Chundles
Sep 10, 11:22 PM
Mine connection would take around 14 hours, but we have adsl 2+ now which is up to 24mb/sec. Can't wait to upgrade :cool:
This movie store is all exciting and all, but with out world stores, it will be the US who will be enjoying it :(
Yep, downloadable TV shows, movies for purchase or rent, iPhoto photobooks/prints/calendars/cards etc.
Who gives a rat's? Not me because we can't use any of them.
This movie store is all exciting and all, but with out world stores, it will be the US who will be enjoying it :(
Yep, downloadable TV shows, movies for purchase or rent, iPhoto photobooks/prints/calendars/cards etc.
Who gives a rat's? Not me because we can't use any of them.
Howdr
Apr 5, 03:52 PM
Why is Apple bothered by jailbreaking? Why does Apple oppose jailbreaking? Again, as a company which tightly controls the user experience of their devices and doesn't like news such as security flaws, I'm sure there are many things which bother them about jailbreaking, but again there is probably one primary cause: software piracy. Jailbreaking enables software piracy and there's not a whole lot that even the jailbreaking community can do about that.
megan fox tattoos on ack.
megan fox tattoos back. megan
Megan Fox Tattoo Back
Megan Fox Tattoo Back
Megan Fox Back Tattoo
megan fox tattoos on ack.
What a horrible tattoo…
megan fox
Megan Fox gets tattoos to deal
Megan Fox Tattoos on Upper
Shakespear#39;s poem tattoo on
megan fox tattoos on ack.
megan fox tattoos. HyperZboy
megan fox tattoos on ack
megan fox tattoos on ack.
Megan Fox Tattoo: chicago
Megan Fox Tattoos
LagunaSol
Apr 18, 04:05 PM
[B]But I don't think companies should be able to copyright overall aesthetic choices unless the two products are basically identical looking and intended to be sold as cheap knockoffs.
And the Samsung phones are not cheap knock offs, they're actually probably the best andriod phones on the market.
Wait, so they should be able to clone a competitor's product's industrial design as long as they don't undercut the competitor's price? :confused:
And the Samsung phones are not cheap knock offs, they're actually probably the best andriod phones on the market.
Wait, so they should be able to clone a competitor's product's industrial design as long as they don't undercut the competitor's price? :confused:
Mac-Rumours
May 4, 04:02 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_2_1 like Mac OS X; en-gb) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Mobile/8C148)
The entire idea of restoring from a Time Machine backup has always been illogical to me.
If Time Machine backs up everything, then it backs up whatever problems you had that resulted in your need for restore.
Time Machine has limited real use, and its basically limited to accidentally deleting things.
Indeed, which is why I also do a Carbon Copy Clone once in a while. Most people, for some reason, just use Time Machine. Maybe they never have encountered a catastrophic disk failure. Seems like a big risk to take.
CCC would also copy any issues (apart from hardware faults) so how would that be better?
The entire idea of restoring from a Time Machine backup has always been illogical to me.
If Time Machine backs up everything, then it backs up whatever problems you had that resulted in your need for restore.
Time Machine has limited real use, and its basically limited to accidentally deleting things.
Indeed, which is why I also do a Carbon Copy Clone once in a while. Most people, for some reason, just use Time Machine. Maybe they never have encountered a catastrophic disk failure. Seems like a big risk to take.
CCC would also copy any issues (apart from hardware faults) so how would that be better?
NebulaClash
Apr 25, 10:18 AM
.What people are looking? The press? The "journalistic" dingbats of today couldn't do an expose on how to break out of a wet paper bag if their life depended on it. The brilliant politicians?! They don't know squat and are only as informed as (in this case, Apple), their source lets them be. Otherwise they know squat! ../
Politicians and reporters? Why would you think they would be the ones to investigate it? No, I was talking about computer folks, hackers, jailbreakers, all the people who love to take Apple's stuff apart. It would be an enourmous coup to be able to prove this info is being transmitted back to Apple. You'd have every news organization reporting your findings.
Yet it does not happen. Because no one can find any evidence that anything Steve said is wrong.
Politicians and reporters? Why would you think they would be the ones to investigate it? No, I was talking about computer folks, hackers, jailbreakers, all the people who love to take Apple's stuff apart. It would be an enourmous coup to be able to prove this info is being transmitted back to Apple. You'd have every news organization reporting your findings.
Yet it does not happen. Because no one can find any evidence that anything Steve said is wrong.
reachingforsky
Aug 4, 01:17 PM
I hope we're all in for surprises at WWDC. Up until then, this is all speculation. It's fun to speculate and to try to be cool by being right, but I hope they knock everyone's socks off with the unexpected.
ECUpirate44
Apr 9, 07:22 PM
Yes, if you assume the (9+3) is a power.
No, if you assume there is a fantom multiplier between the 2 and the (9+3).
It's a loaded question, due to incomplete specifications, yet again.
Takes me back to my User days. Kill them all!!! :mad:
It's cut and dry simple math that you are over thinking. Why would you assume (9+3) is a power? 9+3=12 simple as that.
No, if you assume there is a fantom multiplier between the 2 and the (9+3).
It's a loaded question, due to incomplete specifications, yet again.
Takes me back to my User days. Kill them all!!! :mad:
It's cut and dry simple math that you are over thinking. Why would you assume (9+3) is a power? 9+3=12 simple as that.
Al Coholic
Apr 7, 12:48 PM
I see people still don�t understand what a monopoly is.And I see people are still taking the word monopoly used here too literally.
Yeah, we know what a real monopoly is. Thanks.
And here in the U.S. It generally starts with a company getting too much of the market and stifling out the competition. That's why there's the FTC.
Yeah, we know what a real monopoly is. Thanks.
And here in the U.S. It generally starts with a company getting too much of the market and stifling out the competition. That's why there's the FTC.
Erasmus
Aug 4, 09:20 PM
It seems to me that the future of running Windows on our Macs is to not run Windows on our Macs.
There are now at least two programs that allow a user to run Windows software without having to fork out the cost of the Windows OS, having to install it, or having to use or even look at it.
After the issues of differences in speed between Windows OS and Mac OS, being some programs, especially games, run better in Windows using Boot Camp, there will be no point in using Parallels or Boot Camp, and Apple will hopefully create their own version of Crossover, etc. This would only happen if Apple were to gain a significant marketshare, and were willing to take on Microsoft, who would probably find any and all loopholes and reasons to sue Apple through the ground, out the other side, and half way across the known universe. After all, who would use Windows if you could run all your programs on superior hardware, in a superior operating system?
I remain hopeful that this will one day happen, especially if Apple could create a way of running Direct X in System, or make their own graphics drivers that are equal to or better than DX10.
First we had to reboot. Then we only needed Windows. Now we don't. All we need now, is for Apple to royally screw Microsoft, and take over as the leading provider of operating systems. The time has come for a long and bloody revolution! Viva La Applé! Judgement Day on Microsoft is nigh!
Crusade anyone? Free Torches and Pitchforks. The cost of all projectile weaponry must be supported by the wielder, and I take no responsibility for the consequences of your actions.
;)
There are now at least two programs that allow a user to run Windows software without having to fork out the cost of the Windows OS, having to install it, or having to use or even look at it.
After the issues of differences in speed between Windows OS and Mac OS, being some programs, especially games, run better in Windows using Boot Camp, there will be no point in using Parallels or Boot Camp, and Apple will hopefully create their own version of Crossover, etc. This would only happen if Apple were to gain a significant marketshare, and were willing to take on Microsoft, who would probably find any and all loopholes and reasons to sue Apple through the ground, out the other side, and half way across the known universe. After all, who would use Windows if you could run all your programs on superior hardware, in a superior operating system?
I remain hopeful that this will one day happen, especially if Apple could create a way of running Direct X in System, or make their own graphics drivers that are equal to or better than DX10.
First we had to reboot. Then we only needed Windows. Now we don't. All we need now, is for Apple to royally screw Microsoft, and take over as the leading provider of operating systems. The time has come for a long and bloody revolution! Viva La Applé! Judgement Day on Microsoft is nigh!
Crusade anyone? Free Torches and Pitchforks. The cost of all projectile weaponry must be supported by the wielder, and I take no responsibility for the consequences of your actions.
;)
Mikey7c8
Nov 7, 09:11 PM
I agree with the general sentiment of the thread. Mac users should have anti-virus if only to lessen the probability of propagating virally affected material; it is the enemy, not the av companies (well perhaps i'd make an exception for symantec ;))
Sophos has been great from my perspective, used it in one of my old positions for something like 30 workstations.
Trying it on the mac, we'll see if i'll keep it though. I will admit I tend towards the 'I'm on a mac, I don't need AV' side of the fence for the most part even though I completely agree it's a good idea in general :)
Sophos has been great from my perspective, used it in one of my old positions for something like 30 workstations.
Trying it on the mac, we'll see if i'll keep it though. I will admit I tend towards the 'I'm on a mac, I don't need AV' side of the fence for the most part even though I completely agree it's a good idea in general :)
dwd3885
Mar 28, 10:13 AM
That said, the iPhone as it stands is a nearly perfect device. .
A 'perfect' devices with a bad antenna design? Sorry, but I wouldn't touch the iPhone 4 because of its antenna design flaws and won't get an iPhone until Apple corrects that. Hardly perfect. Perfect for YOU maybe..
A 'perfect' devices with a bad antenna design? Sorry, but I wouldn't touch the iPhone 4 because of its antenna design flaws and won't get an iPhone until Apple corrects that. Hardly perfect. Perfect for YOU maybe..
cere
Apr 5, 01:05 PM
"Toyota had agreed to do so to "maintain their good relationship with Apple," "
Toyota has a relationship with Apple, good or bad? Why? I don't see the connection.
Toyota has a relationship with Apple, good or bad? Why? I don't see the connection.
wildmac
Aug 7, 09:00 PM
These sound sweet, I want one.
But it's funny how the whole Mac Pro is a killer machine but they still neglect the video cards, seriously a nVidia Geforce 7300GT.
REPEAT AFTER ME: NOT EVERYONE NEEDS A VIDEO CARD WITH 512RAM. NOT EVERYONE IS PLAYING DOOM.
Seriously, a lot of these WORKSTATIONS will never use apps that require more than that video card. Many will be headless. Why put a $350 video card in there?..
It's called CHOICE.
But it's funny how the whole Mac Pro is a killer machine but they still neglect the video cards, seriously a nVidia Geforce 7300GT.
REPEAT AFTER ME: NOT EVERYONE NEEDS A VIDEO CARD WITH 512RAM. NOT EVERYONE IS PLAYING DOOM.
Seriously, a lot of these WORKSTATIONS will never use apps that require more than that video card. Many will be headless. Why put a $350 video card in there?..
It's called CHOICE.
McGiord
May 4, 05:09 PM
You metric people ought to hook up with the military time people.
It is the international system, and it does adopt the metric units, and yes the military time is less confusing also.
It is the international system, and it does adopt the metric units, and yes the military time is less confusing also.
acurafan
May 7, 01:23 PM
that would be awesome, free is good! i'd sign up and use it as honeypot for all useless mail and spam (same as my gmail and yahoo) :D
floam
Sep 10, 11:30 PM
.
bedifferent
Apr 23, 04:46 PM
not the icons the wallpaper
and its Macintosh HD/Library/Desktop pictures
icons are located by clicking get info on an application, then clicking the icon in the window and command+c to copy. open up preview and click file, open from clipbord
LOL was going about it the hardware in CoreServices/Finder.app (which has all the sidebar icons btw). Didn't think it would be the obvious in the Contents of the app. DOH!
Thanks!
Wait, so the desktop wallpaper should be 3200x2000? I'm only seeing 2560x1600. Hmmmm.
Checked out the icons, the largest I see in the App's are 512x512. Strange.
UPDATE: Launchpad.icns shows 1024x1024. Checking app's specific to Lion, just odd some don't have the reported 1024.
and its Macintosh HD/Library/Desktop pictures
icons are located by clicking get info on an application, then clicking the icon in the window and command+c to copy. open up preview and click file, open from clipbord
LOL was going about it the hardware in CoreServices/Finder.app (which has all the sidebar icons btw). Didn't think it would be the obvious in the Contents of the app. DOH!
Thanks!
Wait, so the desktop wallpaper should be 3200x2000? I'm only seeing 2560x1600. Hmmmm.
Checked out the icons, the largest I see in the App's are 512x512. Strange.
UPDATE: Launchpad.icns shows 1024x1024. Checking app's specific to Lion, just odd some don't have the reported 1024.
shelterpaw
Aug 7, 08:35 PM
I was fooled by the strange new words and the "you will have heat problems if you buy other ram from other makers that dont have heat sinks!"
TIA
haha sucka!
Just kidding... :p
TIA
haha sucka!
Just kidding... :p
citizenzen
Apr 16, 01:23 PM
It's spending on investment rather than spending on consumption.
This is a key point to the growing inequity of wealth in America. The rich have surplus funds that they are able to invest, while the poor, and a growing number of people are spending all of the income on consumption.
In 2007 Zhu Xiao Di wrote a report for the Harvard University's Joint Center for Housing Studies title, Growing Wealth, Inequity, and Housing in the United States [PDF] (http://www.jchs.harvard.edu/publications/markets/w07-1.pdf)
Abstract
The rapid growth of household wealth in the United States has been accompanied by drastic growing inequality. This paper discusses both wealth and inequality growth, examines demographic factors behind the growth, and analyzes housing�s role in it, using the Survey of Consumer Finances data collected by the Federal Reserve Bank. While aggregate household net wealth grew from $25.9 trillion in 1995 to $50.1 trillion in 2004 (both in 2004 dollars), nearly 90 percent of the net gains occurred only among the top quartile of households in the wealth distribution. Although housing wealth (both home equity and housing value) was still more evenly distributed than other types of wealth, it largely served to widen the wealth gap rather than to narrow it during the last decade.
In this report, he clearly illustrates the difference between household net wealth and household income.
Wealth Inequality and Household Net Wealth Growth
It is well known that the distribution of household net wealth is even more unbalanced than that of household income. Net wealth is defined as all assets net out all debts. In the top quartile of the household net wealth distribution held the lion�s share�87 percent (or $43.6 trillion) while the bottom quartile of households had nothing. The upper and lower middle quartiles combined held $6.5 trillion, or 13 percent of total household net wealth (see Chart 1).
http://www.interfaith.org/forum/members/citizenzen-albums-album-picture1305-screen-shot-2011-04-16.png
As he says in the report, "In other words, the bottom 28 million of American households in 2004 had nothing once their debt is netted out ..."
The difference between inequalities in wealth and income is quite natural, as one is from a stock perspective and the other is from a flow perspective. Low income households have to spend most or all of their incomes on life necessities with little capability of saving and investment so they can hardly accumulate any household net wealth. Thus they often remain in the bottom distribution of household wealth with nothing; the exception is the group of low income senior households who recently fell into the low-income category due to retirement and the loss of income. In short, while the bottom quartile of income distribution still has income, the bottom quartile of wealth distribution does not have any wealth net of debt.
This is a key point to the growing inequity of wealth in America. The rich have surplus funds that they are able to invest, while the poor, and a growing number of people are spending all of the income on consumption.
In 2007 Zhu Xiao Di wrote a report for the Harvard University's Joint Center for Housing Studies title, Growing Wealth, Inequity, and Housing in the United States [PDF] (http://www.jchs.harvard.edu/publications/markets/w07-1.pdf)
Abstract
The rapid growth of household wealth in the United States has been accompanied by drastic growing inequality. This paper discusses both wealth and inequality growth, examines demographic factors behind the growth, and analyzes housing�s role in it, using the Survey of Consumer Finances data collected by the Federal Reserve Bank. While aggregate household net wealth grew from $25.9 trillion in 1995 to $50.1 trillion in 2004 (both in 2004 dollars), nearly 90 percent of the net gains occurred only among the top quartile of households in the wealth distribution. Although housing wealth (both home equity and housing value) was still more evenly distributed than other types of wealth, it largely served to widen the wealth gap rather than to narrow it during the last decade.
In this report, he clearly illustrates the difference between household net wealth and household income.
Wealth Inequality and Household Net Wealth Growth
It is well known that the distribution of household net wealth is even more unbalanced than that of household income. Net wealth is defined as all assets net out all debts. In the top quartile of the household net wealth distribution held the lion�s share�87 percent (or $43.6 trillion) while the bottom quartile of households had nothing. The upper and lower middle quartiles combined held $6.5 trillion, or 13 percent of total household net wealth (see Chart 1).
http://www.interfaith.org/forum/members/citizenzen-albums-album-picture1305-screen-shot-2011-04-16.png
As he says in the report, "In other words, the bottom 28 million of American households in 2004 had nothing once their debt is netted out ..."
The difference between inequalities in wealth and income is quite natural, as one is from a stock perspective and the other is from a flow perspective. Low income households have to spend most or all of their incomes on life necessities with little capability of saving and investment so they can hardly accumulate any household net wealth. Thus they often remain in the bottom distribution of household wealth with nothing; the exception is the group of low income senior households who recently fell into the low-income category due to retirement and the loss of income. In short, while the bottom quartile of income distribution still has income, the bottom quartile of wealth distribution does not have any wealth net of debt.
MonkeySee....
Mar 28, 10:08 AM
So your attitude is "if I can't have it, I don't want anyone to have it."?
Whether it comes out or not, you won't be getting one. So why would it matter either way?
Maybe because, like me, it would be nice to actually have a product on its release date? :rolleyes:
Whether it comes out or not, you won't be getting one. So why would it matter either way?
Maybe because, like me, it would be nice to actually have a product on its release date? :rolleyes:
SirHaakon
Mar 30, 12:25 AM
I really do like the concept of having an enormous amount of online storage, immediately accessible from anywhere.. but ultimately I see this as an issue of me having to pay someone else for granting access to things I already own.
So that storage unit you have filled with couches and tennis rackets and old baseball cards... that should be free as well?
Let's be reasonable here. They have to buy drives (multiple drives, because clearly they need redundancy and backup) to put your music on and they have to pay for the bandwidth to pipe it out to you. I hardly think $1 for 20 gigabytes of available anywhere storage is very unreasonable.
Do you like paying a fee to your bank when you take out YOUR OWN MONEY from the bank?
No, of course not... but that's different. They aren't storing physical cash somewhere anymore, it's all just a line of electronic code that states what your balance is. Why should anyone have to pay for that? And before you tell me that digital music is just 1s and 0s too, you're right - and that's why Amazon gives you 5 gigs free. If you want more, obviously there's a cost involved. They can't support millions of customers each wanting a terabyte of storage for nothing.
Remember when television was free? We just had to put up with advertisements, and for that, we got free TV. Now many people pay 79 bucks a month or more to get cable or satellite TV.
Nothing has changed. Over-the-air broadcasts are still available for free. It's called an antenna. They may seem quaint, but Best Buy still sells them. If you want premium content, you pay for it.
Of course companies like Amazon and Apple are not in it for your convenience, they're in it because if everyone eventually has all their files stored online in the cloud, there's TONS and TONS of money to be made- for ever. If I have a computer, phone or music listening device with ample amounts of storage space, these companies don't make any money off of me after I purchase that music from itunes or wherever. (And if I have cds or blu ray movies, they don't make any money on me at all). This cloud concept provides some convenience, but more importantly guarantees a steady flow of income for these companies for many years to come.
Well first of all, if you buy a Blu-ray disc from Amazon, they're still taking their cut. So saying they make "no money at all" from that is inaccurate. But again, they are offering you physical storage space that is available 24/7 from wherever you are. Why would you expect that to be free? That's just a ridiculous mentality. The prices they're asking aren't very expensive, either. How much do you spend on your cable bill every month? Your phone bill? People just think it's ridiculous to spend money on music because avenues have popped up where you can get it for free. (Why buy the CD when I can just watch it on YouTube?). Just because something is available somewhere for free doesn't mean it's worthless. Amazon is providing a service. That service comes with a fee. If you don't think it's worth it, don't buy it... but I think your expectations are pretty misplaced.
Flash memory storage capacities are growing yearly.. and prices are continuing to drop. Now companies are starting to ship secure digital cards with capacities of a staggering 128 GB on a tiny compact flash card! Ultimately I think most people will be able to have enormous amounts of files locally on their own phone or portable computer.
Sure they can. That isn't the point of this, though. I have 2 computers at home, a laptop, a phone that has storage, a DVR, even my Xbox can store music files. But what a pain in the ass it is to share between them all. Do I want to use up 80 gigs of my laptop's internal drive just to take all of my music with me when I travel? Do I want duplicate copies of everything I own on all of these different devices just to make sure the one thing I'm looking for at any particular moment is there no matter what? Good grief, no. Yes of course I will keep A backup of all of my files on a local system - I'm not trusting anything ONLY to the cloud - but now there's a way to access my music (or any other kind of file, for that matter) wherever I go, quickly and easily. Sure, it's not much different than dropbox except that it's cheaper and less complicated. How nice to be able to visit my parents, or go on vacation, or be at a friend's house, log on to their computer, and have my entire music library instantly available at my fingertips. It makes a lot of sense to me.
So that storage unit you have filled with couches and tennis rackets and old baseball cards... that should be free as well?
Let's be reasonable here. They have to buy drives (multiple drives, because clearly they need redundancy and backup) to put your music on and they have to pay for the bandwidth to pipe it out to you. I hardly think $1 for 20 gigabytes of available anywhere storage is very unreasonable.
Do you like paying a fee to your bank when you take out YOUR OWN MONEY from the bank?
No, of course not... but that's different. They aren't storing physical cash somewhere anymore, it's all just a line of electronic code that states what your balance is. Why should anyone have to pay for that? And before you tell me that digital music is just 1s and 0s too, you're right - and that's why Amazon gives you 5 gigs free. If you want more, obviously there's a cost involved. They can't support millions of customers each wanting a terabyte of storage for nothing.
Remember when television was free? We just had to put up with advertisements, and for that, we got free TV. Now many people pay 79 bucks a month or more to get cable or satellite TV.
Nothing has changed. Over-the-air broadcasts are still available for free. It's called an antenna. They may seem quaint, but Best Buy still sells them. If you want premium content, you pay for it.
Of course companies like Amazon and Apple are not in it for your convenience, they're in it because if everyone eventually has all their files stored online in the cloud, there's TONS and TONS of money to be made- for ever. If I have a computer, phone or music listening device with ample amounts of storage space, these companies don't make any money off of me after I purchase that music from itunes or wherever. (And if I have cds or blu ray movies, they don't make any money on me at all). This cloud concept provides some convenience, but more importantly guarantees a steady flow of income for these companies for many years to come.
Well first of all, if you buy a Blu-ray disc from Amazon, they're still taking their cut. So saying they make "no money at all" from that is inaccurate. But again, they are offering you physical storage space that is available 24/7 from wherever you are. Why would you expect that to be free? That's just a ridiculous mentality. The prices they're asking aren't very expensive, either. How much do you spend on your cable bill every month? Your phone bill? People just think it's ridiculous to spend money on music because avenues have popped up where you can get it for free. (Why buy the CD when I can just watch it on YouTube?). Just because something is available somewhere for free doesn't mean it's worthless. Amazon is providing a service. That service comes with a fee. If you don't think it's worth it, don't buy it... but I think your expectations are pretty misplaced.
Flash memory storage capacities are growing yearly.. and prices are continuing to drop. Now companies are starting to ship secure digital cards with capacities of a staggering 128 GB on a tiny compact flash card! Ultimately I think most people will be able to have enormous amounts of files locally on their own phone or portable computer.
Sure they can. That isn't the point of this, though. I have 2 computers at home, a laptop, a phone that has storage, a DVR, even my Xbox can store music files. But what a pain in the ass it is to share between them all. Do I want to use up 80 gigs of my laptop's internal drive just to take all of my music with me when I travel? Do I want duplicate copies of everything I own on all of these different devices just to make sure the one thing I'm looking for at any particular moment is there no matter what? Good grief, no. Yes of course I will keep A backup of all of my files on a local system - I'm not trusting anything ONLY to the cloud - but now there's a way to access my music (or any other kind of file, for that matter) wherever I go, quickly and easily. Sure, it's not much different than dropbox except that it's cheaper and less complicated. How nice to be able to visit my parents, or go on vacation, or be at a friend's house, log on to their computer, and have my entire music library instantly available at my fingertips. It makes a lot of sense to me.
shawnce
Aug 4, 01:06 PM
Really?? I thought heat and battery life issues are directly connected to cpu chips. I wonder why they didn't put G5 in Powerbook :confused:
It is one factor out of MANY that affects battery life of a laptop (in fact often the screen backlight and video chipset is the bigger battery killer).
Anyway you get more bang for your battery "buck" with Merom then with the current Yonah... in other words at the same clock rate (and chipset) you won't see a change in battery life (in fact it may improve slightly).
It is one factor out of MANY that affects battery life of a laptop (in fact often the screen backlight and video chipset is the bigger battery killer).
Anyway you get more bang for your battery "buck" with Merom then with the current Yonah... in other words at the same clock rate (and chipset) you won't see a change in battery life (in fact it may improve slightly).
bigrell486
Jul 21, 06:49 PM
Maybe I'm out in right field with this suggestion, but how about a further separation between the black Macbook and the white, other than color?
Macbooks (white) - Yonah and integrated graphics (960?)
Macbook (black) - Merom and the new integrated graphics (965???)
That would certainly justify the black's higher cost and would give it more of a punch to be that PB 12" replacement.
This makes perfect sense as Apple has already dub the Black Macbook the "Top of the Line" yet there isn't really a difference between it and the Midrange so by adding The new processor and graphics chip Apple would essentially create the Top of the Line MacBook
Macbooks (white) - Yonah and integrated graphics (960?)
Macbook (black) - Merom and the new integrated graphics (965???)
That would certainly justify the black's higher cost and would give it more of a punch to be that PB 12" replacement.
This makes perfect sense as Apple has already dub the Black Macbook the "Top of the Line" yet there isn't really a difference between it and the Midrange so by adding The new processor and graphics chip Apple would essentially create the Top of the Line MacBook
BRLawyer
Aug 4, 12:59 PM
Really?? I thought heat and battery life issues are directly connected to cpu chips. I wonder why they didn't put G5 in Powerbook :confused:
1 - I don't know what overheating you talk about, apart from some cases that have been dealt with under AppleCare;
2 - Apple has probably the best battery life of the industry for such a notebook range...and no, don't tell me about 10" microbooks;
3 - the SD thing is due to the thin enclosure, a clear design paradigm at Apple...nothing else.
1 - I don't know what overheating you talk about, apart from some cases that have been dealt with under AppleCare;
2 - Apple has probably the best battery life of the industry for such a notebook range...and no, don't tell me about 10" microbooks;
3 - the SD thing is due to the thin enclosure, a clear design paradigm at Apple...nothing else.
No comments:
Post a Comment