :cool:
I think he means it's a speed bump in terms of sales. Not technically. Though I may have him/her wrong.
I think he means it's a speed bump in terms of sales. Not technically. Though I may have him/her wrong.
tstreete
Nov 15, 08:22 AM
Now one of the remaining issues would be after taking the iPhone out of the dock, do you just leave the dock or actually detach it and hide it in the console or glove compartment. i am betting that it just stays on the dash--a feature that might concern me give where I have to park from time to time and gps theft seems to be on the rise.
I live in a small city and generally garage the car at night, so I can get away with leaving the dock on the dash on a routine basis. If I do leave it parked on the street over night in a not-so-safe area one of these days, I guess I'll remove the dock and take it with me.
The nice thing about being able to leave it on the dash is I use it more often, for shorter trips than I did when I had a less convenient arrangement -- e.g., if I want music on a trip of five miles, or to use the gps for navigating a country road at night or bad weather, when it helps to know if there's a sharp turn a quarter mile ahead.
I live in a small city and generally garage the car at night, so I can get away with leaving the dock on the dash on a routine basis. If I do leave it parked on the street over night in a not-so-safe area one of these days, I guess I'll remove the dock and take it with me.
The nice thing about being able to leave it on the dash is I use it more often, for shorter trips than I did when I had a less convenient arrangement -- e.g., if I want music on a trip of five miles, or to use the gps for navigating a country road at night or bad weather, when it helps to know if there's a sharp turn a quarter mile ahead.