kevingaffney
Mar 26, 04:05 AM
Wait until the first revision comes up! as always, the desperates install the new OS that come full of bugs and then complains starts "I lost all my data".
Just my 2cents.
Not to mention that this sort of upgrades just make you buying a new machine to run the system as it should.
Spot on. My mbp is my main works machine and my business depends totally on it. I'll wait for a few weeks even though I'm notoriously impatient with these things
Just my 2cents.
Not to mention that this sort of upgrades just make you buying a new machine to run the system as it should.
Spot on. My mbp is my main works machine and my business depends totally on it. I'll wait for a few weeks even though I'm notoriously impatient with these things
DesmoPilot
Sep 1, 01:54 AM
Personally, I just hope the tire sounds get a much needed upgrade in GT5.
ergle2
Sep 13, 07:19 PM
Obviously, since Intel is no longer creating new processors with HT.
By the way, previous poster, HT does not double the number of cores. Just the number of virtual cores. A Pentium 4 system with HT will run slower than a dual Pentium 4 system (with HT disabled) at the same clock speed.
Actually, many tasks were faster.
HyperThreading was thrown in to mask other deficiencies in the NetBurst arch by exploiting resources that were otherwise wasted.
There were a few cases where HT ran slower when HT first debuted, but with OS scheduler tweaks and BIOS updates (microcode changes, likely), HT was a net win in most cases.
Core 2 doesn't have the same design issues - mostly down to that excessively long pipeline - that Prescott had, and hence HT makes no sense.
The problem, however, lay with Netburst as a whole, rather than HT -- which offered a minor improvement in performance - a band-aid if you will.
By the way, previous poster, HT does not double the number of cores. Just the number of virtual cores. A Pentium 4 system with HT will run slower than a dual Pentium 4 system (with HT disabled) at the same clock speed.
Actually, many tasks were faster.
HyperThreading was thrown in to mask other deficiencies in the NetBurst arch by exploiting resources that were otherwise wasted.
There were a few cases where HT ran slower when HT first debuted, but with OS scheduler tweaks and BIOS updates (microcode changes, likely), HT was a net win in most cases.
Core 2 doesn't have the same design issues - mostly down to that excessively long pipeline - that Prescott had, and hence HT makes no sense.
The problem, however, lay with Netburst as a whole, rather than HT -- which offered a minor improvement in performance - a band-aid if you will.
shamino
Jul 14, 04:17 PM
According to Appleinsider, the Mac Pro would have 2 4x and 1 8x PCIe slots. I see two problems with this. (1) All higher-end PC mobos out now have at least 1 16x slot, some have 2 for SLI/Crossfire.
Re-read the article.
It says there will be three available slots - 2 4x and 1 8x. These are the slots that will not be used by factory-bundled devices.
The bundled ATI X1800/X1900 video card will be in a 16x slot. It probably won't physically fit anywhere else!
(2) Why only 3 slots? PCs have 6 or so (as did the Power Mac 9500 & 9600) with a few regular PCI slots.
4 slots. 3 unused. Not 3 total.
Most PCs don't have more slots, either. Sure you can find a few counter-examples, but 6-slot systems are not common. And with the exception of the PM 9500/9600, Apple has never shipped a 6-slot system. (The Quadra 950 had 5. Everything else shipped with 4 or less.)
Why would Apple shoot itself in the foot like this? The Mac Pro is supposed to be a lot better than all other PCs. It would be nice to have 2 16x lanes for SLI and a few PCI slots for older expansion cards and cards that don't need the bandwidth of PCIe. Besides, this is supposed to be a Pro Mac, which means professional people would want to add a bunch of cards, not just 3. I'd expect a person working in something like movie production would want to have dual graphics cards, a fiber channel card to connect to an xServe RAID and maybe an M-Audio sound card for audio input. Since I don't work in movie production, I wouldn't know, but it would make sense.
You seem to think that a Pro system must have the capability of accepting every hardware device ever invented. (And how do you do this without making the case six feet tall?)
Dual video cards are only used by gamers. I doubt gamers are going to be interested in buying one of these, for the same reason they don't buy other Macs - the software comes out for other platforms first.
As for FC interfaces, they can work fine in any of the available slots. And there's no need for audio cards when you've got S/PDIF optical audio in/out.
Remember also that a studio won't be doing both video and audio editing on the same console! The people who are expert at one job are not going to be expert at the other. And if your studio is so strapped for cash that the different editors have to share a single computer, then you're in pretty sad shape!
I don't think you realize what you're asking for. A system that is capable of performing all possible tasks at once is just unrealistic. Nobody will ever equip a system like that, because no user will have those kinds of requirements.
Even in the PC world, where more slots are common, you almost never find a system that has actually filled all those slots with devices.
Re-read the article.
It says there will be three available slots - 2 4x and 1 8x. These are the slots that will not be used by factory-bundled devices.
The bundled ATI X1800/X1900 video card will be in a 16x slot. It probably won't physically fit anywhere else!
(2) Why only 3 slots? PCs have 6 or so (as did the Power Mac 9500 & 9600) with a few regular PCI slots.
4 slots. 3 unused. Not 3 total.
Most PCs don't have more slots, either. Sure you can find a few counter-examples, but 6-slot systems are not common. And with the exception of the PM 9500/9600, Apple has never shipped a 6-slot system. (The Quadra 950 had 5. Everything else shipped with 4 or less.)
Why would Apple shoot itself in the foot like this? The Mac Pro is supposed to be a lot better than all other PCs. It would be nice to have 2 16x lanes for SLI and a few PCI slots for older expansion cards and cards that don't need the bandwidth of PCIe. Besides, this is supposed to be a Pro Mac, which means professional people would want to add a bunch of cards, not just 3. I'd expect a person working in something like movie production would want to have dual graphics cards, a fiber channel card to connect to an xServe RAID and maybe an M-Audio sound card for audio input. Since I don't work in movie production, I wouldn't know, but it would make sense.
You seem to think that a Pro system must have the capability of accepting every hardware device ever invented. (And how do you do this without making the case six feet tall?)
Dual video cards are only used by gamers. I doubt gamers are going to be interested in buying one of these, for the same reason they don't buy other Macs - the software comes out for other platforms first.
As for FC interfaces, they can work fine in any of the available slots. And there's no need for audio cards when you've got S/PDIF optical audio in/out.
Remember also that a studio won't be doing both video and audio editing on the same console! The people who are expert at one job are not going to be expert at the other. And if your studio is so strapped for cash that the different editors have to share a single computer, then you're in pretty sad shape!
I don't think you realize what you're asking for. A system that is capable of performing all possible tasks at once is just unrealistic. Nobody will ever equip a system like that, because no user will have those kinds of requirements.
Even in the PC world, where more slots are common, you almost never find a system that has actually filled all those slots with devices.
silverblue3
Aug 26, 07:49 PM
What's the GPU on the new mbp gonna be? Bring on the SLI GPU's ;) Will give alienwares a run for their money.
Cowinacape
Jul 23, 05:32 PM
Multimedia, I'd love to see a line up like that released, dual 2.3 here I come :D here's hoping that your predictions are close to the mark!
macDrewd
Mar 26, 07:01 AM
Please release OS X Lion on a cool Apple flash drive :cool:
Really don't want another DVD, my shelf is full!
Really don't want another DVD, my shelf is full!
Dagless
Aug 18, 02:58 PM
It's better than a black Wii, surely :rolleyes:
Nope, no brightly coloured consoles in my media centre.
Nope, no brightly coloured consoles in my media centre.
Glen Quagmire
Aug 6, 11:26 AM
all i care about is an updated iMac...... i guess tomarrow i will find out.
Why would Apple release an updated consumer product at a developer show?
Roll on tomarrow [sic].
Why would Apple release an updated consumer product at a developer show?
Roll on tomarrow [sic].
MattInOz
Apr 6, 06:48 PM
I still don't think this means new MacBook Airs in June. Can anyone really see Apple releasing new hardware before Lion is released?
Yes I can...
In fact I expect it.
Then the full range of machines can run either SL or Lion. You don't normally see machines restricted to running the new OS until after update 2 or 3. Otherwise they'd be cutting off pro sales for people who rely on some 3rd party software that doesn't cope with Lion till those or the software itself updates.
Yes I can...
In fact I expect it.
Then the full range of machines can run either SL or Lion. You don't normally see machines restricted to running the new OS until after update 2 or 3. Otherwise they'd be cutting off pro sales for people who rely on some 3rd party software that doesn't cope with Lion till those or the software itself updates.
infidel69
Apr 11, 11:33 AM
Big mistake if true.
snouter
Apr 6, 11:09 AM
Umm... You do realise clock speed is not everything don't you?
I hope you don't think a C2D is better then a SB Core i5
True.
Clock for clock the Arrandales are faster than C2D and Sandy Bridge is clock for clock faster than the Arrandales.
So a 1.4 Sandy Bridge will be quite a bit faster than than a 1.4 C2D within the same power envelope.
I hope you don't think a C2D is better then a SB Core i5
True.
Clock for clock the Arrandales are faster than C2D and Sandy Bridge is clock for clock faster than the Arrandales.
So a 1.4 Sandy Bridge will be quite a bit faster than than a 1.4 C2D within the same power envelope.
rjheys
Mar 26, 05:57 AM
I still don't get it, why do we apple users have to pay for os updates? The hardware is already expensive as hell.
You know the best version of Windows 7 costs nearly 10x the price of the best version of OS X. ~$300 compared to $29. Thats a big difference.
You know the best version of Windows 7 costs nearly 10x the price of the best version of OS X. ~$300 compared to $29. Thats a big difference.
Yebubbleman
Apr 6, 01:57 PM
http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com/2011/04/06/intel-launching-next-generation-macbook-air-processors/)
http://images.macrumors.com/article/2011/02/11/094654-mba.jpg
As reported by Fudzilla (http://www.fudzilla.com/processors/item/22323-new-17w-core-i7-king-brand-is-2657m) and HardMac (http://www.hardmac.com/news/2011/04/06/intel-to-launch-sandy-bridge-chips-that-could-be-found-in-the-new-macbook-air), Intel is about to launch its next generation Sandy Bridge ultra low voltage CPUs suitable for the MacBook Air.
Due to the MacBook Air's thin form factor, it has required the use of particularly low power CPUs from Intel. Apple has stuck with Core 2 Duo processors with a maximum Thermal Design Power (TDP) of 10-17W. Apple is believed to have continued to use this older processor design in order to keep NVIDIA's graphics chips powering their ultracompact notebook. Due to licensing disputes (http://www.macrumors.com/2011/01/10/nvidia-and-intel-settle-nvidia-still-prohibited-from-building-chipsets-for-newest-intel-processors/), NVIDIA was prohibited from building newer chipsets that supported Intel's newest processors.
With the release of Sandy Bridge, Intel upgraded the performance of their integrated graphics chipset. This was good enough (http://www.macrumors.com/2011/02/24/apple-launches-macbook-pros-with-thunderbolt-quad-core-cpus-amd-gpus/) for Apple to offer in their latest 13" MacBook Pros, so we expect it will be good enough for the upcoming MacBook Airs as well. Apple had been previously rumored (http://www.macrumors.com/2011/02/11/macbook-air-sandy-bridge-update-in-june/) to be introducing the "Sandy Bridge" MacBook Airs this June.
HardMac pinpoints the Core i5 2537M (17W) as the possible chip to be used, at least in the 13" model:Meanwhile, the current 11" MacBook air uses an even lower power (10W) processor, but it's not clear how much power savings is offered by removing the need for the NVIDIA graphics chipset, as the Intel solution is integrated within the processor itself.
Article Link: Intel Launching Next Generation MacBook Air Processors (http://www.macrumors.com/2011/04/06/intel-launching-next-generation-macbook-air-processors/)
Woo! Something not MacBook Pro or iOS related!
For a programmer dealing with Terminal, Xcode, Netbeans, Eclipse, etc (not graphic intensive softwares), would this macbook air be a better deal than the 13/15" Macbook pro?
Anyone?
Both machines would be fine, though the 13"/15" MacBook Pro is more fully-featured of a machine than the Air, and frankly at that cost, why pay for an incomplete system?
awesome!!! this is really tempting. Should I throw an SSD in my 2010 4GB 2.66 GHz 13" MBP or sell it and wait for the MBA refresh?
If you have to do either, I'd do the former. But I'm in the "screw the Intel HD 3000 bandwaggon" and I also don't think that an Air should replace a Pro unless you have a problem lifting five pounds.
I would love to see a 15" laptop with no optical drive, with the specs and price somewhere between the MBA and MBP.
KEEP DREAMING!
Since you have no clue how the sandy bridge airs will perform, I'll take your statement as FUD.
First off, it's a fair assumption that they won't be more powerful than the current 13" MacBook Pros. Second, it's a fair assumption that the Intel HD 3000 will be in tow, and if the SV HD 3000 is inferior to the SV NVIDIA GeForce 320M, then it's a fair assumption that the ULV versions will probably have a similar result when benchmarked. Then again, who in their right mind is relying on a MacBook Air to play games over say, a MacBook Pro or a P-freakin-C?!
Alas, there are some things that the curated app store will never be able to supply. Case in point: a pokerstars or fulltilt client. And if the ipad's Safari can't do java or flash or allow me to run the applications of my choosing, then it's not sufficiently open for my needs.
Most Flash and Java based sites have App-equivalents. Ideal, no. A true web experience, no. But there's an app for that.
At least I now have a short finite timeline to work with to buy my 13"/2.13GHz C2D/256GB MBA before they "upgrade" it to a vastly inferior Intel GPU.
It's a MacBook Air, for crying out loud! What were you going to use the GeForce 320M for anyway that you won't be able to do with the Intel HD 3000? (Note: Final Cut Studio type things and gaming, which are the only two things that you'd feel the difference between the two IGPs on anyway, are laughable answers.)
I LOL'd. I owned iPad 1 for a year, and while it's nice, it's a FAR, FAR cry from the productivity capabilities of the current gen MBA.
Like it or not, iPad is SEVERELY CRIPPLED for content creation (i.e. real work), but excels at content CONSUMPTION. That's factual and completely undebatable. Everyone knows this.
So, no, it's not "something better". It's a more viable choice for entertainment and consumption. That's it.
The MacBook Air is crippled for content creation purposes. It is no MacBook Pro. The iPad is not crippled for content consumption. Sure, the iPad isn't yet the most stellar option for content creation purposes, but it's not crippled for what it's intended to do. With a 13" or 15" MacBook Pro, there's little practical use for a MacBook Air unless you have a problem lifting the two extra pounds, and really, if you do, either exercise or invest in physical therapy.
What is the obsession with back-lit keys?
Do you actually look at the keyboard when you're typing?
It's more that a feature was taken away and the natural psychological response when that happens is "Why did you do that? Give it back!"
The current nvidia chip is also integrated so it's not that much of a step down. As a 13" Pro user I can happily tell anyone that for what the product is made for, it's perfectly usable. At first I was pissed at the idea but it turned out the Intel HD 3000 were more powerful than the graphics in my old laptop.
It's a step down from the GeForce 320M, but a step up from the GeForce 9400M and the Intel GMA IGPs used before it.
By game I mean a modern title at full settings. Otherwise it's just 'making do'.
+1
sorry but if you're trying to do "pro" work on a MBA, ur doin it wrong.
i'm glad Apple has their MBA line for ultra-portability, plus the MBP line for intensive portable work.
This.
http://images.macrumors.com/article/2011/02/11/094654-mba.jpg
As reported by Fudzilla (http://www.fudzilla.com/processors/item/22323-new-17w-core-i7-king-brand-is-2657m) and HardMac (http://www.hardmac.com/news/2011/04/06/intel-to-launch-sandy-bridge-chips-that-could-be-found-in-the-new-macbook-air), Intel is about to launch its next generation Sandy Bridge ultra low voltage CPUs suitable for the MacBook Air.
Due to the MacBook Air's thin form factor, it has required the use of particularly low power CPUs from Intel. Apple has stuck with Core 2 Duo processors with a maximum Thermal Design Power (TDP) of 10-17W. Apple is believed to have continued to use this older processor design in order to keep NVIDIA's graphics chips powering their ultracompact notebook. Due to licensing disputes (http://www.macrumors.com/2011/01/10/nvidia-and-intel-settle-nvidia-still-prohibited-from-building-chipsets-for-newest-intel-processors/), NVIDIA was prohibited from building newer chipsets that supported Intel's newest processors.
With the release of Sandy Bridge, Intel upgraded the performance of their integrated graphics chipset. This was good enough (http://www.macrumors.com/2011/02/24/apple-launches-macbook-pros-with-thunderbolt-quad-core-cpus-amd-gpus/) for Apple to offer in their latest 13" MacBook Pros, so we expect it will be good enough for the upcoming MacBook Airs as well. Apple had been previously rumored (http://www.macrumors.com/2011/02/11/macbook-air-sandy-bridge-update-in-june/) to be introducing the "Sandy Bridge" MacBook Airs this June.
HardMac pinpoints the Core i5 2537M (17W) as the possible chip to be used, at least in the 13" model:Meanwhile, the current 11" MacBook air uses an even lower power (10W) processor, but it's not clear how much power savings is offered by removing the need for the NVIDIA graphics chipset, as the Intel solution is integrated within the processor itself.
Article Link: Intel Launching Next Generation MacBook Air Processors (http://www.macrumors.com/2011/04/06/intel-launching-next-generation-macbook-air-processors/)
Woo! Something not MacBook Pro or iOS related!
For a programmer dealing with Terminal, Xcode, Netbeans, Eclipse, etc (not graphic intensive softwares), would this macbook air be a better deal than the 13/15" Macbook pro?
Anyone?
Both machines would be fine, though the 13"/15" MacBook Pro is more fully-featured of a machine than the Air, and frankly at that cost, why pay for an incomplete system?
awesome!!! this is really tempting. Should I throw an SSD in my 2010 4GB 2.66 GHz 13" MBP or sell it and wait for the MBA refresh?
If you have to do either, I'd do the former. But I'm in the "screw the Intel HD 3000 bandwaggon" and I also don't think that an Air should replace a Pro unless you have a problem lifting five pounds.
I would love to see a 15" laptop with no optical drive, with the specs and price somewhere between the MBA and MBP.
KEEP DREAMING!
Since you have no clue how the sandy bridge airs will perform, I'll take your statement as FUD.
First off, it's a fair assumption that they won't be more powerful than the current 13" MacBook Pros. Second, it's a fair assumption that the Intel HD 3000 will be in tow, and if the SV HD 3000 is inferior to the SV NVIDIA GeForce 320M, then it's a fair assumption that the ULV versions will probably have a similar result when benchmarked. Then again, who in their right mind is relying on a MacBook Air to play games over say, a MacBook Pro or a P-freakin-C?!
Alas, there are some things that the curated app store will never be able to supply. Case in point: a pokerstars or fulltilt client. And if the ipad's Safari can't do java or flash or allow me to run the applications of my choosing, then it's not sufficiently open for my needs.
Most Flash and Java based sites have App-equivalents. Ideal, no. A true web experience, no. But there's an app for that.
At least I now have a short finite timeline to work with to buy my 13"/2.13GHz C2D/256GB MBA before they "upgrade" it to a vastly inferior Intel GPU.
It's a MacBook Air, for crying out loud! What were you going to use the GeForce 320M for anyway that you won't be able to do with the Intel HD 3000? (Note: Final Cut Studio type things and gaming, which are the only two things that you'd feel the difference between the two IGPs on anyway, are laughable answers.)
I LOL'd. I owned iPad 1 for a year, and while it's nice, it's a FAR, FAR cry from the productivity capabilities of the current gen MBA.
Like it or not, iPad is SEVERELY CRIPPLED for content creation (i.e. real work), but excels at content CONSUMPTION. That's factual and completely undebatable. Everyone knows this.
So, no, it's not "something better". It's a more viable choice for entertainment and consumption. That's it.
The MacBook Air is crippled for content creation purposes. It is no MacBook Pro. The iPad is not crippled for content consumption. Sure, the iPad isn't yet the most stellar option for content creation purposes, but it's not crippled for what it's intended to do. With a 13" or 15" MacBook Pro, there's little practical use for a MacBook Air unless you have a problem lifting the two extra pounds, and really, if you do, either exercise or invest in physical therapy.
What is the obsession with back-lit keys?
Do you actually look at the keyboard when you're typing?
It's more that a feature was taken away and the natural psychological response when that happens is "Why did you do that? Give it back!"
The current nvidia chip is also integrated so it's not that much of a step down. As a 13" Pro user I can happily tell anyone that for what the product is made for, it's perfectly usable. At first I was pissed at the idea but it turned out the Intel HD 3000 were more powerful than the graphics in my old laptop.
It's a step down from the GeForce 320M, but a step up from the GeForce 9400M and the Intel GMA IGPs used before it.
By game I mean a modern title at full settings. Otherwise it's just 'making do'.
+1
sorry but if you're trying to do "pro" work on a MBA, ur doin it wrong.
i'm glad Apple has their MBA line for ultra-portability, plus the MBP line for intensive portable work.
This.
wiestlingjr
Jun 9, 07:23 PM
Bibbz,
I have a couple questions.. I want to preorder with radioshack. I am NOT the primary account holder, but I am an authorized user. I also know the last 4 digits of the account holders social. Will this be a problem when picking up the phone?
I also have a FAN account. Will these be a problem?
I have a couple questions.. I want to preorder with radioshack. I am NOT the primary account holder, but I am an authorized user. I also know the last 4 digits of the account holders social. Will this be a problem when picking up the phone?
I also have a FAN account. Will these be a problem?
Xian Zhu Xuande
Mar 31, 03:02 PM
This is a smart move. It had to happen sooner or later.
John Gruber would eat Steve Job's ***** if he could. His opinion is extremely biased.
Except... he's right. This was a bait-and-switch from Google. I don't think it was a bad move for the future of the platform, but it does render a lot of their PR commentary through history as bogus. As for Gruber, you clearly don't like him, but while he is certainly a fan of Apple he is usually correct.
John Gruber would eat Steve Job's ***** if he could. His opinion is extremely biased.
Except... he's right. This was a bait-and-switch from Google. I don't think it was a bad move for the future of the platform, but it does render a lot of their PR commentary through history as bogus. As for Gruber, you clearly don't like him, but while he is certainly a fan of Apple he is usually correct.
~Shard~
Aug 11, 10:25 AM
I really hope Apple comes out with a phone that's an awesome phone, music player, and smart phone... Is that asking too much?
Yes, I agree, it would have to be an iPod as well for all intents and purposes. And please Apple, make it a good quality phone - don't make it like those RAZRs which look cool but are crappy otherwise. I don't think I have read more negative reviews on a cell phone than I have for the RAZR.
Yes, I agree, it would have to be an iPod as well for all intents and purposes. And please Apple, make it a good quality phone - don't make it like those RAZRs which look cool but are crappy otherwise. I don't think I have read more negative reviews on a cell phone than I have for the RAZR.
ezekielrage_99
Aug 27, 12:53 AM
PowerBook G5 next tuesday?
Now that has been replaced with Core 2 Dup next Monday ;)
Now that has been replaced with Core 2 Dup next Monday ;)
deputy_doofy
Mar 31, 04:06 PM
And the Apple haters do yet another 180...
1. Macs
1995 to 2007: Don't use a Mac. Noone uses Macs.
2007 to Present: Don't use a Mac. Everyone uses a Mac.
2. Apps
1995 to 2/22/2011: Don't use Apple. There is no software and they can't do anything.
2/22 to Present: Apps? Who needs Apps as long as you have a robust UI?
3. Open
2007 to Today: Apple is a walled garden that only stupid lemmings use.
Today going forward: Controlling the OS is necessary and good for the consumer.
Honestly... this just needs repeating to drive the point home. Well said and 100000% accurate.
1. Macs
1995 to 2007: Don't use a Mac. Noone uses Macs.
2007 to Present: Don't use a Mac. Everyone uses a Mac.
2. Apps
1995 to 2/22/2011: Don't use Apple. There is no software and they can't do anything.
2/22 to Present: Apps? Who needs Apps as long as you have a robust UI?
3. Open
2007 to Today: Apple is a walled garden that only stupid lemmings use.
Today going forward: Controlling the OS is necessary and good for the consumer.
Honestly... this just needs repeating to drive the point home. Well said and 100000% accurate.
AppleScruff1
Apr 20, 12:32 PM
No, only an irrational person defends them at all cost. A die hard is one who puts up with occasional mistakes in the products.
Did threads just get merged again? Because the last dozen posts are complete rehashes of earlier posts.
Then we have a lot of irrational people here. A lot of people put up with an occasional mistake here and there.
Did threads just get merged again? Because the last dozen posts are complete rehashes of earlier posts.
Then we have a lot of irrational people here. A lot of people put up with an occasional mistake here and there.
GFLPraxis
Jul 20, 12:01 PM
Back to reality: Apple wil use Xeon 51xx (5150 and 5160) in the MacPro, and Core 2 Duo (Merom) in the iMac and MBP to be announced at the WWDC. The top iMac config will get a boost to 2.33GHz. In addition, Apple will use the price-drops for the Yonah to upgrade the Core Solo mini to Core Duo.
I disagree. I think Apple will use Core 2 Duo (Conroe) in the iMac, and Merom in the MBP. The iMac could hold a G5, why not Conroe?
On top of that, you'll notice that a 2.16 GHz Conroe costs $70 less than the 1.83 GHz Yonah that's in the iMac now, $70 less than a 2 GHz Merom, and $200 less than a 2.16 GHz Merom, increasing Apple's profit margins on the iMac considerably or allowing a price drop- plus they can advertise it as a desktop processor.
In fact, even if Conroe was too hot (which I highly doubt, since the iMac had a G5), a 2.16 GHz Conroe underclocked to 2 GHz still saves $70 over a 2 GHz Merom.
I disagree. I think Apple will use Core 2 Duo (Conroe) in the iMac, and Merom in the MBP. The iMac could hold a G5, why not Conroe?
On top of that, you'll notice that a 2.16 GHz Conroe costs $70 less than the 1.83 GHz Yonah that's in the iMac now, $70 less than a 2 GHz Merom, and $200 less than a 2.16 GHz Merom, increasing Apple's profit margins on the iMac considerably or allowing a price drop- plus they can advertise it as a desktop processor.
In fact, even if Conroe was too hot (which I highly doubt, since the iMac had a G5), a 2.16 GHz Conroe underclocked to 2 GHz still saves $70 over a 2 GHz Merom.
parapup
Apr 6, 05:10 PM
I'm an Apple mobile device user, and I have never ever been on an Android-centric forum. Not one time! Why would I care what people who have such an obvious difference in taste think about what I have?
It never ceases to amaze me at how many Android users have to flock to a site called "MacRumors" because they feel then need to lead us poor blinded Apple "fanboys" to the bright shining city on a hill that is Android paradise.
At least go have your Android orgy, where it may be appreciated by others who care to watch that type of thing...wait...there are such things as Android forums, right?
So someone forced you to read *and* comment on a story titled clearly "Motorola Xoom Tablet Sales: ..." ? Or was that not enough of a clue ?
It never ceases to amaze me at how many Android users have to flock to a site called "MacRumors" because they feel then need to lead us poor blinded Apple "fanboys" to the bright shining city on a hill that is Android paradise.
At least go have your Android orgy, where it may be appreciated by others who care to watch that type of thing...wait...there are such things as Android forums, right?
So someone forced you to read *and* comment on a story titled clearly "Motorola Xoom Tablet Sales: ..." ? Or was that not enough of a clue ?
sukanas
Apr 25, 01:36 PM
money grubbers
Gugulino
Apr 6, 03:29 AM
I hope that the new FCP will resemble iMovie: No need for rendering and a precision editor! I like the ease of use of iMovie, should be adopted by FCP.
No comments:
Post a Comment