Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 7th Jul 2005 19:16 UTC
Thread beginning with comment 1257
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.





Member since:
2005-07-06
LOL, 'typical' sounds like the old joke, "how long is a piece of string?"
I would say that Apple already knew about this product well in advance; the issue isn't so much the power consumption NOW but the power consumption later on - when the clock speed starts going up, and the wattage goes up as well, the two will get out of wack.
From what I understand, as Apple shows it on their PR, Apple need something that has equal performance to IBMs future road maps, but without the watt consumption hanging over it; Intel has shown its cards, and Apple likes it - Apple was probably also persuaded by the completely integrated solution - video, audio, wireless etc etc The video may have looked weak now, but I'd say that the future video chipsets by Intel will be a massive improvement - equal to that of the 'value end' Nvidia and ATI priced chipsets.
I think people forget, Intel offered the whole deal - they not only offered the foot long sub, the included a drink and 4 biscuits at no extra charge - thats in comparison to IBM who were just selling the Sub, and required the customer to find the other parts of different vendors.