illa romza

31% is a little disappointing for 2x the number of cores. I'm hoping that particular benchmark isn't particularly tuned for multiple cores. I was thinking 60-70% would be more likely. I don't see where all the overhead is coming from. Or it because these aren't true quad-core, but really just dual-duals on the same wafer?

I remember a post that I read on MR some time back. It explained that there are some tasks that we should not be doing but we do out for our own sake; as if they are built into us. There are some tasks which we just do and don't realize we are doing them. They slowly transform into a habit and we can't get them go away just like that.

For eg. quitting of apps. Apple does NOT want us to quit the apps ourselves. They believe its high time the computers become self aware as to what they should be doing and taking care of their user's habits.

You shouldn't care about the installation files and other data. Just drag them out out to the trash and BOOM!.


In my opinion, just like on Windows, its the developers responsibility to attach an uninstaller with their app Or just a simple script which keeps a track of all the files that were dumped in the machine and then just do a recursive remove on all the files and folders and done. It's the fault of developers and not Apple.

Exactly, and I think that contributes to the popularity of the iPhone/iPad devices and even Apple devices in general. A lot of people were bitching about how the implemented multi-tasking in the iOS but frankly, I love it! As long as it does not reduce performance (that should be ensured by the device/software) I don't care how many apps are running in the background. This works (almost) perfectly on my iPhone. Why not bring some of those ideas over to Mac OS? I think it is a step in the right direction, as long as Apple makes sure that it is a proper deinstallation of the app of course.

And to all the lovers of Windows remove program: Usually there is still something left on the HD, even if you deinstalled properly. Something like program folders, registry entries and/or temporary files get left behind.

If they did offer a 23" iMac, that would be their first "HD Ready" iMac. I was just about to buy a 20" ACD for my 20" iMac, because I needed more screen real estate, now I need to wait 2 weeks to see how i'm going to handle that, too. Bloody Hell :)

http://news.com.com/Intel+completes+design+of+Penryn+chip/2100-1006_3-6139487.html

Intel has taped out--or completed the design of--Penryn, a 45-nanometer chip that will be out toward the end of next year.

The company is also in the midst of making its first Penryn samples.

"They aren't out of the fab yet, but they are in the fab," said Mark Bohr, director of process technology at Intel, referring to chip factories, known as "fabs."

Intel showed off a memory chip made on the 45-nanometer process earlier this year.

The Penryn news underscores Intel's expertise in manufacturing. The company has introduced new manufacturing processes every two years. Meanwhile, competitors such as Advanced Micro Devices have had to space out these jumps. Intel started shipping chips made on the 65-nanometer process in October 2005. AMD won't ship its first 65-nano chips until next month.
______________________________________________

Disclaimer: The preceding headline exhibits excessive exuberance. In truth,

"No official details concerning the Penryn chip design were announced this time, however, according to previously published news-stories, the chip code-named Penryn is a 45nm incarnation of the dual-core Intel Core 2 Duo processor for mobile computers (code-named Merom) with SSE4 technology..."

http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/cpu/display/20061127154338.html

But, since Intel has stated that two dual-core dies in a package is the right way to do quad-core at 65nm, which implies that 45 nm is the right way to do quad-core per die, and two quad-cord dies in a package at 45 nm is the right way to do octo-core at 45nm - obviously we'll have a PowerBook G5 next Tuesday.