Last Active
  • Tested: Will the new i7 Mac mini run faster with new thermal paste?

    Finally, it's not much of an $800 investment if the peice of crap constantly thermal throttles and is unusable to be used in a prolonged application use, so you might as well try and fix that crap cause you're leaving money on the table allowing it to perform under its rated specs. (Kinda like getting a super fast high end car, but putting a limiter on it that caps at 60mph)
    I am not sure i understand what you are talking about.
    The article shows that a stock Mac Mini with a  3.2 Ghz chip run between 3.4 and 3.5 Ghz during a prolonged test, on a stable temperature.
    I would not call it throttling, you get more  that the nominal performance.
  • New 'professional' Mac mini, low-cost MacBook refresh coming soon says report

    I'll make an educated guess, that can be seen also as wild speculation.
    The rumors born from the interpretation of new data and new hints using old glasses.
    Hints to the fact that is a 'Pro' Mini should be interpreted in the framework of the ongoing work in Apple to satisfy Pro customers.
    We read of a number of initiatives, including a special group work on the subject; we got the iMac Pro, we got the new MBP 15" with six core
    and 32 Gb of Ram, and we know about a project to produce a new line of Mac Pro. We got eGPU also, and Thunderbolt 3, that allows for "external expandibility",
    without performance loss (excluding RAM).
    So if it is 'Pro', it is something different, that is included in this strategy.
    Si, what if this not about a new 'Mac Mini', but something that have a similar form factor, but a different nature ?

    The following is wild speculation:  How can you redefine modularity and expandibility, at the system level, using the new available technologies ?
    Imagine a series of modules, having a stackable form factor, and connected thru thunderbolt 3.
    CPU/RAM/system disk/integrated GPU module, eGPU module, .m2 RAID module, PCI-e module, even professional specific modules, like audio interfaces.
    Third party modules; giving the current trend, i would imagine specific market modules left to third party, like audio.
    A module would just be a box with the right form factor; i would be surprised of more, like interconnections.
    ok, just speculations :smile: 


  • Apple TV offered as set-top cable box alternative in France

    Another European case, Salt, a Suisse company, but owned by a French entrepreneur.

    Their hardware offer is based on a router plus a media box (as many offers in France), and they substituted the media box with an Apple TV.

    By the way, often functionalities are shared between the router box and the media box; for example for the provider that i have (Free), recording and storage
    is included in the fiber optic modem/router, so it would be easy to move the media box to an apple tv today without losing functionalities.

  • Another test finds HomePod frequency response flat, but results potentially meaningless

    I think that for an object that does Fletcher-Munson loudness compensation,and that does beam forming analyzing the environment where it is (and this do not necessarly include only frequency response compensation, it may include phase, delay compensation and what not), measuring frequency response just make no sense, either in a real room or in a anechoic chamber. Result depends, by definition, on the environment you are measuring them.

    An objective, scientific approach would require a lot of work, if only to define the reference framework you are defining.

    And anyway, this kind of approach, while heralded by hifi equipment producer, doesn't really correspond to the final user experience; it is useful only for places like recording studio, where you design a complete system (room, electronics, speakers, etc) by an high end professional.

    For example, the artifact of compression will have a stronger effect on the sound than the speaker frequency response.

    I strongly suggest every body relax and go back to good old subjective strategy: if it sound ok for you, it is ok. If anything in this price range sound better for you, buy elsewhere.

  • Report reaffirms Apple still plans to 'allow iPad apps to run on Macs this year'

    Most of the code of a iOS application compile and run natively on macOS; most of the libraries are the same, and large part of the UI infrastructure is also the same.
    Actually, from a developer point of view, iOS and macOS are already very very close.

    What is different: everything that deals with file, because of the iOS sandbox, and the actual UI code, that is different, the toolkits are  different, with a different hierarchy of Objective-C/Swift classes.

    My personal guess (as an experience developer) is that this project concern a new User Interface toolkit, either on macOS, on iOS or probably on both, that allows to write user interfaces that run on both platforms, plus some other limited stuff, mostly support in XCode to allow building for both platforms.
    My guess is also that this will not be transparent and automatic, but it will allow a developer, with a explicit design decision, to target both platforms at the same time, with the same code base, but ossibly with custom code and functionalities on each of the two (or more) platforms.