What do you mean for something to be 0.5x faster than something else? Do you really think the single core iMac G5 is twice as fast as the dual core iMac Core Duo? Otherwise, if you mean 0.5x = 50% faster, then your numbers are basically the same as theirs, because everyone else says 1.5x as fast when they mean that (not 0.5x as fast).danny_w said:And I wonder how long before the 4-5x faster claim is debunked? And 2-3x faster for the iMac? Don't anybody believe it. I'd say 0.5-1.5x faster for iMac, 2-3x faster for MacBook. Intel benchmarks are notoriously offbase.
How is it strange? I think 900 is actually a stranger res. than 960 because it's not divisible by 8.MacRumorUser said:Looks like they've sorted out the screen, notice that it's 1440x900 and not the strange 960 res of the G4 1.67
You must have stairs in your housestonyc said:Don't know if it sucks that bad... but I'll miss Powerbook definitely.
No more P-P-P-Powerbook... hello, M-M-MacBook.
Because apple were the only crowd to use the 960 res.. And alas this is the screen that has been giving people so many problems...HiRez said:How is it strange? I think 900 is actually a stranger res. than 960 because it's not divisible by 8.