Mac-Rumours
May 4, 04:02 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_2_1 like Mac OS X; en-gb) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Mobile/8C148)
The entire idea of restoring from a Time Machine backup has always been illogical to me.
If Time Machine backs up everything, then it backs up whatever problems you had that resulted in your need for restore.
Time Machine has limited real use, and its basically limited to accidentally deleting things.
Indeed, which is why I also do a Carbon Copy Clone once in a while. Most people, for some reason, just use Time Machine. Maybe they never have encountered a catastrophic disk failure. Seems like a big risk to take.
CCC would also copy any issues (apart from hardware faults) so how would that be better?
The entire idea of restoring from a Time Machine backup has always been illogical to me.
If Time Machine backs up everything, then it backs up whatever problems you had that resulted in your need for restore.
Time Machine has limited real use, and its basically limited to accidentally deleting things.
Indeed, which is why I also do a Carbon Copy Clone once in a while. Most people, for some reason, just use Time Machine. Maybe they never have encountered a catastrophic disk failure. Seems like a big risk to take.
CCC would also copy any issues (apart from hardware faults) so how would that be better?
KnightWRX
Apr 20, 07:10 AM
It might be named iPhone 5 but it will essentially be an iPhone 4S/iPad 2 style update.
And that update is still an iPhone 5 style update. iPhone 4S and iPhone 5 are the same thing. One just refers to a potential marketing name, the other to the generation of the device.
I don't get what is so hard to grasp here. The iPhone 3G was not the iPhone 3 at all, it was the iPhone 2 (and some would argue, the iPhone 1,2).
And that update is still an iPhone 5 style update. iPhone 4S and iPhone 5 are the same thing. One just refers to a potential marketing name, the other to the generation of the device.
I don't get what is so hard to grasp here. The iPhone 3G was not the iPhone 3 at all, it was the iPhone 2 (and some would argue, the iPhone 1,2).
bhtooefr
Apr 30, 10:56 PM
OK, so a few things about this that I'm seeing...
3200x2000 background: A bit odd choice of resolution, but I think they're making a 16:10 resolution that they'll crop to 16:9 for the machine with an actually 3200px wide display.
But, that does indicate a few things.
3200x1800 makes sense if you're pixel quadrupling a 1600x900 display, which is what a 15.6" 16:9 MBP at current pixel densities would be. But, it DOESN'T make sense for pixel quadrupling the 17" MBP, or any of the desktop displays.
If the 15.6" or 15.4" MBP gets this, and the 17" doesn't... that means that (and this is pure conjecture here) the 17" isn't long for the world. How well do they sell, anyway?
As for display technology supporting a pixel-quadrupled iMac, we've had the technology for a pixel-quadrupled 21.5" iMac since 2001. The IBM T221, a 3840x2400 22.2" monitor, is the same density as that theoretical display. It was $18,000 when it came out, and by the time IBM pulled the plug on IDTech, a Viewsonic-branded version of the T221, the VP2290b, was in the $4000 ballpark in 2005. So, had the T221 followed a curve influenced more by technology improvements than by the market getting saturated with unusable monitors, we'd be seeing these panels in the $2000 range nowadays, as a standalone monitor, I think.
Now, to look at all the machines that Apple has. Keep in mind that I think that only pro hardware will get this, and Apple likes to stick to around 100-110 PPI for desktops, and 110-130 PPI for laptops.
I'll go ahead and speculate on theoretical 16:9 variants of existing models, too.
MacBook Air 11.6": Currently 1366x768, 135 ppi, retina at 25.4" - would be 2732x1536, 270 ppi, retina at 12.7"
MacBook Air 13.3": Currently 1440x900, 128 ppi, retina at 26.9" - would be 2880x1800, 255 ppi, retina at 13.5"
MacBook and MacBook Pro 13.3": Currently 1280x800, 113 ppi, retina at 30.3" - would be 2560x1600, 227 ppi, retina at 15.1"
MacBook Pro 15.4" low-res: Currently 1440x900, 110 ppi, retina at 31.2" - would be 2880x1800, 221 ppi, retina at 15.6"
MacBook Pro 15.4" high-res: Currently 1680x1050, 129 ppi, retina at 26.7" - would be 3360x2100, 257 ppi, retina at 13.4"
MacBook Pro 17.0": Currently 1920x1200, 133 ppi, retina at 25.8" - would be 3840x2400, 266 ppi, retina at 12.9"
iMac 21.5": Currently 1920x1080, 102 ppi, retina at 33.6" - would be 3840x2160, 205 ppi, retina at 16.8"
iMac/Cinema Display 27": Currently 2560x1440, 109 ppi, retina at 31.6" - would be 5120x2880, 218 ppi, retina at 15.8"
Theoretical 13.3" 16:9 low-res: 1366x768, 118 ppi, retina at 29.2" - would be 2732x1536, 236 ppi, retina at 14.6"
Theoretical 13.3" 16:9 high-res: 1600x900, 138 ppi, retina at 24.9" - would be 3200x1800, 276 ppi, retina at 12.4"
Theoretical 15.6" 16:9: 1600x900, 118 ppi, retina at 29.2" - would be 3200x1800, 235 ppi, retina at 14.6"
Theoretical 17.1" 16:9: 1920x1080, 129 ppi, retina at 26.7" - would be 3840x2160, 258 ppi, retina at 13.3"
Hrm. I am noticing a problem here for getting consistent resolutions when getting 16:9 into the mix... and, interestingly, Apple stayed on 16:10 for the 13.3" MBA. So, I wonder if this could even be a red herring of some kind? Because 3200x2000 doesn't really match up with any expected 16:10 resolution...
(Current lineup can do 255-270 ppi, which is fairly tight, ignoring the 13.3" MB(P) and the low-res 15.4" MBP, but going to 16:9, either desktop area would shrink for many users (and even then, the 11.6" and 17.1" wouldn't fit in well), or there would be a wide variance in ppi.)
Another thing to consider is the $3.9 billion that Apple pumped into LCD makers... possibly to secure a supply of retina panels?
(In case you can't tell, I'm SERIOUS about my high ppi displays. Looking at a IDTech IAQX10N, a 2048x1536 15.0" 171 ppi IPS display right now, and I'm stuck on a 5 year old machine because of it. Whoever makes something roughly equivalent or better gets my business, unless they're Sony.)
3200x2000 background: A bit odd choice of resolution, but I think they're making a 16:10 resolution that they'll crop to 16:9 for the machine with an actually 3200px wide display.
But, that does indicate a few things.
3200x1800 makes sense if you're pixel quadrupling a 1600x900 display, which is what a 15.6" 16:9 MBP at current pixel densities would be. But, it DOESN'T make sense for pixel quadrupling the 17" MBP, or any of the desktop displays.
If the 15.6" or 15.4" MBP gets this, and the 17" doesn't... that means that (and this is pure conjecture here) the 17" isn't long for the world. How well do they sell, anyway?
As for display technology supporting a pixel-quadrupled iMac, we've had the technology for a pixel-quadrupled 21.5" iMac since 2001. The IBM T221, a 3840x2400 22.2" monitor, is the same density as that theoretical display. It was $18,000 when it came out, and by the time IBM pulled the plug on IDTech, a Viewsonic-branded version of the T221, the VP2290b, was in the $4000 ballpark in 2005. So, had the T221 followed a curve influenced more by technology improvements than by the market getting saturated with unusable monitors, we'd be seeing these panels in the $2000 range nowadays, as a standalone monitor, I think.
Now, to look at all the machines that Apple has. Keep in mind that I think that only pro hardware will get this, and Apple likes to stick to around 100-110 PPI for desktops, and 110-130 PPI for laptops.
I'll go ahead and speculate on theoretical 16:9 variants of existing models, too.
MacBook Air 11.6": Currently 1366x768, 135 ppi, retina at 25.4" - would be 2732x1536, 270 ppi, retina at 12.7"
MacBook Air 13.3": Currently 1440x900, 128 ppi, retina at 26.9" - would be 2880x1800, 255 ppi, retina at 13.5"
MacBook and MacBook Pro 13.3": Currently 1280x800, 113 ppi, retina at 30.3" - would be 2560x1600, 227 ppi, retina at 15.1"
MacBook Pro 15.4" low-res: Currently 1440x900, 110 ppi, retina at 31.2" - would be 2880x1800, 221 ppi, retina at 15.6"
MacBook Pro 15.4" high-res: Currently 1680x1050, 129 ppi, retina at 26.7" - would be 3360x2100, 257 ppi, retina at 13.4"
MacBook Pro 17.0": Currently 1920x1200, 133 ppi, retina at 25.8" - would be 3840x2400, 266 ppi, retina at 12.9"
iMac 21.5": Currently 1920x1080, 102 ppi, retina at 33.6" - would be 3840x2160, 205 ppi, retina at 16.8"
iMac/Cinema Display 27": Currently 2560x1440, 109 ppi, retina at 31.6" - would be 5120x2880, 218 ppi, retina at 15.8"
Theoretical 13.3" 16:9 low-res: 1366x768, 118 ppi, retina at 29.2" - would be 2732x1536, 236 ppi, retina at 14.6"
Theoretical 13.3" 16:9 high-res: 1600x900, 138 ppi, retina at 24.9" - would be 3200x1800, 276 ppi, retina at 12.4"
Theoretical 15.6" 16:9: 1600x900, 118 ppi, retina at 29.2" - would be 3200x1800, 235 ppi, retina at 14.6"
Theoretical 17.1" 16:9: 1920x1080, 129 ppi, retina at 26.7" - would be 3840x2160, 258 ppi, retina at 13.3"
Hrm. I am noticing a problem here for getting consistent resolutions when getting 16:9 into the mix... and, interestingly, Apple stayed on 16:10 for the 13.3" MBA. So, I wonder if this could even be a red herring of some kind? Because 3200x2000 doesn't really match up with any expected 16:10 resolution...
(Current lineup can do 255-270 ppi, which is fairly tight, ignoring the 13.3" MB(P) and the low-res 15.4" MBP, but going to 16:9, either desktop area would shrink for many users (and even then, the 11.6" and 17.1" wouldn't fit in well), or there would be a wide variance in ppi.)
Another thing to consider is the $3.9 billion that Apple pumped into LCD makers... possibly to secure a supply of retina panels?
(In case you can't tell, I'm SERIOUS about my high ppi displays. Looking at a IDTech IAQX10N, a 2048x1536 15.0" 171 ppi IPS display right now, and I'm stuck on a 5 year old machine because of it. Whoever makes something roughly equivalent or better gets my business, unless they're Sony.)
appletastic
Aug 6, 03:18 PM
Due to the fact that the airport base station and the isight have been dropped from the apple store in the UK because of euro regulations.. I think these will both receive an update.
So Predication 1
Airport base station with built in dsl modem. To compete with the dlinks and belkins of this world.. I think the most difficult part of using a mac is getting it connected to the net. So it makes sense for apple to have a plug and play adsl modem with all the printer sharing and itunes remote speaker support.
Prediction 2
The continued integration of iSight into the line-up, so I expect to see iSight cinema screens, I also expect to see a 17inch screen to complement the mac mini with a built in iSight. iChat will receive an update with Leopard for VOIP and more integration with everything else.. There maybe a bigger screen, but I don't think this will happen.. There maybe an iSight replacement too which will have a much smaller form factor and will be usb, not firewire.
Prediction 3
No iPod announcements apart from increased sizes for the nano
Prediction 4
New Mac Pros with the same case, but with a slot loading front and bigger HD capacities and maybe more ports on the back. All intel pimped.
Prediction 5
Leopard out before Vista with Steve matching capabilities and blowing vista away...
Thats my pennies worth
Cheers
Jake
So Predication 1
Airport base station with built in dsl modem. To compete with the dlinks and belkins of this world.. I think the most difficult part of using a mac is getting it connected to the net. So it makes sense for apple to have a plug and play adsl modem with all the printer sharing and itunes remote speaker support.
Prediction 2
The continued integration of iSight into the line-up, so I expect to see iSight cinema screens, I also expect to see a 17inch screen to complement the mac mini with a built in iSight. iChat will receive an update with Leopard for VOIP and more integration with everything else.. There maybe a bigger screen, but I don't think this will happen.. There maybe an iSight replacement too which will have a much smaller form factor and will be usb, not firewire.
Prediction 3
No iPod announcements apart from increased sizes for the nano
Prediction 4
New Mac Pros with the same case, but with a slot loading front and bigger HD capacities and maybe more ports on the back. All intel pimped.
Prediction 5
Leopard out before Vista with Steve matching capabilities and blowing vista away...
Thats my pennies worth
Cheers
Jake
pmz
Mar 28, 11:16 AM
Capacity bump now, full update September(ish)?
Now in what way would that possibly make sense? Are you being serious or just plucking out of thin air?
Now in what way would that possibly make sense? Are you being serious or just plucking out of thin air?
neko girl
May 6, 01:57 AM
Why not move their iOS hardware to Intel now that Samsung seems to be losing their ability to respect their own customer's IP? Intel would have no motivation to co-opt Apple IP (Intel doesn't build products), and they have the most sophisticated fab technology on earth.
Ah, standby power you say?
If Apple moves their Macs away from Intel that'll encourage a lot of Mac users including myself to consider switching to buying Windows machines. Boot Camp is an important Mac feature and Intel processors are the best.
Windows 8 will work on ARM, as Microsoft has said.. current builds already do, apparently.
Ah, standby power you say?
If Apple moves their Macs away from Intel that'll encourage a lot of Mac users including myself to consider switching to buying Windows machines. Boot Camp is an important Mac feature and Intel processors are the best.
Windows 8 will work on ARM, as Microsoft has said.. current builds already do, apparently.
LightSpeed1
Apr 20, 06:37 AM
I'll take it!
daneoni
Sep 11, 01:31 PM
What's your source? Every rumor site I've seen (and especially Appleinsider, which has the best record lately) says sales.
I'd tell you but then i'd have to kill you.
I'd tell you but then i'd have to kill you.
Eddyisgreat
Mar 29, 08:30 PM
I guarantee America has all the technology required to make components for a phone battery.
Yeah. They can build planes in Nigeria too. :rolleyes:
Sheesh the amount of nationalism is ridiculous when it comes to these matters. It's a wide world out there. You're telling me some other outfit had either the knowledge and capability to bring the required components to fruition and scale to meet apple's demands? Why the heck did they get the Japanese got the contract then? Because they're not American?
Face it - America isn't the absolute best at absolutely everything.
Yeah. They can build planes in Nigeria too. :rolleyes:
Sheesh the amount of nationalism is ridiculous when it comes to these matters. It's a wide world out there. You're telling me some other outfit had either the knowledge and capability to bring the required components to fruition and scale to meet apple's demands? Why the heck did they get the Japanese got the contract then? Because they're not American?
Face it - America isn't the absolute best at absolutely everything.
Americanloti
Sep 17, 12:51 AM
Hello everyone,
this is my first post, but I've been reading you all for a while now. I'm waiting for the MBP merom like most of the people here, but do you think there a possibility to see new Displays as well at Photokina? Maybe built-in iSight?
this is my first post, but I've been reading you all for a while now. I'm waiting for the MBP merom like most of the people here, but do you think there a possibility to see new Displays as well at Photokina? Maybe built-in iSight?
124151155
Mar 26, 10:08 PM
Cloud-Focused? Any more information on this?
0815
Apr 25, 10:33 AM
Since only I can access the info, who cares?
This is not a real issue. Ridiculous.
Guess the Apple Haters care ... since they can't attack the iOS on any other grounds they have to either make up funny arguments or overblow every tiny none-issue (and leave out the facts how it looks on their favorite platform).
And of course the press cares since there is a new thing where they can attach their favorite 'gate' to.
This is not a real issue. Ridiculous.
Guess the Apple Haters care ... since they can't attack the iOS on any other grounds they have to either make up funny arguments or overblow every tiny none-issue (and leave out the facts how it looks on their favorite platform).
And of course the press cares since there is a new thing where they can attach their favorite 'gate' to.
polaris20
Apr 18, 04:08 PM
There are several ways to lose a patent. One way is not to defend it. Another ways is trying to defend bogus patents and have the court invalidate it.
That's true, but in this case the similarities are so close I'd hardly call it bogus.
That's true, but in this case the similarities are so close I'd hardly call it bogus.
msb3079
Apr 20, 11:21 AM
Really? So we just disregard the ACTUAL start and end times of seasons now? June 21 to Sept 21 is summer.
Calendar wise it is... but most people don't view the middle of September as "summer". Meteorological summer is over by then, and that's MUCH more important, IMO.
Calendar wise it is... but most people don't view the middle of September as "summer". Meteorological summer is over by then, and that's MUCH more important, IMO.
jonharris200
Aug 7, 03:36 PM
No iMac update (but added expectation of one with the pro-sumer-sized 'gap' people have commented on) is good news for my wallet and my patience. :rolleyes:
Bonte
Jul 30, 11:48 AM
Me thinks WWDC will be great for us. Apple only presents max 3 major items on a keynote and has now already introduced, more series on iTunes, the educational iMac and a wireless mouse. So greater (pro?) news must be ready for the conference.
Anonymous Freak
May 6, 12:17 AM
Image (http://www.macrumors.com/2011/05/06/apple-to-move-from-intel-to-arm-processors-in-future-laptops/)
Article Link: Apple to Move from Intel to ARM Processors in Future Laptops? (http://www.macrumors.com/2011/05/06/apple-to-move-from-intel-to-arm-processors-in-future-laptops/)
Yeah, but making the prediction "Apple is going to continue their long-standing practice of alternating between GPU vendors by switching to the other one!" is a heck of a lot easier to make than "Apple is going to throw away tons of user goodwill by screwing them through yet another architecture change!"
Just last week, there was a rumor that Apple would have their custom ARM chips fabbed by Intel. That strikes me as a *LOT* more believable than Apple switching away from Intel now.
So I just bought a new 4 core Sandy Bridge iMac tonight and now this news breaks. Is ARM actually building anything in any way shape or form that competes with the Intel X86 stuff right now or is this just vaporware at this point?
At this point, pure rumor, not even vaporware, as vaporware implies the company has actually announced something.
ARM does have chips that can compete at the very lowest end of x86, such as with the chips presently running Netbooks. But it doesn't have anything even remotely competitive with the mainstream chips. (To use names: They compete with Atom, not with Core.)
Article Link: Apple to Move from Intel to ARM Processors in Future Laptops? (http://www.macrumors.com/2011/05/06/apple-to-move-from-intel-to-arm-processors-in-future-laptops/)
Yeah, but making the prediction "Apple is going to continue their long-standing practice of alternating between GPU vendors by switching to the other one!" is a heck of a lot easier to make than "Apple is going to throw away tons of user goodwill by screwing them through yet another architecture change!"
Just last week, there was a rumor that Apple would have their custom ARM chips fabbed by Intel. That strikes me as a *LOT* more believable than Apple switching away from Intel now.
So I just bought a new 4 core Sandy Bridge iMac tonight and now this news breaks. Is ARM actually building anything in any way shape or form that competes with the Intel X86 stuff right now or is this just vaporware at this point?
At this point, pure rumor, not even vaporware, as vaporware implies the company has actually announced something.
ARM does have chips that can compete at the very lowest end of x86, such as with the chips presently running Netbooks. But it doesn't have anything even remotely competitive with the mainstream chips. (To use names: They compete with Atom, not with Core.)
f00f
Mar 28, 10:49 AM
Pretty confident (http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=11923858&postcount=88) there won't be an iPhone 5 this summer. The CDMA phone was just launched. It really doesn't make sense to stagger the releases (CDMA in winter, GSM in summer); it makes much more sense to unify the devices. We don't want fragmentation, do we? But no way in hell it's going to happen four months after the CDMA launch. This makes as much sense as launching an iPad 3 in the so-called "year of iPad 2". :rolleyes:
puma1552
Apr 20, 01:00 AM
How many people think this is some elaborate scheme to get people to think it will come out in the fall, when they might be setting people up for a surprise with the release of iphone 4 -white as the new ip5?
My guess is they are intentionally delaying the IP5 just so they can go "Oh look we delivered the white IP4 as we promised!" without drawing the criticism of releasing it right before the model gets dumped for the new one.
My guess is they are intentionally delaying the IP5 just so they can go "Oh look we delivered the white IP4 as we promised!" without drawing the criticism of releasing it right before the model gets dumped for the new one.
iStudentUK
Apr 11, 02:52 AM
I appreciate that it's confusing upon first glance, but the answer simply cannot and should not be 2. If this were the case, math would be an ambiguous study.
It might become more apparent with the equation:
48/2(9+3)(1+4)+33-47/3(sin(45))
Surely we should not interpret everything following the first division symbol as belonging in the denominator, including an additional fraction. As Wolfram Alpha interpreted, I intended for my equation to be read as:
280700
Thank you!
Division should be written as a fraction "_" or ( ... )^-1. Nobody with maths skills beyond that of a ten year old should be using "/". This question is using this notation only because MR forums aren't good for writing equations. We must think of this in our heads as being a fraction, and ask how it would be written, and your's makes the most sense.
It might become more apparent with the equation:
48/2(9+3)(1+4)+33-47/3(sin(45))
Surely we should not interpret everything following the first division symbol as belonging in the denominator, including an additional fraction. As Wolfram Alpha interpreted, I intended for my equation to be read as:
280700
Thank you!
Division should be written as a fraction "_" or ( ... )^-1. Nobody with maths skills beyond that of a ten year old should be using "/". This question is using this notation only because MR forums aren't good for writing equations. We must think of this in our heads as being a fraction, and ask how it would be written, and your's makes the most sense.
wclyffe
Jan 6, 02:47 PM
Mine didn't rattle... but the audio output was dropping out, so I had to return mine. It took ~ 3 weeks to get the replacement.
Thanks for the info. I seem to have a bit of play in the part of the dock that rotates. Just holding the car kit in my hands there is play in this part of the mechanism so when I'm on the road its rattling all the time. You don't have this issue? Everything else seems to work so I'm hesitant to send it back as I might get one that's worse!
Thanks for the info. I seem to have a bit of play in the part of the dock that rotates. Just holding the car kit in my hands there is play in this part of the mechanism so when I'm on the road its rattling all the time. You don't have this issue? Everything else seems to work so I'm hesitant to send it back as I might get one that's worse!
Mechcozmo
Nov 26, 01:18 PM
Apple should give it full capabilities, about a 12" enclosure, and a durable case and we have ourselves a new toy and I've got my 12" PB replacement!
I'd buy that... but the 15" MacBook Pro would probably offer too much extra power for me versus a tablet. The touchscreen is great, but I wouldn't want a half-baked computer.
Why would I want to waste my time learning shorthand (which makes the assumption that TPCs could handle various forms of shorthand) so I could do through writing what I can already do at 70+ WPM via typing. And with typing, it solves the whole problem of handwriting recognition, because there ISN'T ANY.
I'd think it is more for drawing. Web-browsing is also very enjoyable with a touch-screen; just tap to follow a link. With Ink (handwriting recognizer in OS X) you could enter in a URL pretty easily.
I'd buy that... but the 15" MacBook Pro would probably offer too much extra power for me versus a tablet. The touchscreen is great, but I wouldn't want a half-baked computer.
Why would I want to waste my time learning shorthand (which makes the assumption that TPCs could handle various forms of shorthand) so I could do through writing what I can already do at 70+ WPM via typing. And with typing, it solves the whole problem of handwriting recognition, because there ISN'T ANY.
I'd think it is more for drawing. Web-browsing is also very enjoyable with a touch-screen; just tap to follow a link. With Ink (handwriting recognizer in OS X) you could enter in a URL pretty easily.
BacklitFirefly
Nov 14, 04:00 PM
I installed Sophos on our two Macs after it was released. On my Macbook Pro, there were four quarantined items, all in the Cache area, all having to do with Java. Nothing showed up on the iMac. And they weren't threats so Mac, but to Windows.
Sophos really does run quietly, and doesn't appear to hog memory. Still, I uninstalled it. There isn't a version for iOS, and I get and send a lot of files from my iPhone and iPad. I'm not really saving anyone using Windows from those threats unless I limit all activity to my Macs -- and that's a bit counter productive.
Sophos really does run quietly, and doesn't appear to hog memory. Still, I uninstalled it. There isn't a version for iOS, and I get and send a lot of files from my iPhone and iPad. I'm not really saving anyone using Windows from those threats unless I limit all activity to my Macs -- and that's a bit counter productive.
MorphingDragon
May 6, 06:45 AM
I'm not surprised about people getting overhyped. Just look the "3D" thread here.
Like I understand the benefits the new design could bring, its just that I'm a bit cynical when it comes to CPU enhancements, especially after Cell B.E. and the original Phenom architecture.
Intel's hype machine is also very efficient. :rolleyes:
Like I understand the benefits the new design could bring, its just that I'm a bit cynical when it comes to CPU enhancements, especially after Cell B.E. and the original Phenom architecture.
Intel's hype machine is also very efficient. :rolleyes: