But it didn't?
I assume it did, but in any event I don't care that it doesn't have
2 g of memory
But it didn't?
arm-based 3-core CPU? hmm.. something really odd, to be honest
Hmm.. this is now tempting me to retire the old iPad 2 and get and Air 2![]()
While all X versions so far had extra graphics power for the same (or slightly higher clocked) CPU performance.This will upset the posters in another thread that insisted that the X versions of Apple chips mean quad-core.
Is someone forcing you to buy the base model? You are properly informed about the implications, after all.That the base storage config is still only 16GB and it should be at least 32 or 64GB.
I am far from a fanboy. It was a post made in jest. Lighten the hell up.
Exactly. STILL not enough of a reason to upgrade from my iPad 4, which works just fine, thank you very much. If I didn't have one, I would get this in a heartbeat, but for now I'll hold off until these iPad Pro rumors either come true or die.
Just imagine if Apple were using 8-core processors running at 2+ GHz and 3GB of RAM like some of their "competitors" HAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAAHHA, it would be a bloodbath.
And you guys call me crazy when I said the Macbook Air is destined to use the Apple ARM.
arm-based 3-core CPU? hmm.. something really odd, to be honest
The iPad air 2 crushes my 2010 MacBook Pro. This is how far we've come...
The issue isn't lack of power, it's that apps wouldn't run unless they were all recompiled. And mac developers won't go for that.
Amusing response to an accusation of being too defensive. Way to prove his point.
That was my first guess. Disabling a core dramatically improves yield rates.
The issue isn't lack of power, it's that apps wouldn't run unless they were all recompiled. And mac developers won't go for that.