iMacZealot
Sep 18, 12:18 AM
google seems to just keep giving me results that say either:
"send it to <insert generic dodgy address here> and i will unlock it"
"you can't do it"
"you need an SPC code from the carrier."
"you need a null cable"
my point is. you cant just walk into a SonyEricsson (or nokia, etc) store, buy a phone and say "im going to use this on xyz CDMA carrier"
I thought you wanted the greatest honest to goodness top of the line phone! Why would you want to keep your old phone if you switch to a new carrier?
"send it to <insert generic dodgy address here> and i will unlock it"
"you can't do it"
"you need an SPC code from the carrier."
"you need a null cable"
my point is. you cant just walk into a SonyEricsson (or nokia, etc) store, buy a phone and say "im going to use this on xyz CDMA carrier"
I thought you wanted the greatest honest to goodness top of the line phone! Why would you want to keep your old phone if you switch to a new carrier?
Machead III
Sep 5, 03:20 PM
Of course Apple need to do more than just impress general Mac users like you guys. Like with the iPod, if they want big success, they're going to have to get to grips with an entirely new scene, culture even, and bring it's adherents something new.
As someone who considers film as influential in his upbringing as his family and friends even, I'm looking for Apple to honor the spirit of film rather than just crank out downloadable movies like the lack-luster businesses who suck all the art and atmosphere out of the DVD market.
Forget music, this is the big one. Apple are dealing with the most powerful art form on the planet, they'd better do it justice.
I'll reserve judgement until I see what they have to offer les fanatiques du cinema, but I'm optimistic.
As someone who considers film as influential in his upbringing as his family and friends even, I'm looking for Apple to honor the spirit of film rather than just crank out downloadable movies like the lack-luster businesses who suck all the art and atmosphere out of the DVD market.
Forget music, this is the big one. Apple are dealing with the most powerful art form on the planet, they'd better do it justice.
I'll reserve judgement until I see what they have to offer les fanatiques du cinema, but I'm optimistic.
McGiord
Mar 29, 01:30 PM
Oracle's lawsuit against Google is airtight. Android's use of a non-compliant virtual machine (the Dalvik VM) is a clear violation of the Java license agreement. And there's legal precedent: Microsoft paid Sun $20 million back in 2001 when Sun successfully sued them for trying to "embrace, extend, and extinguish" Java.
Google will lose the lawsuit. And nobody has ever accused Larry Ellison of being Mr. Nice Guy. He doesn't want money this time. He wants to protect the intellectual property Oracle acquired from Sun. He wants all copies of Android to be "impounded and destroyed" (a direct quote from text of the suit.) Because if Google is allowed to plagiarize and distort Java, others will follow. Ellison is making an example of Google, and it's going to be a law school textbook IP case study for the ages.
Soon Android will be off the market while Google is forced to retool their JVM to be 100% Java compliant. Google is already scrambling to get rid of their non-compliant Dalvik VM. They actually hired James Gosling, the "inventor" of Java, so they've got religion now.
And, although money isn't the motivating factor behind the Oracle lawsuit, it is a factor nonetheless. Google will end up paying Oracle a license fee for each and every generic me-too Android iPhone clone and iPad clone that their hardware partners can mash up. And that erases Android's only advantage over WP7. Android will no longer be free.
So, when Android is off the market, Nokia's WP7 phones will have a chance to avoid becoming KIN 2.0. There will be a window of opportunity for Nokia and Microsoft to build up a little market share. Some corporations and consumers will buy Nokia WP7 phones just because Nokia and Microsoft are "too big to die." (And just when Google thinks it's safe, when they've implemented a 100% compliant JVM, Apple can sue them for GUI patent infringement. But that's another story...)
In the meantime, both WP7 and Nokia will have zero market presence. For all of 2011 and part of 2012. That's an eternity.
Well I missed this news. Can you please share a link/source about this?
Google will lose the lawsuit. And nobody has ever accused Larry Ellison of being Mr. Nice Guy. He doesn't want money this time. He wants to protect the intellectual property Oracle acquired from Sun. He wants all copies of Android to be "impounded and destroyed" (a direct quote from text of the suit.) Because if Google is allowed to plagiarize and distort Java, others will follow. Ellison is making an example of Google, and it's going to be a law school textbook IP case study for the ages.
Soon Android will be off the market while Google is forced to retool their JVM to be 100% Java compliant. Google is already scrambling to get rid of their non-compliant Dalvik VM. They actually hired James Gosling, the "inventor" of Java, so they've got religion now.
And, although money isn't the motivating factor behind the Oracle lawsuit, it is a factor nonetheless. Google will end up paying Oracle a license fee for each and every generic me-too Android iPhone clone and iPad clone that their hardware partners can mash up. And that erases Android's only advantage over WP7. Android will no longer be free.
So, when Android is off the market, Nokia's WP7 phones will have a chance to avoid becoming KIN 2.0. There will be a window of opportunity for Nokia and Microsoft to build up a little market share. Some corporations and consumers will buy Nokia WP7 phones just because Nokia and Microsoft are "too big to die." (And just when Google thinks it's safe, when they've implemented a 100% compliant JVM, Apple can sue them for GUI patent infringement. But that's another story...)
In the meantime, both WP7 and Nokia will have zero market presence. For all of 2011 and part of 2012. That's an eternity.
Well I missed this news. Can you please share a link/source about this?
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
Half Glass
Sep 14, 10:08 AM
Don't want to wait!
Come on Aperture update...that's why I've been waiting!
iPhone at Photokina? Seems odd. MBP updates for mobile ProPhotogs makes much more sense.
iSLR? Doubt it--the way rumor sites scour for patent filings you'd think they would've found something on this.
--HG
Come on Aperture update...that's why I've been waiting!
iPhone at Photokina? Seems odd. MBP updates for mobile ProPhotogs makes much more sense.
iSLR? Doubt it--the way rumor sites scour for patent filings you'd think they would've found something on this.
--HG
hcho3
Apr 19, 09:20 AM
Respond strongly? You mean defend yourself?
Samsung has almost no chance of winning against apple in this lawsuit in phone design/UI and etc.
Samsung clearly copied apple. Samsung phones were nothing like Galaxy S phones until iPhone came out in 2007.
Samsung did copy apple. They are about to lose billions of dollars on this one.
Samsung has almost no chance of winning against apple in this lawsuit in phone design/UI and etc.
Samsung clearly copied apple. Samsung phones were nothing like Galaxy S phones until iPhone came out in 2007.
Samsung did copy apple. They are about to lose billions of dollars on this one.
jav6454
Apr 10, 06:56 PM
What's hard in the U.S. is that most people make a modest or poor salary--yet the culture is very materialistic and there is a lot of pressure to buy so many luxury goods and services. At least in third world countries, your friends aren't pressuring you to take extravagant vacations you can't afford or go out to expensive restaurants.
Sorta right here. However, I see it as companies advertising them as price/wallet friendly while still being able to look/feel good like the rich people.
Sorta right here. However, I see it as companies advertising them as price/wallet friendly while still being able to look/feel good like the rich people.
bassfingers
Apr 17, 01:06 AM
why would I want to pay someone $17 an hour to a job a monkey is almost qualified to do? Sounds like an opportunity to hire less people, or jack my prices up. A job is worth simply what a job is worth. Period. If I'm trying to offer services at competitive prices, and someone is willing to bag groceries for $3 an hour, then they should be ALLOWED to. Rather than me just choose to hire nobody and using automated checkouts.
What happens then? More people find jobs, and prices go down. $3 dollars suddenly buys you a subway sandwich. # of consumers goes up bc more people are employed, which brings in more revenue, causes more hiring etc.
Also, people who do want to make $10 bucks an hour are forced to either be productive or learn something useful, which is good for everyone, plus that $10 is worth more now bc of deflation. Deflation would also drive interest rates on loans down bc the money you pay back is worth more.
Best case scenario, taxes are low at this point, and the government isn't a handout machine, so people feel the need to donate to an EFFICIENT charity. Rather than to the government, which is the most inefficient entity on the planet.
Overall result: More buying power, lower unemployment, more substantial and efficient charity, more innovation.
OR we can take away every incentive to be productive (France) and have a GDP smaller than the interest payments on the national debt (France in 2020)
I'd say since the high point of post WWII, we as a society in the U.S. have done our best to eradicate The New Deal and move back to reaching for magnificant wealth while screwing each other over.?
really? we've been getting LESS progressive since the new deal? I was under the impression that our government is GIGANTIC and tries to babysit us at every turn while simultaneously urinating on the constitution
No kidding right?
My buddy and I went boarding 2 days ago and he dislocated his finger (looked bad as it was all bent funny)
Anyways, took him to the clinic and was charged 1300 bucks to put it back into place and he doesnt have health insurance
Heaven forbid one needs surgery or broke a leg or anything more than dislocating a finger....would need a few million stashed away
Or perhaps a steady job mingled in with some tort reform, or a private charity willing to foot the bill if he were unemployed.
However, I don't know if boarding is the best option when you're unemployed
The more paranoid might suggest that oil companies are collaborating with auto makers and the government to keep efficiency as low as they can get away with. Remember, the record for fuel economy was set in the mid 70s in a slightly modified Opel: something like 237 miles on a gallon (US) of gasoline. Highly idealized conditions no doubt, but my goodness, the average automobile today should be at least a third of the way there.
US government regulations for increasing gas efficiency has resulted in car companies making vehicles lighter at rate beyond evolving the technology to maintain safety, which has resulted in an average of 10,000 avoidable deaths per year since the early 70's
But hey, maybe that fraction of environmental impact we have that's causing that fraction of a global degree change might have been marginally altered. Maybe. And it's only cost us ~300,000 lives so far. Thank you government! Just tack that onto the millions you killed by restricting DDT use, and you can further brag about your death toll
What is this supposed to show? That US corporations are more profitable? Is that a good thing? For whom?
Stock owners in these companies. Which are made up of middle class citizens
Ridiculous? Not quite, from the parent's perspective.
In Canada we have 12 months maternity leave, which can be taken by either spouse, or split, 6 months/6 months.
Yeah man, one of my biggest incentives to put my money on the line and open a small business is that I have the opportunity to pay someone to not work for a year.
Or maybe in that transaction I'll get to use the government as a middle man via taxes, and I'll end up spending %30 more in order to maintain its inefficiency
What happens then? More people find jobs, and prices go down. $3 dollars suddenly buys you a subway sandwich. # of consumers goes up bc more people are employed, which brings in more revenue, causes more hiring etc.
Also, people who do want to make $10 bucks an hour are forced to either be productive or learn something useful, which is good for everyone, plus that $10 is worth more now bc of deflation. Deflation would also drive interest rates on loans down bc the money you pay back is worth more.
Best case scenario, taxes are low at this point, and the government isn't a handout machine, so people feel the need to donate to an EFFICIENT charity. Rather than to the government, which is the most inefficient entity on the planet.
Overall result: More buying power, lower unemployment, more substantial and efficient charity, more innovation.
OR we can take away every incentive to be productive (France) and have a GDP smaller than the interest payments on the national debt (France in 2020)
I'd say since the high point of post WWII, we as a society in the U.S. have done our best to eradicate The New Deal and move back to reaching for magnificant wealth while screwing each other over.?
really? we've been getting LESS progressive since the new deal? I was under the impression that our government is GIGANTIC and tries to babysit us at every turn while simultaneously urinating on the constitution
No kidding right?
My buddy and I went boarding 2 days ago and he dislocated his finger (looked bad as it was all bent funny)
Anyways, took him to the clinic and was charged 1300 bucks to put it back into place and he doesnt have health insurance
Heaven forbid one needs surgery or broke a leg or anything more than dislocating a finger....would need a few million stashed away
Or perhaps a steady job mingled in with some tort reform, or a private charity willing to foot the bill if he were unemployed.
However, I don't know if boarding is the best option when you're unemployed
The more paranoid might suggest that oil companies are collaborating with auto makers and the government to keep efficiency as low as they can get away with. Remember, the record for fuel economy was set in the mid 70s in a slightly modified Opel: something like 237 miles on a gallon (US) of gasoline. Highly idealized conditions no doubt, but my goodness, the average automobile today should be at least a third of the way there.
US government regulations for increasing gas efficiency has resulted in car companies making vehicles lighter at rate beyond evolving the technology to maintain safety, which has resulted in an average of 10,000 avoidable deaths per year since the early 70's
But hey, maybe that fraction of environmental impact we have that's causing that fraction of a global degree change might have been marginally altered. Maybe. And it's only cost us ~300,000 lives so far. Thank you government! Just tack that onto the millions you killed by restricting DDT use, and you can further brag about your death toll
What is this supposed to show? That US corporations are more profitable? Is that a good thing? For whom?
Stock owners in these companies. Which are made up of middle class citizens
Ridiculous? Not quite, from the parent's perspective.
In Canada we have 12 months maternity leave, which can be taken by either spouse, or split, 6 months/6 months.
Yeah man, one of my biggest incentives to put my money on the line and open a small business is that I have the opportunity to pay someone to not work for a year.
Or maybe in that transaction I'll get to use the government as a middle man via taxes, and I'll end up spending %30 more in order to maintain its inefficiency
poppe
Aug 28, 06:49 PM
hahahahahhahaha
merom is better than everyone anticipated... ---> http://gizmodo.com/gadgets/laptops/intel-core-duo-whassup-faster-197105.php
all the people who said it's only marginal at best can stick it where the sun don't shine! suckaaaaaaaaaaaaaazzzz
Cool find, but I dont much believe it completely.
Just my thought...
I just trust that Arstancia website (how ever it is spelled) They did a core 2 duo laptop review and got some performance increases of around 10-15% but never 22%...
merom is better than everyone anticipated... ---> http://gizmodo.com/gadgets/laptops/intel-core-duo-whassup-faster-197105.php
all the people who said it's only marginal at best can stick it where the sun don't shine! suckaaaaaaaaaaaaaazzzz
Cool find, but I dont much believe it completely.
Just my thought...
I just trust that Arstancia website (how ever it is spelled) They did a core 2 duo laptop review and got some performance increases of around 10-15% but never 22%...
Eidorian
May 3, 10:25 AM
Still USB 2.0
Meh.Time for a break out box! :D
Which goes against the stark minimalism Apple was going for. Wait, what?
Meh.Time for a break out box! :D
Which goes against the stark minimalism Apple was going for. Wait, what?
Coolerking
Sep 8, 09:14 AM
Hell no, Leopard will run on G4s, G5s, Core Duos, Core 2 Duos, maybe even the old G3s but we'll have to wait and see on that one.
Thanks. Judging by what some people have said it sounded like you needed Core 2 Duo to run Leopard.
Thanks. Judging by what some people have said it sounded like you needed Core 2 Duo to run Leopard.
GGJstudios
Mar 18, 03:50 PM
It doesn't need to be a virus. They're relatively rare issues these days even on Windows. Malware is about stealing identities (big money) not hackers playing games with machines
Identity theft is not malware and it's not targeted at just Mac or Windows. It can be done without using computers at all. There is no antivirus software that can protect a computer from the user's own stupidity or gullibility.
Identity theft is not malware and it's not targeted at just Mac or Windows. It can be done without using computers at all. There is no antivirus software that can protect a computer from the user's own stupidity or gullibility.
kettle
Oct 27, 02:04 PM
Yeah, but what is currently out there that's better?
That's an empty question that just defends what's going on as "don't worry, it'll be all right" when what people are really too frightened to ask is how long will this go on and what opposing force will be needed to make it change direction. Things are getting worse and lately it's hard to ignore the smell.
That's an empty question that just defends what's going on as "don't worry, it'll be all right" when what people are really too frightened to ask is how long will this go on and what opposing force will be needed to make it change direction. Things are getting worse and lately it's hard to ignore the smell.
SBacklin
Apr 22, 09:34 AM
Man, stop it with the cloud service already. :rolleyes: You can't rely on the internet availability for listening to music. It's unreliable. Plus, the streaming will probably be low resolution, drain battery life, eat into data caps, not display lyrics, and generally be a crappy experience. If I wanted to stream, I can do it from my home computer where my music already resides with one of the 100 apps already available and not have to fight through all the bandwidth issues that are probably gonna result from Apple's side. What's the point? I can do this now.
Of course what we really need if more friggin' flash memory on our devices! Apple's been stuck on 32 GB on the iPhone for almost 3 years!
Tony
Good points made. Like I complained about, cellular data connectivity when out and about isn't very reliable and then there is data caps.
Of course what we really need if more friggin' flash memory on our devices! Apple's been stuck on 32 GB on the iPhone for almost 3 years!
Tony
Good points made. Like I complained about, cellular data connectivity when out and about isn't very reliable and then there is data caps.
nemaslov
Sep 15, 06:10 PM
then why can't McGiver (MacGiver) make it right now?:D
Peace
Sep 5, 12:00 PM
iLounge has received the same invitation (http://www.ilounge.com/index.php/news/comments/apple-to-hold-showtime-event-on-september-12th/)
Josias
Sep 14, 09:45 AM
My prediction:
Definiantly:
Aperture 2.0 ($299)
MacBook Pro:
2 15" and 1 17" model with 2.16 and 2.33 GHz Merom
1 GB RAM standdard, up to 3 or 4 GB
100 and 120 GB HDD's, up to 160 GB
8x DVD+/-RW DL drives for all
X1600 Pro in low-end 15" and X1800 Pro/XT in hi-end 15" and 17"
FW800 on all models
Magnetic latch (no integrated keyboard)
Expresscard/54 slot on all models
$1899 - $2299 - $2499
Maybe:
iPhone with 3.2 mpx camera by Canon
New displays
PowerBook G5
Unikely:
802.11 n (in MacPro and MacBook Pro)
New iSight with IR reciever
MacBook
Definiantly:
Aperture 2.0 ($299)
MacBook Pro:
2 15" and 1 17" model with 2.16 and 2.33 GHz Merom
1 GB RAM standdard, up to 3 or 4 GB
100 and 120 GB HDD's, up to 160 GB
8x DVD+/-RW DL drives for all
X1600 Pro in low-end 15" and X1800 Pro/XT in hi-end 15" and 17"
FW800 on all models
Magnetic latch (no integrated keyboard)
Expresscard/54 slot on all models
$1899 - $2299 - $2499
Maybe:
iPhone with 3.2 mpx camera by Canon
New displays
PowerBook G5
Unikely:
802.11 n (in MacPro and MacBook Pro)
New iSight with IR reciever
MacBook
dukebound85
Apr 25, 01:01 AM
The simple fact is that I should not have to obey a 70mph speed limit if I don't want to. Why would I even bother driving a car that can hit 186mph (with the speed governor removed, with the governor top speed is 155mph) at 70 mph? A Ford Fiesta can hit those speeds, what's the point of fast cars if you're going to follow the speed limit in them?
Really?:rolleyes:
Seriously...I mean really???
You have NO business driving a vehicle with your state of mind
Really?:rolleyes:
Seriously...I mean really???
You have NO business driving a vehicle with your state of mind
NikonD3s
Apr 25, 01:26 PM
Replace Superdrive with larger battery so you can run SATA III SSDs and replace screen with Retina Display.
bommai
Sep 19, 04:07 PM
I don't think Apple is aiming for the uber-geek with $25k worth of home entertainment equipment. IMHO, they will never be able to compete in that market.
I think they are reaching for the average joe blow that has a servicable $400 TV that he bought at Wal-mart, and maybe, just maybe, has a stereo hooked up to it. The average Joe doesn't care, and can't tell, that it's Dolby Surround and not Dolby Digital.
I disagree. The average Joe is not the customer for iTV. Average Joe might buy a $40 DVD player from Walmart to hook up to a $200 TV. Remember, the iTV is meant for a HDTV. In fact you cannot even easily hook it up to a non-HDTV. It has only HDMI and component video outputs. These outputs are found only on HDTVs. Granted the price of HDTV is coming down pretty fast. You can buy a CRT based HDTV for under $500 now. However, I still standby my assertion that iTV will be bought by people that have computers with a large enough hard drive and a home network. This is a little bit more complicated than just owning an iPod and buying tunes off of iTS. For iPod, you need one computer connected to internet and an iPod. For iTV, you need a computer with a large HD, a home network, a TV with HDMI or component video input and an iTV.
Dolby Digital / 5.1 discrete tracks need to be worked out soon!!
I think they are reaching for the average joe blow that has a servicable $400 TV that he bought at Wal-mart, and maybe, just maybe, has a stereo hooked up to it. The average Joe doesn't care, and can't tell, that it's Dolby Surround and not Dolby Digital.
I disagree. The average Joe is not the customer for iTV. Average Joe might buy a $40 DVD player from Walmart to hook up to a $200 TV. Remember, the iTV is meant for a HDTV. In fact you cannot even easily hook it up to a non-HDTV. It has only HDMI and component video outputs. These outputs are found only on HDTVs. Granted the price of HDTV is coming down pretty fast. You can buy a CRT based HDTV for under $500 now. However, I still standby my assertion that iTV will be bought by people that have computers with a large enough hard drive and a home network. This is a little bit more complicated than just owning an iPod and buying tunes off of iTS. For iPod, you need one computer connected to internet and an iPod. For iTV, you need a computer with a large HD, a home network, a TV with HDMI or component video input and an iTV.
Dolby Digital / 5.1 discrete tracks need to be worked out soon!!
zwida
Sep 10, 05:44 PM
Then I'll be right back here complaining about how 8 cores isn't enough either.
I'm with you there. Although I don't do video compression but Photoshop, Illustrator, and InDesign work, I'm sure Adobe will manage to deliver a version of CS3 that still feels sluggish under 8 cores.
I'm with you there. Although I don't do video compression but Photoshop, Illustrator, and InDesign work, I'm sure Adobe will manage to deliver a version of CS3 that still feels sluggish under 8 cores.
dethmaShine
Apr 20, 11:03 AM
All I've seen is one paragraph claiming that. Until someone shows data from when location services was turned off it's hard to run with it.
Applogist? Jesus, that's such a sad bastardization of words. I'm trying to apply reasoning to this and have people understand that they've likely agreed to something because they don't read the ToS or SLA.
You are an ApPologist. Take it and go. :D
Leave the trolls alone, please. :D
Applogist? Jesus, that's such a sad bastardization of words. I'm trying to apply reasoning to this and have people understand that they've likely agreed to something because they don't read the ToS or SLA.
You are an ApPologist. Take it and go. :D
Leave the trolls alone, please. :D
macnulty
Aug 24, 07:51 PM
Huge win for Apple, hands down.
$100m is not chump change but for a company with Apple's size it comes close.
On top of that Apple gets to recoup at least some of that if Creative decides to license the technology in question.
On top of that Creative is entering the "made for iPod" market, which only adds to the iPod allure.
On top of that iPod interface doesn't change.
$100m is not chump change but for a company with Apple's size it comes close.
On top of that Apple gets to recoup at least some of that if Creative decides to license the technology in question.
On top of that Creative is entering the "made for iPod" market, which only adds to the iPod allure.
On top of that iPod interface doesn't change.
MacRumors
Sep 9, 01:36 AM
http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com)
MacCentral posted (http://www.macworld.com/2006/09/firstlooks/imacbench/index.php) a first look at the new Core 2 Duo iMac along with some early benchmarks.
The new iMacs which were released on Wednesday (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/09/20060906091309.shtml) incorporate the latest Core 2 Duo processor from Intel. The Core 2 Duo represents the continuation of the Core Duo line which first made its appearance in Apple computers in January. Intel has maintained that the new chips would provide roughly 20% improvement in performance.
MacCentral tested the new 17" 2GHz iMac and 20" 2.16GHz iMac and compared them to the previous 20" 2GHz Core Duo and the 2.66GHz Mac Pro.
The most direct comparison between the two processors comes between the 17" 2GHz Core 2 Duo iMac and the 20" 2GHz Core Duo iMac. The overall score was 10% better in the new model while the individual tests showed gains up to 20%.
MacCentral posted (http://www.macworld.com/2006/09/firstlooks/imacbench/index.php) a first look at the new Core 2 Duo iMac along with some early benchmarks.
The new iMacs which were released on Wednesday (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/09/20060906091309.shtml) incorporate the latest Core 2 Duo processor from Intel. The Core 2 Duo represents the continuation of the Core Duo line which first made its appearance in Apple computers in January. Intel has maintained that the new chips would provide roughly 20% improvement in performance.
MacCentral tested the new 17" 2GHz iMac and 20" 2.16GHz iMac and compared them to the previous 20" 2GHz Core Duo and the 2.66GHz Mac Pro.
The most direct comparison between the two processors comes between the 17" 2GHz Core 2 Duo iMac and the 20" 2GHz Core Duo iMac. The overall score was 10% better in the new model while the individual tests showed gains up to 20%.
0 comments:
Post a Comment