goosnarrggh
Apr 11, 12:24 PM
That would break all properly licensed third party hardware.
Unless, as mentioned earlier in this thread, that 3rd party hardware includes the ability to upgrade its firmware. In that case, all customers will be required to install a mandatory "security" bug fix which installs support for a new private key, and everything proceeds as normal.
Heck, it's even possible that Apple might already have planned for this contingency, and instead of just having one private key, they may have come up with a set of many private keys to choose from, and also preprogrammed support for all of those keys into every properly licensed accessory. Maybe they just planned to use the first key up until it was compromised, and then move on to another.
Now, they might just push a new iTunes upgrade that blacklists the compromised key and moves on to another one -- and at the same time, instruct all licensed equipment to also add that key to their own blacklist (while continuing to maintain seamless support for all the remainder of the preprogrammed keys) the next time the licensed equipment connects to an authorized audio source.
(Unless, maybe the reverse engineer in this case already anticipated such an eventuality, and actually extracted all of the keys -- assuming, of course, that there really are multiple keys. If that were the case, then the reverse engineer hypothetically might have defeated the entire benefit that Apple might have derived from hypothetically having multiple keys to choose from in the first place...)
Unless, as mentioned earlier in this thread, that 3rd party hardware includes the ability to upgrade its firmware. In that case, all customers will be required to install a mandatory "security" bug fix which installs support for a new private key, and everything proceeds as normal.
Heck, it's even possible that Apple might already have planned for this contingency, and instead of just having one private key, they may have come up with a set of many private keys to choose from, and also preprogrammed support for all of those keys into every properly licensed accessory. Maybe they just planned to use the first key up until it was compromised, and then move on to another.
Now, they might just push a new iTunes upgrade that blacklists the compromised key and moves on to another one -- and at the same time, instruct all licensed equipment to also add that key to their own blacklist (while continuing to maintain seamless support for all the remainder of the preprogrammed keys) the next time the licensed equipment connects to an authorized audio source.
(Unless, maybe the reverse engineer in this case already anticipated such an eventuality, and actually extracted all of the keys -- assuming, of course, that there really are multiple keys. If that were the case, then the reverse engineer hypothetically might have defeated the entire benefit that Apple might have derived from hypothetically having multiple keys to choose from in the first place...)
Crawn2003
Apr 25, 02:01 AM
Wirelessly posted (iPhone: Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_0 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/532.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0.5 Mobile/8A293 Safari/6531.22.7)
Wow, your mom willingly caused a wreck, sued the guy, and you are proud of it. Man, you and your family are just pathetic.:rolleyes:
I really don't think it is necessary to call me or any member of my family "pathetic." There's nothing wrong with manipulating the system to your advantage, if you do it for a valid purpose (such as teaching a crappy driver a lesson).
-Don
Unless someone uses the system against you and to their advantage, then I bet you'd lose your cool and be crying foul.
Wow, your mom willingly caused a wreck, sued the guy, and you are proud of it. Man, you and your family are just pathetic.:rolleyes:
I really don't think it is necessary to call me or any member of my family "pathetic." There's nothing wrong with manipulating the system to your advantage, if you do it for a valid purpose (such as teaching a crappy driver a lesson).
-Don
Unless someone uses the system against you and to their advantage, then I bet you'd lose your cool and be crying foul.
bdj21ya
Oct 12, 12:30 PM
Kinda said how a passionate music artist must make this initiative when countries with HUGE sums of cash prefer military spending in their budgets (Canada included) yet not for world equality for medicine.
Kinda said? Actually, it's equality that they're trying to fight AGAINST here. The problem is that there's too much equality, which means they can't afford the medicine.
I'm all for philanthropy, but I don't think that red is the way to go for selling more iPods.
Kinda said? Actually, it's equality that they're trying to fight AGAINST here. The problem is that there's too much equality, which means they can't afford the medicine.
I'm all for philanthropy, but I don't think that red is the way to go for selling more iPods.
felgatec
Mar 29, 11:59 AM
I disagree, Windows Phone 7 is pretty impressive, now I probably wouldn't get it over a iPhone, but Windows Phone 7 would probably be my next choice, I'm not so much of a fan of Android phones.. And anyway you have to admit that Microsoft's approach is very different, which is what I like.. The Live tiles idea is really good..
have you ever used a windows phone? everyone i know who had one couldnt wait to get rid of it and get a real phone.... the windows operating system sucks, what makes you think their mobile operating system will be any different?
have you ever used a windows phone? everyone i know who had one couldnt wait to get rid of it and get a real phone.... the windows operating system sucks, what makes you think their mobile operating system will be any different?
Misplaced Mage
Sep 18, 05:58 PM
There's no way to compare the two. Both IS-95 and GSM implement a variety of different codecs that are provided differently by different operators. In the area I live, Cingular (GSM) tries to force many phones to use something called AMR-HR, which has "acceptable" voice quality when you have good reception, and drops to barely incomprehensable with any deterioration in signal strength. T-Mobile (GSM) clearly doesn't, and I can talk and listen to someone with both of us sounding like we're on a landline with one bar of signal. On the same phone.
Likewise, Verizon (IS-95) uses some awful bitrate codec for its network where I live (I believe they're heavily oversubscribed here) where pretty much everyone sounds like they're dying from some serious lung problem, and Sprint PCS (IS-95 too) doesn't and generally the call quality, at medium to good reception, seems pretty much ok. Sub-landline, but not seriously so.
Verizon and Sprint have used EVRC (Enhanced Variable Rate Codec) for several years now. EVRC, in turn, replaced QCELP (a.k.a. Qualcomm PureVoice). Down the road we should see EVRC replaced by SMV (Selectable Mode Vocoder), 4GV (Qualcomm's Fourth Generation Vocoder), or VMR-WB.
With the variety of voice codecs the operators use, you can't really make a fair judgement merely on the basis of network technology. Either the operator's cheap, or it isn't. IS-95 was chosen by many networks on the basis that it's spectrum efficient (ie it's cheap), but on the other hand Sprint PCS was always content with call drops when I used it to handle network overloading rather than seriously compromising on call quality. Cingular's move to GSM has caused problems in that it's using a significantly less spectrum efficient technology than the technology it replaced, so Cingular's had to, in many places, hopefully temporarily, use the crappy half-rate codecs to boost capacity until it can get more towers online.
I wouldn't use voice quality as a way to judge the technologies.
Well said! People must understand that the codecs for digital phones in use today were originally designed to squeeze voice through a very narrow upstream pipe—typically 9.6kbps and under—resulting in different approaches to the problem of quality vs. bandwidth given the processing power available in phone chipsets at the time. Now that upstream data bandwidth and portable processing power are becoming less of a problem, we should start hearing improvements as newer codecs are adopted by the carriers in the phones they sell their customers. And I'm sure they'll trumpet the fact when they do. :D
Likewise, Verizon (IS-95) uses some awful bitrate codec for its network where I live (I believe they're heavily oversubscribed here) where pretty much everyone sounds like they're dying from some serious lung problem, and Sprint PCS (IS-95 too) doesn't and generally the call quality, at medium to good reception, seems pretty much ok. Sub-landline, but not seriously so.
Verizon and Sprint have used EVRC (Enhanced Variable Rate Codec) for several years now. EVRC, in turn, replaced QCELP (a.k.a. Qualcomm PureVoice). Down the road we should see EVRC replaced by SMV (Selectable Mode Vocoder), 4GV (Qualcomm's Fourth Generation Vocoder), or VMR-WB.
With the variety of voice codecs the operators use, you can't really make a fair judgement merely on the basis of network technology. Either the operator's cheap, or it isn't. IS-95 was chosen by many networks on the basis that it's spectrum efficient (ie it's cheap), but on the other hand Sprint PCS was always content with call drops when I used it to handle network overloading rather than seriously compromising on call quality. Cingular's move to GSM has caused problems in that it's using a significantly less spectrum efficient technology than the technology it replaced, so Cingular's had to, in many places, hopefully temporarily, use the crappy half-rate codecs to boost capacity until it can get more towers online.
I wouldn't use voice quality as a way to judge the technologies.
Well said! People must understand that the codecs for digital phones in use today were originally designed to squeeze voice through a very narrow upstream pipe—typically 9.6kbps and under—resulting in different approaches to the problem of quality vs. bandwidth given the processing power available in phone chipsets at the time. Now that upstream data bandwidth and portable processing power are becoming less of a problem, we should start hearing improvements as newer codecs are adopted by the carriers in the phones they sell their customers. And I'm sure they'll trumpet the fact when they do. :D
TheManOfSilver
Sep 4, 09:09 PM
I'd be surprised if Apple did anything with TV tuners.
With the variety of TV services that people have (analog cable, digital cable, satellite TV, Verizon's TV over fiber, terrestrial HDTV), coming up with a device that can tune most folks TV doesn't sound easy, even for Apple.
There may be lots of TV options out there, but right now Apple isn't servicing any of them. They're losing potential business to 3rd Party companies like Elgato. If they released a simple box with analog/digital standard/hidef options, they would be servicing the overwhelming majority of the market (most digital, satelite and other special services require set-top boxes anyway).
With the variety of TV services that people have (analog cable, digital cable, satellite TV, Verizon's TV over fiber, terrestrial HDTV), coming up with a device that can tune most folks TV doesn't sound easy, even for Apple.
There may be lots of TV options out there, but right now Apple isn't servicing any of them. They're losing potential business to 3rd Party companies like Elgato. If they released a simple box with analog/digital standard/hidef options, they would be servicing the overwhelming majority of the market (most digital, satelite and other special services require set-top boxes anyway).
bdj21ya
Oct 12, 03:44 PM
Ha ha, You are nuts. Let me tell you how it works.
Nobody gets rich by curing a disease. That is why diabetes, AIDS, HIV etc are all treated with "Keep you alive but not cure you drugs" that you have to buy for the rest of your life. The government and drug companies are in it together and are pure evil. Ain't nobody going to cure anything unless they can keep making money doing it. Get it? Good.
I agree that the drugs are a pretty silly "solution". Spending millions to keep people alive a little longer only makes sense if there isn't a better way to spend the money. I think it makes a lot more sense to spend money on education efforts and economic development. Education and increased economic opportunity, not drugs, are going to solve this problem.
Nobody gets rich by curing a disease. That is why diabetes, AIDS, HIV etc are all treated with "Keep you alive but not cure you drugs" that you have to buy for the rest of your life. The government and drug companies are in it together and are pure evil. Ain't nobody going to cure anything unless they can keep making money doing it. Get it? Good.
I agree that the drugs are a pretty silly "solution". Spending millions to keep people alive a little longer only makes sense if there isn't a better way to spend the money. I think it makes a lot more sense to spend money on education efforts and economic development. Education and increased economic opportunity, not drugs, are going to solve this problem.
Cinch
Sep 5, 01:06 PM
But with every attempt, the chance of success increases significantly. Lets keep our fingers crossed. :)
I think a simpler explanation is that certain things are never meant to be together.
Video on demand are NetFlix currently fill the niche, if there is a niche. Whatever Apple do, it has to be simple and easy i.e. it doesn't require lots of thinking..a lazy person can operate. This is the living room not the office where I don't care to navigate my computer to search for movies to watch.
Cinch
I think a simpler explanation is that certain things are never meant to be together.
Video on demand are NetFlix currently fill the niche, if there is a niche. Whatever Apple do, it has to be simple and easy i.e. it doesn't require lots of thinking..a lazy person can operate. This is the living room not the office where I don't care to navigate my computer to search for movies to watch.
Cinch
DJMastaWes
Jul 17, 04:18 PM
Alternative temporary plan is buy the refurb 1.83 GHz MacBook for $949 now then sell it for about the same when the 2.33 GHz Merom MacBook Pros ships. I would think any almost new MacBook will sell for the same price as refurb or worst case $50 less until the Merom MacBooks ship - which could be at the same time as the MBP but more likely by November. :)
I don't want to buy and sell for a month use.
If the chip is comeing out on staurday (23rd) doesnt that mean that they MBPs will chip the 7th? seeing as how the chip would already be out...
I don't want to buy and sell for a month use.
If the chip is comeing out on staurday (23rd) doesnt that mean that they MBPs will chip the 7th? seeing as how the chip would already be out...
plokoonpma
Apr 30, 07:37 PM
Curious that everyone is clamoring for a thunderbolt-enabled machine, but there isn't a single thunderbolt drive available on the market.
I guess some people just need to feel like they have new stuff even if it's totally pointless.
Sandy Bridge its way more faster, and having the thunderbolt available will be a matter of time for external HDD or cases. Either way the thunderbolt can be used for a LCD so I really don't see your point.
I guess some people just need to feel like they have new stuff even if it's totally pointless.
Sandy Bridge its way more faster, and having the thunderbolt available will be a matter of time for external HDD or cases. Either way the thunderbolt can be used for a LCD so I really don't see your point.
funkyT80
Mar 22, 03:07 PM
wait, since when did apple make computers? :rolleyes:
T'hain Esh Kelch
Oct 12, 12:45 PM
And all my classes are cancelled tomorrow, so I can stay home and watch Oprah. :D
Aw come on, you do that every day! :p
Aw come on, you do that every day! :p
!� V �!
Apr 30, 06:21 PM
Bought monitors with anti-glare coatings. And monitor hoods.
My first computer was a PowerBook G3 and after that it was an LCD iMac (not the Luxo). Never had to ever use a CRT other than school and even then it sucked big time. I feel privileged. With the release of all this gloss glass monitors from :apple:, I am saving a boat load of money by simply not upgrading to the crap offerings and just use a Dell monitor and update to a Mac Mini or MacPro when the time presents itself to upgrade.
Thank you :apple: for not offering any Anti-Glare across the entire hardware lineup. :p
My first computer was a PowerBook G3 and after that it was an LCD iMac (not the Luxo). Never had to ever use a CRT other than school and even then it sucked big time. I feel privileged. With the release of all this gloss glass monitors from :apple:, I am saving a boat load of money by simply not upgrading to the crap offerings and just use a Dell monitor and update to a Mac Mini or MacPro when the time presents itself to upgrade.
Thank you :apple: for not offering any Anti-Glare across the entire hardware lineup. :p
ickies
Sep 19, 03:15 PM
jeez, thats about 10x what i would have expected.
a lot of people I have talked to thought that it was "crazy" to expect people to wait 30+mins to download a movie.
couldn't apple develop something into itunes that lets you watch while it is downloading? is this possible?
I'm also really surprised by these numbers but that's a really good idea you mentioned!
If it takes a few minutes to buffer before the movie starts, why not have the option of watching lower-res movie trailers while you wait? If the studios are willing to pay for the advertising, it could even subsidize the purchase a little bit and maybe Apple could knock a buck off the price.
a lot of people I have talked to thought that it was "crazy" to expect people to wait 30+mins to download a movie.
couldn't apple develop something into itunes that lets you watch while it is downloading? is this possible?
I'm also really surprised by these numbers but that's a really good idea you mentioned!
If it takes a few minutes to buffer before the movie starts, why not have the option of watching lower-res movie trailers while you wait? If the studios are willing to pay for the advertising, it could even subsidize the purchase a little bit and maybe Apple could knock a buck off the price.
richdun
Oct 12, 03:22 PM
I think we can call this confirmed. The Chicago Tribune has a pic of Bono and Oprah using the red Nano on the front page of their website - http://www.chicagotribune.com/
A further story by the Trib says this will happen on Friday (tomorrow) - http://www.chicagotribune.com/technology/chi-061012red-ipod-story,1,3682862.story?coll=chi-news-hed
A further story by the Trib says this will happen on Friday (tomorrow) - http://www.chicagotribune.com/technology/chi-061012red-ipod-story,1,3682862.story?coll=chi-news-hed
stol
Apr 11, 10:59 AM
Both financially and from a space and energy consumption point of view, an Apple TV or an Airport Express is a more efficient solution for this. Apple tends to support only the efficient and simple solutions, not the cumbersome ones.
Agreed. I never said that this is the most elegant solution.
But� why should I get extra hardware (environmentally unfriendly) when I have my Mac on most of the time anyway. You know, I already have a computer (connected to speakers) so computer + Airport Express is more energy/money/space inefficient than a computer alone.
You know all well that the router is not free, you pay for through your monthly payments. The fact that your provider does not offer a cheaper service without such hardware freebies is just unfortunate.
If I renew my service, I pay the same money and of course I don't get new hardware. Hardware freebies are for new customers/connections in many services other than internet connections. Subscribe to a satellite tv service for example, get a free dish. This is beyond me anyway, it's a standard policy for all providers where I live. I just got this modem/router with my subscription and so far it works fine. No need to replace it.
Would you be happy if Apple included a free Airport Express with all Macs (but naturally increased the price for the Mac)? There is nothing free, at least in the physical world (the digital world can be very close to free, see iOS apps).
This makes no sense. Not everyone needs or desires an Airport Express. I never asked Apple for free hardware.
So, how much do think Apple is asking for licensing their Airplay technology, I'd guess at most between $5-10.
Do they license Airplay technology to software developers? I don't think so.
Show me an app on the Mac App Store (or wherever) that acts like an Airport Express and i'll buy it at once.
Is your Mac (the one connected to your sound system) really cheaper than an Airport Express?
And if this is your only Mac, you can just use the Remote app to play the music on it from your iOS device.
How can you possibly compare a Mac to� an Airport Express? I bought a Mac to have a COMPUTER not to stream music wirelessly.
What you should think about is: How hard is for a Mac to act like an Airport Express with the proper software? It shouldn't.
Why it there no software like this? Apple does not want to.
Fair enough; It's their technology. Sometimes though, people want different things. Glad to see quite a few people here want the same as me.
I have no idea what a Banana-TV is but for all that you want to do, an Airport Express it seems would do the trick. Is an Airport Express much more expensive than your Banana-TV?
Banana TV is software. It is $7.99. It makes your Mac act like an Apple TV - does not support audio only though.
It does something like: I can stream a video i just shot from my iPhone to my huge iMac screen - no AppleTV needed, no need to transfer the video to the iMac, no cables.
Now tell me this is not a better solution for casual use than having an AppleTV in terms of money, space, energy, hardware. You see, I don't even have a TV!
Agreed. I never said that this is the most elegant solution.
But� why should I get extra hardware (environmentally unfriendly) when I have my Mac on most of the time anyway. You know, I already have a computer (connected to speakers) so computer + Airport Express is more energy/money/space inefficient than a computer alone.
You know all well that the router is not free, you pay for through your monthly payments. The fact that your provider does not offer a cheaper service without such hardware freebies is just unfortunate.
If I renew my service, I pay the same money and of course I don't get new hardware. Hardware freebies are for new customers/connections in many services other than internet connections. Subscribe to a satellite tv service for example, get a free dish. This is beyond me anyway, it's a standard policy for all providers where I live. I just got this modem/router with my subscription and so far it works fine. No need to replace it.
Would you be happy if Apple included a free Airport Express with all Macs (but naturally increased the price for the Mac)? There is nothing free, at least in the physical world (the digital world can be very close to free, see iOS apps).
This makes no sense. Not everyone needs or desires an Airport Express. I never asked Apple for free hardware.
So, how much do think Apple is asking for licensing their Airplay technology, I'd guess at most between $5-10.
Do they license Airplay technology to software developers? I don't think so.
Show me an app on the Mac App Store (or wherever) that acts like an Airport Express and i'll buy it at once.
Is your Mac (the one connected to your sound system) really cheaper than an Airport Express?
And if this is your only Mac, you can just use the Remote app to play the music on it from your iOS device.
How can you possibly compare a Mac to� an Airport Express? I bought a Mac to have a COMPUTER not to stream music wirelessly.
What you should think about is: How hard is for a Mac to act like an Airport Express with the proper software? It shouldn't.
Why it there no software like this? Apple does not want to.
Fair enough; It's their technology. Sometimes though, people want different things. Glad to see quite a few people here want the same as me.
I have no idea what a Banana-TV is but for all that you want to do, an Airport Express it seems would do the trick. Is an Airport Express much more expensive than your Banana-TV?
Banana TV is software. It is $7.99. It makes your Mac act like an Apple TV - does not support audio only though.
It does something like: I can stream a video i just shot from my iPhone to my huge iMac screen - no AppleTV needed, no need to transfer the video to the iMac, no cables.
Now tell me this is not a better solution for casual use than having an AppleTV in terms of money, space, energy, hardware. You see, I don't even have a TV!
mdntcallr
Sep 14, 09:33 AM
yep i smell both the aperture update,
and hopefully the merom MBP, don't think that the macbook will be updated with merom, they need to differentiate their pro and consumer lines. also, by using the core duo chips in the macbook, perhaps they can lower the price by $100 as the cpu cost is coming down from intel with the new merom out.
and hopefully the merom MBP, don't think that the macbook will be updated with merom, they need to differentiate their pro and consumer lines. also, by using the core duo chips in the macbook, perhaps they can lower the price by $100 as the cpu cost is coming down from intel with the new merom out.
spicyapple
Sep 10, 08:31 AM
Things have certainly changed after the PPC ->x86 transition.
Mac resale value will go down the drain, but that's great if you're the buyer not the seller. It's still much more exciting to be getting these furious CPU upgrades.
Mac resale value will go down the drain, but that's great if you're the buyer not the seller. It's still much more exciting to be getting these furious CPU upgrades.
Bomino
Apr 25, 02:45 AM
Because I actually care about my grandparents. They have done something genuine for me, they have cared for me, they have loved me, etc.
this love you have for your grand parents is called conditional love. AKA the love of a spoiled brat. AKA fake love.
EDIT: you know, if your parents thought of you this way, there would be absolutely no incentive to even want to feed you.
this love you have for your grand parents is called conditional love. AKA the love of a spoiled brat. AKA fake love.
EDIT: you know, if your parents thought of you this way, there would be absolutely no incentive to even want to feed you.
Manic Mouse
Sep 10, 05:47 AM
The iMac is huge (relatively speaking), are you telling me such a huge enclosure won't be able to dissipitate an extra 30W or so? It is only around 30W more!
Like it or not Apple will have to somehow fit the Kentsfield into their lineup, cos their advertising campaigns are going to look very lame when Dell simply cops their "switch" campaign style and come out with a "PC" with 4 heads and a "Mac" with only 2.
When Kentfield replaces Conroes and every $999 Dell ships with quad core, it is quite hard to justify buying a dual (in Apple's case, a $2000+ quad)
I completely agree with you: Apple need to get Kentsfield/Conroe into their lineup somewhere. They are the best bang/buck chips Intel are making so it seems insane that they aren't already using Conroe.
As for thermal constraints... Well, I was a big proponent of the iMac getting Conroe and am still quite shocked they went with Merom. There was a lot of discussion before the new iMacs were released as to whether the case could handle Conroe. I think it could, and I still do. But with Kentsfield you are literally sticking TWO Conroes in there when there is some doubt as to whether it can handle one. The 24" iMac could maybe handle it, but I'm doubtful the smaller sizes could. They currently use 32W Meroms, with Kentsfield we would be talking 100W+. Maybe even as high as 130W since Conroe is 65W and Kentsfield is two Conroe dies in one package.
I personally think that a mid-tower is the only option for Apple to incorperate Conroe/Kentsfield into their lineup. Kentsfield is certainly too hot and takes too much power to go into any of their existing consumer models. It wouldn't go in the Pro since they use the Xeon chipset and will be using Clovertown.
As you say, once PC manufacturers get their hands on Kentfield the consumer Macs are going to look very anaemic.
Like it or not Apple will have to somehow fit the Kentsfield into their lineup, cos their advertising campaigns are going to look very lame when Dell simply cops their "switch" campaign style and come out with a "PC" with 4 heads and a "Mac" with only 2.
When Kentfield replaces Conroes and every $999 Dell ships with quad core, it is quite hard to justify buying a dual (in Apple's case, a $2000+ quad)
I completely agree with you: Apple need to get Kentsfield/Conroe into their lineup somewhere. They are the best bang/buck chips Intel are making so it seems insane that they aren't already using Conroe.
As for thermal constraints... Well, I was a big proponent of the iMac getting Conroe and am still quite shocked they went with Merom. There was a lot of discussion before the new iMacs were released as to whether the case could handle Conroe. I think it could, and I still do. But with Kentsfield you are literally sticking TWO Conroes in there when there is some doubt as to whether it can handle one. The 24" iMac could maybe handle it, but I'm doubtful the smaller sizes could. They currently use 32W Meroms, with Kentsfield we would be talking 100W+. Maybe even as high as 130W since Conroe is 65W and Kentsfield is two Conroe dies in one package.
I personally think that a mid-tower is the only option for Apple to incorperate Conroe/Kentsfield into their lineup. Kentsfield is certainly too hot and takes too much power to go into any of their existing consumer models. It wouldn't go in the Pro since they use the Xeon chipset and will be using Clovertown.
As you say, once PC manufacturers get their hands on Kentfield the consumer Macs are going to look very anaemic.
cube
Apr 23, 12:28 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_2 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8H7 Safari/6533.18.5)
I was under the understanding that the reason that the current 320M has been so impressive considering the aging Duel Core CPU was the increased speed of data transfer from the SSD meaning a large increase in efficiency in both the CPU and the GPU.
So surely it stands to reason that if the intergrated GPU of Sandy Bridge is only slightly less powerful than the current 320M but will be partnered with the SSD and a MASSIVELY more powerful CPU then the sandy bridge MBA will be at least as powerful in graphics terms than the currant MBA.
Am I just being stupid thinking that?
320M has OpenCL. Intel does not have OpenCL. All Intel graphics are thus bad.
I was under the understanding that the reason that the current 320M has been so impressive considering the aging Duel Core CPU was the increased speed of data transfer from the SSD meaning a large increase in efficiency in both the CPU and the GPU.
So surely it stands to reason that if the intergrated GPU of Sandy Bridge is only slightly less powerful than the current 320M but will be partnered with the SSD and a MASSIVELY more powerful CPU then the sandy bridge MBA will be at least as powerful in graphics terms than the currant MBA.
Am I just being stupid thinking that?
320M has OpenCL. Intel does not have OpenCL. All Intel graphics are thus bad.
p0intblank
Sep 19, 03:28 PM
WOW! :eek: This is excellent news for Apple! First they did it with TV shows and now movies... I'm proud to be an Apple fan. :D
whatever
Oct 12, 02:21 PM
I would love to have a red iPod, but I don't know why we would ever give money to help fight AIDS on a continent where the people take NO precautions to prevent themselves from getting AIDS... I mean, sure many children are born with it in Africa, but for soooo many adults, they could prevent the spread if they would just be monogamous.
So there, I solved AIDS for free, no Oprah, no Bono, no Ipods. Just have sex only within a lifetime committed relationship and AIDS is all but gone in one generation!
I'll stick to my black aluminum iPod nano, anyhow. I just hope 10% of the proceeds didn't go to research finding cures for the black plague... or frostbite...
It makes me so happy to know that there are still plenty of stupid people in the world.
Thank you
So there, I solved AIDS for free, no Oprah, no Bono, no Ipods. Just have sex only within a lifetime committed relationship and AIDS is all but gone in one generation!
I'll stick to my black aluminum iPod nano, anyhow. I just hope 10% of the proceeds didn't go to research finding cures for the black plague... or frostbite...
It makes me so happy to know that there are still plenty of stupid people in the world.
Thank you
afrowq
Mar 22, 09:19 PM
apple doesn't sell as many mac pro's so it's at the end of the list
Of course, part of the reason why people are hesitant to buy them is because they are the last to be updated... even though they are the most expensive product Apple has.
Of course, part of the reason why people are hesitant to buy them is because they are the last to be updated... even though they are the most expensive product Apple has.
No comments:
Post a Comment