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.
slavey
Mar 23, 06:47 PM
Amendment 1
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech; or of the press; or of the right of the people peacably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
These Senators need to fix the real problems and stop trying to infringe on Constitutional guaranteed free speech. Just because some one doesn't like what is said doesn't mean they don't get to say it.
This app differs in no way from me calling my buddy and informing him that I just drove through an DUI inspection. Should I not be able to do that either?
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech; or of the press; or of the right of the people peacably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
These Senators need to fix the real problems and stop trying to infringe on Constitutional guaranteed free speech. Just because some one doesn't like what is said doesn't mean they don't get to say it.
This app differs in no way from me calling my buddy and informing him that I just drove through an DUI inspection. Should I not be able to do that either?
tpg
Apr 25, 01:27 PM
What about the screen? Are they finally moving to 16:9 screens?
I hope not - retaining the 16:10 aspect ratio is one thing I really admire about Apple's notebooks. (11inch Air aside)
16:9 displays are cheaper to manufacture, but from a usability/aesthetic point of view 16:10 is superior IMO. Vertical space is at a premium, particularly on a laptop screen. Also, 16:10 is pretty darn close to the golden ratio...
I hope not - retaining the 16:10 aspect ratio is one thing I really admire about Apple's notebooks. (11inch Air aside)
16:9 displays are cheaper to manufacture, but from a usability/aesthetic point of view 16:10 is superior IMO. Vertical space is at a premium, particularly on a laptop screen. Also, 16:10 is pretty darn close to the golden ratio...
bjdku
Aug 31, 01:38 PM
If that's true for an small format movie, the Itunes Movie store will bomb. There is no way in hell people will pay that money. Is better buy a DVD at your local store.
Apple knows that, so that's why I am pretty sure it won't happen.
I agree they know better, and who has been feverishly building bandwidth and capability to deliver full length full resolution movies...Google has.
And who just joined the Apple Board, the Google CEO!!!!
Tantalizing!
Apple knows that, so that's why I am pretty sure it won't happen.
I agree they know better, and who has been feverishly building bandwidth and capability to deliver full length full resolution movies...Google has.
And who just joined the Apple Board, the Google CEO!!!!
Tantalizing!
Roller
Sep 4, 06:53 PM
Not too many details: would this stream movies already downloaded or let you download/view simultaneously (like view on demand)?
rikers_mailbox
Sep 19, 01:42 PM
I bought a movie (Good Will Hunting) to try out the whole shabang and see the quality for myself. The 1.5Gb download took 6+ hours on my crappy adelphia cable modem (it feels slower every day, what am I paying 50 bucks a month for again?). I was satisfied with the image quality on my 20" Dell widescreen, but sitting at my desk to watch a movie instead of my couch isn't the movie experience I'm going for. Sadly, I probably won't be buying another iTunes movie.
Not that anyone cares.
Not that anyone cares.
levitynyc
Sep 9, 11:53 AM
I'm not a gaming expert, but from what I've read, 512MB is no faster than 256MB for most current gaming applications, it's the throughput of the GPU that counts. Do any gamers out there want to comment on this?
I don't think that you could run Oblivion particularly well with only 256MB of Video Memory. Maybe you could, but you couldn't nearly max of the Graphics or else you would suffer some frame rate issues.
I don't think that you could run Oblivion particularly well with only 256MB of Video Memory. Maybe you could, but you couldn't nearly max of the Graphics or else you would suffer some frame rate issues.
iLLucionist
Apr 28, 05:59 PM
Microsoft is still doing very well. They're making the best products they ever have done and as a customer I am very pleased with all of my Microsoft purchases.
- Zune desktop software
- Zune hardware and mobile software
- Windows Phone 7
- Windows 7
- Office 2010
- Office 2011 for Mac
- Xbox 360
- Xbox Live
All great products and deserve to be class leaders if they are not already. I can't think of another company (including Apple) that has put out such a fantastic range of very good products.
Zune? Uhm...no, not really. The Zune is discontinued, at least in the long run. Current models will remain available for a while, but new ones will not come out.
- Zune desktop software
- Zune hardware and mobile software
- Windows Phone 7
- Windows 7
- Office 2010
- Office 2011 for Mac
- Xbox 360
- Xbox Live
All great products and deserve to be class leaders if they are not already. I can't think of another company (including Apple) that has put out such a fantastic range of very good products.
Zune? Uhm...no, not really. The Zune is discontinued, at least in the long run. Current models will remain available for a while, but new ones will not come out.
TallManNY
Mar 22, 01:23 PM
Good news. My Mom needs a new iMac due to screen issues on her ancient machine, so she will be getting my hand-me-down 24-inch Core 2 and I will be buying an upgrade. I would like to see the 24-inch come back, but will probably consider and go with the 27-inch.
Hope these machines don't run too hot or have too many mechanical problems. As long as Apple doesn't unnecessarily try to make these things another 1/4 inch thin, then I'm guessing these are okay right off the bat.
Hope these machines don't run too hot or have too many mechanical problems. As long as Apple doesn't unnecessarily try to make these things another 1/4 inch thin, then I'm guessing these are okay right off the bat.
MacPhreak
Oct 12, 03:52 PM
Cured because the president had polio and before the corporate greed infrastructure took hold. NEXT...
You're a barrel of monkeys, aren't you? Remind me to move to the other end of the bar next time you're in town. If memory serves, polio was cured AFTER FDR died/left office, in fact almost 20 years later.
Polio vaccines??? Are you serious?? When was the last time anyone had one? Forty years? Please.
You're a barrel of monkeys, aren't you? Remind me to move to the other end of the bar next time you're in town. If memory serves, polio was cured AFTER FDR died/left office, in fact almost 20 years later.
Polio vaccines??? Are you serious?? When was the last time anyone had one? Forty years? Please.
twostep665
Apr 4, 12:23 PM
I'm amazed that so many people are basing their judgment of the "head shot" on 3rd person shooter games and CSI. In the real world, anyone with training will always be aiming for the center of mass, and where he actually hits depends more on luck than anything else.
In other words, just because the criminal was hit in the head, doesn't mean that the security guard was aiming for his head. A mall security guard with a pistol shooting at a moving target during a gunfight doesn't have the accuracy of a Marine sniper shooting a sniper rifle at a stationary target.
THANK YOU! It is hard enough making a head shot from 15 yards on the pistol range!
In other words, just because the criminal was hit in the head, doesn't mean that the security guard was aiming for his head. A mall security guard with a pistol shooting at a moving target during a gunfight doesn't have the accuracy of a Marine sniper shooting a sniper rifle at a stationary target.
THANK YOU! It is hard enough making a head shot from 15 yards on the pistol range!
Josias
Aug 28, 02:45 PM
To the guy that on page 2 requested a 7600GT in the MBP's: Why? The X1800XT is gonna whoop it's butt, and ATI is way better at making mobile cards. Oh BTW, the X1600's were not underlocked. I saw a thread somewhere, that said they wouldn�t run at full speed when not needed.;)
Frisco
Oct 12, 01:34 PM
Check out DeaPeaJay's mockup at AppleInsider. Me want.
http://www.exit42design.com/stuffDirectory/redNano.jpg
That's Hot! I love the deep red.
http://www.exit42design.com/stuffDirectory/redNano.jpg
That's Hot! I love the deep red.
edcrosay
Oct 12, 11:57 PM
I'm glad this isn't in an 8gb variety... because I will definatly start to regret the purchase of my black one.
AppleScruff1
Apr 19, 10:54 PM
As I mentioned in the other thread, you might actually want to take a look at the Apple Records logo before you make silly arguments that the Apple Computer logo is a copy.
And as cmaier clearly explained to you, this is a different scenario entirely as they were in two completely different industries at that time.
Oh, and what do the Beatles have to do with partnering technology companies turning around and stabbing their partner in the back? Nothing.
So the Beatles didn't use an Apple? And Woolworths Australia does? Don't be so biased.
And as cmaier clearly explained to you, this is a different scenario entirely as they were in two completely different industries at that time.
Oh, and what do the Beatles have to do with partnering technology companies turning around and stabbing their partner in the back? Nothing.
So the Beatles didn't use an Apple? And Woolworths Australia does? Don't be so biased.
Deflorator
Apr 30, 03:30 PM
Because that huge base of thunderbolt based devices is overwhelming! :p
Who else should break this infinite loop than someone from Infinite Loop?
Who else should break this infinite loop than someone from Infinite Loop?
BoyBach
Aug 28, 12:27 PM
I expect to see a speed bump across the entire range (excluding the Mac Pro) within the coming weeks.
!� V �!
Apr 30, 06:21 PM
Bought monitors with anti-glare coatings. And monitor hoods.
My first computer was a PowerBook G3 and after that it was an LCD iMac (not the Luxo). Never had to ever use a CRT other than school and even then it sucked big time. I feel privileged. With the release of all this gloss glass monitors from :apple:, I am saving a boat load of money by simply not upgrading to the crap offerings and just use a Dell monitor and update to a Mac Mini or MacPro when the time presents itself to upgrade.
Thank you :apple: for not offering any Anti-Glare across the entire hardware lineup. :p
My first computer was a PowerBook G3 and after that it was an LCD iMac (not the Luxo). Never had to ever use a CRT other than school and even then it sucked big time. I feel privileged. With the release of all this gloss glass monitors from :apple:, I am saving a boat load of money by simply not upgrading to the crap offerings and just use a Dell monitor and update to a Mac Mini or MacPro when the time presents itself to upgrade.
Thank you :apple: for not offering any Anti-Glare across the entire hardware lineup. :p
andy721
Mar 29, 12:42 PM
Why do you guys keep posting your crappy Market Share records they're not even close to the other leading OS's
Are you guys morons or just smoking crack? :mad::confused:
Are you guys morons or just smoking crack? :mad::confused:
Detrius
Mar 16, 10:31 AM
I can just imagine that future Apple operating systems might very well include native protection that wold continue to thwart people wanting to sell anti-malware for Apple OS.
OS X Server ships with clamav for filtering viruses through the email server. Lion merges client and server. Therefore, there will be an antivirus program shipping with 10.7.
OS X Server ships with clamav for filtering viruses through the email server. Lion merges client and server. Therefore, there will be an antivirus program shipping with 10.7.
THX1139
Jul 20, 08:48 PM
Maybe I misunderstood your post, I thought you meant releasing conroe machines and not shipping quads until months later. If that were the case, people would inevitably compare the new towers to the G5 quads, regardless if they were intended to replace those models.
I think the reason they haven't announced woodcrest towers is because they want to wait for WWDC, and because the line will be split between woodcrest and conroe. It wouldn't make sense to announce half the tower lineup, people would assume that was it and react accordingly.
Exactly! I think the orginal argument was someone saying that there was no way a Conroe was going into a tower or workstation. That the line-up was to be all Woodcrest because that was the only chip that would be feasible to use in a workstation. My counter point to that is - if it was all Woodcrest, they would be out by now. Waiting for WWDC says to me that Conroe is going in there somewhere. My guess is that the Conroe will be used to replace the currently shipping duals at a speed increase. Others argue that the proline will be all Quad... or at least all Woodcrest even if they use only one Woodcrest chip in the lower-end. My best guess is they split the line-up and use both processors. Woodcrest on top in Quad, Conroe on the bottom and middle. They will continue to offer G5 until MWSF to accommodate legacy users.
It's going to be interesting to see what path Apple chooses. The unknown element is that they "might" have something in secret development that will allow them to produce machines we haven't considered. Doubtful but fun to think about.
I think the reason they haven't announced woodcrest towers is because they want to wait for WWDC, and because the line will be split between woodcrest and conroe. It wouldn't make sense to announce half the tower lineup, people would assume that was it and react accordingly.
Exactly! I think the orginal argument was someone saying that there was no way a Conroe was going into a tower or workstation. That the line-up was to be all Woodcrest because that was the only chip that would be feasible to use in a workstation. My counter point to that is - if it was all Woodcrest, they would be out by now. Waiting for WWDC says to me that Conroe is going in there somewhere. My guess is that the Conroe will be used to replace the currently shipping duals at a speed increase. Others argue that the proline will be all Quad... or at least all Woodcrest even if they use only one Woodcrest chip in the lower-end. My best guess is they split the line-up and use both processors. Woodcrest on top in Quad, Conroe on the bottom and middle. They will continue to offer G5 until MWSF to accommodate legacy users.
It's going to be interesting to see what path Apple chooses. The unknown element is that they "might" have something in secret development that will allow them to produce machines we haven't considered. Doubtful but fun to think about.
Darlo770
Apr 25, 02:10 PM
I wonder if they'll go SSD and maintain the price-point by saying bye-bye to the superdrive? I hope so, i'd prefer SSD speed over a disc drive which i hardly use anymore.
Also, i'm thinking the black bezel might go. In my opinion, the black hinge doesn't look too good when the rest is metal.
Bigger trackpad, for Lion's gestures?
I hope they don't go sloped, like the air. But then again, when it comes to design, Apple always make it sexy, so i don't mind really.
Can't wait anyway, i was recently thinking of buying a MacBook Pro, glad i didn't jump in too soon :)
Also, i'm thinking the black bezel might go. In my opinion, the black hinge doesn't look too good when the rest is metal.
Bigger trackpad, for Lion's gestures?
I hope they don't go sloped, like the air. But then again, when it comes to design, Apple always make it sexy, so i don't mind really.
Can't wait anyway, i was recently thinking of buying a MacBook Pro, glad i didn't jump in too soon :)
Manic Mouse
Sep 9, 07:13 AM
Until Leopard is out we wont see the true value of these babies. Also by then some of the apps will take advantage of the muti-cores and multi-cpus, and the changes to the OS will allow applications not written for more than 1 core to take some advantage also. So like I said Leopard will be the one showing the true potential of these babies. Can't wait!!!!!!!:cool:
The fact that the new iMacs can't address more than 3Gb of memory and are therefore operating on a 32bit logic-board makes me doubtful as to whether or not these systems are really 64-bit capable... It seems like some kind of hybrid 32/64bit system.
Will the C2D iMacs be able to run 64bit code, despite not having the 64bit address space (and being able to access over 4Gb or RAM)?
The fact that the new iMacs can't address more than 3Gb of memory and are therefore operating on a 32bit logic-board makes me doubtful as to whether or not these systems are really 64-bit capable... It seems like some kind of hybrid 32/64bit system.
Will the C2D iMacs be able to run 64bit code, despite not having the 64bit address space (and being able to access over 4Gb or RAM)?
manosaurus
Oct 12, 12:57 PM
My gues is that all these whiners would not even notice if you snuck in at night and swapped out ther procesor for a C2D chip. They'd just wake up the next moring fire up the computer and never even notice.
It's like those audiophiles who argue endlessly about if gold plated or silver plated speaker wire sounds better.
Oh... Core 2 Duo gold and silver plated speaker wire tomoorow too!
It's like those audiophiles who argue endlessly about if gold plated or silver plated speaker wire sounds better.
Oh... Core 2 Duo gold and silver plated speaker wire tomoorow too!
No comments:
Post a Comment