Yamcha
Apr 19, 02:15 PM
Well if I'm wrong about the information, then I don't think anyone will argue about the fact that the Palm OS has been around since 1996, and the Apple iPhone uses a similar interface..
All I'm saying is that If there were devices using a similar interface before the iPhone came out I don't see how its fair to sue anyone for it..
http://img192.imageshack.us/img192/9153/palmtranicononpalmos.jpg
http://img851.imageshack.us/img851/3721/palmiiicwcradle.jpg
All I'm saying is that If there were devices using a similar interface before the iPhone came out I don't see how its fair to sue anyone for it..
http://img192.imageshack.us/img192/9153/palmtranicononpalmos.jpg
http://img851.imageshack.us/img851/3721/palmiiicwcradle.jpg
Yamcha
Mar 26, 11:36 AM
Yay, this is what I've been looking forward to, forget iOS devices :P. I'm sorry but I use my computer the most everyday.. Anyway I really hope we see it soon..
Amazing Iceman
Mar 23, 08:28 AM
And every new version of itunes requires a bigger and faster computer to run, your point? Hardware moves on , every companys takes advantage of that.
office 2010 runs fine on older hardware just like windows 7 does. I would suggest you tr it out yourself before making such statements. Office 2010 runs fine on my 5 year old computer my wife uses.
If you read my original post, you'll notice that I was referring to the fact that many programmers are careless about optimizing their code all because they can count on a large amount of resources, and because they get lazy.
That's why recently Microsoft made a big deal about some of their new software being either rewritten or optimized, when the case is that it was already expected from them to deploy optimized software.
Most Mac programmers are good at optimizing, while many Windows programmers are not.
I have seen Office for Windows run on several computers, as I provide IT support. I know how it works, not just because I see it, but because the users complain about it. Surely, it may run decent on a system with a large size of RAM, but if they didn't have that much RAM and the previous version ran fine with what they had, and now the new one runs slow while adding not enough functionality, then that's being a sloppy programmer.
I don't want to start a discussion about Office I don't really have a problem about it, plus it gets off topic.
office 2010 runs fine on older hardware just like windows 7 does. I would suggest you tr it out yourself before making such statements. Office 2010 runs fine on my 5 year old computer my wife uses.
If you read my original post, you'll notice that I was referring to the fact that many programmers are careless about optimizing their code all because they can count on a large amount of resources, and because they get lazy.
That's why recently Microsoft made a big deal about some of their new software being either rewritten or optimized, when the case is that it was already expected from them to deploy optimized software.
Most Mac programmers are good at optimizing, while many Windows programmers are not.
I have seen Office for Windows run on several computers, as I provide IT support. I know how it works, not just because I see it, but because the users complain about it. Surely, it may run decent on a system with a large size of RAM, but if they didn't have that much RAM and the previous version ran fine with what they had, and now the new one runs slow while adding not enough functionality, then that's being a sloppy programmer.
I don't want to start a discussion about Office I don't really have a problem about it, plus it gets off topic.
macfan881
Nov 12, 12:21 PM
http://www.viddler.com/explore/PSBlogEU/videos/858/
Fotek2001
Aug 7, 03:27 PM
Not a glimpse of the Finder...! :eek:
Liske
Aug 17, 11:56 PM
Just a suggestion, as a user of the D200 since it came out, I would like to suggest you use a raw converter other than CS2. Bibble and Nikon Capture 4.4/Nikon Capture NX do much better jobs at D200 raw files particularly in terms of color and high ISO noise. With ACR, there is heaps of noise that just isn't there with other converters. Plus the NR leaves terrible artifacts on D200 shots.
Silent, thanks for speaking up, I'll check it out! Too bad its not UB.
Silent, thanks for speaking up, I'll check it out! Too bad its not UB.
Glen Quagmire
Aug 6, 02:12 PM
I have tried the vista Beta, and ran in via BootCamp, so no different hardware. Tiger is miles ahead of vista.
Put simply: Tiger Works.... Vista Crashes and takes 2 years longer than tiger to do the same task.
I don't care how it looks, i don't care about see-through windows. I want something that works. Tiger gives me that.... and i hope leopard makes it even better. Tiger is ahead of the competition, hopefully leopard will be further forward, beating Vista to where it should be... In a beige, boring box:D
So, you're comparing a mature product (Tiger) to one that's still in beta and which by all accounts has plenty of outstanding issues before it's ever released (Vista)?
Not the fairest of comparisons, is it? Perhaps we should compare the latest of the Leopard builds with the latest Vista build for a more valid comparison of the relative position of the two OSs?
"Beige, boring box". Have you seen some of the hideous case designs that PC companies come out with? Not beige and far from boring (in a bad way). Apple's industrial design and grasp of asthetics and ergonomics is light years ahead.
Put simply: Tiger Works.... Vista Crashes and takes 2 years longer than tiger to do the same task.
I don't care how it looks, i don't care about see-through windows. I want something that works. Tiger gives me that.... and i hope leopard makes it even better. Tiger is ahead of the competition, hopefully leopard will be further forward, beating Vista to where it should be... In a beige, boring box:D
So, you're comparing a mature product (Tiger) to one that's still in beta and which by all accounts has plenty of outstanding issues before it's ever released (Vista)?
Not the fairest of comparisons, is it? Perhaps we should compare the latest of the Leopard builds with the latest Vista build for a more valid comparison of the relative position of the two OSs?
"Beige, boring box". Have you seen some of the hideous case designs that PC companies come out with? Not beige and far from boring (in a bad way). Apple's industrial design and grasp of asthetics and ergonomics is light years ahead.
Porco
Aug 6, 06:25 PM
Why sell a new keyboard for front row, if you can sell a new Mac to the same person? Including the sensor in the Cinema Displays would enable Apple to sell more of their display, on which they probably have a very good profit margin (when you compare to other manufacturers).
Because people would buy a new keyboard for some extra functionality; they wouldn't dump their entire system for one feature. And besides, my idea was a solution to the Mac Pro specific issue - therefore it would have to be available as a replacement part for the Mac Pro, making it sensible as an optional purchase for every mac owner. But regardless of that, it would be included with the new computer! If all the other macs have an integrated IR sensor, are you suggesting Apple will want people to buy an iMac rather than a Mac Pro? Really? Also, everyone needs a keyboard, it's on the low-end of the price scale as an upgradable item and it would be easy to add IR.
They could also just put it into the tower. Even if that is under the desk, it might not be that much of a problem. In my experience the sensor responds very nicely to the remote even if the line of sight between them is somewhat obstructed.
They could, but the keyboard is, I would have thought, much much more likely to be in a predictably close position to the screen in the vast majority of cases.
However the best solution I think, was suggested by someone on these forums. I don't know, whether it has been quoted here already, because I did not go through all the messages. This poster suggested to combine the sensor with an external iSight. That could be connected to any monitor and would probably have a good IR reception because of beeing on top of the monitor and thus very exposed.
Not everyone needs or wants an external iSight. Everyone uses a keyboard. I think my solution works not only because of the exposure/position, but also in the ubiquity of the item. The IR sensors in the other machines are on the machines themselves because that's where it makes sense - but they are there, accessible, whatever your set-up is, wherever you put it (with the possible exception of the mini I guess if you really wanted that hidden away). The keyboard solution would just take the most predictably accessible (and standard) element of the system for a Mac Pro and puts the IR there - a display is optional, an external iSight is optional, the keyboard that comes with every machine - well that's standard.
Because people would buy a new keyboard for some extra functionality; they wouldn't dump their entire system for one feature. And besides, my idea was a solution to the Mac Pro specific issue - therefore it would have to be available as a replacement part for the Mac Pro, making it sensible as an optional purchase for every mac owner. But regardless of that, it would be included with the new computer! If all the other macs have an integrated IR sensor, are you suggesting Apple will want people to buy an iMac rather than a Mac Pro? Really? Also, everyone needs a keyboard, it's on the low-end of the price scale as an upgradable item and it would be easy to add IR.
They could also just put it into the tower. Even if that is under the desk, it might not be that much of a problem. In my experience the sensor responds very nicely to the remote even if the line of sight between them is somewhat obstructed.
They could, but the keyboard is, I would have thought, much much more likely to be in a predictably close position to the screen in the vast majority of cases.
However the best solution I think, was suggested by someone on these forums. I don't know, whether it has been quoted here already, because I did not go through all the messages. This poster suggested to combine the sensor with an external iSight. That could be connected to any monitor and would probably have a good IR reception because of beeing on top of the monitor and thus very exposed.
Not everyone needs or wants an external iSight. Everyone uses a keyboard. I think my solution works not only because of the exposure/position, but also in the ubiquity of the item. The IR sensors in the other machines are on the machines themselves because that's where it makes sense - but they are there, accessible, whatever your set-up is, wherever you put it (with the possible exception of the mini I guess if you really wanted that hidden away). The keyboard solution would just take the most predictably accessible (and standard) element of the system for a Mac Pro and puts the IR there - a display is optional, an external iSight is optional, the keyboard that comes with every machine - well that's standard.
NinjaHERO
Apr 11, 11:38 AM
I was already pushing it to wait this long with my 3G. I don't think I can wait another 4 months+ from June.
When does the EVO 2 come out?
When does the EVO 2 come out?
ryanx27
Aug 27, 10:32 PM
I like them as well, but I think it's been replaced with Merom next tuesday, G6 Video iPod next next tuesday and the good old iPhone next tuesday rumors.
Still good for a laugh ;)
Hahaha, "iPhone" is a one-word punchline
Still good for a laugh ;)
Hahaha, "iPhone" is a one-word punchline
Koadoc
Nov 29, 08:27 AM
Just goes to show you how corrupt the music business really is!:mad:
mark28
Apr 20, 05:47 AM
Sure, but did Samsung patent it?
It's not about 'who copied who?', but 'who copied after who patented?'
All the corporations mentioned in this thread are dinosaurs and know what type of business they are in. If they fail to patent their (good) ideas than it's a given that someone else eventually will. Doesn't matter whether we or anyone thinks that's right or wrong. It's normal business practice. Any corporation thet develops products in a hot contested market like this and doesn't play this game will lose business or cash.
Samsung didn't stole it from Apple since they were first with the design, end of story.
Samsung can claim Apple stole their design and patent it. That's fraud right since it's not their own idea?
It's not about 'who copied who?', but 'who copied after who patented?'
All the corporations mentioned in this thread are dinosaurs and know what type of business they are in. If they fail to patent their (good) ideas than it's a given that someone else eventually will. Doesn't matter whether we or anyone thinks that's right or wrong. It's normal business practice. Any corporation thet develops products in a hot contested market like this and doesn't play this game will lose business or cash.
Samsung didn't stole it from Apple since they were first with the design, end of story.
Samsung can claim Apple stole their design and patent it. That's fraud right since it's not their own idea?
DaveTheGrey
Aug 17, 03:55 AM
did you say, "die power pc, die"?
no that's german for:
(sideshow bob)The Power PC...The!!!(/sideshow bob)
the jury: "no one who speaks german can be an evil man" rofl
no that's german for:
(sideshow bob)The Power PC...The!!!(/sideshow bob)
the jury: "no one who speaks german can be an evil man" rofl
HyperZboy
Apr 8, 01:22 AM
I also don't think brick and mortar stores are dying, just certain types that are easy to purchase same product online like movies, toys, known products that don't need to be checked out.
The average person buying a computer is still not that computer bright like the average Macrumors member.
And there will always be people looking to check out and play with new technology in person.
When Amazon can pull that rabbit out of a hat then I'll admit brick & mortar is done. So far brick and mortar is only done for content sales which can be checked out online and various new ways.
I don't think anybody's going to be buying a lawn tractor or big screen TV on Amazon anytime soon.
Hell, even my success rate buying computers on Ebay has always been sketchy even. About 30% of the time, the items showed up damaged in shipping due to poor packaging. That's why I believe most general consumers will always go brick and mortar for more expensive things that could easily be damaged in shipping.
The average person buying a computer is still not that computer bright like the average Macrumors member.
And there will always be people looking to check out and play with new technology in person.
When Amazon can pull that rabbit out of a hat then I'll admit brick & mortar is done. So far brick and mortar is only done for content sales which can be checked out online and various new ways.
I don't think anybody's going to be buying a lawn tractor or big screen TV on Amazon anytime soon.
Hell, even my success rate buying computers on Ebay has always been sketchy even. About 30% of the time, the items showed up damaged in shipping due to poor packaging. That's why I believe most general consumers will always go brick and mortar for more expensive things that could easily be damaged in shipping.
ChrisA
Aug 7, 06:43 PM
Probably the same way it is in scalable transactional databases that use multi-versioning concurrency protocols (e.g. PostgreSQL and Oracle). No data is over-written, and every "update" actually creates a new record version.
Lots of ways it COULD be implemented. Looks at Suns new file system ZFS. It is basically "Copy on Write". With a file system you can do things even fancier then with a DBMS. For example a "block" (i-node) exists physicaly on the disk only once but it could be maped into any numbr of files. If a file in only an orderd set of block numbers then to copy a copy all you need to copy is the set of numbers which is on the order of 1000 times shorter then the data itself.
But on the other hand you _want_ the data to be physically copied if it is to be backed up to an external drive.
Some time ago Apple was talking with Sun about using ZFS in OSX but I don't think anything came out of it. I suspect Apple wrote this themselves
The problem is not that I can't figure out how Apple did this but that I can think of about a half dozen ways they could have done this.
Lots of ways it COULD be implemented. Looks at Suns new file system ZFS. It is basically "Copy on Write". With a file system you can do things even fancier then with a DBMS. For example a "block" (i-node) exists physicaly on the disk only once but it could be maped into any numbr of files. If a file in only an orderd set of block numbers then to copy a copy all you need to copy is the set of numbers which is on the order of 1000 times shorter then the data itself.
But on the other hand you _want_ the data to be physically copied if it is to be backed up to an external drive.
Some time ago Apple was talking with Sun about using ZFS in OSX but I don't think anything came out of it. I suspect Apple wrote this themselves
The problem is not that I can't figure out how Apple did this but that I can think of about a half dozen ways they could have done this.
Multimedia
Jul 21, 12:20 PM
It really depends on your application.
On the desktop, if you're a typical user that's just interested in web surfing, playing music files, organizing your photo collection, etc., more than two cores will probably not be too useful. For these kinds of users, even two cores may be overkill, but two are useful for keeping a responsive UI when an application starts hogging all the CPU time.
If you start using higher-power applications (like video work - iMovie/iDVD, for instance) then more cores will speed up that kind of work (assuming the app is properly multithreaded, of course.) 4-core systems will definitely benefit this kind of user.
With current applications, however, I don't think more than 4 cores will be useful. The kind of work that will make 8 cores useful is the kinds that requires expensive professional software - which most people don't use...
Cluster computing has similar benefits. With 8 cores in each processor, it is almost as good as having 8 times as many computers in the cluster, and a lot less expensive. This concept will scale up as the number of cores increases, assuming motherbaords can be designed with enough memory and FSB bandwidth to keep them all busy.
I think we might see a single quad-core chip in consumer systems, like the iMac. I think it is likely that we'll see them in Pro systems, like the Mac Pro (including a high-end model with two quad-core chips.)
I think processors with more than 4 cores will never be seen outside of servers - Xserves and maybe some configurations of Mac Pro. Mostly because that's where there is a need for this kind of power.I strongly disagree. I could use 16 cores right now for notihng more than simple consumer electronics video compression routines. There will be a Mac Pro with 8 cores this Winter 2007.
You are completely blind to the need for many cores right now for very simple stupid work. All I want to do is run 4 copies of Toast while running 4 copies of Handbrake simultaneously. Each wants 2 cores or more. So you are not thinking of the current need for 16 cores already.
This is not even beginning to discuss how many Final Cut Studio Editors need 16 Cores. Man, I can't believe you wrote that. I think you are overlooking the obvious - the need to run multiple copies of today's applicaitons simultaneously.
So as long as the heat issue can be overcome, I don't see why 8 Cores can't belong inside an iMac by the end of 2008.
I apologize if I read a little hot. But I find the line of thought that 4 or 8 Cores are enough or more than enough to really annoy me. They are not nearly enough for those of us who see the problem of not enough cores EVERY DAY. The rest of you either have no imagination or are only using your Macs for word processing, browsing and email.
I am sincerely frustrated by not having enough cores to do simple stupid work efficiently. Just look at how crippled this G5 Quad is already only running three things. They can't even run full speed due to lack of cores.
On the desktop, if you're a typical user that's just interested in web surfing, playing music files, organizing your photo collection, etc., more than two cores will probably not be too useful. For these kinds of users, even two cores may be overkill, but two are useful for keeping a responsive UI when an application starts hogging all the CPU time.
If you start using higher-power applications (like video work - iMovie/iDVD, for instance) then more cores will speed up that kind of work (assuming the app is properly multithreaded, of course.) 4-core systems will definitely benefit this kind of user.
With current applications, however, I don't think more than 4 cores will be useful. The kind of work that will make 8 cores useful is the kinds that requires expensive professional software - which most people don't use...
Cluster computing has similar benefits. With 8 cores in each processor, it is almost as good as having 8 times as many computers in the cluster, and a lot less expensive. This concept will scale up as the number of cores increases, assuming motherbaords can be designed with enough memory and FSB bandwidth to keep them all busy.
I think we might see a single quad-core chip in consumer systems, like the iMac. I think it is likely that we'll see them in Pro systems, like the Mac Pro (including a high-end model with two quad-core chips.)
I think processors with more than 4 cores will never be seen outside of servers - Xserves and maybe some configurations of Mac Pro. Mostly because that's where there is a need for this kind of power.I strongly disagree. I could use 16 cores right now for notihng more than simple consumer electronics video compression routines. There will be a Mac Pro with 8 cores this Winter 2007.
You are completely blind to the need for many cores right now for very simple stupid work. All I want to do is run 4 copies of Toast while running 4 copies of Handbrake simultaneously. Each wants 2 cores or more. So you are not thinking of the current need for 16 cores already.
This is not even beginning to discuss how many Final Cut Studio Editors need 16 Cores. Man, I can't believe you wrote that. I think you are overlooking the obvious - the need to run multiple copies of today's applicaitons simultaneously.
So as long as the heat issue can be overcome, I don't see why 8 Cores can't belong inside an iMac by the end of 2008.
I apologize if I read a little hot. But I find the line of thought that 4 or 8 Cores are enough or more than enough to really annoy me. They are not nearly enough for those of us who see the problem of not enough cores EVERY DAY. The rest of you either have no imagination or are only using your Macs for word processing, browsing and email.
I am sincerely frustrated by not having enough cores to do simple stupid work efficiently. Just look at how crippled this G5 Quad is already only running three things. They can't even run full speed due to lack of cores.
balamw
Aug 7, 04:15 PM
This is not what Apple is doing here, as they are simply storing the old version of the file on the backup system.
Which takes us back to the behavior that was the default on VAX systems running VMS 20 years ago... Microsoft is implementing something similar in Vista as well. http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060730-7383.html
B
Which takes us back to the behavior that was the default on VAX systems running VMS 20 years ago... Microsoft is implementing something similar in Vista as well. http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060730-7383.html
B
Multimedia
Aug 26, 08:11 PM
My expectations for the next generation 17" MacBook Pro:
2.33 Core 2 Duo
Better GPU
160gig HD
Higher quality displays. No more of this uneven backlighting crap.
My hopes:
Longer battery life
Get the power adaptor below 70 watts so we can use them on planes
Lower price
Hell, I'm buying whatever comes next. I just hope there are some solid spec bumps across the board.
And most importantly, I hope Apple fixes the crappy quality issues that have been plaguing their portable line all year.I agree. But I refuse to buy any "So-Called" MacBook Pro until they have implemented the easy access HD professional feature they put in the MacBook. I would rather buy a C2D MacBook with that feature than ever buy a MBP without it. :mad:Post #81 Apple has, on occasion, introduced new or upgraded features on its consumer computers when those computers were refreshed between refresh cycles of their professional computers. For example, at one time, the iMac had a faster SuperDrive than the Power Mac. Of course, with the next refresh of the pro computers, the new/upgraded features seen previously in the consumer products have always been added.Good to remember. Thanks. Hope it's the rule this time as well.
2.33 Core 2 Duo
Better GPU
160gig HD
Higher quality displays. No more of this uneven backlighting crap.
My hopes:
Longer battery life
Get the power adaptor below 70 watts so we can use them on planes
Lower price
Hell, I'm buying whatever comes next. I just hope there are some solid spec bumps across the board.
And most importantly, I hope Apple fixes the crappy quality issues that have been plaguing their portable line all year.I agree. But I refuse to buy any "So-Called" MacBook Pro until they have implemented the easy access HD professional feature they put in the MacBook. I would rather buy a C2D MacBook with that feature than ever buy a MBP without it. :mad:Post #81 Apple has, on occasion, introduced new or upgraded features on its consumer computers when those computers were refreshed between refresh cycles of their professional computers. For example, at one time, the iMac had a faster SuperDrive than the Power Mac. Of course, with the next refresh of the pro computers, the new/upgraded features seen previously in the consumer products have always been added.Good to remember. Thanks. Hope it's the rule this time as well.
orangerizzla
Apr 6, 10:37 AM
I'm just guessing but it's possible that Apple will announce the new FCS and ship it when Lion ships, perhaps around the June WWDC.
I think your probably right but I sure hope they announce something. I certainly didn't buy my brand new MacPro to run the leather clad iCal... ;-)
I think your probably right but I sure hope they announce something. I certainly didn't buy my brand new MacPro to run the leather clad iCal... ;-)
Macaroony
Mar 4, 03:53 AM
CaoCao, could you please elaborate as to how gays could cause the collapse of society? I keep hearing that but I don't understand the sentiment behind it. And please, do not skirt around the answer, I always try to be as clear as day with mine.
The only explanation I can come up with as to why you would see being gay and giving gays the same civil rights as the collapse of society is that it differs so much from your worldview, it causes your world to collapse to the point where you feel nothing but uncomfortable to live in such a society. In other words; if gays are treated equal under every law under the sun, your society would collapse.
I often hear that same-sex marriage devalues marriage and threatens those that are already married. I wonder why and how. I doubt that your straight neighbor's happy marriage affects you at all unless you're so jealous, you want their marriage to be annulled - a happy same-sex couple must be killing you inside. I have said it here and in another thread before, marriage is nothing but a contract between two members of two families and the state to secure their fortune and legacy. Every attorney will tell you the same.
I have to say, it's very exhausting coming up with a defense convincing enough for those that don't seem to follow the world by logic. I'm glad I'm not a lawyer because if law is like that all the time, I'd rather give up on it and live in exile.
The only explanation I can come up with as to why you would see being gay and giving gays the same civil rights as the collapse of society is that it differs so much from your worldview, it causes your world to collapse to the point where you feel nothing but uncomfortable to live in such a society. In other words; if gays are treated equal under every law under the sun, your society would collapse.
I often hear that same-sex marriage devalues marriage and threatens those that are already married. I wonder why and how. I doubt that your straight neighbor's happy marriage affects you at all unless you're so jealous, you want their marriage to be annulled - a happy same-sex couple must be killing you inside. I have said it here and in another thread before, marriage is nothing but a contract between two members of two families and the state to secure their fortune and legacy. Every attorney will tell you the same.
I have to say, it's very exhausting coming up with a defense convincing enough for those that don't seem to follow the world by logic. I'm glad I'm not a lawyer because if law is like that all the time, I'd rather give up on it and live in exile.
Scottsdale
Apr 6, 11:31 AM
I'm pretty sure you are aware that Apple would use LV CPU in 13", not ULV. That bumps us to 2.3GHz plus Turbo. You have said this yourself too and I already covered the reason in my other post.
This is just a MR article and surprisingly, they don't have much idea about the TDPs. Hopefully they will correct their article so people won't live in confusion.
That isn't what this story reads, and I don't think anyone but you and I have even read the actual facts supposed here.
I actually find this one of the least accurate stories ever posted on MacRumors.com for several reasons... the OP is assuming ULV in the 13" MBA. The OP is assuming that if SB IGP is good enough for MBP it's fine for MBA. There is no rumor or timeframe listing these chips especially not in the 13" MBA. It seems like it's a blatant attempt to stir up activity without any real facts, rumors, or even common knowledge about the chips used in the MBAs.
Certainly the people haven't read the story or they're somehow focusing on the 11" MBA. Sure, this would be fine for the 11" MBA in terms of CPU clock speed but even then it's a gigantic loss in the graphics capabilities. That leads to a problem with the author saying good enough for 13" MBP than good enough for MBA. However, the IGP clock speed used in this ULV chip will be nearly a 50% drop in graphics performance. That for me doesn't equate to if this then that...
I am disappointed with MR for even writing such a poor piece of garbage. Forget that I cannot stand the SB IGP... the assumptions made here are absurd! It
definitely doesn't warrant this sort of reply from the fans of the MBA. You and I
could assume things all day, but that isn't the story written.
This is just a MR article and surprisingly, they don't have much idea about the TDPs. Hopefully they will correct their article so people won't live in confusion.
That isn't what this story reads, and I don't think anyone but you and I have even read the actual facts supposed here.
I actually find this one of the least accurate stories ever posted on MacRumors.com for several reasons... the OP is assuming ULV in the 13" MBA. The OP is assuming that if SB IGP is good enough for MBP it's fine for MBA. There is no rumor or timeframe listing these chips especially not in the 13" MBA. It seems like it's a blatant attempt to stir up activity without any real facts, rumors, or even common knowledge about the chips used in the MBAs.
Certainly the people haven't read the story or they're somehow focusing on the 11" MBA. Sure, this would be fine for the 11" MBA in terms of CPU clock speed but even then it's a gigantic loss in the graphics capabilities. That leads to a problem with the author saying good enough for 13" MBP than good enough for MBA. However, the IGP clock speed used in this ULV chip will be nearly a 50% drop in graphics performance. That for me doesn't equate to if this then that...
I am disappointed with MR for even writing such a poor piece of garbage. Forget that I cannot stand the SB IGP... the assumptions made here are absurd! It
definitely doesn't warrant this sort of reply from the fans of the MBA. You and I
could assume things all day, but that isn't the story written.
Snowy_River
Jul 28, 10:51 AM
You da man Dan :D I'd definetly hit one of your super sized macminis. Now if Apple was to fit those specs in a regular iMac, would make for a great little machine.
Hey, how about the Mac Grande? Or Mac Venti?
Hey, how about the Mac Grande? Or Mac Venti?
typecase
Sep 19, 12:33 AM
All I have to say is:
"what the hell is taking them so frigging long?"
Amen! :)
"what the hell is taking them so frigging long?"
Amen! :)
macpross
Aug 6, 11:28 PM
Great joke, thanks very much...in the same line as Tiger Computer Dealers, right?
We already have a Mac Pro line of products, we are also the owners of AppleLocks, and MacMice. The Tiger thing was silly.
We already have a Mac Pro line of products, we are also the owners of AppleLocks, and MacMice. The Tiger thing was silly.