Macnoviz
Jul 22, 03:03 AM
So I read in this thread that Kentsfield and Clovertown ARE compatible with Conroe and Woodcrest sockets (respectively) (Cloverton or Clovertown?)
Hope for upgrading an iMac to Quad Core is kindled! At least if Apple releases Conroe iMacs.
BTW, In my opinion, one thing a person should never, ever say is some computer has too much power, and that it will never be needed. So when 128 core CPUs come out in ~10 years time, will we still be considering dual core CPUs as fast enough for our use?
I seem to remember that when the original DOS operating system was created, its RAM was limited. I can't remember exactly to how much, but it was decided that people would never use more than a few kilobytes of memory. Now we are arguing that Mac should provide no less than a gigabyte! Now we are moving to 64 bit processing, with its capability to address a few exobytes, or millions of Terabytes of storage, it seems impossible that we will ever need 128bit computing. But, no doubt, one day we will.
When we will be able to download our entire lives, and even conciousness into a computer, as is said to happen in about 40 years (very much looking forward to), I dare say it will take a lot of memory to do, and even more processing power to manage effectively, especially if we wanted to "live" inside computers, as we will no doubt want to do someday.
So as a conclusion to my most recent rant, Please, never tell me a computer is too powerfu, has too many cores, or has too much storage capacity. If it is there to be used, it will be used. It always is.
I agree with your point on never saying a computer is too powerful, although living in computers is probably not going to happen. Sounds a bit too Matrix-like for me.
Hope for upgrading an iMac to Quad Core is kindled! At least if Apple releases Conroe iMacs.
BTW, In my opinion, one thing a person should never, ever say is some computer has too much power, and that it will never be needed. So when 128 core CPUs come out in ~10 years time, will we still be considering dual core CPUs as fast enough for our use?
I seem to remember that when the original DOS operating system was created, its RAM was limited. I can't remember exactly to how much, but it was decided that people would never use more than a few kilobytes of memory. Now we are arguing that Mac should provide no less than a gigabyte! Now we are moving to 64 bit processing, with its capability to address a few exobytes, or millions of Terabytes of storage, it seems impossible that we will ever need 128bit computing. But, no doubt, one day we will.
When we will be able to download our entire lives, and even conciousness into a computer, as is said to happen in about 40 years (very much looking forward to), I dare say it will take a lot of memory to do, and even more processing power to manage effectively, especially if we wanted to "live" inside computers, as we will no doubt want to do someday.
So as a conclusion to my most recent rant, Please, never tell me a computer is too powerfu, has too many cores, or has too much storage capacity. If it is there to be used, it will be used. It always is.
I agree with your point on never saying a computer is too powerful, although living in computers is probably not going to happen. Sounds a bit too Matrix-like for me.
juicedropsdeuce
Apr 6, 11:46 AM
Really what sort of clients ?
Some people do more than use Final Cut for making YouTube videos. FYI. :rolleyes:
Some people do more than use Final Cut for making YouTube videos. FYI. :rolleyes:
SPUY767
Mar 26, 08:17 PM
Since the release of Leopard, the subsequent releases haven't had the wow factor of before.
Just what I think anyway.
They haven't had the wow factor because they've been under the hood improvement releases rather than feature releases. Snow Leopard was the big one. Almost all the changes were under the hood. Lion is going to be a big feature release with a wow factor.
Just what I think anyway.
They haven't had the wow factor because they've been under the hood improvement releases rather than feature releases. Snow Leopard was the big one. Almost all the changes were under the hood. Lion is going to be a big feature release with a wow factor.
SevenInchScrew
Dec 9, 01:09 AM
DoFoT:
It depends on what you want from a game. If you care more about driving and tuning than painting and whatnot go buy GT5. Its all about driving and not much else.
I love it because i'm a bit of a car nerd. If you like cars you will like GT5. If you love cars you will love GT5, its just that simple.
I guess I'll throw in my counterpoint to that then, just to give him another opinion to mull over, because I love cars and don't love GT5....
The game is not real good. Every time I've played it, I can't help but think of how it could have been SOOO much better, if they just trimmed back on the crazy feature list a bit. The game tries to be everything to everyone who likes cars. But the problem with that is, trying to do many things means you'll never excel at any of them. Often the implementation of things in this game is a little weak or unfulfilling because of that. For example...
NASCAR is in, but is pretty plain and boring, and doesn't feel like a real cup race. If you like NASCAR, you'd be better served with a full game based on that.
Same with WRC stuff. Yes, the rally is pretty decent. But, I've played a bunch of REALLY awesome rally games before, and this is nowhere near as good.
Day and Night cycles, and Weather effects look amazing.... on the very few tracks that you can actually have them function on.
The sounds of the cars, just as with every GT game that has come before it, is terrible. Very few cars actually sound like their real-world version, and when you tune them up, they get even less distinctive.
The car list, while huge, is FILLED with cars that I have absolutely no desire to drive in a racing game. I get Kaz's intention, bringing in cars from many eras and different parts of the automotive spectrum to see them, and maybe appreciate them more. But this is a racing game at its core, and I don't ever want to race a VW Kombi.
And lastly, the menus are just pitiful. It really feels like they designed them first, all those years ago, and then never touched them again. So many games have come and gone with great menu systems, and this game took nothing away from them, because they are just awful in this game.
This game really had the potential to be amazing. If they got rid of NASCAR, WRC, Karts, etc, and took out about 4-500 of the boring, crappy cars, we'd be getting somewhere. Use the time and effort that those removed things would have occupied to make some manageable menus, more Premium cars, and get the Day-Night cycle and Weather on all tracks. That would have been great. But that isn't what we got.
Don't get me wrong, it is a good game. But GT games aren't supposed to just be good, they are supposed to be GREAT. But even after a 6 year wait, we only got pretty good.
But hey, as I've said on many occasions, it does make some DAMN GOOD screenshots. Almost unreal at times...
Click to HUGE-size
http://imgur.com/hLJ12.jpg
http://imgur.com/V06hb.jpg
http://imgur.com/Vciun.jpg
http://imgur.com/ZGPiF.jpg
http://imgur.com/IMrhk.jpg
It depends on what you want from a game. If you care more about driving and tuning than painting and whatnot go buy GT5. Its all about driving and not much else.
I love it because i'm a bit of a car nerd. If you like cars you will like GT5. If you love cars you will love GT5, its just that simple.
I guess I'll throw in my counterpoint to that then, just to give him another opinion to mull over, because I love cars and don't love GT5....
The game is not real good. Every time I've played it, I can't help but think of how it could have been SOOO much better, if they just trimmed back on the crazy feature list a bit. The game tries to be everything to everyone who likes cars. But the problem with that is, trying to do many things means you'll never excel at any of them. Often the implementation of things in this game is a little weak or unfulfilling because of that. For example...
NASCAR is in, but is pretty plain and boring, and doesn't feel like a real cup race. If you like NASCAR, you'd be better served with a full game based on that.
Same with WRC stuff. Yes, the rally is pretty decent. But, I've played a bunch of REALLY awesome rally games before, and this is nowhere near as good.
Day and Night cycles, and Weather effects look amazing.... on the very few tracks that you can actually have them function on.
The sounds of the cars, just as with every GT game that has come before it, is terrible. Very few cars actually sound like their real-world version, and when you tune them up, they get even less distinctive.
The car list, while huge, is FILLED with cars that I have absolutely no desire to drive in a racing game. I get Kaz's intention, bringing in cars from many eras and different parts of the automotive spectrum to see them, and maybe appreciate them more. But this is a racing game at its core, and I don't ever want to race a VW Kombi.
And lastly, the menus are just pitiful. It really feels like they designed them first, all those years ago, and then never touched them again. So many games have come and gone with great menu systems, and this game took nothing away from them, because they are just awful in this game.
This game really had the potential to be amazing. If they got rid of NASCAR, WRC, Karts, etc, and took out about 4-500 of the boring, crappy cars, we'd be getting somewhere. Use the time and effort that those removed things would have occupied to make some manageable menus, more Premium cars, and get the Day-Night cycle and Weather on all tracks. That would have been great. But that isn't what we got.
Don't get me wrong, it is a good game. But GT games aren't supposed to just be good, they are supposed to be GREAT. But even after a 6 year wait, we only got pretty good.
But hey, as I've said on many occasions, it does make some DAMN GOOD screenshots. Almost unreal at times...
Click to HUGE-size
http://imgur.com/hLJ12.jpg
http://imgur.com/V06hb.jpg
http://imgur.com/Vciun.jpg
http://imgur.com/ZGPiF.jpg
http://imgur.com/IMrhk.jpg
Zadillo
Aug 7, 09:34 PM
Safari appears to be brushed metal. Go here (http://www.apple.com/macosx/leopard/dashboard.html) and go to about 1/6 of the way through.
Perhaps sometime between now and Spring 2007 they might find the time to change that.
Perhaps sometime between now and Spring 2007 they might find the time to change that.
awesomebase
Mar 31, 07:16 PM
I would add I never understand the comparison of Smartphones running Android to smartphones running IOS.
Neither Google or Apple sell their phone operating systems, and the Android spectrum is made up of 50 handsets from 10 different manufacturers who are in direct competition with each other. They are not one big group working together to take on Apple. It makes absolutely zero sense to make that kind of comparison.
It is just as weird as loping off iPod and iPad IOS users...
If people want to compare smartphones, then compare actual sales of individual smartphones, each which only use one OS. People should not draw meaningless lines in the sand lumping all android based handsets together, because they are not together other than they run android. They might as well compare black phones to white phones.
I imagine if you made a chart of the top selling smartphones in the last 5 years, it would consist of the iPhone 4, the iPhone 3GS, the iPhone 3G and the iPhone.
Why not group smartphones by what kind of graphics chip they have or what type of memory chip they use? The OS is irrelevant. Nobody in the smartphone business is directly making money off any of these oses, it is a stupid way to categorize smart phones.
Of course it happens because if they didn't lump them together it would look absurd with Apple totally dominating the smart phone market with their latest phone every year while 100 android commodity phones all have tiny market shares just to get replaced by the next one.
How does HTC running android OS benefit or relate to a Motorola phone running android? It does not, at all.
From an engineering perspective and from a manufacturer's perspective, you're correct. But from an investment's perspective your argument doesn't work. Investors are concerned about Google's ability to profit from this and they compare "Platforms" to get an idea about where people are trending to. That is why despite BB growing, their stock is actually going to be in the trash in a couple of years if not sooner. Their "OS" is basically worthless... people don't value it as much as Android or iOS and as the phones that run those platforms continue to drop in price and become more capable, BB has no choice but to practically give their phones away to make their numbers (albeit at carrier-subsidized prices, but their prices and margins get severely eroded over time).
Just wanted to point that out... your logic is correct, just not applicable to all scenarios...
Neither Google or Apple sell their phone operating systems, and the Android spectrum is made up of 50 handsets from 10 different manufacturers who are in direct competition with each other. They are not one big group working together to take on Apple. It makes absolutely zero sense to make that kind of comparison.
It is just as weird as loping off iPod and iPad IOS users...
If people want to compare smartphones, then compare actual sales of individual smartphones, each which only use one OS. People should not draw meaningless lines in the sand lumping all android based handsets together, because they are not together other than they run android. They might as well compare black phones to white phones.
I imagine if you made a chart of the top selling smartphones in the last 5 years, it would consist of the iPhone 4, the iPhone 3GS, the iPhone 3G and the iPhone.
Why not group smartphones by what kind of graphics chip they have or what type of memory chip they use? The OS is irrelevant. Nobody in the smartphone business is directly making money off any of these oses, it is a stupid way to categorize smart phones.
Of course it happens because if they didn't lump them together it would look absurd with Apple totally dominating the smart phone market with their latest phone every year while 100 android commodity phones all have tiny market shares just to get replaced by the next one.
How does HTC running android OS benefit or relate to a Motorola phone running android? It does not, at all.
From an engineering perspective and from a manufacturer's perspective, you're correct. But from an investment's perspective your argument doesn't work. Investors are concerned about Google's ability to profit from this and they compare "Platforms" to get an idea about where people are trending to. That is why despite BB growing, their stock is actually going to be in the trash in a couple of years if not sooner. Their "OS" is basically worthless... people don't value it as much as Android or iOS and as the phones that run those platforms continue to drop in price and become more capable, BB has no choice but to practically give their phones away to make their numbers (albeit at carrier-subsidized prices, but their prices and margins get severely eroded over time).
Just wanted to point that out... your logic is correct, just not applicable to all scenarios...
KnightWRX
Apr 7, 09:36 AM
You make it seem like intel told apple they can't use the sb chips unless they use the IGP, which is obviously false.
It's not false per say, at least not 100%. Of course, graphics in such systems are usually IGPs, but before the Core iX line of processors, anyone could license and build chipsets for these processors and include a different IGP than Intel did. Intel however refused to license this for the new processors, including the SB line and thus nVidia who was making chipsets could not produce an IGP for the new platform.
So yes, essentially Intel told Apple they had to use the 3000 HD as an IGP, where before, Apple was using nVidia's tech. There was even a massive lawsuit about all of this, between Intel and nVidia which ended with nVidia stepping out of the chipset business alltogether.
So the poster you were replying to wasn't 100% wrong at all. It is in fact a testament to Intel's incompetence how all of this was handled, since an old MBA with a 320m outpaces new SB machines that have a much more powerful CPU in graphics performance.
It's not false per say, at least not 100%. Of course, graphics in such systems are usually IGPs, but before the Core iX line of processors, anyone could license and build chipsets for these processors and include a different IGP than Intel did. Intel however refused to license this for the new processors, including the SB line and thus nVidia who was making chipsets could not produce an IGP for the new platform.
So yes, essentially Intel told Apple they had to use the 3000 HD as an IGP, where before, Apple was using nVidia's tech. There was even a massive lawsuit about all of this, between Intel and nVidia which ended with nVidia stepping out of the chipset business alltogether.
So the poster you were replying to wasn't 100% wrong at all. It is in fact a testament to Intel's incompetence how all of this was handled, since an old MBA with a 320m outpaces new SB machines that have a much more powerful CPU in graphics performance.
Hastings101
Apr 6, 05:01 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?
An orgy of Androids? That sounds scary. Almost as scary as a bunch of Apples having an orgy.
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?
An orgy of Androids? That sounds scary. Almost as scary as a bunch of Apples having an orgy.
JeffDM
Sep 16, 04:39 PM
You are right. However, you try to tell consumers "Well we are moving to 2.4Ghz chips" after you just had 2.66Ghz and 3.0Ghz chips. It isnt going to work.
If today, Dell decided to move there whole line back to 1Ghz processors, nobody would buy. Unfortunetly the Ghz myth is a strong as its ever been. Taking a step backward is not an option.
It's already happened, just not in as a melodramatic way as you suggest (back to 1GHz? geez). AMD took a small step back, Hz wise when they introduced dual core, though it still advanced their "+" processor ratings I suppose that few noticed the actual clock reduction. Intel took a major step back Hz wise between Netburst and Core 2. The 5000 and 5100 series Xeon CPUs demonstrate this, you can get a Dell precision 690 with 3.73GHz Netburst based chips or the same 690 with 3.0GHz Core2 based chips.
So I don't think that a quad core Xeon running at 2.66GHz is going to be hurt too much in comparison to a dual core 3.0GHz, it's still a much more powerful processor.
Didn't you get the memo, PowerPC is dead. WTF does that have to do with anything? Do you just have this Pavlovian response to the word "Hyperthreading"?
PPC isn't dead, it's just not in new desktops anymore. IBM is making them (or at least co-designed them) for all the next generation game consoles and a lot of huge supercomputers.
If today, Dell decided to move there whole line back to 1Ghz processors, nobody would buy. Unfortunetly the Ghz myth is a strong as its ever been. Taking a step backward is not an option.
It's already happened, just not in as a melodramatic way as you suggest (back to 1GHz? geez). AMD took a small step back, Hz wise when they introduced dual core, though it still advanced their "+" processor ratings I suppose that few noticed the actual clock reduction. Intel took a major step back Hz wise between Netburst and Core 2. The 5000 and 5100 series Xeon CPUs demonstrate this, you can get a Dell precision 690 with 3.73GHz Netburst based chips or the same 690 with 3.0GHz Core2 based chips.
So I don't think that a quad core Xeon running at 2.66GHz is going to be hurt too much in comparison to a dual core 3.0GHz, it's still a much more powerful processor.
Didn't you get the memo, PowerPC is dead. WTF does that have to do with anything? Do you just have this Pavlovian response to the word "Hyperthreading"?
PPC isn't dead, it's just not in new desktops anymore. IBM is making them (or at least co-designed them) for all the next generation game consoles and a lot of huge supercomputers.
babyj
Sep 19, 07:43 AM
Actually, yes. I use my laptop as a portable desktop, and I do a lot of different things with my computer. My current PowerBook G4 is capable of some of them, but really not practical for many (scientific computing, ray-tracing molecular models, etc.). A current yonah-based MBP would certainly be faster, but it would still be a 32-bit processor, and like many other pro-users, I don't want to have to buy a new machine every year.
Maybe I'm missing something here, but I'd of thought buying the latest and fastest computer every year would be the first thing a 'pro-user' would do with his money.
If speed really is that important to all you 'pro-users' why are so many of you using older computers which are far slower than the current Macbooks that have been available for many months?
If I did something for a living which required heavy cpu processing, spending $1,000 updating it (cost price less resell price of old) would be the best $1,000 I could spend as I'd get the money back through increased productivity very quickly.
Maybe I'm missing something here, but I'd of thought buying the latest and fastest computer every year would be the first thing a 'pro-user' would do with his money.
If speed really is that important to all you 'pro-users' why are so many of you using older computers which are far slower than the current Macbooks that have been available for many months?
If I did something for a living which required heavy cpu processing, spending $1,000 updating it (cost price less resell price of old) would be the best $1,000 I could spend as I'd get the money back through increased productivity very quickly.
srxtr
Mar 22, 01:28 PM
What's with all these tablets being advertised in landscape??
I've had the first ipad since it came out last year and I'd say my Portrait to landscape usage ratio is like 70% portrait / 30% landscape.
I view webpages, read the WSJ, NYPost, books, ipod etc.. all in portrait.
Landscape is for tv shows / movies and some games.
Why are these tablets all designed as if the user is going to hold them landscape 90% of the time? Are magazines designed to be held landscape? I don't get these horizontal tablets.
I think the majority of the people use landscape (but don't quote me on that).
Most activities (websites, emails, documents, etc) require scrolling top to bottom, not side to side, so landscape will usually give you a greater view usually.
I've had the first ipad since it came out last year and I'd say my Portrait to landscape usage ratio is like 70% portrait / 30% landscape.
I view webpages, read the WSJ, NYPost, books, ipod etc.. all in portrait.
Landscape is for tv shows / movies and some games.
Why are these tablets all designed as if the user is going to hold them landscape 90% of the time? Are magazines designed to be held landscape? I don't get these horizontal tablets.
I think the majority of the people use landscape (but don't quote me on that).
Most activities (websites, emails, documents, etc) require scrolling top to bottom, not side to side, so landscape will usually give you a greater view usually.
01civicman
Apr 8, 08:21 AM
Hummm... I would think by them throttling the sales, they get people back into the store over and over again trying to get one. So, take their "hot product" and dish a few out everyday to keep the eager hunters coming back in day after day and hope they buy something else in the mean time.
Also, I can see from the sales incentive standpoint that if you've hit your quota for the day selling 20 ipads in an hour, but have another 40 in stock, hold them for the next day to ensure you have consecutive days of hitting your sales quota making you look better and probably getting other bonuses? I would think they compensate managers based on daily sales and consecutive days of sales above quota.
So... basically, I see BB messing with stock to manipulate their sales and Apple being mad because they are so far behind on keeping up with demand and one of their big partners is holding out and using the iPad as sales bait.
I get your point, but it doesn't work like that. One, selling 20 iPads will not hit budgets (believe me). Two, if there any bonus' to hit, its done quarterly. Again, if you sell 50 iPads in one day, its the exact same as selling 3 over the course of 15 days.
Also, I can see from the sales incentive standpoint that if you've hit your quota for the day selling 20 ipads in an hour, but have another 40 in stock, hold them for the next day to ensure you have consecutive days of hitting your sales quota making you look better and probably getting other bonuses? I would think they compensate managers based on daily sales and consecutive days of sales above quota.
So... basically, I see BB messing with stock to manipulate their sales and Apple being mad because they are so far behind on keeping up with demand and one of their big partners is holding out and using the iPad as sales bait.
I get your point, but it doesn't work like that. One, selling 20 iPads will not hit budgets (believe me). Two, if there any bonus' to hit, its done quarterly. Again, if you sell 50 iPads in one day, its the exact same as selling 3 over the course of 15 days.
gauriemma
Nov 29, 10:34 AM
Sounds like Universal is realizing that their anticipated cash influx they were hoping to see from Zune sales isn't going to materialize, so they're looking to leech off a player that will actually be AROUND in 2007.
steve knight
Mar 18, 12:50 AM
Ron Paul is a Christian nutjob. a squirrels wet dream.
He wants a small government small enough to fit in the bedroom and between a woman's legs. I love the small govement thing but then there are all these things government should control.
The young actress Miley Cyrus
have short brown hair Gold
miley cyrus hair extensions
miley cyrus hair extensions
Extensions and purple plumes
He wants a small government small enough to fit in the bedroom and between a woman's legs. I love the small govement thing but then there are all these things government should control.
slackpacker
Apr 10, 06:43 AM
Finally, while I don't know whether software stocks are different from hardware stocks, I just checked Apple's website, and FCS, FCE, and FCServer are readily available for shipping within 24 hours.
I'm sure they will still be shipping since they support the current Final Cut Studio 3 reeaallllyyy well. Lets face it the thing thats coming out will not support the old Plug-ins or workflows and will not be the replacement for FCP that everyone was expecting.
I'm sure they will still be shipping since they support the current Final Cut Studio 3 reeaallllyyy well. Lets face it the thing thats coming out will not support the old Plug-ins or workflows and will not be the replacement for FCP that everyone was expecting.
Chuck
Jul 27, 11:08 PM
So if the new iMacs are using 64-bit merom or conroe chips, what is the likelihood of them offering 4Mb of RAM?
And if they did, is the RAM likely to cost any more than it does for the current iMacs, due to the no of slots?
Chuck.
And if they did, is the RAM likely to cost any more than it does for the current iMacs, due to the no of slots?
Chuck.
manu chao
Mar 22, 02:48 PM
We are still missing an 8" Galaxy Tab to complete the 7", 9", and 10" line of tablets.
HORTENSE
Apr 7, 10:20 PM
So they DID have my Black 64GB ATT. I'm stuck with this Verizon model ,'-,
ten-oak-druid
Mar 22, 04:19 PM
Competition is good.
Make a case for your argument.
Make a case for your argument.
Reach9
Apr 11, 05:57 PM
Yea that is obvious. The iPhone is better.
Makes sense coming from an Apple Fan :rolleyes:
Makes sense coming from an Apple Fan :rolleyes:
Slumpey
Apr 8, 06:53 AM
To avoid any hastle buy the ipad 2 from target. Was able to buy two on different days using their inventory tracker found on the web.. They don't hastle you with service plans, unnecessary accessories, etc which best buy does.
Sent from my HTC Incredible using Tapatalk
Sent from my HTC Incredible using Tapatalk
ten-oak-druid
Apr 25, 02:18 PM
Because Apple is not tracking you. Apple does not get any of that data, they will never see or touch it. It is data that is stored locally on your phone out of reach from everyone except you. "Apple tracks you" would mean that the phone is sending the data 'home', but it doesn't. APPLE HAS NO IDEA WHERE THE F YOU ARE OR WERE (and they probably couldn't care less)
Prove it.
Prove it.
p0intblank
Aug 5, 03:55 PM
I can't wait for Monday. I'll be working that day, so I am going to try to watch the keynote before reading any updates. I even have the Quicktime Events page bookmarked. :D I figured I would be more surprised by taking this route.
This is the first WWDC I'm really looking forward to, mainly because of what we're going to see... Leopard in action! :D
Edit: Peace, that's not entirely true. None of us know whether Apple will release Cinema Displays with iSights built-in. I'd say it is unlikely, but you never know until it actually happens.
This is the first WWDC I'm really looking forward to, mainly because of what we're going to see... Leopard in action! :D
Edit: Peace, that's not entirely true. None of us know whether Apple will release Cinema Displays with iSights built-in. I'd say it is unlikely, but you never know until it actually happens.
Anonymous Freak
Jul 15, 02:22 PM
You mean like how the MacBook Pro was 2.0 GHz at the top end on release?
I have a feeling if 2.66 is the top-end 'stock' model, it will be upgradeable to 3.0 GHz as a user-configurable option, much the way the MacBook Pro was at 2.0 GHz upgradeable to 2.16 GHz.
With SPEC benchmarks showing The 3.0 GHz Woodcrest as the absolute fastest processor on the market for both floating point and integer (it has a 50% lead over the second-place integer chip!) it's a good bet Apple will offer it, at least as an option.
I'm actually truly excited about a processor launch. The last time was the G5 intro. (Before that, it was the original PowerPC introduction.)
I have a feeling if 2.66 is the top-end 'stock' model, it will be upgradeable to 3.0 GHz as a user-configurable option, much the way the MacBook Pro was at 2.0 GHz upgradeable to 2.16 GHz.
With SPEC benchmarks showing The 3.0 GHz Woodcrest as the absolute fastest processor on the market for both floating point and integer (it has a 50% lead over the second-place integer chip!) it's a good bet Apple will offer it, at least as an option.
I'm actually truly excited about a processor launch. The last time was the G5 intro. (Before that, it was the original PowerPC introduction.)
