or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by melgross

Apple has been using a more efficient multitasking model. By turning off apps that are not actually needed to do something in the background, and just maintaining the state of those apps, less RAM is needed than for Android, which has a more Desktop method of multitasking, and so keeps apps turned on, unless specifically turned off with the manager. But, Apple has been expanding what apps do in the background, decidedly so in iOS 8, so it would seem that more RAM would be...
Nope. Love the watch.
It is measly when compared to,what came before with the past three generations. And yes, I stated that Apple used a lot of the shrink for efficiency. I'm talking about capabilities, not efficiency. We're talking about the possibility of OS X, and that's why the increase in power is measly. This year we'll see other chip makers catching up much more easily than before, where the A7 still beats most of the new chips in most performance areas. I hope that Apple isn't doing...
The entire industry is trying to make phones, and tablets, as thin as possible. I think they're thin enough. I'm happy there is a little bit of better battery life for the 6, and bigger gains for the 6+. I really haven't wanted a 5.5" phone, but now, I'm leaning towards it. I'll know once I get I to the store and try both out. The 6+ has enough better features that it might sway me.Likely 1GB RAM is enough for the 6, but I wonder about the 6+. You're right about screen...
I've seen it described as a "tick", as in Intel fashion, but I'm not sure. The question is when the Apple will be able to go to 16nm next year, or whether they will stay with 20nm one more year.Of course, it's always possible that Apple has a parallel chip development program for OS X. Cook just said that Apple has products in development that no one knows anything about, so who knows?
I would be very surprised if Apple hasn't had OS X running on their ARM chips since the A5x. But running, and running usefully are two different things. I would love to see a lower priced, lower weight, longer battery life Macbook Air, of some sort. It possibly wouldn't need a fan, and the fan uses appreciable battery power, even if it only comes on occasionally. It also takes up a fair amount of space.
Nope! Not even close. I've been pointing out what Apple needs to do in order to accomplish that, and this isn't it. The truth is that the chip isn't a "massive" improvement in compute that the article states. Considering that the past two chips had double the performance of the one before, and the chip before that was 50% higher than the one before, with almost 100% higher in graphics (A5 for iPhone, with A5x for iPad), this jump is positively measly.What Apple seems to...
Are you talking about an iMac? You know that the Dell monitor costs $2,500, and that's not as much as an Apple monitor would cost. It's also the cost of a high end iMac. How much would people pay for a 5k iMac? $3,500? $4,000? $4,500?How about you?
Except what does this resolution match up to? 4k is the new standard. 5k is not. There is experimental work being done on 6k, which may not see the light of day, and 8 k, the purpose of which is debatable, even for full size theaters. I personally prefer 16:10 monitors, but that's just me. But I would rather use another, smaller monitor for the editor than have a 5k for both.
Sure, real 4k (4096) would be great. So far though, 4k monitors and many Tv's are really 38xx. Apple might be waiting for the panels to drop in price, as that's something they often do, or are waiting for a proper CPU/GPU upgrade to drive them properly. No point in having a high Rez screen that runs slow.
New Posts  All Forums: