dws-2

Apple's chips are amazing. I think the challenge for Apple is figuring out how to do something with that power that otherwise would not have been possible. I just bought an iPhone XS from an iPhone 7, and I honestly don't notice any speed difference, mostly because the iPhone 7 was already very fast, especially with iOS 12. 

mac_128 said:

sw5959 said:

dm3 said:

They're too big. Why does Apple suddenly have a fixation with size.
If they would have kept the same 38mm size, I'd be in line for a gen4. But I don't want a bigger watch. 

Pretty soon we'll have iPhone sized watches and iPad sized phones, and they'll make a iPad the size of a laptop.... oh wait.

Seriously? A 2mm difference is too big? 1/16 of an inch? 

What won't people complain about when it comes to Apple?

This is how it stacks up, the red areas are how much larger the 44mm is compared to the 42 ... it definitely makes the watch look larger.



Now compare it to the 42mm Huawei watch ... it's now larger than the watches many were saying were too big when the Apple Watch first came out, and the Huawei still has more display area, and no bezels.

I think you could have argued the same point before this new watch, given that the size change isn't really much in the picture you used.

It's also worth noting that with the Apple, you're including the whole thing, minus the strap. With the Huawei, you aren't including the additional top and bottom metal that's on the actual watch before the strap starts, and that looks to be substantial. Also, there are bezels, but they are covered with the steel ring. You may think that's a more attractive way to hide the bezel (and I think you'd get a lot of agreement on that), but the fact remains that the bezel is there (although it is probably somewhat smaller).

The MacBook Pro enclosure is a perfect example of skating where the puck is supposed to be, but then having the other player (Intel) making a bad pass. By all expectations, Intel should have been down to a smaller process by now, which would have made the MacBook Pro enclosure sufficient. What makes this more annoying is that Apple did the same thing with the trash can Mac Pro and the GPU cooling. Sometimes you can be too smart for your own good.

What I want to know is this: for heavy multi-core loads is the slowest new MacBook Pro as fast or faster than the fastest MacBook Pro? In other words does the 2.2 Ghz processor beat the 2.9 Ghz processor because the 2.2 Ghz doesn't need to throttle but the 2.9 Ghz does? Of course, in short, heavy loads, the 2.9 Ghz processor is still going to win. Overall, though, which processor is the best for the money for a given workload? Thanks in advance if the folks at AppleInsider write an article about this.

Back and forth. Nothing is secure, but some things are more difficult/costly/time-consuming to hack.

One of my friends is a city prosecutor, and Android-based phones are no problem to get into, but iPhones are much more difficult.

nunzy said:

Every other map has all kind s of problems too. But Apple maps has the best look and feel of all of them. Nobody can compete like Apple.

Yes, they do, but in my experience Apple Maps has at least 10 times more problems than Apple Maps. And that's not even counting the much better detail for knowing exactly where something is (outlines of buildings, names of fountains in parks, etc). I agree that Apple Maps has the best look, but the quality of information is, for me, so, so, so, so much better with Google Maps.