Mavericks looks to be shaping up to being a 'Snow Leopard' style release?
Lemon Bon Bon.
That would be great. Snow Leopard had its problems early on, but it shaped up nicely. Apart from the slipping OpenGL that really started prior to that, it was probably the best overall release of OSX. It's not practical to stay with forever, simply because that locks you in time in terms of features and framework updates. I definitely tend to stay longer with really stable releases whenever possible, just not typically more than a couple versions back.
That would be great. Snow Leopard had its problems early on, but it shaped up nicely. Apart from the slipping OpenGL that really started prior to that, it was probably the best overall release of OSX. It's not practical to stay with forever, simply because that locks you in time in terms of features and framework updates. I definitely tend to stay longer with really stable releases whenever possible, just not typically more than a couple versions back.
Strange because the latest release really outclasses everything before it. I really like Mountain Lion. It works well on my old hardware.
Due to a couple applications that I don't feel like upgrading at the moment, I'm not on Mountain Lion. I plan to change software packages on a couple things in the near future.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69
Wishful thinking. Another generation or two of process shrinks and the Mini itself will shrink again. It is almost a certainty
SSD capacities may be an additional factor. For all the people who say to plug in additional storage (necessary on backups anyway), I would prefer a small box that included storage to two small boxes. It should have enough internally for the bottom 80% or so of users who purchase Minis.
Due to a couple applications that I don't feel like upgrading at the moment, I'm not on Mountain Lion. I plan to change software packages on a couple things in the near future.
Sounds like you might want to wait for Mavericks. I will probably jump into Mavericks right after it comes out, that even though a major release like this can be troublesome.
SSD capacities may be an additional factor. For all the people who say to plug in additional storage (necessary on backups anyway), I would prefer a small box that included storage to two small boxes. It should have enough internally for the bottom 80% or so of users who purchase Minis.
I could see Apple saying "screw it" with respect to magnetic drives in the Mini that would allow for a thinner machine. The industry is right on the edge of a permanent transition for base machines. Well at least Apple is, the AIRs already pack a fairly healthy SSD for the price of the machine. Ideally they would implement two slots for the SSDs.
I can't really say that I'd be happy with this but that is why i was so hot in the XMac concept. Easy access drive bays being one reason for the XMac. Which brings up an thought, pull one of the video cards from the New Mac Pro and you have room for a magnetic drive, possibly two. In many ways the new Mac Pro comes really close too providing the capabilities I was hoping for in an XMac.
To take a side step here, over on MS Channel 9 site there is a really good video by Eric Brumer covering performance computing and the importance of memory bandwidth. The video was very approachable even by people not obsessed with performance. Unfortunately I don't have the title here off the top of my head. The gist is that extraordinarily simple code adjustments can have a huge impact of performance. This can be the case with either CPUs or GPUs.
My fear is that the mini will adopt the form factor of the new Airports. Ick.
What is wrong with the new Airports? If you look at the mechanical layout they are almost a Mini Mac Pro. The hardware is an interesting approach to solving common problem with hardware installations.
I guess my problem is that Apple has had the resources to do Mac OS right for a long time now. They haven't apparently and thus the comment about neglect.
I do hope that Mavericks is that turnaround we are all hoping for. I've been working my way through the WWDC developer videos and frankly it does look like a major overhaul. Even AppleScript is getting a major update which for a long time appeared to be dead technology to me. So yeah I'm very hopefully that Mavericks shores up the OS and eliminates the nagging weak points.
Neglect. Wasn't it Jobs that once said that Apple lost sight of their crown jewels once upon a time?
I hope Mavericks reverses this apparent trend. GPU support and Open GL has seemed weak to me over the years compared to Windows GPUs and drivers be they GL or Direct X. Certainly a well rounded on perception of 'lagging' GL development by many, many commentators and critics...
Sounds like you might want to wait for Mavericks. I will probably jump into Mavericks right after it comes out, that even though a major release like this can be troublesome.
I plan to wait until it stabilizes. It's not like they're all major applications. I'm working on an alternative for Quickbooks as the Mac version is atrocious. The others are just basic utility stuff. It could be new mac pro + mavericks + migrate apps once everything looks somewhat stable. At this point my notebook is faster than the old mac pro. It's not great. Having used newer Mac Pros as well, I can say they offer a smoother experience. Notebook is sandy bridge 15" 2.3, so on the faster side of notebooks compared to personal experience with the hex mac core pros. The extra memory might be part of it. I also don't have to listen to fans blast on one of those, but I don't own one.
Quote:
I could see Apple saying "screw it" with respect to magnetic drives in the Mini that would allow for a thinner machine. The industry is right on the edge of a permanent transition for base machines. Well at least Apple is, the AIRs already pack a fairly healthy SSD for the price of the machine. Ideally they would implement two slots for the SSDs.
Ideally to me would be back to non-proprietary formats. The mini is in some cases used as a server, so they may not wish to drop below a certain available storage level there.
Quote:
I can't really say that I'd be happy with this but that is why i was so hot in the XMac concept. Easy access drive bays being one reason for the XMac. Which brings up an thought, pull one of the video cards from the New Mac Pro and you have room for a magnetic drive, possibly two. In many ways the new Mac Pro comes really close too providing the capabilities I was hoping for in an XMac.
I thought it was a cool concept. Some of the harsher critics on here may have not stumbled on the earlier threads where you described it in full detail. I prefer internal because a lot of the cheap storage solutions are terrible. USB3 and thunderbolt alleviate the need for things like eSATA host cards, which is good. It's one less after market hardware layer. You still have the firmware and drivers of a port multiplier box in there as opposed to something supported at the chipset level. I've used a pretty wide range of hardware in this area, so I'm speaking from experience. When people just link random things they found on newegg, I'm not sure they realize that not all of them work as stated. Lion and Mountain Lion also saw the end of OSX development with some of the older chipsets. Especially with eSATA stuff nothing with a Silicon Image chipset is officially supported. Some of them can be made to work, but they aren't supported. I warned at least one person about that when they were buying a das solution around the time Lion debuted.
Quote:
To take a side step here, over on MS Channel 9 site there is a really good video by Eric Brumer covering performance computing and the importance of memory bandwidth. The video was very approachable even by people not obsessed with performance. Unfortunately I don't have the title here off the top of my head. The gist is that extraordinarily simple code adjustments can have a huge impact of performance. This can be the case with either CPUs or GPUs.
I'm watching it at the moment. He's talking about cache hits.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69
What is wrong with the new Airports? If you look at the mechanical layout they are almost a Mini Mac Pro. The hardware is an interesting approach to solving common problem with hardware installations.
I never placed a real priority on aesthetics. Non-Apple displays are often ugly, yet I don't care. I only care how the displayed image looks, not the case. The exception would be if it was distracting. That would be annoying.
The MM will always stay the same shape because people are accustomed to this form already.
And what about the old cheese-grater Mac Pro? The "pros" out there tend to be far less adaptive/receptive to change than the ordinary Joe, as evidenced by the incessant bashing of the new MP design by said "pros".
And what about the old cheese-grater Mac Pro? The "pros" out there tend to be far less adaptive/receptive to change than the ordinary Joe, as evidenced by the incessant bashing of the new MP design by said "pros".
I think you're right if you mean the innards. The looks however doesn't seem to be any issue, looking at a few friends of mine. They simply bought a new MP when they needed it, didn't matter that the model was outdated or overpriced or whatever. They just need to get the job done, whatever the box looks like.
Loosing the internal HDD's and expandability might change their views, don't know yet. I haven't heard someone going to buy the new Mac Pro, yet.
And what about the old cheese-grater Mac Pro? The "pros" out there tend to be far less adaptive/receptive to change than the ordinary Joe, as evidenced by the incessant bashing of the new MP design by said "pros".
The bashing from pros I've seen has nothing to do with how it looks, it's about changes to the hardware paradigm. It could look like a monkey scratching its armpit and pros would still buy it as long as it performs well.
The fickle consumer market is MUCH more concerned with outward appearance than the pros who shove it under a desk and never think about it again until it farts.
And what about the old cheese-grater Mac Pro? The "pros" out there tend to be far less adaptive/receptive to change than the ordinary Joe, as evidenced by the incessant bashing of the new MP design by said "pros".
Much of the whine from the so called "pros" is due to ignorance of the electronics industry. If you follow my posts I was pretty much convinced that the Mac Pro would end up smaller simply because there is no advantage to a big box and frankly a few disadvantages. I didn't t honestly expect what we got with this update though as I was expecting more of a cube of somewhat conventional design.
Another way to look at this is that Ive been around a long time and every major change in the industry has meant with the same bashing. It is really an issue of people not liking change more than anything.
The bashing from pros I've seen has nothing to do with how it looks, it's about changes to the hardware paradigm. It could look like a monkey scratching its armpit and pros would still buy it as long as it performs well.
The fickle consumer market is MUCH more concerned with outward appearance than the pros who shove it under a desk and never think about it again until it farts.
I wasn't talking just about looks.
And regarding shoving it under a desk, yeah, most PCs look so bad that they need to be shoved under a desk. Others were too big to fit on the desk (my old Mac Pro).
This new machine is a thing of beauty that belongs on many desks. Some will still want or need to place it under the desk (or on ashelf to the side) but . . .
Loosing the internal HDD's and expandability might change their views, don't know yet.
One thing that people often forget is that these things are going away eventually. Hard drives are legacy technology. Some would suggest that even if SSD gets cheaper, HDD will get even cheaper but that's not necessarily true. The bulk of the volume is in the consumer side. If you look at Seagate for example, they ship around 52m HDDs per quarter to consumers and 6m to enterprise with an average selling price of $63. They sell 58m out of 140m total drives sold. Western Digital sells around 56m to consumers and 6m to enterprise, totalling 62m units, average selling price $62. Between those two companies, that's pretty much the whole industry.
These numbers include drives shipped by the likes of Apple and these sales in fact makes up the bulk of the volume - about 40m each for Seagate and WD. The whole PC industry ships about 85m units per quarter. With over 70% of the shipments going to laptops, this is going to change to SSD entirely so Seagate and WD will be left with just the enterprise and externals. This might explain why Seagate bought LaCie last year.
Computer manufacturers can try bundling 2-4TB drives with machines but the vast majority of people have no need for that amount of space (and this is evident from the fact that WD and Seagate sell ~10m external drives per quarter) so gradually they will lose the consumer volume. The point where I think HDDs will collapse completely is $0.10/GB because 2TB for $200 is affordable. Right now, the best price is around $0.60/GB.
Physical drive size isn't as much an issue with SSD because there's no mechanical design and tolerances to work around and they can already fit 16TB into a single PCIe drive. It's really just price. You can imagine one day, they'll have single 16TB 3.5" external SSDs. They had 4TB last year:
There's not much point in designing a machine with 4x 6Gbps SATA bays when a 20Gbps TB port will run the SSD faster and many people will eventually just need 1 external vs a RAID drive.
Flash prices have clearly dropped and this can be seen in the Air, which moved from 64GB to 128GB on the entry model. This should give Apple the freedom to cut $100 off the Retina MBPs rather than increase the storage. If they squeeze the margins a bit, they can get the 13" rMBP down to $1299 and drop the old model. It wouldn't be good to start the 15" at $1999 but I'm sure they'll figure out a way to hit $1799, even if that means using Iris graphics or just a dual-core CPU.
This move would eliminate hard drives from their laptop lineup, which is 75% of Apple's machines.
I reckon they'll start to transition the iMacs to SSD too with a 256GB entry point. The Mini would probably retain an HDD in the base model but it could move to a SSD + HDD design. The new Mac Pro has the same physical SSD size as the Air but the 10nm NAND will hopefully allow them to go to double their previous max of 768GB to 1.5TB. With just another fab, they'll manage 3TB internally. They have plenty of room to make a wider SSD though if they wanted more.
As for timeframe, I'd say it'll go below $0.20/GB in 4 years. This would allow 3TB internally for $600. HDDs would still have a cost advantage but as I say, I think by this point, most if not all manufacturers will be using SSDs in shipped machines, which will cut Seagate's and WD's HDD volumes dramatically. Seagate even makes an SSD now so they know where things are heading.
Flash prices have clearly dropped and this can be seen in the Air, which moved from 64GB to 128GB on the entry model. This should give Apple the freedom to cut $100 off the Retina MBPs rather than increase the storage. If they squeeze the margins a bit, they can get the 13" rMBP down to $1299 and drop the old model. It wouldn't be good to start the 15" at $1999 but I'm sure they'll figure out a way to hit $1799, even if that means using Iris graphics or just a dual-core CPU.
It can also be an issue of yields. They have to be able to produce the number they would sell at $1799. I don't think they will go regressive on core counts. The flow in terms of bundled specs has been pretty consistent, and the high end dual cores aren't that cheap either. Integrated graphics actually sounds more likely to me as the notebook lines have always reduced gpu configuration first as a budgeting measure. Anyway
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemon Bon Bon.
Mavericks looks to be shaping up to being a 'Snow Leopard' style release?
Lemon Bon Bon.
That would be great. Snow Leopard had its problems early on, but it shaped up nicely. Apart from the slipping OpenGL that really started prior to that, it was probably the best overall release of OSX. It's not practical to stay with forever, simply because that locks you in time in terms of features and framework updates. I definitely tend to stay longer with really stable releases whenever possible, just not typically more than a couple versions back.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin
If the Mini changes to PCIe SSD for one of the drives, I could see it getting shorter but there's no reason for it to be cylindrical.
My fear is that the mini will adopt the form factor of the new Airports. Ick.
The MM will always stay the same shape because people are accustomed to this form already.
Wishful thinking. Another generation or two of process shrinks and the Mini itself will shrink again. It is almost a certainty
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69
Strange because the latest release really outclasses everything before it. I really like Mountain Lion. It works well on my old hardware.
Due to a couple applications that I don't feel like upgrading at the moment, I'm not on Mountain Lion. I plan to change software packages on a couple things in the near future.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69
Wishful thinking. Another generation or two of process shrinks and the Mini itself will shrink again. It is almost a certainty
SSD capacities may be an additional factor. For all the people who say to plug in additional storage (necessary on backups anyway), I would prefer a small box that included storage to two small boxes. It should have enough internally for the bottom 80% or so of users who purchase Minis.
I could see Apple saying "screw it" with respect to magnetic drives in the Mini that would allow for a thinner machine. The industry is right on the edge of a permanent transition for base machines. Well at least Apple is, the AIRs already pack a fairly healthy SSD for the price of the machine. Ideally they would implement two slots for the SSDs.
I can't really say that I'd be happy with this but that is why i was so hot in the XMac concept. Easy access drive bays being one reason for the XMac. Which brings up an thought, pull one of the video cards from the New Mac Pro and you have room for a magnetic drive, possibly two. In many ways the new Mac Pro comes really close too providing the capabilities I was hoping for in an XMac.
To take a side step here, over on MS Channel 9 site there is a really good video by Eric Brumer covering performance computing and the importance of memory bandwidth. The video was very approachable even by people not obsessed with performance. Unfortunately I don't have the title here off the top of my head. The gist is that extraordinarily simple code adjustments can have a huge impact of performance. This can be the case with either CPUs or GPUs.
Edit:
I found the title of that video: Native Code Performance and Memory: The Elephant in the CPU. The URL is: http://channel9.msdn.com/Events/Build/2013/4-329. Highly recommended.
What is wrong with the new Airports? If you look at the mechanical layout they are almost a Mini Mac Pro. The hardware is an interesting approach to solving common problem with hardware installations.
I do hope that Mavericks is that turnaround we are all hoping for. I've been working my way through the WWDC developer videos and frankly it does look like a major overhaul. Even AppleScript is getting a major update which for a long time appeared to be dead technology to me. So yeah I'm very hopefully that Mavericks shores up the OS and eliminates the nagging weak points.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69
Sounds like you might want to wait for Mavericks. I will probably jump into Mavericks right after it comes out, that even though a major release like this can be troublesome.
I plan to wait until it stabilizes. It's not like they're all major applications. I'm working on an alternative for Quickbooks as the Mac version is atrocious. The others are just basic utility stuff. It could be new mac pro + mavericks + migrate apps once everything looks somewhat stable. At this point my notebook is faster than the old mac pro. It's not great. Having used newer Mac Pros as well, I can say they offer a smoother experience. Notebook is sandy bridge 15" 2.3, so on the faster side of notebooks compared to personal experience with the hex mac core pros. The extra memory might be part of it. I also don't have to listen to fans blast on one of those, but I don't own one.
Quote:
I could see Apple saying "screw it" with respect to magnetic drives in the Mini that would allow for a thinner machine. The industry is right on the edge of a permanent transition for base machines. Well at least Apple is, the AIRs already pack a fairly healthy SSD for the price of the machine. Ideally they would implement two slots for the SSDs.
Ideally to me would be back to non-proprietary formats. The mini is in some cases used as a server, so they may not wish to drop below a certain available storage level there.
Quote:
I can't really say that I'd be happy with this but that is why i was so hot in the XMac concept. Easy access drive bays being one reason for the XMac. Which brings up an thought, pull one of the video cards from the New Mac Pro and you have room for a magnetic drive, possibly two. In many ways the new Mac Pro comes really close too providing the capabilities I was hoping for in an XMac.
I thought it was a cool concept. Some of the harsher critics on here may have not stumbled on the earlier threads where you described it in full detail. I prefer internal because a lot of the cheap storage solutions are terrible. USB3 and thunderbolt alleviate the need for things like eSATA host cards, which is good. It's one less after market hardware layer. You still have the firmware and drivers of a port multiplier box in there as opposed to something supported at the chipset level. I've used a pretty wide range of hardware in this area, so I'm speaking from experience. When people just link random things they found on newegg, I'm not sure they realize that not all of them work as stated. Lion and Mountain Lion also saw the end of OSX development with some of the older chipsets. Especially with eSATA stuff nothing with a Silicon Image chipset is officially supported. Some of them can be made to work, but they aren't supported. I warned at least one person about that when they were buying a das solution around the time Lion debuted.
Quote:
To take a side step here, over on MS Channel 9 site there is a really good video by Eric Brumer covering performance computing and the importance of memory bandwidth. The video was very approachable even by people not obsessed with performance. Unfortunately I don't have the title here off the top of my head. The gist is that extraordinarily simple code adjustments can have a huge impact of performance. This can be the case with either CPUs or GPUs.
Edit:
I found the title of that video: Native Code Performance and Memory: The Elephant in the CPU. The URL is: http://channel9.msdn.com/Events/Build/2013/4-329. Highly recommended.
I'm watching it at the moment. He's talking about cache hits.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69
What is wrong with the new Airports? If you look at the mechanical layout they are almost a Mini Mac Pro. The hardware is an interesting approach to solving common problem with hardware installations.
I never placed a real priority on aesthetics. Non-Apple displays are often ugly, yet I don't care. I only care how the displayed image looks, not the case. The exception would be if it was distracting. That would be annoying.
Quote:
Originally Posted by marvfox
The MM will always stay the same shape because people are accustomed to this form already.
And what about the old cheese-grater Mac Pro? The "pros" out there tend to be far less adaptive/receptive to change than the ordinary Joe, as evidenced by the incessant bashing of the new MP design by said "pros".
I think you're right if you mean the innards. The looks however doesn't seem to be any issue, looking at a few friends of mine. They simply bought a new MP when they needed it, didn't matter that the model was outdated or overpriced or whatever. They just need to get the job done, whatever the box looks like.
Loosing the internal HDD's and expandability might change their views, don't know yet. I haven't heard someone going to buy the new Mac Pro, yet.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bergermeister
And what about the old cheese-grater Mac Pro? The "pros" out there tend to be far less adaptive/receptive to change than the ordinary Joe, as evidenced by the incessant bashing of the new MP design by said "pros".
The bashing from pros I've seen has nothing to do with how it looks, it's about changes to the hardware paradigm. It could look like a monkey scratching its armpit and pros would still buy it as long as it performs well.
The fickle consumer market is MUCH more concerned with outward appearance than the pros who shove it under a desk and never think about it again until it farts.
Much of the whine from the so called "pros" is due to ignorance of the electronics industry. If you follow my posts I was pretty much convinced that the Mac Pro would end up smaller simply because there is no advantage to a big box and frankly a few disadvantages. I didn't t honestly expect what we got with this update though as I was expecting more of a cube of somewhat conventional design.
Another way to look at this is that Ive been around a long time and every major change in the industry has meant with the same bashing. It is really an issue of people not liking change more than anything.
Quote:
Originally Posted by v5v
The bashing from pros I've seen has nothing to do with how it looks, it's about changes to the hardware paradigm. It could look like a monkey scratching its armpit and pros would still buy it as long as it performs well.
The fickle consumer market is MUCH more concerned with outward appearance than the pros who shove it under a desk and never think about it again until it farts.
I wasn't talking just about looks.
And regarding shoving it under a desk, yeah, most PCs look so bad that they need to be shoved under a desk. Others were too big to fit on the desk (my old Mac Pro).
This new machine is a thing of beauty that belongs on many desks. Some will still want or need to place it under the desk (or on ashelf to the side) but . . .
One thing that people often forget is that these things are going away eventually. Hard drives are legacy technology. Some would suggest that even if SSD gets cheaper, HDD will get even cheaper but that's not necessarily true. The bulk of the volume is in the consumer side. If you look at Seagate for example, they ship around 52m HDDs per quarter to consumers and 6m to enterprise with an average selling price of $63. They sell 58m out of 140m total drives sold. Western Digital sells around 56m to consumers and 6m to enterprise, totalling 62m units, average selling price $62. Between those two companies, that's pretty much the whole industry.
These numbers include drives shipped by the likes of Apple and these sales in fact makes up the bulk of the volume - about 40m each for Seagate and WD. The whole PC industry ships about 85m units per quarter. With over 70% of the shipments going to laptops, this is going to change to SSD entirely so Seagate and WD will be left with just the enterprise and externals. This might explain why Seagate bought LaCie last year.
Computer manufacturers can try bundling 2-4TB drives with machines but the vast majority of people have no need for that amount of space (and this is evident from the fact that WD and Seagate sell ~10m external drives per quarter) so gradually they will lose the consumer volume. The point where I think HDDs will collapse completely is $0.10/GB because 2TB for $200 is affordable. Right now, the best price is around $0.60/GB.
Physical drive size isn't as much an issue with SSD because there's no mechanical design and tolerances to work around and they can already fit 16TB into a single PCIe drive. It's really just price. You can imagine one day, they'll have single 16TB 3.5" external SSDs. They had 4TB last year:
http://www.anandtech.com/show/5322/oczs-4tb-35-chiron-ssd
There's not much point in designing a machine with 4x 6Gbps SATA bays when a 20Gbps TB port will run the SSD faster and many people will eventually just need 1 external vs a RAID drive.
Flash prices have clearly dropped and this can be seen in the Air, which moved from 64GB to 128GB on the entry model. This should give Apple the freedom to cut $100 off the Retina MBPs rather than increase the storage. If they squeeze the margins a bit, they can get the 13" rMBP down to $1299 and drop the old model. It wouldn't be good to start the 15" at $1999 but I'm sure they'll figure out a way to hit $1799, even if that means using Iris graphics or just a dual-core CPU.
This move would eliminate hard drives from their laptop lineup, which is 75% of Apple's machines.
I reckon they'll start to transition the iMacs to SSD too with a 256GB entry point. The Mini would probably retain an HDD in the base model but it could move to a SSD + HDD design. The new Mac Pro has the same physical SSD size as the Air but the 10nm NAND will hopefully allow them to go to double their previous max of 768GB to 1.5TB. With just another fab, they'll manage 3TB internally. They have plenty of room to make a wider SSD though if they wanted more.
As for timeframe, I'd say it'll go below $0.20/GB in 4 years. This would allow 3TB internally for $600. HDDs would still have a cost advantage but as I say, I think by this point, most if not all manufacturers will be using SSDs in shipped machines, which will cut Seagate's and WD's HDD volumes dramatically. Seagate even makes an SSD now so they know where things are heading.
Quote:
Flash prices have clearly dropped and this can be seen in the Air, which moved from 64GB to 128GB on the entry model. This should give Apple the freedom to cut $100 off the Retina MBPs rather than increase the storage. If they squeeze the margins a bit, they can get the 13" rMBP down to $1299 and drop the old model. It wouldn't be good to start the 15" at $1999 but I'm sure they'll figure out a way to hit $1799, even if that means using Iris graphics or just a dual-core CPU.
It can also be an issue of yields. They have to be able to produce the number they would sell at $1799. I don't think they will go regressive on core counts. The flow in terms of bundled specs has been pretty consistent, and the high end dual cores aren't that cheap either. Integrated graphics actually sounds more likely to me as the notebook lines have always reduced gpu configuration first as a budgeting measure. Anyway
What an excellent post Marvin. Again, thanks much. I agree, the invention of the HDD apparently is from 1954, so yes, please make it go away.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilBoogie
What an excellent post Marvin. Again, thanks much. I agree, the invention of the HDD apparently is from 1954, so yes, please make it go away.
Shall I look up the year the light bulb was invented?
Lol. I think you'd have a more difficult time finding out who invented the lightbulb.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lightbulb