I think the confusion over future and current hardware stems from the fact that only hugely optimistic hypothetical future macs stand any chance at all of competing with current (or even slightly out of date) PC's.
I think the confusion over future and current hardware stems from the fact that only hugely optimistic hypothetical future macs stand any chance at all of competing with current (or even slightly out of date) PC's.
mm, personally I disagree. Intel could release a 5.0ghz chip tomorrow and my feelings and position wouldn't change. Why? Because my dual gig is plenty fast for what I do and X is simply awesome only to improve.
It seems that you are slightly displeased with Apple, if so, why do you bother with these boards when you could be on the PC boards telling everyone how macs are crap and years behind the PCs?
<strong>IIRC, certain laptops did so under 9. X doesn't even have an option for it. Run a benchmark (like povbench) with and w/out power - it will turn out the same.
Than again, supposedly this option is back in Jag-wire.</strong><hr></blockquote>The energy saver control panel on my Ti800 allows me to check a box to reduce processor speed. I've heard that it sets it at 667. But I don't believe this happens in any Apple laptops automatically, as it does on Wintel laptops simply by unplugging them.
<strong>I hate when people try to sound like they know what they are talking about, but still can't remember that processor speeds are measured in hertz, not bytes. (2.4 GB? by today's standards, that's a pretty lame hard drive size.)</strong><hr></blockquote>
I hate it when people try to sound like they know what they are talking about by finding slim mistakes that others make. Of course I meant GHz, Smart Ass.
Also, just for the record, an article was release last year on IBM stating that they had 3.7 and 4 GIGAHERTZ (is that better?) processors in working condition at that time. I doubt they were ready for mass production, but they we're reported as working even then.
If he used a PC, then he wouldn't care about Mac performance. His platform of choice is Mac, and thus we wants to be able to buy a Mac that is fast, fast enough for him, but also fast enough to compete with Wintels.
It's about the future of the Mac platform. If Apple doesn't make competitive products, then they go out of business, and then ALL Mac users lose. no matter if they need the performance or not.
I'm not saying Apple is going to go belly up, only that this is what drives the need for competitive Mac products.
Comments
I think the confusion over future and current hardware stems from the fact that only hugely optimistic hypothetical future macs stand any chance at all of competing with current (or even slightly out of date) PC's.
<img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
<strong>Relax KidRed,
I think the confusion over future and current hardware stems from the fact that only hugely optimistic hypothetical future macs stand any chance at all of competing with current (or even slightly out of date) PC's.
<img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
mm, personally I disagree. Intel could release a 5.0ghz chip tomorrow and my feelings and position wouldn't change. Why? Because my dual gig is plenty fast for what I do and X is simply awesome only to improve.
It seems that you are slightly displeased with Apple, if so, why do you bother with these boards when you could be on the PC boards telling everyone how macs are crap and years behind the PCs?
<strong>IIRC, certain laptops did so under 9. X doesn't even have an option for it. Run a benchmark (like povbench) with and w/out power - it will turn out the same.
Than again, supposedly this option is back in Jag-wire.</strong><hr></blockquote>The energy saver control panel on my Ti800 allows me to check a box to reduce processor speed. I've heard that it sets it at 667. But I don't believe this happens in any Apple laptops automatically, as it does on Wintel laptops simply by unplugging them.
<strong>I hate when people try to sound like they know what they are talking about, but still can't remember that processor speeds are measured in hertz, not bytes. (2.4 GB? by today's standards, that's a pretty lame hard drive size.)</strong><hr></blockquote>
I hate it when people try to sound like they know what they are talking about by finding slim mistakes that others make. Of course I meant GHz, Smart Ass.
Also, just for the record, an article was release last year on IBM stating that they had 3.7 and 4 GIGAHERTZ (is that better?) processors in working condition at that time. I doubt they were ready for mass production, but they we're reported as working even then.
It's about the future of the Mac platform. If Apple doesn't make competitive products, then they go out of business, and then ALL Mac users lose. no matter if they need the performance or not.
I'm not saying Apple is going to go belly up, only that this is what drives the need for competitive Mac products.