Then it's not a mobile Pentium 4 processor. Intel don't sell mobile P4 processors with speeds that low. It's a Pentium M processor.
And I think that 7 hours battery life is not unreasonable, if you were really careful and weren't doing anything battery-draining like burning DVDs or video editing.
Well, it seems like most people who argue about "should of" vs. "should have" need to find out WHY it is even "should have" in the first place.
The way English (and similarly, French) is conjugated (you do know what that word means, yes?) is that the word "have" is used to denote past tense, NOT possession, which is the biggest error people make in assuming that "should have" doesn't make sense. For example, in English, a phrase like "I ate" can also be expressed as "I have eaten" or "I've eaten" NOT "I've ate" which is UGLY. In French, it is "J'ai mangé" which also literally means "I have eaten".
That's why "should of" is not English evolving, it's LAZINESS. To the people who say that "of" should mean the same as "have", then does the phrase "I of eaten" or "I of finished killing that idiot" sound right to you? What about "I could of asked that girl out" or "I would of voted Bush, but he's a moron"?
The English language evolves, granted, but it only changes if the changes are a progression of English, NOT because it's common usage. Otherwise we would be spelling "You" as "U" and "like" as "lyke" and not bother with capital letters.
Another example: phrases like "Googling" are _added_ but it does not change the grammatical structures of English...actually, if you noticed it still adheres to correct grammar - "Google that", "I googled this", "I will google", etc.
In regards to laptops, by the time Apple and the other developers release x86 versions of their software, there would most likely be a G5 (or G6) Powerbook available by then.
And using Itanium? Sounds like a great idea. Except that the G5 and G6 chips will be much much much cheaper than the Itanium. So it's pointless if they want to build more affordable Macs.
It's surprised me that no-one has actually brought this up yet.
Since the 64-bitness of the G5 and Panther/Tiger's new 64-bit support was loudly trumpeted, it would be extremely stupid to go with an Intel 64-bit chip. It's common knowledge that the EM64T chips suffer HUGE performance hits in 64-bit mode, while Athlons are much much faster in 64-bit mode and everyone knows that the PPC is already designed for 64-bit. So why go Intel? Apple should be talking to AMD instead.
It seems like that the people who believe that the G5s in the Macs will be replaced by an Intel x86 chip curiously neglected this fact...most of the things that people have based their opinions on are to do with Intel's 32-bit architecture, and fail to consider that Apple are starting to move to 64-bit.
And after the pain of the 680x0 switch to PPC, Apple wouldn't want to go down that path again. For starters, PPC emulation, even with the fastest Athlon 64/EM64T processors would be slower than the fastest G4 processors! So what would the point of that be?
And it would be even longer before the emulation reaches current G5 speeds. By then, IBM would have already released a much faster G5 - or even the G6 chip!
And also, it would take anywhere from months to years before the vendors of professional applications(Adobe, Microsoft, Macromedia, even Apple itself) would release x86-compatible versions of their software. Sure, most people say that they "just need to recompile it for x86" but how long did it take before OS X-compatible versions of OS 9 software (Quark I am looking at you) came out, even though they both used Carbon?
That's why I highly doubt apple will move away from the G5 to an Intel-based x86 processor. Switching to x86 would put Apple back a few years...and lose the ground that they had already mostly made up to Intel and AMD...and I highly doubt any sane company would want to do that.
If the OS X kernel is soooo slow being based on Mach, then why does it offer the lowest latencies in audio recording?
Why are almost all of the major audio production houses (and home studio operators) use Macs? Pro Tools is tuned to run best on a Mac, Logic is Mac-only.
Slashdot Mirror
Then it's not a mobile Pentium 4 processor. Intel don't sell mobile P4 processors with speeds that low. It's a Pentium M processor.
And I think that 7 hours battery life is not unreasonable, if you were really careful and weren't doing anything battery-draining like burning DVDs or video editing.
Well I believe excemption would be an exception to that. Or is it exemption?
Well, it seems like most people who argue about "should of" vs. "should have" need to find out WHY it is even "should have" in the first place.
The way English (and similarly, French) is conjugated (you do know what that word means, yes?) is that the word "have" is used to denote past tense, NOT possession, which is the biggest error people make in assuming that "should have" doesn't make sense. For example, in English, a phrase like "I ate" can also be expressed as "I have eaten" or "I've eaten" NOT "I've ate" which is UGLY. In French, it is "J'ai mangé" which also literally means "I have eaten".
That's why "should of" is not English evolving, it's LAZINESS. To the people who say that "of" should mean the same as "have", then does the phrase "I of eaten" or "I of finished killing that idiot" sound right to you? What about "I could of asked that girl out" or "I would of voted Bush, but he's a moron"?
The English language evolves, granted, but it only changes if the changes are a progression of English, NOT because it's common usage. Otherwise we would be spelling "You" as "U" and "like" as "lyke" and not bother with capital letters.
Another example: phrases like "Googling" are _added_ but it does not change the grammatical structures of English...actually, if you noticed it still adheres to correct grammar - "Google that", "I googled this", "I will google", etc.
In regards to laptops, by the time Apple and the other developers release x86 versions of their software, there would most likely be a G5 (or G6) Powerbook available by then.
And using Itanium? Sounds like a great idea. Except that the G5 and G6 chips will be much much much cheaper than the Itanium. So it's pointless if they want to build more affordable Macs.
It's surprised me that no-one has actually brought this up yet.
Since the 64-bitness of the G5 and Panther/Tiger's new 64-bit support was loudly trumpeted, it would be extremely stupid to go with an Intel 64-bit chip. It's common knowledge that the EM64T chips suffer HUGE performance hits in 64-bit mode, while Athlons are much much faster in 64-bit mode and everyone knows that the PPC is already designed for 64-bit. So why go Intel? Apple should be talking to AMD instead.
It seems like that the people who believe that the G5s in the Macs will be replaced by an Intel x86 chip curiously neglected this fact...most of the things that people have based their opinions on are to do with Intel's 32-bit architecture, and fail to consider that Apple are starting to move to 64-bit.
And after the pain of the 680x0 switch to PPC, Apple wouldn't want to go down that path again. For starters, PPC emulation, even with the fastest Athlon 64/EM64T processors would be slower than the fastest G4 processors! So what would the point of that be?
And it would be even longer before the emulation reaches current G5 speeds. By then, IBM would have already released a much faster G5 - or even the G6 chip!
And also, it would take anywhere from months to years before the vendors of professional applications(Adobe, Microsoft, Macromedia, even Apple itself) would release x86-compatible versions of their software. Sure, most people say that they "just need to recompile it for x86" but how long did it take before OS X-compatible versions of OS 9 software (Quark I am looking at you) came out, even though they both used Carbon?
That's why I highly doubt apple will move away from the G5 to an Intel-based x86 processor. Switching to x86 would put Apple back a few years...and lose the ground that they had already mostly made up to Intel and AMD...and I highly doubt any sane company would want to do that.
If the OS X kernel is soooo slow being based on Mach, then why does it offer the lowest latencies in audio recording? Why are almost all of the major audio production houses (and home studio operators) use Macs? Pro Tools is tuned to run best on a Mac, Logic is Mac-only.