QCassidy352
Apr 6, 11:58 AM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8G4 Safari/6533.18.5)
So is that also true for the difference between SV and LV? If that is the case, the Core i7-2649M you cite above (2.3 LV chip) should be faster compared to the 2.3 i5 in the low end Pro 13?
Thanks!
It would be about as fast. The IGP is 150MHz slower though so graphics wise it would be slightly slower. chrmjenkins explained some smaller details but in terms of performance, i7-2649M should be similar to i5-2520M.
Sure clock speed isn't everything. But you better go read up some more on Tue Intel HD3000 IGP. You're using facts from the STD voltage SB IGP and applying them to the ULV SB IGP. Go read about the graphics on the Samsung Series 9 laptops. The 13" model uses this very chip cited. It shows greater than a 50% drop in graphics performance from the 320m to ULV IGP used in SB.
This has been the problem all along with everyone. They're attributing facts that are actually fallacies to this Intel IGP.
Remember that those are numbers under Windows. Anand mentioned in his 2011 MBP review that Intel HD 3000 has brilliant drivers in OS X, and in general it beat the 320M in OS X too. In Windows it got badly beaten by 320M. Sure the LV and especially ULV IGP will be slower than 320M, even in OS X but it may not be as bad as 50% drop.
True. But here's the thing. Apple generally updates these about one a year. With such a slow upgrade cycle, you'd like to see significant improvement on each update. To stay the same would be pretty mediocre. To actually move backwards is just sad.
And yes, I realize options are limited here by the spat between intel and nvidea and by the size of the air (not enough room for a big dedicated card). So I don't know what the right answer is. All I know is I won't be tempted by an upgrade to CPU when it comes with a gpu downgrade.
So is that also true for the difference between SV and LV? If that is the case, the Core i7-2649M you cite above (2.3 LV chip) should be faster compared to the 2.3 i5 in the low end Pro 13?
Thanks!
It would be about as fast. The IGP is 150MHz slower though so graphics wise it would be slightly slower. chrmjenkins explained some smaller details but in terms of performance, i7-2649M should be similar to i5-2520M.
Sure clock speed isn't everything. But you better go read up some more on Tue Intel HD3000 IGP. You're using facts from the STD voltage SB IGP and applying them to the ULV SB IGP. Go read about the graphics on the Samsung Series 9 laptops. The 13" model uses this very chip cited. It shows greater than a 50% drop in graphics performance from the 320m to ULV IGP used in SB.
This has been the problem all along with everyone. They're attributing facts that are actually fallacies to this Intel IGP.
Remember that those are numbers under Windows. Anand mentioned in his 2011 MBP review that Intel HD 3000 has brilliant drivers in OS X, and in general it beat the 320M in OS X too. In Windows it got badly beaten by 320M. Sure the LV and especially ULV IGP will be slower than 320M, even in OS X but it may not be as bad as 50% drop.
True. But here's the thing. Apple generally updates these about one a year. With such a slow upgrade cycle, you'd like to see significant improvement on each update. To stay the same would be pretty mediocre. To actually move backwards is just sad.
And yes, I realize options are limited here by the spat between intel and nvidea and by the size of the air (not enough room for a big dedicated card). So I don't know what the right answer is. All I know is I won't be tempted by an upgrade to CPU when it comes with a gpu downgrade.
WiiDSmoker
Apr 19, 01:39 PM
Apple better not win this case and anyone who thinks that they should are a fool.
archurban
Sep 19, 02:08 AM
Mc keller, you're right. there are somebody misunderstand. we're not all geek, OK? I just use mac for my work or entertainment. my macbook will be kept for 2 years. so I don't care until 2008. plus, merom is only 10% better. it's not much different, and gets more hotter. I won't buy it.
SevenInchScrew
Aug 12, 01:15 AM
its kind of like comparing two different beasts imo.
I know they are fundamentally two different types of games in a similar genre, but he brought up the sales of the series, so I offered up another racing game series with much higher sales.
let's see, my original post:
{quote of your incorrect original post}
noticed i said, "not including demos". which all other versions are, except for the psp game. granted, the last demo, or prologue, is a PS3 greatest hits.
I don't really care if you count the Prologues as full releases or not. The fact remains...
GT1 + GT2 + GT3 + GT4 = 46M
...not 57M like you originally, and incorrectly, said.
...but if we go off number of sales (since you seem to think b/c i mentioned it, it's the only thing i take into consideration)...i'd say GT5 stacks up very well with NFS, considering everything. again, just looking at sales here
You brought up sales, not me. And last I checked, objectively, 100 is more than 57, regardless of how you subjectively look at it.
that's still not the point. having that many cars adds to the game, and adds up in data on that one disk. i'm sure many players drive those same cars in real life
No, the only thing that adds to is a stat point on the back of the box. I mean, hooray, someone's 87 CRX is in a racing game. YAY!! :rolleyes:
That is the problem with GT these days. Too much fluff, and lacking in the racing. I mean, whatever, they can make whatever kind of game they want. If they want to fill the game with 1000 cars, 800 of which most people never touch, they can do that. To me, though, they are losing what made the series great years ago.
GT5 is only on playstation.
NO WAY!!! I never knew that. :rolleyes:
with so many cars, and so many races, some need a guide. some races are very difficult.
Sure, but a "Guinness Record" for it? Again, to much fluff.
but again, it still is a real car. and the intention of producing 6 of these cars was for this game. that is clear.
No, it is a concept car that Citro�n paraded around at car shows. Lots of concept cars get built with the fake intention of going into production. But you know what? Almost none of them do. This Citro�n is no different.
I know they are fundamentally two different types of games in a similar genre, but he brought up the sales of the series, so I offered up another racing game series with much higher sales.
let's see, my original post:
{quote of your incorrect original post}
noticed i said, "not including demos". which all other versions are, except for the psp game. granted, the last demo, or prologue, is a PS3 greatest hits.
I don't really care if you count the Prologues as full releases or not. The fact remains...
GT1 + GT2 + GT3 + GT4 = 46M
...not 57M like you originally, and incorrectly, said.
...but if we go off number of sales (since you seem to think b/c i mentioned it, it's the only thing i take into consideration)...i'd say GT5 stacks up very well with NFS, considering everything. again, just looking at sales here
You brought up sales, not me. And last I checked, objectively, 100 is more than 57, regardless of how you subjectively look at it.
that's still not the point. having that many cars adds to the game, and adds up in data on that one disk. i'm sure many players drive those same cars in real life
No, the only thing that adds to is a stat point on the back of the box. I mean, hooray, someone's 87 CRX is in a racing game. YAY!! :rolleyes:
That is the problem with GT these days. Too much fluff, and lacking in the racing. I mean, whatever, they can make whatever kind of game they want. If they want to fill the game with 1000 cars, 800 of which most people never touch, they can do that. To me, though, they are losing what made the series great years ago.
GT5 is only on playstation.
NO WAY!!! I never knew that. :rolleyes:
with so many cars, and so many races, some need a guide. some races are very difficult.
Sure, but a "Guinness Record" for it? Again, to much fluff.
but again, it still is a real car. and the intention of producing 6 of these cars was for this game. that is clear.
No, it is a concept car that Citro�n paraded around at car shows. Lots of concept cars get built with the fake intention of going into production. But you know what? Almost none of them do. This Citro�n is no different.
NoSmokingBandit
Aug 19, 07:28 AM
I'm 100% sure the GT site says all the cars were remodeled for the ps3, as in not the ps2 cars.
The massive lineup of cars from past Gran Turismo games has been beautifully recreated through the latest technology and the Playstation 3’s cutting-edge graphics.
http://us.gran-turismo.com/us/news/d5247.html
recreated
As in not copypasta'd over from gt4.
The massive lineup of cars from past Gran Turismo games has been beautifully recreated through the latest technology and the Playstation 3’s cutting-edge graphics.
http://us.gran-turismo.com/us/news/d5247.html
recreated
As in not copypasta'd over from gt4.
iJohnHenry
Mar 5, 07:35 PM
That's (sadly) believable. See, now you're talking. I knew you didn't always pop round just to throw a cheeky non sequitur into the works. ;)
Yes, but actual critical thinking is no where near as much fun. :p
Yes, but actual critical thinking is no where near as much fun. :p
HecubusPro
Aug 26, 05:57 PM
NOT true, I think. Macbooks already have new features like a magnetic latch and easy upgradeability. We will see this at the very least in the next MBP update, as Apple has never let consumer features be absent from pro machines for long
I certainly hope this is true. Of course, if the MBP doesn't have some of the cool features in the MB (upgradable HDD, etc.) it's not going to deter me from getting the merom MPB when it starts shipping. Still, it wouldn't hurt.
I certainly hope this is true. Of course, if the MBP doesn't have some of the cool features in the MB (upgradable HDD, etc.) it's not going to deter me from getting the merom MPB when it starts shipping. Still, it wouldn't hurt.
0815
Apr 6, 04:19 PM
Isn't it amazing that so many of these XOOM owners also, coincidentally, "own" an iPad/iPad 2, or their spouse/mom/dog/significant other does?
Either there's a lot of exaggerating (astroturfing) going on, or someone's spouse/mom/dog/significant other has a lot more sense. ;)
Why, I own an iPad and a XOOM and a Galaxy Tab and that HP Windows 7 Slate thingy and a Nook and a prototype PlayBook and I can tell you from personal experience that the iPad is like 100x better than all of those! :rolleyes:
A friend of mine has actually three of each you mentioned in every available configuration (for himself, his wife and his son) - and all of them think the iPads are the best ones ... and he is the only one you should listen to since he truly was able to compare them with different 'user types'.
Either there's a lot of exaggerating (astroturfing) going on, or someone's spouse/mom/dog/significant other has a lot more sense. ;)
Why, I own an iPad and a XOOM and a Galaxy Tab and that HP Windows 7 Slate thingy and a Nook and a prototype PlayBook and I can tell you from personal experience that the iPad is like 100x better than all of those! :rolleyes:
A friend of mine has actually three of each you mentioned in every available configuration (for himself, his wife and his son) - and all of them think the iPads are the best ones ... and he is the only one you should listen to since he truly was able to compare them with different 'user types'.
fatfish
Aug 7, 09:06 PM
When I first saw this feature I thought great. I do regular back ups, but some of my AW docs keep corrupting (probably something to do with keep duplicating the same old document and modifying rather than starting anew). Time Machine will help me no end. I was also thrilled that windows had nothing like this........ until I read through these posts.
Then it seemed very similar to what was coming in Vista and I felt a bit dissapointed that Apple had made such a point about M$ copying them, but seemed to do the same themselves with Time Machine.
However on closer examination this is not the case and my confidence in Apple's innovative skills is restored.
Firstly, there has always been back up and restore apps, so if you want to take this copying thing to a ridiculous level, of course you can do. Copying in my book is when an app does and looks the same (just like the screenshots in the presentation, safari RSS/IE7 RSS, ical/M$ calender etc). It appears to me Time Machine does much more than anything before it and has it's own unique UI to boot.
Secondly, I would imagine work on Time machine started long before a beta of Vista was released, even if the two utilities were more or less identical it would be coincidence not copying.
Thirdly, it seems quite clear that Vista's restore (whatever it's called) will not do what Time machine will do. Ultimately you may well be able to restore any deleted or modified file in Vista, but it doesn't appear to occur with the same ease or functionality.
If I create a file, modify it and move it several times, rename it, convert it, modify it some more, move it several times and finally delete it, I rather suspect it would be an absolute nightmare to recover in Vista, whereas it seems that Time Machine would have little problem.
I don't see how it is possible in Vista to perform the recovery with either the same simplicity or pizzaz as Time Machine. Perhaps if M$ had not abandoned their intended file system for Vista it might have been possible, but as it is I doubt it.
Finally it does not appear that Vista has the option to restore within a database application (i.e. iphoto, mail, address book), no doubt if you understand how a particular database works, the possibility exists to restore a particular photo, but let's not pretend it will be easy or anywhere near the experience of time machine.
And finally, finally, although I agree the UI may appear a little childish, this is exactly the sort of thing that makes it so easy to use.
Then it seemed very similar to what was coming in Vista and I felt a bit dissapointed that Apple had made such a point about M$ copying them, but seemed to do the same themselves with Time Machine.
However on closer examination this is not the case and my confidence in Apple's innovative skills is restored.
Firstly, there has always been back up and restore apps, so if you want to take this copying thing to a ridiculous level, of course you can do. Copying in my book is when an app does and looks the same (just like the screenshots in the presentation, safari RSS/IE7 RSS, ical/M$ calender etc). It appears to me Time Machine does much more than anything before it and has it's own unique UI to boot.
Secondly, I would imagine work on Time machine started long before a beta of Vista was released, even if the two utilities were more or less identical it would be coincidence not copying.
Thirdly, it seems quite clear that Vista's restore (whatever it's called) will not do what Time machine will do. Ultimately you may well be able to restore any deleted or modified file in Vista, but it doesn't appear to occur with the same ease or functionality.
If I create a file, modify it and move it several times, rename it, convert it, modify it some more, move it several times and finally delete it, I rather suspect it would be an absolute nightmare to recover in Vista, whereas it seems that Time Machine would have little problem.
I don't see how it is possible in Vista to perform the recovery with either the same simplicity or pizzaz as Time Machine. Perhaps if M$ had not abandoned their intended file system for Vista it might have been possible, but as it is I doubt it.
Finally it does not appear that Vista has the option to restore within a database application (i.e. iphoto, mail, address book), no doubt if you understand how a particular database works, the possibility exists to restore a particular photo, but let's not pretend it will be easy or anywhere near the experience of time machine.
And finally, finally, although I agree the UI may appear a little childish, this is exactly the sort of thing that makes it so easy to use.
ohla313
Apr 6, 10:13 AM
awesome!!! this is really tempting. Should I throw an SSD in my 2010 4GB 2.66 GHz 13" MBP or sell it and wait for the MBA refresh?
DJMastaWes
Aug 27, 06:47 PM
I don't think we're going to see Merom in the MacBook Pros tomorrow. Of course, I'm HOPEING. If they were annouced tomorrow, it would make not only my day, but my month! I've been waiting since June and was expecing it at WWDC. So I'm keeping my fingers crosses 100%. If the're annouced tomorrow, I'm going to order it withen the first 5 minuts of me finding out.
Hopefully this will be my order.
15" MacBook Pro
2.33GHz
2GB Ram
256MB VRAM
Superdrive
+BT Mighty Mouse (x2)
BT Keyboard
Some sort of bag for the MBP
D-Link USB Bluetooth drive
*Crosses fingers*
Hopefully this will be my order.
15" MacBook Pro
2.33GHz
2GB Ram
256MB VRAM
Superdrive
+BT Mighty Mouse (x2)
BT Keyboard
Some sort of bag for the MBP
D-Link USB Bluetooth drive
*Crosses fingers*
dclocke
Sep 19, 09:28 AM
AMEN!!!! This whole thread has the tone of a spoiled 13 year old's "I want" tirade. All the benchmarks show little difference between Merom and what you can buy today...and the 64 bit argument is really moot for most users because....(ready for it)....it's a laptop! Very few will have more than 2GB RAM on it anyway, and addressing larger RAM partitions is the #1 64 bit advantage.
Addressing larger RAM partitions is not the #1 advantage for me. I will not be putting >4GB of memory into my laptop. And I suspect it is not the #1 advantage for most of the people posting in this thread. If you don't like the subject matter of this thread, then don't read it. Simple as that.
Addressing larger RAM partitions is not the #1 advantage for me. I will not be putting >4GB of memory into my laptop. And I suspect it is not the #1 advantage for most of the people posting in this thread. If you don't like the subject matter of this thread, then don't read it. Simple as that.
Anonymous Freak
Jul 15, 02:22 PM
You mean like how the MacBook Pro was 2.0 GHz at the top end on release?
I have a feeling if 2.66 is the top-end 'stock' model, it will be upgradeable to 3.0 GHz as a user-configurable option, much the way the MacBook Pro was at 2.0 GHz upgradeable to 2.16 GHz.
With SPEC benchmarks showing The 3.0 GHz Woodcrest as the absolute fastest processor on the market for both floating point and integer (it has a 50% lead over the second-place integer chip!) it's a good bet Apple will offer it, at least as an option.
I'm actually truly excited about a processor launch. The last time was the G5 intro. (Before that, it was the original PowerPC introduction.)
I have a feeling if 2.66 is the top-end 'stock' model, it will be upgradeable to 3.0 GHz as a user-configurable option, much the way the MacBook Pro was at 2.0 GHz upgradeable to 2.16 GHz.
With SPEC benchmarks showing The 3.0 GHz Woodcrest as the absolute fastest processor on the market for both floating point and integer (it has a 50% lead over the second-place integer chip!) it's a good bet Apple will offer it, at least as an option.
I'm actually truly excited about a processor launch. The last time was the G5 intro. (Before that, it was the original PowerPC introduction.)
killr_b
Apr 25, 02:06 PM
As a consumer, why should I be subjected to this risk which doesn't benefit me in the slightest? And why should this data be "backed up," secretly, to my computer?
The Wall Street Journal has found, however, that this newly-publicized database is constructed even when location services are turned off entirely.
From the front page of macrumors, for all those who've said to turn off location services.
This IS the type of thing that should be ruled on before a real problem develops.
The Wall Street Journal has found, however, that this newly-publicized database is constructed even when location services are turned off entirely.
From the front page of macrumors, for all those who've said to turn off location services.
This IS the type of thing that should be ruled on before a real problem develops.
swingerofbirch
Nov 28, 07:45 PM
If we're already paying a royalty on blank CD-Rs because they say we are using Limewire, then aren't those of who aren't using Limewire essentially paying to use a service which we are not using?
By my logic, if we are already compensating the music industry through our purchases, we should then be entitled to use the services I just found out from these posts that we are paying for!
By my logic, if we are already compensating the music industry through our purchases, we should then be entitled to use the services I just found out from these posts that we are paying for!
soulatrium
Aug 26, 05:53 PM
The only change is likely to be the cpu. The rest of the MBP will probably be kept the same and if you look at the yonah vs merom benchmarks at places like AnandTech, it probably isn't worth sending it back.
NOT true, I think. Macbooks already have new features like a magnetic latch and easy upgradeability. We will see this at the very least in the next MBP update, as Apple has never let consumer features be absent from pro machines for long
NOT true, I think. Macbooks already have new features like a magnetic latch and easy upgradeability. We will see this at the very least in the next MBP update, as Apple has never let consumer features be absent from pro machines for long
bousozoku
Nov 28, 10:16 PM
I would assume that Microsoft agreed to pay Universal just because it could cause Apple problems, not because they felt any need to pay.
Universal tried to sue Sony back in the 1970s over videocassette recorders. They were somewhat successful in scaring people from buying Sony VCRs, even though they weren't really successful in court.
I can't see as how they'll be pushing Apple too far. It seems every day, Universal and its subsidiaries lose ground to competitors.
Universal tried to sue Sony back in the 1970s over videocassette recorders. They were somewhat successful in scaring people from buying Sony VCRs, even though they weren't really successful in court.
I can't see as how they'll be pushing Apple too far. It seems every day, Universal and its subsidiaries lose ground to competitors.
VanNess
Aug 5, 06:28 PM
I have my money on 06.
Show me the money! (lol)
In addition to the aforementioned reasons why it won't see the light of day until 07, Apple will gauge reaction to Leopard (both public and developer) and use the remainder of 06 to further tweak, well, whatever is going to be in Leopard. That takes us to Macworld in January, and another major, prime time opportunity to hype/showboat Leopard to the masses and further tease anxious Macheads to the point where sales will go through the roof when it hits the stores.
Recall that Tiger features saw significant UI overhauls (Dashboard, Spotlight, Automator) from the original Tiger demos at WWDC until it's reshowing at Macworld. Apple has no reason to rush this out after WWDC.
You can bank on 07. First Half. No sooner than April.
Show me the money! (lol)
In addition to the aforementioned reasons why it won't see the light of day until 07, Apple will gauge reaction to Leopard (both public and developer) and use the remainder of 06 to further tweak, well, whatever is going to be in Leopard. That takes us to Macworld in January, and another major, prime time opportunity to hype/showboat Leopard to the masses and further tease anxious Macheads to the point where sales will go through the roof when it hits the stores.
Recall that Tiger features saw significant UI overhauls (Dashboard, Spotlight, Automator) from the original Tiger demos at WWDC until it's reshowing at Macworld. Apple has no reason to rush this out after WWDC.
You can bank on 07. First Half. No sooner than April.
Sine Qua Non
Apr 25, 03:47 PM
[QUOTE=killr_b;12458559]As a consumer, why should I be subjected to this risk which doesn't benefit me in the slightest? And why should this data be "backed up," secretly, to my computer?[QUOTE]
Your phone stores this so as to keep from having to re-install connection locations every time you move a few hundred feet. It's "subjecting" you to better battery life by not having to work as hard to keep you connected. Oh noes.
...And it backs up the data for the same reason it backs up EVERYTHING when you sync -- so you can restore without losing any of the data on the phone.
What, you want crappy battery life, slower speeds, and loss of data if you need to restore your phone?
.
All I can say is that I've encountered none of these horrors since installing untrackerd last week.
Your phone stores this so as to keep from having to re-install connection locations every time you move a few hundred feet. It's "subjecting" you to better battery life by not having to work as hard to keep you connected. Oh noes.
...And it backs up the data for the same reason it backs up EVERYTHING when you sync -- so you can restore without losing any of the data on the phone.
What, you want crappy battery life, slower speeds, and loss of data if you need to restore your phone?
.
All I can say is that I've encountered none of these horrors since installing untrackerd last week.
skunk
Apr 27, 03:10 PM
I'd be fascinated to know exactly what you did to "discover" those layers, 5P. I have Photoshop and Illustrator too. Guess what? One layer. Nothing selectable. At least one of us is talking complete bollocks.
tyroja00
Sep 19, 12:55 AM
Does it even MATTER if Apple keeps up? Do we actually WANT Apple to release a new computer every month when Intel bumps up their chips a few megahertz?
See, it's easy to get lost in the specs war. The Mac Pros came out and I was salivating, even though I have a dual 2.0GHz G5 sitting at home. And then one day, as I was editing some HD footage, it occurred ot me that my G5 here - my now outdated G5 - was editing 1080p high-def footage without so much as a flinch. It was SO fast it was not even necessary at all.
So I really have to ask - does Apple really need to get into that stupid-ass PC specs war? Is it really hurting you guys that Apple has been slow to update? Are you really doing tasks that the current computer lineup cannot do?
It is not the speed that I care about but the 64bit processing. I plan on keeping the thing for a few years and want to take full advantage of any 64bit software on my laptop.
Oh and with the spec wars comes price drops which I also wouldn't mind. We are so use to paying more for our Apples b/c we had no comparison. But, now we can really compare apples to apples. Anything else is just excuses.
However, I am willing to pay more for Apples reliability, ease of use, and lack of numerous viruses. But, not too much more.
See, it's easy to get lost in the specs war. The Mac Pros came out and I was salivating, even though I have a dual 2.0GHz G5 sitting at home. And then one day, as I was editing some HD footage, it occurred ot me that my G5 here - my now outdated G5 - was editing 1080p high-def footage without so much as a flinch. It was SO fast it was not even necessary at all.
So I really have to ask - does Apple really need to get into that stupid-ass PC specs war? Is it really hurting you guys that Apple has been slow to update? Are you really doing tasks that the current computer lineup cannot do?
It is not the speed that I care about but the 64bit processing. I plan on keeping the thing for a few years and want to take full advantage of any 64bit software on my laptop.
Oh and with the spec wars comes price drops which I also wouldn't mind. We are so use to paying more for our Apples b/c we had no comparison. But, now we can really compare apples to apples. Anything else is just excuses.
However, I am willing to pay more for Apples reliability, ease of use, and lack of numerous viruses. But, not too much more.
manu chao
Apr 27, 08:47 AM
But if that happens, they already know everything there is to know about you anyway and have no need to check your Wi-Fi database. They've got your Address Book info, your bank site links and cookies, your email, your personal letters, etc.
The point is that I save on my computer what I consider the computer to be safe enough for, which includes, eg, my e-mails. I simply would like to be given the choice to decide whether I want to save certain things on my computer or not. With that database, Apple did not give me the choice because it did not inform me about this database (if it had told me, I might have run a cron job to delete it, excluded it from my TM backups, encrypted my iPhone backups, etc.).
The point is that I save on my computer what I consider the computer to be safe enough for, which includes, eg, my e-mails. I simply would like to be given the choice to decide whether I want to save certain things on my computer or not. With that database, Apple did not give me the choice because it did not inform me about this database (if it had told me, I might have run a cron job to delete it, excluded it from my TM backups, encrypted my iPhone backups, etc.).
guzhogi
Jul 14, 04:00 PM
According to Appleinsider, the Mac Pro would have 2 4x and 1 8x PCIe slots. I see two problems with this. (1) All higher-end PC mobos out now have at least 1 16x slot, some have 2 for SLI/Crossfire. Why would Apple shoot itself in the foot like this? The Mac Pro is supposed to be a lot better than all other PCs. (2) Why only 3 slots? PCs have 6 or so (as did the Power Mac 9500 & 9600) with a few regular PCI slots. Why would Apple shoot itself in the foot like this? The Mac Pro is supposed to be a lot better than all other PCs. It would be nice to have 2 16x lanes for SLI and a few PCI slots for older expansion cards and cards that don't need the bandwidth of PCIe. Besides, this is supposed to be a Pro Mac, which means professional people would want to add a bunch of cards, not just 3. I'd expect a person working in something like movie production would want to have dual graphics cards, a fiber channel card to connect to an xServe RAID and maybe an M-Audio sound card for audio input. Since I don't work in movie production, I wouldn't know, but it would make sense.
EvilEvil
Apr 8, 02:56 AM
Why anyone would buy anything from Best Buy (no matter what they purchase there) is beyond me.
