peharri
Sep 21, 08:10 AM
Finally, someone gets it right.
CDMA is technically superior to GSM just about any way you care to measure it. GSM's widespread adoption in Europe was by fiat as a protectionist measure for European telecom companies, primarily because the European technology providers did not want to license CDMA from an American company. CDMA was basically slandered six ways to Sunday to justify using GSM. It was nothing more than a case of Not Invented Here writ large and turf protection. This early rapid push to standardize on GSM in as many places as possible as a strategic hedge gave them a strong market position in most of the rest of the world. In the US, the various protocols had to fight it out on the open market which took time to sort itself out.
There's a lot of nonsense about IS-95 ("CDMA" as implemented by Qualcomm) that's promoted by Qualcomm shills (some openly, like Steve De Beste) that I'd be very careful about taking claims of "superiority" at face value. The above is so full of the kind mis-representations I've seen posted everywhere I have to respond.
1. CDMA is not "technically superior to GSM just about any way you care to measure". CDMA (by which I assume you mean IS95, because comparing GSM to CDMA air interface technology is like comparing a minivan to a car tire - the conflation of TDMA and GSM has, and the deliberate underplaying of the 95% of IS-95 that has nothing to do with the air-interface, has been a standard tool in the shills toolbox) has an air-interface technology which has better capacity than GSM's TDMA, but the rest of IS-95 really isn't as mature or consumer friendly as GSM. In particular, IS-95 leaves decisions as to support for SIM cards, and network codes, to operators, which means in practice that there's no standardization and few benefits to an end user who chooses it. Most US operators seem to have, surprise surprise, avoided SIM cards and network standardization seems to be based upon US analog dialing star codes (eg *72, etc)
2. "GSM's widespread adoption in Europe was by fiat as a protectionist measure for European telecom companies, primarily because the European technology providers did not want to license CDMA from an American company." is objectively untrue. GSM was developed in the mid-eighties as a method to move towards a standardized mobile phone system for Europe, which at the time had different systems running on different frequencies in pretty much every country (unlike the US where AMPS was available in every state.)
By the time IS-95 was developed, GSM was already an established standard in practically all of Europe. While 900MHz services were mandated as GSM and legacy analogy only by the EC, countries were free to allow other standards on other frequencies until one became dominant on a particular frequency. With 1800MHz, the first operators given the band choose GSM, as it was clearly more advanced than what Qualcomm was offering, and handset makers would have little or no difficulty making multifrequency handsets. (Today GSM is also mandated on 1800MHz, but that wasn't true at the time one2one and Orange, and many that followed, choose GSM.)
The only aspect of IS95 that could be described as "superior" that would require licensing is the CDMA air interface technology. European operators and phone makers have, indeed, licensed that technology (albeit not to Qualcomm's specifications) and it's present in pretty much all implementations of UMTS. So much for that.
3. "CDMA was basically slandered six ways to Sunday to justify using GSM." Funny, I could have sworn I saw the exact opposite.
I came to the US in 1998, GSM wasn't available in my market area at the time, and I picked up an IS-95 phone believing it to be superior based upon what was said on newsgroups, US media, and other sources. I was shocked. IS-95 was better than IS-136 ("D-AMPS"), but not by much, and it was considerably less reliable. At that time, IS-95, as providing by most US operators, didn't support two way text messaging or data. It didn't support - much to my astonishment - SIM cards. ISDN integration was nil. Network services were a jumbled mess. Call drops were common, even when signal strengths were high.
Much of this has been fixed since. But what amazed me looking back on it was the sheer nonsense being directed at GSM by IS-95 advocates. GSM was, according to them, identical to IS-136, which they called TDMA. It had identical problems. Apparently on GSM, calls would drop every time you changed tower. GSM only had a 7km range! It only worked in Europe because everyone lives in cities! And GSM was a government owned standard, imposed by the EU on unwilling mobile phone operators.
Every single one of these facts was completely untrue. IS-136 was closer in form to IS-95 than GSM. IS-136, unlike GSM and like IS-95, was essentially built around the same mobile phone model as AMPS, with little or no network services standardization and an inherent assumption that the all calls would be to POTS or other similarly limited cellphones as itself. Like IS-95 and unlike GSM, in IS-136 your phone was your identifier, you couldn't change phones without your operator's permission. Like IS-95 at the time, messaging and data was barely implemented in IS-136 - when I left the UK I'd been browsing the web and using IRC (via Demon's telnetable IRC client) on my Nokia 9000 on a regular basis.
No TDMA system I'm aware of routinely drops calls when you change towers. In practice, I had far more call drops under Sprint PCS then I had under any other operator, namely because IS-95's capacity improvement was over-exaggerated and operators at the time routinely overloaded their networks.
GSM's range, which is around 20km, while technically a limitation of the air interface technology, isn't much different to what a .25W cellphone's range is in practice. You're not going to find many cellphones capable of getting a signal from a tower that far, regardless of what technology you use. The whole "Everyone lives in cities" thing is a myth, as certain countries, notably Finland, have far more US-like demographics in that respect (but what do they know about cellphones in Finland (http://www.nokia.com)?)
GSM was a standard built by the operators after the EU told them to create at least one standard that would be supported across the continent. Only the concept of "standardization" was forced upon operators, the standard - a development of work being done by France Telecom at the time - was made and agreed to by the operators. Those same operators would have looked at IS-95, or even at CDMA incorporated into GSM at the air interface level - had it been a mature, viable, technology at the time. It wasn't.
The only practical advantage IS-95 had over GSM was better capacity. This in theory meant cheaper minutes. For a time, that was true. Today, most US operators offer close to identical tariffs and close to identical reliability. But I can choose which GSM phone I leave the house with, and I know it'll work consistantly regardless of where I am.
Ultimately, the GSM consortium lost and Qualcomm got the last laugh because the technology does not scale as well as CDMA. Every last telecom equipment provider in Europe has since licensed the CDMA technology, and some version of the technology is part of the next generation cellular infrastructure under a few different names.
This paragraph is bizarrely misleading and I'm wondering if you just worded it poorly. GSM is still the worldwide standard. The newest version, UMTS, uses a CDMA air interface but is otherwise a clear development of GSM. It has virtually nothing in common with IS-95. "The GSM consortium" consists of GSM operators and handset makers. They're doing pretty well. What have they lost? Are you saying that because GSM's latest version includes one aspect of the IS-95 standard that GSM is worse? Or that IS-95 is suddenly better?
While GSM has better interoperability globally, I would make the observation that CDMA works just fine in the US, which is no small region of the planet and the third most populous country. For many people, the better quality is worth it.
Given the choice between 2G IS-95 or GSM, I'd pick GSM every time. Given the choice between 3G IS-95 (CDMA2000) and UMTS, I'd pick UMTS every time. The quality is generally better with the GSM equivalent - you're getting a well designed, digitial, integrated, network with GSM with all the features you'd expect. The advantages of the IS-95 equivalent are harder to come by. Slightly better data rates with 3G seems to be the only major one. Well, maybe the only one. Capacity? That's an operator issue. Indeed, with the move to UMA (presumably there'll be an IS-95 equivalent), it wouldn't surprise me if operators need less towers in the future regardless of which network technology they picked. The only other "advantages" IS-95 brings to the table seem to be imaginary.
CDMA is technically superior to GSM just about any way you care to measure it. GSM's widespread adoption in Europe was by fiat as a protectionist measure for European telecom companies, primarily because the European technology providers did not want to license CDMA from an American company. CDMA was basically slandered six ways to Sunday to justify using GSM. It was nothing more than a case of Not Invented Here writ large and turf protection. This early rapid push to standardize on GSM in as many places as possible as a strategic hedge gave them a strong market position in most of the rest of the world. In the US, the various protocols had to fight it out on the open market which took time to sort itself out.
There's a lot of nonsense about IS-95 ("CDMA" as implemented by Qualcomm) that's promoted by Qualcomm shills (some openly, like Steve De Beste) that I'd be very careful about taking claims of "superiority" at face value. The above is so full of the kind mis-representations I've seen posted everywhere I have to respond.
1. CDMA is not "technically superior to GSM just about any way you care to measure". CDMA (by which I assume you mean IS95, because comparing GSM to CDMA air interface technology is like comparing a minivan to a car tire - the conflation of TDMA and GSM has, and the deliberate underplaying of the 95% of IS-95 that has nothing to do with the air-interface, has been a standard tool in the shills toolbox) has an air-interface technology which has better capacity than GSM's TDMA, but the rest of IS-95 really isn't as mature or consumer friendly as GSM. In particular, IS-95 leaves decisions as to support for SIM cards, and network codes, to operators, which means in practice that there's no standardization and few benefits to an end user who chooses it. Most US operators seem to have, surprise surprise, avoided SIM cards and network standardization seems to be based upon US analog dialing star codes (eg *72, etc)
2. "GSM's widespread adoption in Europe was by fiat as a protectionist measure for European telecom companies, primarily because the European technology providers did not want to license CDMA from an American company." is objectively untrue. GSM was developed in the mid-eighties as a method to move towards a standardized mobile phone system for Europe, which at the time had different systems running on different frequencies in pretty much every country (unlike the US where AMPS was available in every state.)
By the time IS-95 was developed, GSM was already an established standard in practically all of Europe. While 900MHz services were mandated as GSM and legacy analogy only by the EC, countries were free to allow other standards on other frequencies until one became dominant on a particular frequency. With 1800MHz, the first operators given the band choose GSM, as it was clearly more advanced than what Qualcomm was offering, and handset makers would have little or no difficulty making multifrequency handsets. (Today GSM is also mandated on 1800MHz, but that wasn't true at the time one2one and Orange, and many that followed, choose GSM.)
The only aspect of IS95 that could be described as "superior" that would require licensing is the CDMA air interface technology. European operators and phone makers have, indeed, licensed that technology (albeit not to Qualcomm's specifications) and it's present in pretty much all implementations of UMTS. So much for that.
3. "CDMA was basically slandered six ways to Sunday to justify using GSM." Funny, I could have sworn I saw the exact opposite.
I came to the US in 1998, GSM wasn't available in my market area at the time, and I picked up an IS-95 phone believing it to be superior based upon what was said on newsgroups, US media, and other sources. I was shocked. IS-95 was better than IS-136 ("D-AMPS"), but not by much, and it was considerably less reliable. At that time, IS-95, as providing by most US operators, didn't support two way text messaging or data. It didn't support - much to my astonishment - SIM cards. ISDN integration was nil. Network services were a jumbled mess. Call drops were common, even when signal strengths were high.
Much of this has been fixed since. But what amazed me looking back on it was the sheer nonsense being directed at GSM by IS-95 advocates. GSM was, according to them, identical to IS-136, which they called TDMA. It had identical problems. Apparently on GSM, calls would drop every time you changed tower. GSM only had a 7km range! It only worked in Europe because everyone lives in cities! And GSM was a government owned standard, imposed by the EU on unwilling mobile phone operators.
Every single one of these facts was completely untrue. IS-136 was closer in form to IS-95 than GSM. IS-136, unlike GSM and like IS-95, was essentially built around the same mobile phone model as AMPS, with little or no network services standardization and an inherent assumption that the all calls would be to POTS or other similarly limited cellphones as itself. Like IS-95 and unlike GSM, in IS-136 your phone was your identifier, you couldn't change phones without your operator's permission. Like IS-95 at the time, messaging and data was barely implemented in IS-136 - when I left the UK I'd been browsing the web and using IRC (via Demon's telnetable IRC client) on my Nokia 9000 on a regular basis.
No TDMA system I'm aware of routinely drops calls when you change towers. In practice, I had far more call drops under Sprint PCS then I had under any other operator, namely because IS-95's capacity improvement was over-exaggerated and operators at the time routinely overloaded their networks.
GSM's range, which is around 20km, while technically a limitation of the air interface technology, isn't much different to what a .25W cellphone's range is in practice. You're not going to find many cellphones capable of getting a signal from a tower that far, regardless of what technology you use. The whole "Everyone lives in cities" thing is a myth, as certain countries, notably Finland, have far more US-like demographics in that respect (but what do they know about cellphones in Finland (http://www.nokia.com)?)
GSM was a standard built by the operators after the EU told them to create at least one standard that would be supported across the continent. Only the concept of "standardization" was forced upon operators, the standard - a development of work being done by France Telecom at the time - was made and agreed to by the operators. Those same operators would have looked at IS-95, or even at CDMA incorporated into GSM at the air interface level - had it been a mature, viable, technology at the time. It wasn't.
The only practical advantage IS-95 had over GSM was better capacity. This in theory meant cheaper minutes. For a time, that was true. Today, most US operators offer close to identical tariffs and close to identical reliability. But I can choose which GSM phone I leave the house with, and I know it'll work consistantly regardless of where I am.
Ultimately, the GSM consortium lost and Qualcomm got the last laugh because the technology does not scale as well as CDMA. Every last telecom equipment provider in Europe has since licensed the CDMA technology, and some version of the technology is part of the next generation cellular infrastructure under a few different names.
This paragraph is bizarrely misleading and I'm wondering if you just worded it poorly. GSM is still the worldwide standard. The newest version, UMTS, uses a CDMA air interface but is otherwise a clear development of GSM. It has virtually nothing in common with IS-95. "The GSM consortium" consists of GSM operators and handset makers. They're doing pretty well. What have they lost? Are you saying that because GSM's latest version includes one aspect of the IS-95 standard that GSM is worse? Or that IS-95 is suddenly better?
While GSM has better interoperability globally, I would make the observation that CDMA works just fine in the US, which is no small region of the planet and the third most populous country. For many people, the better quality is worth it.
Given the choice between 2G IS-95 or GSM, I'd pick GSM every time. Given the choice between 3G IS-95 (CDMA2000) and UMTS, I'd pick UMTS every time. The quality is generally better with the GSM equivalent - you're getting a well designed, digitial, integrated, network with GSM with all the features you'd expect. The advantages of the IS-95 equivalent are harder to come by. Slightly better data rates with 3G seems to be the only major one. Well, maybe the only one. Capacity? That's an operator issue. Indeed, with the move to UMA (presumably there'll be an IS-95 equivalent), it wouldn't surprise me if operators need less towers in the future regardless of which network technology they picked. The only other "advantages" IS-95 brings to the table seem to be imaginary.
munkery
Apr 8, 09:24 PM
Apps not owned by system are vulnerable but without privilege escalation can not install rootkits or keyloggers. Even apps owned by system run with user privileges and require privilege escalation to install dangerous payloads.
Playing around with a Mac OS X Leopard system and noticed that default apps can be modified without authentication by admins unlike Snow Leopard where authentication is required.
Therefore, the default apps are more vulnerable in Leopard. Privilege escalation would still be required to install payloads such as rootkits but it does leave open a vector that is not present in Snow Leopard.
Anybody else notice who has write privileges to Safari, Mail, etc in Mac OS X Leopard?
Playing around with a Mac OS X Leopard system and noticed that default apps can be modified without authentication by admins unlike Snow Leopard where authentication is required.
Therefore, the default apps are more vulnerable in Leopard. Privilege escalation would still be required to install payloads such as rootkits but it does leave open a vector that is not present in Snow Leopard.
Anybody else notice who has write privileges to Safari, Mail, etc in Mac OS X Leopard?
epitaphic
Sep 11, 05:48 AM
http://tomshardware.co.uk/2006/09/11/four_cores_on_the_rampage_uk/index.html
For me, working with one of the first quad core systems was amazing. No matter how many applications you run at the same time, the system reacts to user commands quickly. Some applications require half the time to finish tasks. To me, it's like being catapulted a year into the future and is unlike the past few years when computing power increased only marginally. Intel pumped out 30% more performance with Core 2 Duo and will double that again with Core 2 Quadro soon.
Seems like things bode well for Clovertown. Fingers crossed the hideously inefficient FB-DIMMS dont screw it up.
For me, working with one of the first quad core systems was amazing. No matter how many applications you run at the same time, the system reacts to user commands quickly. Some applications require half the time to finish tasks. To me, it's like being catapulted a year into the future and is unlike the past few years when computing power increased only marginally. Intel pumped out 30% more performance with Core 2 Duo and will double that again with Core 2 Quadro soon.
Seems like things bode well for Clovertown. Fingers crossed the hideously inefficient FB-DIMMS dont screw it up.
GFLPraxis
Sep 5, 12:02 AM
New iMacs? Are you freakin kidding me? I just bought a damn iMac and now there is already new ones! Pffff...
Then you haven't been paying attention. We've KNOWN new iMacs were coming in September ever since Intel announced Core 2 Duo was coming in September, THREE MONTHS AGO. I've been waiting three months for the Core 2 Duo iMac update.
Then you haven't been paying attention. We've KNOWN new iMacs were coming in September ever since Intel announced Core 2 Duo was coming in September, THREE MONTHS AGO. I've been waiting three months for the Core 2 Duo iMac update.
Hattig
Mar 29, 12:40 PM
using the keyboard, how quaint
Far faster than using the mouse. Mac OS X is very good at providing keyboard shortcuts, far better than Windows, although that may have changed with Windows 7.
I don't even get the point of your snarky comment. You know damn well that the functions are also available via the menus and right mouse button too.
Far faster than using the mouse. Mac OS X is very good at providing keyboard shortcuts, far better than Windows, although that may have changed with Windows 7.
I don't even get the point of your snarky comment. You know damn well that the functions are also available via the menus and right mouse button too.
nosen
Sep 14, 08:16 AM
Hmmm, an Aperture update would be cool. I wonder if they would make any financial "concessions" to people who have recently purchased Aperture... :o
xionxiox
Apr 25, 01:15 PM
Nice. My 17 MBP (Early 2009) will be getting close to the end of its life cycle by then, allowing me to easily slide into a new MBP.
A comment from Full of Win that's not complaining??? GLORY BE. :p
A comment from Full of Win that's not complaining??? GLORY BE. :p
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.
Silencio
Oct 12, 01:18 PM
I'll probably come of sounding like a jerk and opening a HUGE can of worms with this, BUT...
I'm glad somebody else was thinking what I was thinking! Why do we constantly have to place a line between men and women, black and white, American and everyone else. If we actually want equality and unity and all those wonderful things, I think it's about time we stop dilineating between groups of people.
It can't be both ways... if women/minorities want equality in the work place, or government, or in society as a whole, there can't also be inequality in the world when it comes to things like this... men and women, black and white, straight and gay - they have to be equal across the board, or not at all. We can't have it both ways.
Maybe because all across the globe, women and children are hugely disadvantaged economically and socially in comparison to men? People who need more help should get more help. People who don't need help shouldn't complain about it. As much as I want it to happen, "equality" is never going to happen in this world, at least the way it's currently structured.
"Empathy" is a four-letter word in America, sadly.
I'm glad somebody else was thinking what I was thinking! Why do we constantly have to place a line between men and women, black and white, American and everyone else. If we actually want equality and unity and all those wonderful things, I think it's about time we stop dilineating between groups of people.
It can't be both ways... if women/minorities want equality in the work place, or government, or in society as a whole, there can't also be inequality in the world when it comes to things like this... men and women, black and white, straight and gay - they have to be equal across the board, or not at all. We can't have it both ways.
Maybe because all across the globe, women and children are hugely disadvantaged economically and socially in comparison to men? People who need more help should get more help. People who don't need help shouldn't complain about it. As much as I want it to happen, "equality" is never going to happen in this world, at least the way it's currently structured.
"Empathy" is a four-letter word in America, sadly.
MuDPHuDStudent
Mar 29, 11:38 AM
I think they need to learn how to do math. How can you have an 18.8% cumulative annual growth rate when your market share goes down from 15.7% to 15.3%?
monaarts
Apr 4, 11:50 AM
I'm sorry but those guys deserved it. Why should the mall guard have to wait until his life in in danger before putting someone else's life in danger? Those guys were breaking the law and could have given someone a heart attack or something so screw that! Mall security guard +1 for sure! You rock man!
- Joe
- Joe
johndoejohndoes
Apr 25, 04:17 PM
This is tight...but please....PLEASE!!! Have a ODD.
Bonte
Sep 5, 08:24 AM
Apple also lets us rip CD's in iTunes, listen to podcasts and most of us already have a VCR or DVR, recording TV-shows is just an extra option to put it on an iPod and thats way more important than those few dollars they make on a show.
Don't hope for a $300 media-center, a PC media-center cost's between $1000 en $2000 so a $600-$800 "Mini Media" with a bigger HD and extra Front Row functionality will fit the bill perfectly.
Don't hope for a $300 media-center, a PC media-center cost's between $1000 en $2000 so a $600-$800 "Mini Media" with a bigger HD and extra Front Row functionality will fit the bill perfectly.
AppleScruff1
Apr 14, 06:30 PM
This is great news! One of the ReadyNAS I didn't buy a Sandy Bridge MBP is that I want USB3.
Maybe Apple still won't include it.
Well, it would surprise me. USB3.0 and Thunderbolt will come included in Intel''s Ivy Bridge. Apple would have to add more hardware and disable USB 3.0 to make it 2.0 only. Makes zero cents.
And that's exactly the reason they would do it. :D
There is no way Apple would deliberately block/not support USB3 on Mac's is there, to force Apple uses to have to buy Thunderbolt only peripherals and not be able to use cheaper USB3 items?
They would never do that would they?
They might, you never know. Stubornness knows no bounds.
The PC industry is plagued with lowest common denominator, low cost crap.
Apple and Intel are trying to move forward. We should support that.
Did you know that an Apple computer is a pc?
Maybe Apple still won't include it.
Well, it would surprise me. USB3.0 and Thunderbolt will come included in Intel''s Ivy Bridge. Apple would have to add more hardware and disable USB 3.0 to make it 2.0 only. Makes zero cents.
And that's exactly the reason they would do it. :D
There is no way Apple would deliberately block/not support USB3 on Mac's is there, to force Apple uses to have to buy Thunderbolt only peripherals and not be able to use cheaper USB3 items?
They would never do that would they?
They might, you never know. Stubornness knows no bounds.
The PC industry is plagued with lowest common denominator, low cost crap.
Apple and Intel are trying to move forward. We should support that.
Did you know that an Apple computer is a pc?
Ommid
Apr 25, 01:07 PM
Wooo hooo i cant wait, allready have the money on the side.
I was planning on getting a new Macbook in oktober when i start my courses, buy decided to wait because of this.
Wow, you people...
I was planning on getting a new Macbook in oktober when i start my courses, buy decided to wait because of this.
Wow, you people...
Dr.Gargoyle
Sep 14, 09:00 AM
anyway just trying to find an excuse for the iPhone....hehe :D
Count me in...;) I want one bad. I have been holding back on buying a new iPod in wait for the iPhone.
OT: I took a bath with my G4 iPod 40GB. I dont recommend it; bad things happen. :o
Count me in...;) I want one bad. I have been holding back on buying a new iPod in wait for the iPhone.
OT: I took a bath with my G4 iPod 40GB. I dont recommend it; bad things happen. :o
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
KnightWRX
Apr 22, 11:28 AM
Is this a true statement from the OP: "But with new Sandy Bridge processors from Intel sporting improved graphics performance"
Yes, this generation of Intel IGPs is improved compared to the earlier generation of Intel IGPs.
That doesn't put it on par with the nVidia 320M though. If Intel had only licensed nVidia to make chipsets, we'd have had something much better than even the 320M to put in the newer TB equipped Macbook Pros and these new Airs. Now we're stuck downgrading the graphics to upgrade the processor.
I'm glad I bought my 320M equipped model, I'll keep it around for a while it seems.
Yes, this generation of Intel IGPs is improved compared to the earlier generation of Intel IGPs.
That doesn't put it on par with the nVidia 320M though. If Intel had only licensed nVidia to make chipsets, we'd have had something much better than even the 320M to put in the newer TB equipped Macbook Pros and these new Airs. Now we're stuck downgrading the graphics to upgrade the processor.
I'm glad I bought my 320M equipped model, I'll keep it around for a while it seems.
trip1ex
Mar 22, 04:45 PM
4 core i5 and HD3000 integrated graphics on the low-end?
milo
Sep 11, 03:46 PM
Close, Manic Mouse. I dont understand people's belief that every Intel chip made has to go into an Apple machine. I doubt the Conroe will be used in any Mac nor the Kentsfield. The range is covered, and I'm sick of these silly rumors of Mac mid towers.
There wont be a mid tower, not now, not "Next Tuesday".
Conroe is intels best bang for the buck. It would be stupid for apple not to use it, and go with chips that are slower and more expensive instead. But apple still does some things that are stupid.
I still think we'll see a mid tower, or at least some mac with conroe. Tommorow? Probably not, but who knows?
There wont be a mid tower, not now, not "Next Tuesday".
Conroe is intels best bang for the buck. It would be stupid for apple not to use it, and go with chips that are slower and more expensive instead. But apple still does some things that are stupid.
I still think we'll see a mid tower, or at least some mac with conroe. Tommorow? Probably not, but who knows?
jamesryanbell
Apr 25, 05:31 PM
Did I misread something?
It said a "case re-design", not a refresh of CPU, GPU, HDD, etc....
Why is everyone talking about a major technology refresh on a brand new MBP? My guess is that they opened up sweat shops in some third world country to file down the edges.... :-)
R
By the time the redesigned MBP is out, it'll be time for a massive major refresh.
It said a "case re-design", not a refresh of CPU, GPU, HDD, etc....
Why is everyone talking about a major technology refresh on a brand new MBP? My guess is that they opened up sweat shops in some third world country to file down the edges.... :-)
R
By the time the redesigned MBP is out, it'll be time for a massive major refresh.
Stella
Apr 14, 12:03 PM
Any thunderbolt -> USB3 adapters out there? be useful for people who have 2011 macbooks...
( I know there's USB3 -> Thunderbolt connectors.. )
( I know there's USB3 -> Thunderbolt connectors.. )
Eidorian
Sep 10, 11:11 AM
I've gone over the 30" mock up with Multimedia. I like the idea and it's possible. Still, has anyone else looked at the road map for mobile chips? There's nothing beyond dual core! We just get die shrinking and more cache.
Deflorator
Apr 30, 03:21 PM
From iMacs there is only one (half) step to Cinema Display refresh, boy I would appreciate that... 24-isch inch with antiglare...
