mozumder
Apr 5, 06:55 PM
- Major revamp of asset cataloguing system with integrated final cut server, something similiar to what Aperture does with photos. This will be it's biggest feature
- Core image fx with integrated Shake-style fx compositing
and the usual obvious things (64 bit, new formats, updated quicktime, etc..)
- Core image fx with integrated Shake-style fx compositing
and the usual obvious things (64 bit, new formats, updated quicktime, etc..)
chatin
Aug 22, 09:08 PM
The Woodcrest processors have been put through their paces pretty well on the supercomputing lists, and their Achille's heal is the memory subsystem. Current generation AMD Opterons still clearly outscale Woodcrest in real-world memory bandwidth with only two cores. Unless Intel pulls a rabbit out of their hat with their memory architecture issues when the quad core is released, AMDs quad core is going to embarrass them because of the memory bottleneck. And AMD is already starting to work on upgrading their already markedly superior memory architecture.
This is one of the drawbacks of using a server CPU on the desktop. In lights-off Xserve this would not matter as most of the data is already cached in memory.
I think there might be lights out for future MacPro Xeons if AMD where to catch up in the race.
:rolleyes:
This is one of the drawbacks of using a server CPU on the desktop. In lights-off Xserve this would not matter as most of the data is already cached in memory.
I think there might be lights out for future MacPro Xeons if AMD where to catch up in the race.
:rolleyes:
Durendal
Apr 5, 07:16 PM
YES!!! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eyqUj3PGHv4)
https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj8SEXwJm7_dMR6sjz72i2leBNWYivltocdkCRlEygFbp5heTbLLpOrQSLUya3uOb8G3hZm9yBLdvlaEyedk41iE-1eUbi9jaI8nikBhlQ784fnWz5alDH5AwEiFcy-eN-nfBTAjOzLQSmG/s400/wtf.jpg
https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj8SEXwJm7_dMR6sjz72i2leBNWYivltocdkCRlEygFbp5heTbLLpOrQSLUya3uOb8G3hZm9yBLdvlaEyedk41iE-1eUbi9jaI8nikBhlQ784fnWz5alDH5AwEiFcy-eN-nfBTAjOzLQSmG/s400/wtf.jpg
Popeye206
Mar 22, 08:01 PM
My take...
Competition is good.
It will be interesting to see if the Playbook sticks. RIM is losing ground in so many areas and from what my daughter says (who works for one of the cell phone companies) that even with all the nice new goodies in BB's, that they are the smart phone that makes them all grimace. She says it's by far the worst phone to activate to trouble shoot. So, will the Playbook be any different?
Samsung... could they have rushed that one out any quicker? They seem desperate to get a tablet to sell. So much for quality control I'm sure.
Is the new Xoom about ready to be run over two minutes out the gate by other Android devices?
From what I can see, the most damage is not going to come in the Apple arena... the iPad is different with iOS, it's proven (15 million sold and growing fast)... it's going to be the other Android devices. Each of them fighting for a small share of customers who don't want Apple.
I honestly believe most consumers care less about the specs. The geeks on this site do.... but the average person does not care. They care about what they hear and see. They see iPads flying out the door. They know the iPad is slick and works.
I'll go with the Analysts on this one... by the end of Apple will own 70-80% market share and the rest will be a mixed bag of struggling tablet makers.
Competition is good.
It will be interesting to see if the Playbook sticks. RIM is losing ground in so many areas and from what my daughter says (who works for one of the cell phone companies) that even with all the nice new goodies in BB's, that they are the smart phone that makes them all grimace. She says it's by far the worst phone to activate to trouble shoot. So, will the Playbook be any different?
Samsung... could they have rushed that one out any quicker? They seem desperate to get a tablet to sell. So much for quality control I'm sure.
Is the new Xoom about ready to be run over two minutes out the gate by other Android devices?
From what I can see, the most damage is not going to come in the Apple arena... the iPad is different with iOS, it's proven (15 million sold and growing fast)... it's going to be the other Android devices. Each of them fighting for a small share of customers who don't want Apple.
I honestly believe most consumers care less about the specs. The geeks on this site do.... but the average person does not care. They care about what they hear and see. They see iPads flying out the door. They know the iPad is slick and works.
I'll go with the Analysts on this one... by the end of Apple will own 70-80% market share and the rest will be a mixed bag of struggling tablet makers.
BlizzardBomb
Aug 27, 09:09 AM
And I doubt there will be anything other than IG in the mini. But otherwise we agree. In fact in the mobiles we agree exactly 100% the same with what I think they will be. :eek:
The MR X1400 is more of a wish than a prediction. It would help close the gap between Mac Mini and Mac Pro.
The MR X1400 is more of a wish than a prediction. It would help close the gap between Mac Mini and Mac Pro.
b166er
Apr 7, 10:39 PM
It's psychology, man. big companies use it against us every day. I have worked in retail a long time, and I see this all the time with high demand products. Dollars to doughnuts apple has a stock pile of iPads and they are just letting so many thousand slip out at a time. Hype generates massive amounts of free press and profits at no cost to the company making the product.
Sydde
Mar 22, 08:47 PM
What I always wonder is what diplomatic efforts were used to pressure Qaddafi? There were no (as far as I know) threats of economic embargoes, freezing of assets, or other less violent methods to coerce Qaddafi.
As I recall, there was some freezing of the assets (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/feb/27/gaddafi-family-assets-frozen-queen), though the figures they show make it look like little more than window dressing.
Really, the reason the west wants him outta there is because no one can agree on how to transliterate his name :confused:
As I recall, there was some freezing of the assets (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/feb/27/gaddafi-family-assets-frozen-queen), though the figures they show make it look like little more than window dressing.
Really, the reason the west wants him outta there is because no one can agree on how to transliterate his name :confused:
ahuman7341
Aug 5, 05:57 PM
BitTorrent seems very NO!
The main reson I don't like the idea of it is the security issues. I Also think Apple will be aware of the security issues so I doubt that software update will use BitTorrent. Although Apple may have a client that comes with leopard or in iTunes.
The main reson I don't like the idea of it is the security issues. I Also think Apple will be aware of the security issues so I doubt that software update will use BitTorrent. Although Apple may have a client that comes with leopard or in iTunes.
gnasher729
Mar 26, 07:05 PM
so, it's beta #1? Feature complete but still has bugs to iron out.
Golden master is usually when they are confident of no bugs isn't it?
Golden master is the one that gets shipped.
"Golden master candidate" is one with no known bugs that need fixing, but there are plenty of people still testing, so you expect new bugs to come up that need fixing. You fix them and have a new "Golden master candidate". With the first "Golden master candidate" you are usually quite sure that there will be bugs found.
And you _know_ there are bugs in the Golden Master, you just reached the point where you aren't finding any more bugs. Some customers tend to be quite good at finding them :mad: which is why you have 10.6.1, 10.6.2 and so on.
Golden master is usually when they are confident of no bugs isn't it?
Golden master is the one that gets shipped.
"Golden master candidate" is one with no known bugs that need fixing, but there are plenty of people still testing, so you expect new bugs to come up that need fixing. You fix them and have a new "Golden master candidate". With the first "Golden master candidate" you are usually quite sure that there will be bugs found.
And you _know_ there are bugs in the Golden Master, you just reached the point where you aren't finding any more bugs. Some customers tend to be quite good at finding them :mad: which is why you have 10.6.1, 10.6.2 and so on.
BlizzardBomb
Aug 26, 04:34 PM
You're screwing up, intel. We don't want 300 trillion transistors on a 1 nm die. We want longer battery life. Idiots.
Are you being serious? Think about how much energy the LCD, the speakers, the HD, the RAM and the graphics card use. You can't just change the processor and go "Poof!" 15 hour battery!
Are you being serious? Think about how much energy the LCD, the speakers, the HD, the RAM and the graphics card use. You can't just change the processor and go "Poof!" 15 hour battery!
rdowns
Apr 28, 04:48 PM
Jesus wasn't born in America, yet you don't see Republicans trying to keep him out of government.
~Shard~
Jul 15, 12:58 AM
It would be ridiculous if it came with just 512 mb's of ram...
Steve Jobs-"The New Octa-Core Mac Pro with 512 mb's of ram" It just doesn't fit...
I agree, it wouldn't make sense. Might as well sell a new Lamborghini with a 1.8L 4-banger... ;)
Steve Jobs-"The New Octa-Core Mac Pro with 512 mb's of ram" It just doesn't fit...
I agree, it wouldn't make sense. Might as well sell a new Lamborghini with a 1.8L 4-banger... ;)
reflex
Sep 19, 07:51 AM
Maybe I'm missing something here, but I'd of thought buying the latest and fastest computer every year would be the first thing a 'pro-user' would do with his money.
I can't speak for everyone, but there are a few considerations apart from speed:
- the available funds
- the ability to deduct the purchase from taxes
- having to reinstall everything on the new computer
Speed is nice, but when a two year old laptop is mostly fast enough (in my case), then why buy a new one after only a year?
I usually buy a new laptop about every two years. This is a relatively nice trade off between my desire to have the latest of everything and actually getting any work done.
I can't speak for everyone, but there are a few considerations apart from speed:
- the available funds
- the ability to deduct the purchase from taxes
- having to reinstall everything on the new computer
Speed is nice, but when a two year old laptop is mostly fast enough (in my case), then why buy a new one after only a year?
I usually buy a new laptop about every two years. This is a relatively nice trade off between my desire to have the latest of everything and actually getting any work done.
thisisahughes
Apr 8, 02:00 AM
I'm not sure how I feel about this.
Chip NoVaMac
Apr 8, 12:11 AM
Good example, bad math. 100 iPad 2 64GB 3G = $830 x 100 = $83,000, not $830K. If Best Buy stores were pulling in $1M+ per day or even $500k+ per day then their stock would go through the roof.
I concur with you on the whole bean counter thing. I work for a large company and its amazing to me how much money bean counters waste in their attempts to save a few pennies. We once spent over $10,000 in time (when computing hourly wage by salary) to purchase a $100 piece of software because the bean counters tried to make us jump through hoops to prove we really really could not do without it. It was sad.
Thanks for the update.. was flying by the seat of my pants there. :D Was a bit angry in thinking about things. I used the $500K as an example though. Not sure what they bring in each day.
I feel your pain there. Miss the common sense days of doing business...
I concur with you on the whole bean counter thing. I work for a large company and its amazing to me how much money bean counters waste in their attempts to save a few pennies. We once spent over $10,000 in time (when computing hourly wage by salary) to purchase a $100 piece of software because the bean counters tried to make us jump through hoops to prove we really really could not do without it. It was sad.
Thanks for the update.. was flying by the seat of my pants there. :D Was a bit angry in thinking about things. I used the $500K as an example though. Not sure what they bring in each day.
I feel your pain there. Miss the common sense days of doing business...
RebootD
Mar 31, 05:24 PM
What?
Just speaking to your 'year of the linux' quote that's all.
Just speaking to your 'year of the linux' quote that's all.
Yebubbleman
Apr 6, 03:35 PM
Disagree, the Air is a niche product, and there is a noticeable difference in weight. 2KG 13" Pro is exactly 50% heavier than 1.3KG Air, and if you lug the laptop around all day long such weight difference is noticeable. It might be added that most Air users are never gonna need the extra computing power of the MBP. If your work requires a MBP you're never going to get an Air anyway.
If you don't need the power of a MacBook Pro, then a white MacBook is the best bang for the buck. Period. The only two reasons why an Air would be desirable over a white MacBook are superficial aesthetic preferences (please people, these are computers, not fashion accessories) and weight, which brings me to...
I am going even further - I like the featherweight of the 11" and the fact that after the update it is going to be a very serious machine is not to be neglected.
After the update, it'll still be the slowest Mac in the line-up. Serious machine? Perhaps compared to a Core 2 Duo machine, but then again, at that point, they'll all have Sandy Bridge and will thusly all be serious compared to the Core 2 Duo Macs in every respect (save for the IGP in tow, of course). Featherweight? Sure, but at that point, do I really want to be editing my Microsoft Word documents or Photoshop files on a computer with an 11.6" screen? And for the same cost as a full featured Mac laptop (white MacBook)? No thanks.
Last but not least, those 2 pounds you're talking about can be crucial when deciding what to take in your hand luggage when traveling by plane. I've been up to such a decision when I had to take my 2.8kg PC laptop. That's where I guess the name of the computer comes from - Macbook Air, designed for use on an Airplane.
A 13" MacBook Pro wouldn't make travel THAT much harder. Seriously. I've traveled with a white MacBook for quite a while, and honestly, an Air would make the bag lighter, but not to the point where I'd take it over a white MacBook or a 13" MacBook Pro. Were I doing constant walking with the thing, maybe. As it stands I don't have that kind of mobile computing lifestyle, nor do I know many people that do.
The integrated Intel HD 3000 seems to be about equal to the integrated GeForce 320M when Barefeets did their tests on vidoe games.
On Portal, the HD3000 was 68FPS and the 320M was 65FPS.
On X-Plane, the HD3000 was 38FPS and the 320M was 43FPS.
Certainly worth moving to SB processors.
http://www.barefeats.com/mbps04.html
The 4Gig RAM limit is more critical than the change in graphics.
For every test that the HD 3000 beat the 320M or matched it, the CPU was largely at play. Jus' sayin'. Though really of the four Macs that ship sans a discrete GPU, the only one where it is sorely missed is the 13" MacBook Pro. For everyone else, the difference between the 320M and the HD 3000 won't matter at all.
I think you need to define very simple, because the MBA can run about everything. Lets face it, computers have been capable of running pretty much anything for the last decade, the upgrades stopped being as meaningful as they used to be quite some time ago.
I'm a Unix sysadmin, the MBA is my only computer. I do casual gaming on it, I use it to do graphics for my website using CS5, I use it for my work (using a VM), I use it to do my hobby coding, I use it to watch TV series and Anime in 720p. It has the upside of being light and small, so carrying it around on the motorcycle for when I'm on stand-by is less of a pain than 15" MBP or even a 13" MBP (which I had before, when it was called the Unibody Macbook).
Call me bat-**** crazy or my needs "simple", but it works for me as a stand-alone computer.
By "run everything", you can't possibly mean run games at "higher than medium" settings, nor edit lots of HD footage in something like Final Cut Pro. Though that's not what YOU use YOUR MacBook Air for, and really that's fine. I'm not trying to invalidate your purchase decision, man. I'm saying that on the whole, unless ultraportability ABSOLUTELY HAS TO BE A CONCERN, it's not the best of buys in an already over-priced Mac market. If you handed me $1000 and told me to buy a Mac laptop, I'd buy the white MacBook over the 11.6" Air every time. But that's a difference in opinion and frankly, I'd rather not argue difference in opinions.
If you don't need the power of a MacBook Pro, then a white MacBook is the best bang for the buck. Period. The only two reasons why an Air would be desirable over a white MacBook are superficial aesthetic preferences (please people, these are computers, not fashion accessories) and weight, which brings me to...
I am going even further - I like the featherweight of the 11" and the fact that after the update it is going to be a very serious machine is not to be neglected.
After the update, it'll still be the slowest Mac in the line-up. Serious machine? Perhaps compared to a Core 2 Duo machine, but then again, at that point, they'll all have Sandy Bridge and will thusly all be serious compared to the Core 2 Duo Macs in every respect (save for the IGP in tow, of course). Featherweight? Sure, but at that point, do I really want to be editing my Microsoft Word documents or Photoshop files on a computer with an 11.6" screen? And for the same cost as a full featured Mac laptop (white MacBook)? No thanks.
Last but not least, those 2 pounds you're talking about can be crucial when deciding what to take in your hand luggage when traveling by plane. I've been up to such a decision when I had to take my 2.8kg PC laptop. That's where I guess the name of the computer comes from - Macbook Air, designed for use on an Airplane.
A 13" MacBook Pro wouldn't make travel THAT much harder. Seriously. I've traveled with a white MacBook for quite a while, and honestly, an Air would make the bag lighter, but not to the point where I'd take it over a white MacBook or a 13" MacBook Pro. Were I doing constant walking with the thing, maybe. As it stands I don't have that kind of mobile computing lifestyle, nor do I know many people that do.
The integrated Intel HD 3000 seems to be about equal to the integrated GeForce 320M when Barefeets did their tests on vidoe games.
On Portal, the HD3000 was 68FPS and the 320M was 65FPS.
On X-Plane, the HD3000 was 38FPS and the 320M was 43FPS.
Certainly worth moving to SB processors.
http://www.barefeats.com/mbps04.html
The 4Gig RAM limit is more critical than the change in graphics.
For every test that the HD 3000 beat the 320M or matched it, the CPU was largely at play. Jus' sayin'. Though really of the four Macs that ship sans a discrete GPU, the only one where it is sorely missed is the 13" MacBook Pro. For everyone else, the difference between the 320M and the HD 3000 won't matter at all.
I think you need to define very simple, because the MBA can run about everything. Lets face it, computers have been capable of running pretty much anything for the last decade, the upgrades stopped being as meaningful as they used to be quite some time ago.
I'm a Unix sysadmin, the MBA is my only computer. I do casual gaming on it, I use it to do graphics for my website using CS5, I use it for my work (using a VM), I use it to do my hobby coding, I use it to watch TV series and Anime in 720p. It has the upside of being light and small, so carrying it around on the motorcycle for when I'm on stand-by is less of a pain than 15" MBP or even a 13" MBP (which I had before, when it was called the Unibody Macbook).
Call me bat-**** crazy or my needs "simple", but it works for me as a stand-alone computer.
By "run everything", you can't possibly mean run games at "higher than medium" settings, nor edit lots of HD footage in something like Final Cut Pro. Though that's not what YOU use YOUR MacBook Air for, and really that's fine. I'm not trying to invalidate your purchase decision, man. I'm saying that on the whole, unless ultraportability ABSOLUTELY HAS TO BE A CONCERN, it's not the best of buys in an already over-priced Mac market. If you handed me $1000 and told me to buy a Mac laptop, I'd buy the white MacBook over the 11.6" Air every time. But that's a difference in opinion and frankly, I'd rather not argue difference in opinions.
Silentwave
Aug 18, 10:21 AM
http://images.anandtech.com/graphs/mac%20pro_081406100848/12798.png
I think this speaks for itself.
When I'm working on one project, that's all my attention to it. When I'd like to encode it, I'd like my however many cores to be at full blast. Sadly, that's not happening at the moment and will remain so until they rewrite h264 encoding.
Like I said, unless people are doing what you do (sending multiple files to be encoded at the same time all the time) they won't benefit from 4, 8, 100 cores.
Now if anyone can show benchmarks that show FCP being 40-50% faster on a quad than on a dual when working on a project, I'll shut up :)
Or maybe they have?
Didn't FCP just get updated to optimize it for the Mac Pro?
I think they need the latest version over there and should rerun the test.
I think this speaks for itself.
When I'm working on one project, that's all my attention to it. When I'd like to encode it, I'd like my however many cores to be at full blast. Sadly, that's not happening at the moment and will remain so until they rewrite h264 encoding.
Like I said, unless people are doing what you do (sending multiple files to be encoded at the same time all the time) they won't benefit from 4, 8, 100 cores.
Now if anyone can show benchmarks that show FCP being 40-50% faster on a quad than on a dual when working on a project, I'll shut up :)
Or maybe they have?
Didn't FCP just get updated to optimize it for the Mac Pro?
I think they need the latest version over there and should rerun the test.
BornAgainMac
Aug 17, 09:39 AM
I don't like Adobe anymore. :mad:
amin
Aug 18, 10:28 PM
Obviously, inherently the iMac design is inferior to the Mac Pro/Powermac.
It may be obvious, but based on your earlier statement that a Conroe iMac would be "able to crunch through" apps faster than a Mac Pro, the obvious seemed worth identifying.
But I think there's a bigger reason why Apple chose to go all quad with the Mac Pro: Apple chose all quad because a duo option would have had the same performance in professional apps (again, excluding handbrake and toast which are the only two examples touted about). A single processor Woodcrest or Conroe option will have the same obtainable CPU power for 90-95% of the professional market for another 6-12 months at the very least.
So you think they put an extra processor in across the line just to be able to say they had a quad? Even the AnandTech article you used as a source showed here (http://www.anandtech.com/mac/showdoc.aspx?i=2816&p=18) that PS took advantage of quad cores in Rosetta
Here's some data regarding the Mac Pro's FSB:
*snip*
What can we take from this? Because of the use of FB-DIMMs, the Mac Pro's effective FSB is that of ~640MHz DDR2 system.
And how does it fare in memory latency?
*snip*
Your points about latency and FSB are not separate negatives as you have made them. They are redundant theoretical concerns with implications of unclear practical significance.
As for bandwidth, although the Mac Pro has a load of theoretical bandwidth, the efficiency is an abysmal 20%. In real use a DDR2 system has 72% more usable bandwidth. (source here (http://www.anandtech.com/mac/showdoc.aspx?i=2816&p=11))
I don't know bout you, but if I were a heavy user of memory intensive apps such as Photoshop, I'd be worried. Worried in the sense that a Conroe would be noticeably faster.
I am not worried. Everything anyone has come up with on this issue are taken from that same AnandTech article. Until I see more real-world testing, I will not be convinced. Also, I expect that more pro apps such as PS will be able to utilize quad cores in the near future, if they aren't already doing so. Finally, even if Conroe is faster, Woodcrest is fast enough for me ;).
Memory issues aside, Woodcrests are faster than Conroes, 2.4% on average (source here (http://www.anandtech.com/showdoc.aspx?i=2795&p=6))
I think you misread that. They were comparing Core 2 Extreme (not Woodcrest) and Conroe to see whether the increased FSB of the former would make much difference.
It may be obvious, but based on your earlier statement that a Conroe iMac would be "able to crunch through" apps faster than a Mac Pro, the obvious seemed worth identifying.
But I think there's a bigger reason why Apple chose to go all quad with the Mac Pro: Apple chose all quad because a duo option would have had the same performance in professional apps (again, excluding handbrake and toast which are the only two examples touted about). A single processor Woodcrest or Conroe option will have the same obtainable CPU power for 90-95% of the professional market for another 6-12 months at the very least.
So you think they put an extra processor in across the line just to be able to say they had a quad? Even the AnandTech article you used as a source showed here (http://www.anandtech.com/mac/showdoc.aspx?i=2816&p=18) that PS took advantage of quad cores in Rosetta
Here's some data regarding the Mac Pro's FSB:
*snip*
What can we take from this? Because of the use of FB-DIMMs, the Mac Pro's effective FSB is that of ~640MHz DDR2 system.
And how does it fare in memory latency?
*snip*
Your points about latency and FSB are not separate negatives as you have made them. They are redundant theoretical concerns with implications of unclear practical significance.
As for bandwidth, although the Mac Pro has a load of theoretical bandwidth, the efficiency is an abysmal 20%. In real use a DDR2 system has 72% more usable bandwidth. (source here (http://www.anandtech.com/mac/showdoc.aspx?i=2816&p=11))
I don't know bout you, but if I were a heavy user of memory intensive apps such as Photoshop, I'd be worried. Worried in the sense that a Conroe would be noticeably faster.
I am not worried. Everything anyone has come up with on this issue are taken from that same AnandTech article. Until I see more real-world testing, I will not be convinced. Also, I expect that more pro apps such as PS will be able to utilize quad cores in the near future, if they aren't already doing so. Finally, even if Conroe is faster, Woodcrest is fast enough for me ;).
Memory issues aside, Woodcrests are faster than Conroes, 2.4% on average (source here (http://www.anandtech.com/showdoc.aspx?i=2795&p=6))
I think you misread that. They were comparing Core 2 Extreme (not Woodcrest) and Conroe to see whether the increased FSB of the former would make much difference.
Rychy
Apr 10, 12:51 AM
Can't wait to see how it works.
Wow. You'd think a FCP Users group would be able to track down a halfway decent graphic artist to make a their banner graphic...
lol. I was thinking the same thing.
Wow. You'd think a FCP Users group would be able to track down a halfway decent graphic artist to make a their banner graphic...
lol. I was thinking the same thing.
Chaszmyr
Aug 15, 11:39 AM
That photoshop test is insane!
BC2009
Apr 12, 06:06 PM
Are you serious? Your comments are not only incorrect but just flat out ignorant. Whoever said that angry birds is not available on android obviously can't read or just does not know how to use the app store because I have all three on my Thunderbolt and they are full versions and they were free to boot. So before you go make comments about people being ignorant you might want to do some research first!!
Perhaps you should re-read my post since obviously you either "can't read" or you are "flat out ignorant". I said that my brother-in-law who loves Android claimed that Angry Birds was only available on Android and not iOS. I never contested that it was available on Android, only that I had to show him that it was in fact available on iOS in many variants (Free, Paid, HD for iPad, Seasons, etc...). It was my brother-in-law's belief that this game was not available to iPhone and iPad users. I had to tell him that it was available on iOS long before Android.
Perhaps you should re-read my post since obviously you either "can't read" or you are "flat out ignorant". I said that my brother-in-law who loves Android claimed that Angry Birds was only available on Android and not iOS. I never contested that it was available on Android, only that I had to show him that it was in fact available on iOS in many variants (Free, Paid, HD for iPad, Seasons, etc...). It was my brother-in-law's belief that this game was not available to iPhone and iPad users. I had to tell him that it was available on iOS long before Android.
toddybody
Apr 6, 11:06 AM
You obviously don't know how powerful SB actually is compared to C2D
I think he didnt see the mention of their turbo (auto OC) speed of 2.3Ghz.
I think he didnt see the mention of their turbo (auto OC) speed of 2.3Ghz.
No comments:
Post a Comment