To apple. It is a performance increase- tests have it at around 15%. Thats not a slouch. Apple just chooses to downclock them for more battery life. So again- means almost 0 for performance.... to Apple.
And 16 hours of battery life is lunacy. Currently- the 13" rMBP and 15" rMBP only have 7 hours- like the previous iteration of MBA. Why would you think it would be any different than going from 7 to 12 like the MBA did. You think Mavericks extends it another 4 hours? Give me what you're smoking.
What the ...???
It means 15% for intel. That's 0% (close to it) on high end machines, where performance is much more than CPU. Performance now varies more from HDD (ssd) speed, Ram amount and speed, GPU, etc.
So Haswell is almost 0% on a machine like that.
After watching the keynote and analyze what Mavericks is bringing, those 4h seem realistic. The new air comes with Mountain Lion + Haswell and offers close to 12h. On 9toMac, the guy is bragging about how his battery life DOUBLEDon a Macbook pro from 2008.
Based on this, claiming more 4h doesn't seems out of this world, far from it. They still had free space on the 13" retina, so they can put a GPU or more (bigger) battery.
Having said that, and because you were rude, let me say it: moron.
Equipped with a 1.3-gigahertz Core i5 Haswell processor, the 13-inch model is on par with the 1.8-gigahertz Core i5 Sandy Bridge processor found in last year's 13-inch model.
The 1.8 is listed as a 2012 model in the chart. That would make it "Ivy" rather than "Sandy".
When the mood strikes please post somewhere. I'd like to see if your dissatisfaction aligns with my opinion of the iMac. I'm really hoping that the Mac Pro, when it actually goes on sale, has a low cost variant that gives me a desktop machine I can actually jive with.
I must say though that this Air rev is more impressive than it looks at first glance. It makes me wonder why they didn't highlight it more at WWDC. They have effective moved the Air from "nice but not good enough" to "I really have to think about it". So I can understand your interest.
I'm selling my 2013 iMac and getting one of these. The 13". I'm not happy with the iMac for a number of reasons I won't go into now, because I'm not in the mood to defend the truth to a few defensive people.
When Mavericks comes out, there will be even more battery savings.
Mavericks looks like a huge update!????????. If they can deliver all of the goods described for power savings it will become the leading OS for laptops. That doesn't even take into account other features that should make Mavericks compelling. Like the MB Air it seems like Mavericks wasn't stressed enough at WWDC as it appears to be a major upgrade and likely a significant blow to MicroSoft.
That demo suspending the safari window when you covered it up and starting it up again when you uncover it was amazing. I'm sure that feature will intelligently do it or have manual override based on the function.
I immediately started to worry about that. I often have Safari itself or iTunes in background doing something like downloads. The last thing you want is for the download to terminate because you hide the window. So yeah this needs to be handled intelligently. It actually seems like a feature that should be part of the developers SDK as the app is really the only thing that knows if it really needs CPU cycles.
I wouldn't want a video render being suspended because I move another window over it.
Yeah things like that would suck. I wouldn't want a compile to stop just because I put a window in the background.
In any event Mavericks does impress. Such improvements to the OS combined with this new Hasweel,up hardware ought to lead to some interesting usability improvements. The power savings of Mavericks though may be balanced out some by the increased functionality it offers.
What are you doing on an Air that you need it to be faster?
Silly question, computers always need to be faster. Anytime you need to wait is a point where one could use a speed improvement. Given that though these new Airs are very impressive. Plus Apple has pulled head from ass and given us worthwhile updates if you build to order. For example you can now get an Air with a 512 GB option for $300. While the price isn't ideal it isn't the gouging we use to get from Apple. Further the CPU upgrade option offers up a solid increase in performance.
It would be nice to see these machines reviewed in their various forms or options. I'm really wondering about the impact of the CPU upgrade on battery life.
Actually there is a processor option which would give you increased performance. More so this option is a significant upgrade which is almost out of character for Apple. If you want more CPU performance it can be had as a worthwhile upgrade.
Apple also has a flash drive up grade to 512GB for $300. All in all this machine is an impressive release.
Well look in the options for a custom build. As for battery life that always falls to performance.
Yes I'm aware of the BTO. I'm making the assumption that the BTO will be like the base model in that compared to the 2012 models no performance increase, just better battery life.
I currently have the 2012 2GHz i7 BTO, the new one is 1.7GHz which will probably give the same performance but with better battery life. I'm fine with my current battery life, would be nice if the user could choose so they can decide if they want extra performance or better battery life.
8GB of memory is a shame. I'm always running a Windows 7 VM for work and I sometimes need to run up a second VM, 8GB is only just enough for my needs.
I'm wondering why the mac book pros weren't included in the line up - esp being haswell changes.
Good question, obviously nobody knows. One rumor implied that new screen technology destined for these machines wasn't ready. That is possible. Also possible is that Intel doesn't have a broad range of chips ready to ship. I'm actually surprised that they went the ULV route first but then again that is where most of Apples sales are right now.
Moving on into the pure speculation territory:
These new upgrades to the Airs puts them into a new category as they are significantly improved. As such the MBP will need more thorough overhauls to offer worthwhile feature sets and performance differentials. I could see Apple waiting for Thunderbolt 2 for one. Possibly redesigned motherboards to support two SSD devices, more RAM and other features may be needed.
The 13" is being rumoured as slimmer .....,could it become the first Mac Book pro air - or at least convergence in range.
I'm hoping Apple doesn't go stupid here. I'd rather see a machine that can handle another 20 watts or so of processor power. The whole reason for the MBP 13" is to get far better performance in a 13" class machine. Going thin is silly if it compromises that goal. I'd like to see a processor in the 13" MBP that is in the 28 to 35 watt range.
Doesn't look like they are coming till the fall and although the air news is big, there was no physical changes - more a spec bump, albeit a big one. Otherwise why not announce together at this point?
Well obviously they aren't ready. Frankly it is better that Apple does this than to screw up like they did last year waiting forever to release the Mini because they didn't have an iMac to ship. I really hate product linkage like that.
In any event the technology landscape is changing very fast these days. TB 2 is a couple of months away and RAM meeting new standards is almost here. There are so many reasons for the lack of a MBP release that one could only guess. Further one is likely to guess wrong. It is probably worth waiting though if you need a solid performing laptop. As can be seen here Haswell is pretty awesome.
I'm really hoping that the Mac Pro, when it actually goes on sale, has a low cost variant that gives me a desktop machine I can actually jive with.
I wouldn't get my hopes up if I were you. I see that as highly unlikely. If we exclude all in one systems, like the iMac, then there's the Mac Mini for those people who will not be able to shell out many thousands of dollars for the new Mac Pro. I don't see the Mac Pro being cheap at all. Xeon processors? Crazy fast SSD? Dual, hi performance video cards? Assembled in the USA? Haha, those people who are hoping or praying for the Mac Pro to be affordable are in for a surprise.
My guess is because they are being jerks and holding it off until Mavericks is ready. They did the same thing to the Air refresh at the launch of Lion. And pretty much every iPhone update for the last three years. The hardware is ready months before the software, but apple has this thing about pairing the two up, like they're afraid minuscule software updates won't have much impact without a simultaneous hardware update.
I can't deny that at times it does appear that they link products in this way. Frankly I'm not fond of it at all. However in this case I don't think the hardware is ready. Rumors about the screens for one seem to indicate that. They could also be releasing the machines with TB2 which would make sense on a "Pro" laptop. Finally it isn't like the entire line of Haswell chips is ready for launch.
Yes, I'm bitter about this. I've been waiting 6 months for this refresh to replace my 2009 13" with a retina MacBook, and was literally sitting in front of the screen yesterday with credit card in hand, only to be crushed by no update for the MBP.
Give me a break. There is nothing to be bitter about here at all. If you are crushed over such a minor thing I might suggest getting some mental health support. Apple released a good number of products yesterday the rest will come when they are ready.
Within a year Apple mainstreams tiered storage with Fusion Drives and now PCIe storage. I cannot wait for the Haswell Retina
Yes I is pretty amazing and is unfortunately leaving a lot of people in the dust. You can see this in the Mac Pro threads where people just don't grasp how forward looking the new Mac Pro is. As for Air it is now possible to configure a really high performance machine with that model. Amazing is the right word.
Yes I'm aware of the BTO. I'm making the assumption that the BTO will be like the base model in that compared to the 2012 models no performance increase, just better battery life.
You do get substantial performance increases though that comes from the GPU.
I currently have the 2012 2GHz i7 BTO, the new one is 1.7GHz which will probably give the same performance but with better battery life. I'm fine with my current battery life, would be nice if the user could choose so they can decide if they want extra performance or better battery life.
Well we will have to wait for testing but you might get some CPU performance increases. However in most cases it is pretty silly to upgrade a one year old machine. Even with Haswell it isn't a compelling upgrade over a one year old machine.
Beyond that Mavericks has the potential to give you better battery life so realistically when Mavericks comes it will be like a new machine. Especially with a few other performance improvements.
8GB of memory is a shame. I'm always running a Windows 7 VM for work and I sometimes need to run up a second VM, 8GB is only just enough for my needs.
This I can understand though I have to laugh as my Mac Plus had far less RAM. What this really tells me though is that the Air probably isn't the machine for you. I'd wait for MBP releases to see how inviting they are. Even so it really makes no sense at all to upgrade a one year old machine.
Silly question, computers always need to be faster. Anytime you need to wait is a point where one could use a speed improvement. Given that though these new Airs are very impressive. Plus Apple has pulled head from ass and given us worthwhile updates if you build to order. For example you can now get an Air with a 512 GB option for $300. While the price isn't ideal it isn't the gouging we use to get from Apple. Further the CPU upgrade option offers up a solid increase in performance.
It would be nice to see these machines reviewed in their various forms or options. I'm really wondering about the impact of the CPU upgrade on battery life.
Yes, the standard wisdom is that computers always need to be faster. However, in my experience, that has changed for the majority of people over the past 5 years or so.
At one point (say, in the 80s and 90s), computers were never fast enough. Even with a top of the line computer, you'd be waiting for the computer much of the time. And even if you found one that met your needs today, within a year or two, software demands made your computer seem slow - so it was an endless upgrade cycle.
Today, that's no longer true. Most people browse the web, send email, maybe manage a few photos, a little word processing, and that's it. Any computer built in the past 5 years is plenty fast for that - heck, even tablets are fast enough for those things. So for most people, there's no longer an urgent need to upgrade - and expecting a big enough change in a single upgrade cycle to justify spending the money on a new computer is stilly. Most people are qoing to be upgrading every 3 or 4 cycles (or more) and will still find plenty of use for the old computer.
PC sales figures reflect this - the demand for rapid upgrade cycles is no longer there.
I wouldn't get my hopes up if I were you. I see that as highly unlikely.
Hope is all that I have.
If we exclude all in one systems, like the iMac, then there's the Mac Mini for those people who will not be able to shell out many thousands of dollars for the new Mac Pro.
Which might become bearable with Haswell but the thing I'm looking for is a machine that supports a real GPU. A real GPU that supports modern usage such as OpenCL.
I don't see the Mac Pro being cheap at all. Xeon processors?
There are a range of Xeon processors available some of them pretty cheap. Obviously the 12 core variant isn't.
Crazy fast SSD?
It isn't much faster than the one in the new Airs. People don't realize just how much SATA has been holding back solid state technology.
Dual, hi performance video cards?
Actually this is where I see most of the cost in this machine. Simply having an option for low end cards could substantially lower the price of the Mac Pro.
Assembled in the USA? Haha, those people who are hoping or praying for the Mac Pro to be affordable are in for a surprise.
It does look bad at first but I also see much being trimmed from the machine and a design that is optimized for manufacturing. It isn't a cheap machine by any measure but I could see a base model coming in under the current Mac Pro entry price. That won't be a machine with 6 GB of VRAM per GPU though.
I understand why people think it will be very expensive, the described model is pretty impressive. But that doesn't mean that a 6 core model is impossible. Nor does it mean that lower performance GPU solutions couldn't be offered. Apple uses the phrase "up to" often in the literature.
So yeah one can hope for a new Mac Pro at a lower introductory price. We just need to be rational about the reality of Apples marketing.
Yes, the standard wisdom is that computers always need to be faster. However, in my experience, that has changed for the majority of people over the past 5 years or so.
I will tend to disagree with that. I still see people modifying their usage to keep performance up even if they don't realize what they are doing.
At one point (say, in the 80s and 90s), computers were never fast enough. Even with a top of the line computer, you'd be waiting for the computer much of the time. And even if you found one that met your needs today, within a year or two, software demands made your computer seem slow - so it was an endless upgrade cycle.
Well that is very true. However even today it isn't impossible for a software upgrade to become too demanding for the computer hardware it is installed on. Further many people tend to try to leverage multi tasking that can hurt performance at times. Often though RAM is more of a problem than RAW CPU power.
Today, that's no longer true. Most people browse the web, send email, maybe manage a few photos, a little word processing, and that's it.
No that isn't it. People doing those sorts of things have moved to iPads and similar tools. If anything people using laptops or desktops are even more likely to put the systems under a lot of strain.
Any computer built in the past 5 years is plenty fast for that - heck, even tablets are fast enough for those things. So for most people, there's no longer an urgent need to upgrade - and expecting a big enough change in a single upgrade cycle to justify spending the money on a new computer is stilly. Most people are qoing to be upgrading every 3 or 4 cycles (or more) and will still find plenty of use for the old computer.
I can buy into this. Even with Haswell you would need a compelling reason to upgrade a one year old machine. From my perspective I try to milk a machine for as long as I can, that doesn't mean I enjoy the performance 3-4 years down the road. It really comes down to economics as you are throwing money away with frequent updates.
PC sales figures reflect this - the demand for rapid upgrade cycles is no longer there.
Well that could be a very long discussion. Part of the problem with the PC market is that people have alternatives for those common usages you describe above. The other problem is that people have grown to hate Windows and the grief that causes them. PC sales are collapsing but there is a lot more going on than slacking demand from stretched out upgrade cycles.
It means 15% for intel. That's 0% (close to it) on high end machines, where performance is much more than CPU. Performance now varies more from HDD (ssd) speed, Ram amount and speed, GPU, etc.
So Haswell is almost 0% on a machine like that.
Are you dense? If they kept a similar Sandy bridge and clocked it down, it would be much worse performance. So all of your "SSD speed, ram, GPU" means nothing, because that would be the same regardless of the chip. Since you have a hard time understanding- in science, there are 2 things. Variables- in this case, the CPU. And non-variables- In this case, everything else. The chip itself improves performance. The other variables would have been there regardless. How can you not get this?
Quote:
Originally Posted by pedromartins
On 9toMac, the guy is bragging about how his battery life DOUBLEDon a Macbook pro from 2008.
lol. Oh, a guy on 9toMac said it doubles battery life. And Apple didn't claim that. Now it all makes sense. Apple wants to surprise people with battery life.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pedromartins
Having said that, and because you were rude, let me say it: moron.
Considering your predictions are always outlandish and never come to fruition, your opinion of me holds as much bearing as your opinions on what Apple does next. Just trying to point out your fallacy to the person you responded to.
To apple. It is a performance increase- tests have it at around 15%. Thats not a slouch. Apple just chooses to downclock them for more battery life. So again- means almost 0 for performance.... to Apple.
And 16 hours of battery life is lunacy. Currently- the 13" rMBP and 15" rMBP only have 7 hours- like the previous iteration of MBA. Why would you think it would be any different than going from 7 to 12 like the MBA did. You think Mavericks extends it another 4 hours? Give me what you're smoking.
Except the tricks Apple is using in Mavericks (such as memory compression, optimized Nitro engine) should more than compensate for the 15% bump you get with a new processor. And this happens across the Mac lineup, since Mavericks reportedly works on any Mountain Lion-compatible Mac.
I'm selling my 2013 iMac and getting one of these. The 13". I'm not happy with the iMac for a number of reasons I won't go into now, because I'm not in the mood to defend the truth to a few defensive people.
Except the tricks Apple is using in Mavericks (such as memory compression, optimized Nitro engine) should more than compensate for the 15% bump you get with a new processor.
the 15% I mentioned was performance- not battery life. I'm confused at your response (Either I'm reading what you wrote wrong or you read what I wrote wrong).
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andysol
Quote:
Originally Posted by pedromartins
Haswell means almost 0 for performance.
To apple. It is a performance increase- tests have it at around 15%. Thats not a slouch. Apple just chooses to downclock them for more battery life. So again- means almost 0 for performance.... to Apple.
And 16 hours of battery life is lunacy. Currently- the 13" rMBP and 15" rMBP only have 7 hours- like the previous iteration of MBA. Why would you think it would be any different than going from 7 to 12 like the MBA did. You think Mavericks extends it another 4 hours? Give me what you're smoking.
What the ...???
It means 15% for intel. That's 0% (close to it) on high end machines, where performance is much more than CPU. Performance now varies more from HDD (ssd) speed, Ram amount and speed, GPU, etc.
So Haswell is almost 0% on a machine like that.
After watching the keynote and analyze what Mavericks is bringing, those 4h seem realistic. The new air comes with Mountain Lion + Haswell and offers close to 12h. On 9toMac, the guy is bragging about how his battery life DOUBLED on a Macbook pro from 2008.
Based on this, claiming more 4h doesn't seems out of this world, far from it. They still had free space on the 13" retina, so they can put a GPU or more (bigger) battery.
Having said that, and because you were rude, let me say it: moron.
Quote:
Equipped with a 1.3-gigahertz Core i5 Haswell processor, the 13-inch model is on par with the 1.8-gigahertz Core i5 Sandy Bridge processor found in last year's 13-inch model.
The 1.8 is listed as a 2012 model in the chart. That would make it "Ivy" rather than "Sandy".
I must say though that this Air rev is more impressive than it looks at first glance. It makes me wonder why they didn't highlight it more at WWDC. They have effective moved the Air from "nice but not good enough" to "I really have to think about it". So I can understand your interest.
Within a year Apple mainstreams tiered storage with Fusion Drives and now PCIe storage. I cannot wait for the Haswell Retina
Yeah things like that would suck. I wouldn't want a compile to stop just because I put a window in the background.
In any event Mavericks does impress. Such improvements to the OS combined with this new Hasweel,up hardware ought to lead to some interesting usability improvements. The power savings of Mavericks though may be balanced out some by the increased functionality it offers.
Silly question, computers always need to be faster. Anytime you need to wait is a point where one could use a speed improvement. Given that though these new Airs are very impressive. Plus Apple has pulled head from ass and given us worthwhile updates if you build to order. For example you can now get an Air with a 512 GB option for $300. While the price isn't ideal it isn't the gouging we use to get from Apple. Further the CPU upgrade option offers up a solid increase in performance.
It would be nice to see these machines reviewed in their various forms or options. I'm really wondering about the impact of the CPU upgrade on battery life.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69
Actually there is a processor option which would give you increased performance. More so this option is a significant upgrade which is almost out of character for Apple. If you want more CPU performance it can be had as a worthwhile upgrade.
Apple also has a flash drive up grade to 512GB for $300. All in all this machine is an impressive release.
Well look in the options for a custom build. As for battery life that always falls to performance.
Yes I'm aware of the BTO. I'm making the assumption that the BTO will be like the base model in that compared to the 2012 models no performance increase, just better battery life.
I currently have the 2012 2GHz i7 BTO, the new one is 1.7GHz which will probably give the same performance but with better battery life. I'm fine with my current battery life, would be nice if the user could choose so they can decide if they want extra performance or better battery life.
8GB of memory is a shame. I'm always running a Windows 7 VM for work and I sometimes need to run up a second VM, 8GB is only just enough for my needs.
Moving on into the pure speculation territory:
These new upgrades to the Airs puts them into a new category as they are significantly improved. As such the MBP will need more thorough overhauls to offer worthwhile feature sets and performance differentials. I could see Apple waiting for Thunderbolt 2 for one. Possibly redesigned motherboards to support two SSD devices, more RAM and other features may be needed. I'm hoping Apple doesn't go stupid here. I'd rather see a machine that can handle another 20 watts or so of processor power. The whole reason for the MBP 13" is to get far better performance in a 13" class machine. Going thin is silly if it compromises that goal. I'd like to see a processor in the 13" MBP that is in the 28 to 35 watt range.
Well obviously they aren't ready. Frankly it is better that Apple does this than to screw up like they did last year waiting forever to release the Mini because they didn't have an iMac to ship. I really hate product linkage like that.
In any event the technology landscape is changing very fast these days. TB 2 is a couple of months away and RAM meeting new standards is almost here. There are so many reasons for the lack of a MBP release that one could only guess. Further one is likely to guess wrong. It is probably worth waiting though if you need a solid performing laptop. As can be seen here Haswell is pretty awesome.
Well this gets into the wishful thinking category. However I could see Apple waiting for a better processor option from Intel for the 13" MBP.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69
I'm really hoping that the Mac Pro, when it actually goes on sale, has a low cost variant that gives me a desktop machine I can actually jive with.
I wouldn't get my hopes up if I were you. I see that as highly unlikely. If we exclude all in one systems, like the iMac, then there's the Mac Mini for those people who will not be able to shell out many thousands of dollars for the new Mac Pro. I don't see the Mac Pro being cheap at all. Xeon processors? Crazy fast SSD? Dual, hi performance video cards? Assembled in the USA? Haha, those people who are hoping or praying for the Mac Pro to be affordable are in for a surprise.
Give me a break. There is nothing to be bitter about here at all. If you are crushed over such a minor thing I might suggest getting some mental health support. Apple released a good number of products yesterday the rest will come when they are ready.
Beyond that Mavericks has the potential to give you better battery life so realistically when Mavericks comes it will be like a new machine. Especially with a few other performance improvements.
This I can understand though I have to laugh as my Mac Plus had far less RAM. What this really tells me though is that the Air probably isn't the machine for you. I'd wait for MBP releases to see how inviting they are. Even so it really makes no sense at all to upgrade a one year old machine.
Yes, the standard wisdom is that computers always need to be faster. However, in my experience, that has changed for the majority of people over the past 5 years or so.
At one point (say, in the 80s and 90s), computers were never fast enough. Even with a top of the line computer, you'd be waiting for the computer much of the time. And even if you found one that met your needs today, within a year or two, software demands made your computer seem slow - so it was an endless upgrade cycle.
Today, that's no longer true. Most people browse the web, send email, maybe manage a few photos, a little word processing, and that's it. Any computer built in the past 5 years is plenty fast for that - heck, even tablets are fast enough for those things. So for most people, there's no longer an urgent need to upgrade - and expecting a big enough change in a single upgrade cycle to justify spending the money on a new computer is stilly. Most people are qoing to be upgrading every 3 or 4 cycles (or more) and will still find plenty of use for the old computer.
PC sales figures reflect this - the demand for rapid upgrade cycles is no longer there.
I understand why people think it will be very expensive, the described model is pretty impressive. But that doesn't mean that a 6 core model is impossible. Nor does it mean that lower performance GPU solutions couldn't be offered. Apple uses the phrase "up to" often in the literature.
So yeah one can hope for a new Mac Pro at a lower introductory price. We just need to be rational about the reality of Apples marketing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pedromartins
It means 15% for intel. That's 0% (close to it) on high end machines, where performance is much more than CPU. Performance now varies more from HDD (ssd) speed, Ram amount and speed, GPU, etc.
So Haswell is almost 0% on a machine like that.
Are you dense? If they kept a similar Sandy bridge and clocked it down, it would be much worse performance. So all of your "SSD speed, ram, GPU" means nothing, because that would be the same regardless of the chip. Since you have a hard time understanding- in science, there are 2 things. Variables- in this case, the CPU. And non-variables- In this case, everything else. The chip itself improves performance. The other variables would have been there regardless. How can you not get this?
Quote:
Originally Posted by pedromartins
On 9toMac, the guy is bragging about how his battery life DOUBLED on a Macbook pro from 2008.
lol. Oh, a guy on 9toMac said it doubles battery life. And Apple didn't claim that. Now it all makes sense. Apple wants to surprise people with battery life.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pedromartins
Having said that, and because you were rude, let me say it: moron.
Considering your predictions are always outlandish and never come to fruition, your opinion of me holds as much bearing as your opinions on what Apple does next. Just trying to point out your fallacy to the person you responded to.
Except the tricks Apple is using in Mavericks (such as memory compression, optimized Nitro engine) should more than compensate for the 15% bump you get with a new processor. And this happens across the Mac lineup, since Mavericks reportedly works on any Mountain Lion-compatible Mac.
Thanks
Quote:
Originally Posted by Suddenly Newton
Except the tricks Apple is using in Mavericks (such as memory compression, optimized Nitro engine) should more than compensate for the 15% bump you get with a new processor.
the 15% I mentioned was performance- not battery life. I'm confused at your response (Either I'm reading what you wrote wrong or you read what I wrote wrong).