[quote]Originally posted by danaus plexippus:
<strong>
Second, does anyone still believe in UMA? We haven't heard mention of it for a year and a half. I realize it's primarily about components, but do you think the iMac's mobo has all that much in common with the PowerMac? No, the cube threw UMA out the window.
[ 03-12-2002: Message edited by: danaus plexippus ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
UMA is very real. It has existed since the first iBook. It's not really a set feature set. it's more like the sahring of components to the best of Apple's abilities. The Cube was also based on UMA. In fact it was pretty much a powermac g4 board broken into pieces.
If you look at the developer docs you'll see that the latest revs of all the machines include an updated architecture that all share many of the same things. Most notably the Pangea chip.
I just think people are wrong when they say Apple is planning UMA2 or whatever like that. UMA seems to just be sharing components across lines. not really a set in stone revision based thing
<strong>
Second, does anyone still believe in UMA? We haven't heard mention of it for a year and a half. I realize it's primarily about components, but do you think the iMac's mobo has all that much in common with the PowerMac? No, the cube threw UMA out the window.
[ 03-12-2002: Message edited by: danaus plexippus ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
UMA is very real. It has existed since the first iBook. It's not really a set feature set. it's more like the sahring of components to the best of Apple's abilities. The Cube was also based on UMA. In fact it was pretty much a powermac g4 board broken into pieces.
If you look at the developer docs you'll see that the latest revs of all the machines include an updated architecture that all share many of the same things. Most notably the Pangea chip.
I just think people are wrong when they say Apple is planning UMA2 or whatever like that. UMA seems to just be sharing components across lines. not really a set in stone revision based thing




