No they aren't. The Rogue supports OpenGL 4.x but the performance of it won't remotely touch those of AMD/Nvidia, but then again their power requirements put them in a completely different market segment.
Yes, in this conversation you pretty much have to limit to comparing PowerVR and Intel integrated GPUs since that is the performance band the ATOM ultrabooks go to. ARM and Power G4 aren't anywhere near ready to supplant Intel in the laptop space with anything shipping. They may be just close enough by a ~it will do really basic word processing/email/surfing acceptably~ with A15 quad core and future PowerVR cores, but that won't be worth it for Apple to upset the dev community with forced architectural rebuilds and re-optimization writing. ARM will need to get into a case of either being 1.5x faster for 1/2 the power budget as ATOM or being roughly equivalent processing-wise but run 10x longer. Either way Apple will need to see the kind of performance win that makes devs go -- yes I understand that and it is good for me.
ARM Designs will never surpass Intel/AMD Desktop/Laptop designs because their power requirement preclude that from ever happening.
Intel has run up against quantum issues. As they scale smaller the clock speeds don't go up much anymore due to hitting an exponential increase in quantum tunneling. So they have to dial back voltage faster than the littler transistors are switching. Notice each successive process shrink is yielding a smaller absolute max performance increase compared to the linear downscaling of the transistor sizes. They are advertising something like +20% for less power with the latest series, increases used to nearly double (+100%) for constant power dissipation.
Intel's 10 years of truly superior process management is about out of room to improve economically anymore. The bad part for them is they have decades of power-hog thinking that has degraded their ability to make ATOM a true low power part. ARM has always been ultra low power design philosophy and circumstances in fabrication are seeing them get a benefit just because Intel got slowed down dramatically.
Will ARM handle the opportunity better than AMD in the long term? We'll see. But if I was Intel and Nvidia I would be real nervous because the mobile power profile vs plugged in power profile world is on twitchy 3D gimbals, not just a standard teeter-totter where the 800 pound gorilla is safe. One bad move by the gorillas or a really right move by the up-and-comers may make for some significant market chaos.
I've read a lot of posts about this or that CPU and GPU not comparing to other CPUs and GPUs but I haven't seen any comments or qualifiers that are comparing performance for a specific power draw.
You worded it better than me. It's like people think the same design used in the ipad is appropriate for the air. I'm not speculating on the future there, just saying it doesn't look practical today.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM
I'm sorry, but do you think I'm retarded? My Dell Studio 17 looks FAR more like that HP than any Apple. It looks like Dell stole almost all the sculpting cues, Apple didn't do anything like that. If you are telling me you think that the newer Apples look like they've ripped that HP, then I don't know where to go from here. There are quite a lot of differences that make it not nearly on the order of this new HP Spectre Envy 15 product. And let's not forget the Compaqs that came after the Powerbooks that look like cheap Powerbooks.
X505 have few apparent similarities that would suggest to me like a rip-off, other than that they're also thin and small. Not much of the design language translated to make it a design copy.
You want to tell me that I haven't been paying attention to PC laptops, fine, but it's not actually true. I still look at them from time to time, though it's been a while since I've been happy with one. I can also distinguish from similar-ish to a blatant ape of multiple pieces of design language at the same time.
You seem to have misunderstood me somewhere. I never suggested Apple copied aesthetic design elements anywhere (nor would it affect my purchasing decisions).
That is significantly closer than I expected the side by side to appear. When I tried the engadget link on the main article, it just kept throwing me back at the appleinsider article itself. Your link worked though. Yes I remember HP's takeover of Compaq. I thought of it a bit after the last post. Anyway I posted it because it uses most of the same design elements of the Spectre Envy (latch, bezel, looks like keyboard, port allocation, etc.) and it looked like much of the design work came from there. Looking at the side by side, they seem to have borrowed quite a lot of the detailing from Apple.
Not that this matters to the argument, but I never personally cared about the appearance of a computer. My experiences with HP stuff haven't been that great. Their printers used to be decent. My experiences with Apple products have been all over the place. My ipod batteries never lasted long. I've had many many display problems, down to smaller quirks. It goes back as far as the G4s. Prior to a G4 I owned a Dell.
"Ultrabooks feature many of the same defining features as the MacBook Air: solid-state storage, instant-on capabilities, and super-thin design thanks to the lack of an optical drive"
Now, those items may 'define' the MBA, but the MBA was not the first laptop to include any of them - it therefore is NOT a design leader.
Secondly, if you plot a graph showing laptop size over time, it's only logical to conclude that the formfactor would shrink. To further exemplify that, we're seeing non-apple laptops that are now smaller, thinner, have better specs, and are cheaper than their apple counterparts.
"Ultrabooks feature many of the same defining features as the MacBook Air: solid-state storage, instant-on capabilities, and super-thin design thanks to the lack of an optical drive"
Now, those items may 'define' the MBA, but the MBA was not the first laptop to include any of them - it therefore is NOT a design leader.
Secondly, if you plot a graph showing laptop size over time, it's only logical to conclude that the formfactor would shrink. To further exemplify that, we're seeing non-apple laptops that are now smaller, thinner, have better specs, and are cheaper than their apple counterparts.
no wonder you're all on the defensive. suck it.
OK. Please show us a non-Apple laptop that's smaller, thinner, better specs, and cheaper than the Apple counterpart. I can't think of any that come close. There are some that are thinner, some that are smaller, some that have better specs, and even a few that are cheaper, but I can't think of a single one that is all of those so please enlighten me.
I've read a lot of posts about this or that CPU and GPU not comparing to other CPUs and GPUs but I haven't seen any comments or qualifiers that are comparing performance for a specific power draw.
That was never in question. Intel can't match ARM's performance / watt. Atom fans say that they're catching up, but they're not there - and the Core series processors aren't close.
But that is far more important for a device like the iPad than for the MBA. The MBA has plenty of room for a battery to get hours of life and the users expect a certain level of performance. Remember when the first MBA came out? It was panned because it was so underpowered. Yet even that version was far more powerful than an ARM processor is today.
They're different markets. People buying an iPad know that it's a limited device and low performance (relatively speaking) is OK. People buying an MBA are buying a 'real computer' and expect it to behave that way. Furthermore, it's an existing product. Replacing the Core processor with an ARM would mean that the 2013 MBA (choose your year) would be 1/10 as powerful as the 2012 MBA. I just don't see Apple taking that huge of a drop in performance - no matter what the energy savings. Can you imagine the ridicule if Apple released a product with 1/10 the performance of the previous one?
As I've said, I think there is a market for someone who only needs iPad level performance but in an MBA-type layout. Call it an iPad with fold-out keyboard. That could be marketed as an 'iPad Pro' or whatever, but would NOT replace the MBA.
"Beats Audio processing, for higher quality sound"
Can I kill him? PLEASE?
Beats audio is just a brand. Beats headphones are re-branded Monster Cable headphones and the sound systems in these laptops will just be your bog standard Altec Lansing, Intel HD or C-Media setup. Infact, considering its an Ultrabook following the Intel spec, it WILL be Intel HD audio with beats branded software on-top that does nothing more than stereo widening and EQ Tweaks.
Sorry to go off track with this, but anyone who thinks they have a better sound system because it has a beats audio logo needs a good kicking. The latency, digital optical hybrid nature, quality and feature set on my Macs would blow these "beats audio" systems out of the water. Especially the latency. Good sweet lord the latency.
"If you want to look at a macro level, there are a lot of similarities to everything in the market that's an Ultrabook today," he said. "It is not because those guys (Apple) did it first. It's just that's where the form factor is leading it."
Lets think for a moment here;
Why is everything similar in an UltraBook today? Because you're all following a precise spec from Intel.
Who designed a machine with the spec long before Intel even thought of calling it a "spec"? Apple.
How many years before the Ultrabook did apple have this kind of machine? Several.
Did anyone else have this form factor before the Intel Spec? No.
[SIZE=12px]<span style="line-height:normal;">Can I kill him? PLEASE?</span> [/SIZE]
[SIZE=12px]<span style="line-height:normal;color:rgb(24,24,24);font-family:'lucida grande', verdana, helvetica, sans-serif;">Beats audio is just a brand. Beats headphones are re-branded Monster Cable headphones and the sound systems in these laptops will just be your bog standard Altec Lansing, Intel HD or C-Media setup.
You're mostly right about the headphones, but you left out the abysmal quality. Search for how many Beats headphone users had the headband break - and there are no replacement headbands available from Monster. Apparently, they were too busy finding ways to make the headphones loud with heavy bass to worry about the physical integrity.
OK. Please show us a non-Apple laptop that's smaller, thinner, better specs, and cheaper than the Apple counterpart. I can't think of any that come close. There are some that are thinner, some that are smaller, some that have better specs, and even a few that are cheaper, but I can't think of a single one that is all of those so please enlighten me.
I can't seem to find one at all. Acer is the best example with their Ultrabooks. The monitors are just bad. Can't describe it any other way. They're just bad.
Quote
Originally Posted by jragosta
That was never in question. Intel can't match ARM's performance / watt. Atom fans say that they're catching up, but they're not there - and the Core series processors aren't close.
Guess I shouldn't wave an AMD C or E series in-front of an Atom fan. The realisation that Atoms are the worst CPUs on the market from any manufacturer might make their head explode (not counting embedded chip manufactures such as VIA).
You're mostly right about the headphones, but you left out the abysmal quality. Search for how many Beats headphone users had the headband break - and there are no replacement headbands available from Monster. Apparently, they were too busy finding ways to make the headphones loud with heavy bass to worry about the physical integrity.
I do like my beats headphones; they do sound good, but that's to be expected of Monster. But yes, they do feel a bit rushed in the build quality department. I really wish I didn't buy them now because a set of Sanheiser (sp?), BOSE or Sony headphones for the same price would've blown them out of the water; especially Sanheiser.
Could be worse, though. They could've ended up being re-branded Skull Candies (mother of god, no)
How they can claim what they do isn't copying but a natural progression is laughable.
It's a standard defense:
Microsoft: We didn't copy the Mac OS
Samsung: We didn't copy the iPhone and the iPad and the accessories
Google: We didn't copy iOS
Amazon and Google: We didn't copy the App Store
HP: We didn't copy Apple's desktop and laptop designs
It's obviously just a coincidence that everyone happens to be moving in the same direction and Apple just happens to move quicker than everyone else.
HP is the most incompetent PC manufacturer out there. Remember when they were about to go the IBM route, and stop selling PCs? And no, Apple doesn't own 'silver', but apparently HP doesn't own any originality.
Honestly, the only PC manufacturer out there I see doing their own thing in a somewhat original way is Lenovo (ironic since they're Chinese), ever since they acquired IBM's PC business they've kept the ThinkPad's original look, functionality, and they're coming out with some cool ideas all around (that are different from what Apple's doing).
Beats are some of the crappiest headphones i have ever heard in my life. They are not designed for audio, they are designed as bling for idiots and rappers who want to help put lots of money into Dr. Dre's pocket.
If you want real phones, try the Audio Technica ATH-M50. Its about $180 at most, and has become one of the go-to phones for actual producers and engineers who want to hear what the audio actually sounds like.
Audio Technica ATH M-50. Try them, side by side with your beats and you will hear a difference so startling it will make you feel ashamed for calling the beats "good".
-a producer/engineer who doesn't whore himself out to Jimmy Iovine for money.
No they aren't. The Rogue supports OpenGL 4.x but the performance of it won't remotely touch those of AMD/Nvidia, but then again their power requirements put them in a completely different market segment.
As much power as Playstation3 is good enough for me. And that just the start.
Yes, in this conversation you pretty much have to limit to comparing PowerVR and Intel integrated GPUs since that is the performance band the ATOM ultrabooks go to. ARM and Power G4 aren't anywhere near ready to supplant Intel in the laptop space with anything shipping. They may be just close enough by a ~it will do really basic word processing/email/surfing acceptably~ with A15 quad core and future PowerVR cores, but that won't be worth it for Apple to upset the dev community with forced architectural rebuilds and re-optimization writing. ARM will need to get into a case of either being 1.5x faster for 1/2 the power budget as ATOM or being roughly equivalent processing-wise but run 10x longer. Either way Apple will need to see the kind of performance win that makes devs go -- yes I understand that and it is good for me.
It's very clear what ARMs aim is with 64bit CPUs: complete dominance from the lowest level embedded device to super computing.
A perfect match for Apple, I would say.
Your also forgetting Apples strategic advantage with ARM.
It's very clear what ARMs aim is with 64bit CPUs: complete dominance from the lowest level embedded device to super computing.
A perfect match for Apple, I would say.
Your also forgetting Apples strategic advantage with ARM.
J.
That's nice, but how does it make up for the fact that ARM is far, far slower (both CPU and GPU) and the CPUs Apple is currently using in its laptops?
Can you see Apple introducing an MBA that's 1/10 the speed of the previous version? I don't think so.
It's very clear what ARMs aim is with 64bit CPUs: complete dominance from the lowest level embedded device to super computing.
A perfect match for Apple, I would say.
Your also forgetting Apples strategic advantage with ARM.
J.
I don't see any forgetting going on. Apples advantage with ARM is irrelevant as an independent thing when it comes to a transition or not decision. Performance must in some way significantly outstrip the shipping at the time MBA hardware before an ARM CPU becomes a viable replacement in that market. That could be outstrip in pure performance, or be like-performance at FAR lower power budgets. Either way Apple won't just chose to take absolute performance appreciably backwards in any niche, even for an MBA. Changing to a fat binary all over again is a traumatic event that won't be done until it is obviously a win to push devs top do it.
The only way that Apple advantage plays is that Apple will have a better understanding than anyone else exactly what the calculus of that tradeoff is.
ARM ain't there yet, there definitely is potential for them to be but there is still a lot of hard work to be done yet to catch a slowing Intel.
I disagree with HP. I think that form factor is lead by Apple. Apple is the only company these days that is an early adopter of technology. It may be the next logical step, but everyone else would still be putting out big plastic boxes if not for Apple's pushing the limits and forcing their component suppliers to produce the parts needed to make the next step. The only other company I've seen advance anything might be Amazon for advancing the eInk form factor. It is obvious, but they were the company to mass produce it to take it to the next step. It is easier to follow then to lead.
I hate to say it but Sony was doing thin and light way before anyone, granted they never used metal but carbon fiber and magnesium.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by mdriftmeyer
No they aren't. The Rogue supports OpenGL 4.x but the performance of it won't remotely touch those of AMD/Nvidia, but then again their power requirements put them in a completely different market segment.
Yes, in this conversation you pretty much have to limit to comparing PowerVR and Intel integrated GPUs since that is the performance band the ATOM ultrabooks go to. ARM and Power G4 aren't anywhere near ready to supplant Intel in the laptop space with anything shipping. They may be just close enough by a ~it will do really basic word processing/email/surfing acceptably~ with A15 quad core and future PowerVR cores, but that won't be worth it for Apple to upset the dev community with forced architectural rebuilds and re-optimization writing. ARM will need to get into a case of either being 1.5x faster for 1/2 the power budget as ATOM or being roughly equivalent processing-wise but run 10x longer. Either way Apple will need to see the kind of performance win that makes devs go -- yes I understand that and it is good for me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mdriftmeyer
ARM Designs will never surpass Intel/AMD Desktop/Laptop designs because their power requirement preclude that from ever happening.
Intel has run up against quantum issues. As they scale smaller the clock speeds don't go up much anymore due to hitting an exponential increase in quantum tunneling. So they have to dial back voltage faster than the littler transistors are switching. Notice each successive process shrink is yielding a smaller absolute max performance increase compared to the linear downscaling of the transistor sizes. They are advertising something like +20% for less power with the latest series, increases used to nearly double (+100%) for constant power dissipation.
Intel's 10 years of truly superior process management is about out of room to improve economically anymore. The bad part for them is they have decades of power-hog thinking that has degraded their ability to make ATOM a true low power part. ARM has always been ultra low power design philosophy and circumstances in fabrication are seeing them get a benefit just because Intel got slowed down dramatically.
Will ARM handle the opportunity better than AMD in the long term? We'll see. But if I was Intel and Nvidia I would be real nervous because the mobile power profile vs plugged in power profile world is on twitchy 3D gimbals, not just a standard teeter-totter where the 800 pound gorilla is safe. One bad move by the gorillas or a really right move by the up-and-comers may make for some significant market chaos.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
I've read a lot of posts about this or that CPU and GPU not comparing to other CPUs and GPUs but I haven't seen any comments or qualifiers that are comparing performance for a specific power draw.
You worded it better than me. It's like people think the same design used in the ipad is appropriate for the air. I'm not speculating on the future there, just saying it doesn't look practical today.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM
I'm sorry, but do you think I'm retarded? My Dell Studio 17 looks FAR more like that HP than any Apple. It looks like Dell stole almost all the sculpting cues, Apple didn't do anything like that. If you are telling me you think that the newer Apples look like they've ripped that HP, then I don't know where to go from here. There are quite a lot of differences that make it not nearly on the order of this new HP Spectre Envy 15 product. And let's not forget the Compaqs that came after the Powerbooks that look like cheap Powerbooks.
X505 have few apparent similarities that would suggest to me like a rip-off, other than that they're also thin and small. Not much of the design language translated to make it a design copy.
You want to tell me that I haven't been paying attention to PC laptops, fine, but it's not actually true. I still look at them from time to time, though it's been a while since I've been happy with one. I can also distinguish from similar-ish to a blatant ape of multiple pieces of design language at the same time.
You seem to have misunderstood me somewhere. I never suggested Apple copied aesthetic design elements anywhere (nor would it affect my purchasing decisions).
That is significantly closer than I expected the side by side to appear. When I tried the engadget link on the main article, it just kept throwing me back at the appleinsider article itself. Your link worked though. Yes I remember HP's takeover of Compaq. I thought of it a bit after the last post. Anyway I posted it because it uses most of the same design elements of the Spectre Envy (latch, bezel, looks like keyboard, port allocation, etc.) and it looked like much of the design work came from there. Looking at the side by side, they seem to have borrowed quite a lot of the detailing from Apple.
Not that this matters to the argument, but I never personally cared about the appearance of a computer. My experiences with HP stuff haven't been that great. Their printers used to be decent. My experiences with Apple products have been all over the place. My ipod batteries never lasted long. I've had many many display problems, down to smaller quirks. It goes back as far as the G4s. Prior to a G4 I owned a Dell.
No, HP copied ASUS. That's different.
AI is reaching new levels of troll.
"Ultrabooks feature many of the same defining features as the MacBook Air: solid-state storage, instant-on capabilities, and super-thin design thanks to the lack of an optical drive"
Now, those items may 'define' the MBA, but the MBA was not the first laptop to include any of them - it therefore is NOT a design leader.
Secondly, if you plot a graph showing laptop size over time, it's only logical to conclude that the formfactor would shrink. To further exemplify that, we're seeing non-apple laptops that are now smaller, thinner, have better specs, and are cheaper than their apple counterparts.
no wonder you're all on the defensive. suck it.
OK. Please show us a non-Apple laptop that's smaller, thinner, better specs, and cheaper than the Apple counterpart. I can't think of any that come close. There are some that are thinner, some that are smaller, some that have better specs, and even a few that are cheaper, but I can't think of a single one that is all of those so please enlighten me.
That was never in question. Intel can't match ARM's performance / watt. Atom fans say that they're catching up, but they're not there - and the Core series processors aren't close.
But that is far more important for a device like the iPad than for the MBA. The MBA has plenty of room for a battery to get hours of life and the users expect a certain level of performance. Remember when the first MBA came out? It was panned because it was so underpowered. Yet even that version was far more powerful than an ARM processor is today.
They're different markets. People buying an iPad know that it's a limited device and low performance (relatively speaking) is OK. People buying an MBA are buying a 'real computer' and expect it to behave that way. Furthermore, it's an existing product. Replacing the Core processor with an ARM would mean that the 2013 MBA (choose your year) would be 1/10 as powerful as the 2012 MBA. I just don't see Apple taking that huge of a drop in performance - no matter what the energy savings. Can you imagine the ridicule if Apple released a product with 1/10 the performance of the previous one?
As I've said, I think there is a market for someone who only needs iPad level performance but in an MBA-type layout. Call it an iPad with fold-out keyboard. That could be marketed as an 'iPad Pro' or whatever, but would NOT replace the MBA.
"Beats Audio processing, for higher quality sound"
Can I kill him? PLEASE?
Beats audio is just a brand. Beats headphones are re-branded Monster Cable headphones and the sound systems in these laptops will just be your bog standard Altec Lansing, Intel HD or C-Media setup. Infact, considering its an Ultrabook following the Intel spec, it WILL be Intel HD audio with beats branded software on-top that does nothing more than stereo widening and EQ Tweaks.
Sorry to go off track with this, but anyone who thinks they have a better sound system because it has a beats audio logo needs a good kicking. The latency, digital optical hybrid nature, quality and feature set on my Macs would blow these "beats audio" systems out of the water. Especially the latency. Good sweet lord the latency.
"If you want to look at a macro level, there are a lot of similarities to everything in the market that's an Ultrabook today," he said. "It is not because those guys (Apple) did it first. It's just that's where the form factor is leading it."
Lets think for a moment here;
Why is everything similar in an UltraBook today? Because you're all following a precise spec from Intel.
Who designed a machine with the spec long before Intel even thought of calling it a "spec"? Apple.
How many years before the Ultrabook did apple have this kind of machine? Several.
Did anyone else have this form factor before the Intel Spec? No.
You're mostly right about the headphones, but you left out the abysmal quality. Search for how many Beats headphone users had the headband break - and there are no replacement headbands available from Monster. Apparently, they were too busy finding ways to make the headphones loud with heavy bass to worry about the physical integrity.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
OK. Please show us a non-Apple laptop that's smaller, thinner, better specs, and cheaper than the Apple counterpart. I can't think of any that come close. There are some that are thinner, some that are smaller, some that have better specs, and even a few that are cheaper, but I can't think of a single one that is all of those so please enlighten me.
I can't seem to find one at all. Acer is the best example with their Ultrabooks. The monitors are just bad. Can't describe it any other way. They're just bad.
Quote
Originally Posted by jragosta
That was never in question. Intel can't match ARM's performance / watt. Atom fans say that they're catching up, but they're not there - and the Core series processors aren't close.
Guess I shouldn't wave an AMD C or E series in-front of an Atom fan. The realisation that Atoms are the worst CPUs on the market from any manufacturer might make their head explode (not counting embedded chip manufactures such as VIA).
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
You're mostly right about the headphones, but you left out the abysmal quality. Search for how many Beats headphone users had the headband break - and there are no replacement headbands available from Monster. Apparently, they were too busy finding ways to make the headphones loud with heavy bass to worry about the physical integrity.
I do like my beats headphones; they do sound good, but that's to be expected of Monster. But yes, they do feel a bit rushed in the build quality department. I really wish I didn't buy them now because a set of Sanheiser (sp?), BOSE or Sony headphones for the same price would've blown them out of the water; especially Sanheiser.
Could be worse, though. They could've ended up being re-branded Skull Candies (mother of god, no)
It's a standard defense:
Microsoft: We didn't copy the Mac OS
Samsung: We didn't copy the iPhone and the iPad and the accessories
Google: We didn't copy iOS
Amazon and Google: We didn't copy the App Store
HP: We didn't copy Apple's desktop and laptop designs
It's obviously just a coincidence that everyone happens to be moving in the same direction and Apple just happens to move quicker than everyone else.
HP is the most incompetent PC manufacturer out there. Remember when they were about to go the IBM route, and stop selling PCs? And no, Apple doesn't own 'silver', but apparently HP doesn't own any originality.
Honestly, the only PC manufacturer out there I see doing their own thing in a somewhat original way is Lenovo (ironic since they're Chinese), ever since they acquired IBM's PC business they've kept the ThinkPad's original look, functionality, and they're coming out with some cool ideas all around (that are different from what Apple's doing).
Beats are some of the crappiest headphones i have ever heard in my life. They are not designed for audio, they are designed as bling for idiots and rappers who want to help put lots of money into Dr. Dre's pocket.
If you want real phones, try the Audio Technica ATH-M50. Its about $180 at most, and has become one of the go-to phones for actual producers and engineers who want to hear what the audio actually sounds like.
Audio Technica ATH M-50. Try them, side by side with your beats and you will hear a difference so startling it will make you feel ashamed for calling the beats "good".
-a producer/engineer who doesn't whore himself out to Jimmy Iovine for money.
As much power as Playstation3 is good enough for me. And that just the start.
J.
It's very clear what ARMs aim is with 64bit CPUs: complete dominance from the lowest level embedded device to super computing.
A perfect match for Apple, I would say.
Your also forgetting Apples strategic advantage with ARM.
J.
That's nice, but how does it make up for the fact that ARM is far, far slower (both CPU and GPU) and the CPUs Apple is currently using in its laptops?
Can you see Apple introducing an MBA that's 1/10 the speed of the previous version? I don't think so.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jnjnjn
It's very clear what ARMs aim is with 64bit CPUs: complete dominance from the lowest level embedded device to super computing.
A perfect match for Apple, I would say.
Your also forgetting Apples strategic advantage with ARM.
J.
I don't see any forgetting going on. Apples advantage with ARM is irrelevant as an independent thing when it comes to a transition or not decision. Performance must in some way significantly outstrip the shipping at the time MBA hardware before an ARM CPU becomes a viable replacement in that market. That could be outstrip in pure performance, or be like-performance at FAR lower power budgets. Either way Apple won't just chose to take absolute performance appreciably backwards in any niche, even for an MBA. Changing to a fat binary all over again is a traumatic event that won't be done until it is obviously a win to push devs top do it.
The only way that Apple advantage plays is that Apple will have a better understanding than anyone else exactly what the calculus of that tradeoff is.
ARM ain't there yet, there definitely is potential for them to be but there is still a lot of hard work to be done yet to catch a slowing Intel.
LOL!!!
Hilarious! Good one!
Quote:
Originally Posted by esummers
I disagree with HP. I think that form factor is lead by Apple. Apple is the only company these days that is an early adopter of technology. It may be the next logical step, but everyone else would still be putting out big plastic boxes if not for Apple's pushing the limits and forcing their component suppliers to produce the parts needed to make the next step. The only other company I've seen advance anything might be Amazon for advancing the eInk form factor. It is obvious, but they were the company to mass produce it to take it to the next step. It is easier to follow then to lead.
I hate to say it but Sony was doing thin and light way before anyone, granted they never used metal but carbon fiber and magnesium.