Skika
Apr 14, 02:30 AM
Duuhh its a Macbook Air iPad hybrid!
atari1356
Oct 24, 07:45 AM
From the press release:
"up to 39 percent faster than the previous 2.16 GHz MacBook Pro"
Really? I'd like to see those benchmarks... nice that they finally added FW800 back into the 15" model.
"up to 39 percent faster than the previous 2.16 GHz MacBook Pro"
Really? I'd like to see those benchmarks... nice that they finally added FW800 back into the 15" model.
ECUpirate44
Apr 22, 04:16 PM
There is no way it could be that thin.
blackburn
Apr 14, 08:36 AM
iHackintosh:D
more...
Squonk
Oct 24, 09:31 AM
so...
5400/7200?
is the difference a big deal for audio/graphics work?
I do not have a practical answer for you, but I had a similar question when I was upgrading the HD in my powerbook - I wanted the fastest drive I could afford as this would give my PB the biggest performance boost. What I found out is that the 160GB 5400 perpendicular drives have about 90-95% the performance throughput of a non-perpendicular 7200 drive. The reason being that because the bit are perpendicular, the drive needs to rotate a shorter amount to read the same amount of data. I know at the microscopic size of the data on the drives this seems hard to believe, but logically, it makes sense to me. My PB is a screamer by comparison to the 4200 drive that was in there, which has not bearing to your question of course...
I suspect, that the 5400 160GB drive from Apple will have decent performance. Personally, I'm not impressed with the 4200 200GB offering, but for someone who needs more space and ultimate performance is not key, then this would be fine.
That all being said, I look forward to finding out the specs & models of the actual drives Apple is putting in the new MBP's before I'd put money down on one.
Cheers!
5400/7200?
is the difference a big deal for audio/graphics work?
I do not have a practical answer for you, but I had a similar question when I was upgrading the HD in my powerbook - I wanted the fastest drive I could afford as this would give my PB the biggest performance boost. What I found out is that the 160GB 5400 perpendicular drives have about 90-95% the performance throughput of a non-perpendicular 7200 drive. The reason being that because the bit are perpendicular, the drive needs to rotate a shorter amount to read the same amount of data. I know at the microscopic size of the data on the drives this seems hard to believe, but logically, it makes sense to me. My PB is a screamer by comparison to the 4200 drive that was in there, which has not bearing to your question of course...
I suspect, that the 5400 160GB drive from Apple will have decent performance. Personally, I'm not impressed with the 4200 200GB offering, but for someone who needs more space and ultimate performance is not key, then this would be fine.
That all being said, I look forward to finding out the specs & models of the actual drives Apple is putting in the new MBP's before I'd put money down on one.
Cheers!
bedifferent
Apr 11, 02:38 PM
Unlikely. USB still retains advantages in ubiquity, cost and far more devices supported per connection (128 vs 16). I would see WiFi and Bluetooth as bigger USB competitors.
Forgive my ignorance, but wasn't "Light Peak" supposed to be implemented via fiber optics for internal implementation? I always gathered from the last three years of research that "Light Peak" would become a universal system controller, replacing the need for multiple controllers such as FireWire, USB, etc as it would control components from internal devices such as HDD's to external devices such as iDevices, displays and HDD's. This would allow for less parts, faster speeds (although current HDD's may not benefit due to speed limitations, unlike SSD's) and smaller/lighter forms for portables.
Forgive my ignorance, but wasn't "Light Peak" supposed to be implemented via fiber optics for internal implementation? I always gathered from the last three years of research that "Light Peak" would become a universal system controller, replacing the need for multiple controllers such as FireWire, USB, etc as it would control components from internal devices such as HDD's to external devices such as iDevices, displays and HDD's. This would allow for less parts, faster speeds (although current HDD's may not benefit due to speed limitations, unlike SSD's) and smaller/lighter forms for portables.
more...
Eidorian
May 3, 08:12 AM
The way they've been able to keep the price low while using quad-cores in EVERY iMac has been by downgrading the GPUs. The Graphics Cards in EVERY model are now mobile. In the last line of iMacs they were full powered desktop GPUs.
So, you see, while there's an upside (the processors), it doesn't come without a down (the GPUs). At first glance I was really annoyed as the �999 one (which is what I got before the refresh) had an i5 quad core, then I saw the graphics memory and got even more annoyed, but THEN I noticed the large shiny M at the end of the GPU name. THAT's how they've been able to bring us them processors and still keep the price down. They've downgraded the GPUs. As my i3 processor practically acts like a quad core anyway and is virtually never pushed to it's limits I think I'm more than happy with what I have. The GPU may only have 256MB dedicated memory but at least it's not mobile.They have been mobile since the switch to Intel. Though the 24" with 7300/7600GT does stand out.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Intel_Core_i5_microprocessors#.22Sandy_Bridge.22_.2832_nm.29_2
The 2.5GHz and 2.7GHz models look to be Low-Voltage 65W Core i5, which is why Apple is able to fit quad cores in the 21.5" enclosure. But does that actually mean the 3.1GHz Core i5 in the 27" is actually cheaper than the slower 2.7GHz Core i5 in the 27"? Intel doesn't sell a 2.7GHz standard voltage Core i5 unless its a custom model or Apple is underclocking the 2.8GHz Core i5, which seems like an unnecessary waste of free clock speed room.Underclock and relabel is not anything new.
So, you see, while there's an upside (the processors), it doesn't come without a down (the GPUs). At first glance I was really annoyed as the �999 one (which is what I got before the refresh) had an i5 quad core, then I saw the graphics memory and got even more annoyed, but THEN I noticed the large shiny M at the end of the GPU name. THAT's how they've been able to bring us them processors and still keep the price down. They've downgraded the GPUs. As my i3 processor practically acts like a quad core anyway and is virtually never pushed to it's limits I think I'm more than happy with what I have. The GPU may only have 256MB dedicated memory but at least it's not mobile.They have been mobile since the switch to Intel. Though the 24" with 7300/7600GT does stand out.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Intel_Core_i5_microprocessors#.22Sandy_Bridge.22_.2832_nm.29_2
The 2.5GHz and 2.7GHz models look to be Low-Voltage 65W Core i5, which is why Apple is able to fit quad cores in the 21.5" enclosure. But does that actually mean the 3.1GHz Core i5 in the 27" is actually cheaper than the slower 2.7GHz Core i5 in the 27"? Intel doesn't sell a 2.7GHz standard voltage Core i5 unless its a custom model or Apple is underclocking the 2.8GHz Core i5, which seems like an unnecessary waste of free clock speed room.Underclock and relabel is not anything new.
dmr727
Dec 30, 01:38 PM
I'm sorry, if you struggle to lose weight, you're not doing it right. Losing weight is dead easy.
I don't have a dog in this fight, but the question that runs through my mind is: if it's so easy, why do people struggle with it? Why are there entire industries built around people that struggle with losing weight on their own?
I don't have a dog in this fight, but the question that runs through my mind is: if it's so easy, why do people struggle with it? Why are there entire industries built around people that struggle with losing weight on their own?
more...
bondsbw
Sep 30, 10:03 AM
Um.... I am pretty sure that Apple gets a higher subsidy from having an exclusive carrier agreement, lowering the cost to their customers, yet still keeping margins on the device high.
Someone to correct me if I am wrong.
So you're saying that AT&T gives Apple money...but that does nothing for Apple's business?
:rolleyes: Wow, both of you missed it entirely. My point is the same as yours.
The poster I replied to suggested that Apple could have split their contract so that both AT&T and Verizon would have the iPhone (meaning better overall service today). But in the end, that would mean less profit for Apple.
I was explaining that Apple would not have made an exclusive agreement had there been no extra money involved. That's my point.
Someone to correct me if I am wrong.
So you're saying that AT&T gives Apple money...but that does nothing for Apple's business?
:rolleyes: Wow, both of you missed it entirely. My point is the same as yours.
The poster I replied to suggested that Apple could have split their contract so that both AT&T and Verizon would have the iPhone (meaning better overall service today). But in the end, that would mean less profit for Apple.
I was explaining that Apple would not have made an exclusive agreement had there been no extra money involved. That's my point.
gr8whtd0pe
Jan 26, 10:33 PM
No sure what you are talking about lol
Guess not then. Look at your mentions... Wait nm contest...
Guess not then. Look at your mentions... Wait nm contest...
more...
tny
Oct 6, 04:23 PM
You are assuming that the amount of spectrum available will never change. There's a reason they just shut off analog TV. Yes, spectrum is a finite resource, but they're shifting more to mobile voice/data very soon.
You are also assuming that all the frequencies available to each tower are already in use on that tower - that the towers are saturated. I think that's an unlikely assumption, outside very dense areas like Manhattan and DC. (And in Manhattan, you probably don't have the whole "can't get towers approved because of community opposition" problem because the towers are just installed on or in existing buildings, albeit at some expense; and you probably need a denser tower population anyway because of all the ground clutter; so a denser tower population probably already exists).
I imagine that the transceivers used on the towers have channel limits - that each transceiver can only handle a certain number of handsets k, within the limits of the number of available frequency sets n (the phone doesn't just use one frequency; I'm pretty sure they are spread-spectrum devices, so you are better off thinking of frequency sets rather than frequencies), and that k <<< n . That would explain AT&T's claims that their ongoing upgrades will mitigate the problem - they may be upgrading the transceivers on the towers so that each tower can use more of the frequencies theoretically available than has been true so far.
The other cell companies also have to segregate their frequencies from one another. If T-Mobile (the other GSM/3G carrier) isn't having this problem, it means either a. their network utilization is a lot lower, or b. they're doing something right and AT&T is doing something wrong. That's also true with the CDMA carriers, of course, but I think they use different parts of the spectrum - and Verizon is a pretty big network.
It's interesting how cell service works. Here's a simplistic summary:
Only a certain number of users can use a tower at any given time. There is only a certain range of frequencies that can be used. All towers use these same frequencies. This means that each tower must not overlap the others in terms of coverage area and frequenceis. To ensure this, companies actually use different frequency ranges on adjacent towers. Further limiting how many users can use each tower.
[cropped out a lot of the quote]
When I was in NYC I noticed by data speeds were much slower. I didn't make enough calls to have any problems with that though.
You are also assuming that all the frequencies available to each tower are already in use on that tower - that the towers are saturated. I think that's an unlikely assumption, outside very dense areas like Manhattan and DC. (And in Manhattan, you probably don't have the whole "can't get towers approved because of community opposition" problem because the towers are just installed on or in existing buildings, albeit at some expense; and you probably need a denser tower population anyway because of all the ground clutter; so a denser tower population probably already exists).
I imagine that the transceivers used on the towers have channel limits - that each transceiver can only handle a certain number of handsets k, within the limits of the number of available frequency sets n (the phone doesn't just use one frequency; I'm pretty sure they are spread-spectrum devices, so you are better off thinking of frequency sets rather than frequencies), and that k <<< n . That would explain AT&T's claims that their ongoing upgrades will mitigate the problem - they may be upgrading the transceivers on the towers so that each tower can use more of the frequencies theoretically available than has been true so far.
The other cell companies also have to segregate their frequencies from one another. If T-Mobile (the other GSM/3G carrier) isn't having this problem, it means either a. their network utilization is a lot lower, or b. they're doing something right and AT&T is doing something wrong. That's also true with the CDMA carriers, of course, but I think they use different parts of the spectrum - and Verizon is a pretty big network.
It's interesting how cell service works. Here's a simplistic summary:
Only a certain number of users can use a tower at any given time. There is only a certain range of frequencies that can be used. All towers use these same frequencies. This means that each tower must not overlap the others in terms of coverage area and frequenceis. To ensure this, companies actually use different frequency ranges on adjacent towers. Further limiting how many users can use each tower.
[cropped out a lot of the quote]
When I was in NYC I noticed by data speeds were much slower. I didn't make enough calls to have any problems with that though.
Aduntu
May 2, 02:23 AM
This is not for the faint of heart.
first released of Osama bin Laden dead (http://www.glittarazzi.com/storage/osama_bin_laden_dead-photo.jpg).
No way that's real.
first released of Osama bin Laden dead (http://www.glittarazzi.com/storage/osama_bin_laden_dead-photo.jpg).
No way that's real.
more...
heron88
Apr 2, 10:41 PM
http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5297/5584182758_013a2359bc_b.jpg
---f/11---1/20---ISO100---120mm---
---f/11---1/20---ISO100---120mm---
vpndev
Apr 22, 05:21 PM
No "AT&T" !
There's always hope!
There's always hope!
more...
cult hero
Apr 15, 08:19 PM
nope .. refresh happening in the next 3-4 weeks ... they want you to purchase the machine first then pay to upgrade to lion
I find that very likely.
I find that very likely.
LagunaSol
Apr 22, 05:00 PM
Looks like everyone is copying Palm with the gesture area thing. First RIM now Apple.
And by "copied Palm" of course you mean "patented themselves back before Feb. 2010."
http://www.tuaw.com/2010/02/03/apple-granted-patent-for-touch-sensitive-bezel/
http://www.patentlyapple.com/patently-apple/2010/02/apples-ipad-may-gain-an-intelligent-bezel-in-the-future.html
And by "copied Palm" of course you mean "patented themselves back before Feb. 2010."
http://www.tuaw.com/2010/02/03/apple-granted-patent-for-touch-sensitive-bezel/
http://www.patentlyapple.com/patently-apple/2010/02/apples-ipad-may-gain-an-intelligent-bezel-in-the-future.html
more...
gopher
Jul 31, 12:59 PM
The Future Shock video here:
http://www.mprove.de/uni/asi/futureshock.html
Which was among the Knowledge Navigator videos sounds remarkably like this technology.
http://www.mprove.de/uni/asi/futureshock.html
Which was among the Knowledge Navigator videos sounds remarkably like this technology.
Yannick
Oct 24, 08:26 AM
I've currently got a single 1GB stick in a three year old PB - will that be OK to swap into a new MBP?
Iain
Nope.
Iain
Nope.
mtkagan
Mar 11, 08:10 AM
Heads up to anyone planning to go to south coast, mall security isn't allowing anyone to line up before the store opens .
caspersoong
Apr 22, 05:23 AM
Stop suing others when you're in the wrong. So irritating.
chiefpavvy
Apr 22, 05:48 PM
this sounds like a bunch of bull, the iphone 4 is complete great the way it is. Why degrade it?
Agreed. iPhone 4 "feels" perfect in my hands. I hope they leave it nearly as-is and simply throw in the A5 and maybe a better camera. EDIT: And 64GB!
That said, we know a radical redesign is imminent. It's either iPhone 5 or 6. I guess we'll see.
Agreed. iPhone 4 "feels" perfect in my hands. I hope they leave it nearly as-is and simply throw in the A5 and maybe a better camera. EDIT: And 64GB!
That said, we know a radical redesign is imminent. It's either iPhone 5 or 6. I guess we'll see.
Goldinboy17
May 2, 01:03 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)
Basically any modern media device can play MP4 which is what Apple uses on it's store. For example I can put music purchased from iTunes on my Android phone with no coversion at all.Can you name a few more? I have only seen Sony support AAC on their PMP devices.
How I wish Xbox would support their format. I like streaming music but it sucks having to convert my favorite song. My NookColor, Palm Pre Plus and Nexus can all play these songs just fine.
Basically any modern media device can play MP4 which is what Apple uses on it's store. For example I can put music purchased from iTunes on my Android phone with no coversion at all.Can you name a few more? I have only seen Sony support AAC on their PMP devices.
How I wish Xbox would support their format. I like streaming music but it sucks having to convert my favorite song. My NookColor, Palm Pre Plus and Nexus can all play these songs just fine.
!� V �!
Apr 28, 05:26 PM
If you look at other photos it looks exactly the same.
That photo has a weird angle to it. You can see the other side of the white iphone.
Someone from "a" news service is bending a no story into "A Story." ;):D
That photo has a weird angle to it. You can see the other side of the white iphone.
Someone from "a" news service is bending a no story into "A Story." ;):D
joost538
Dec 1, 04:23 PM
No one.. and stangely it's now ON by DEFAULT in all the MacTels I've received lately. No idea why.
Not here .. (1st gen MacBook 2 GHz)
Not here .. (1st gen MacBook 2 GHz)
ليست هناك تعليقات:
إرسال تعليق