HecubusPro
Sep 2, 05:18 PM
Is it weird to have a special event in SF on the day the Paris Expo starts?
Perhaps is just being done in conjunction with the Paris expo. That's what I gathered anyway.
Perhaps is just being done in conjunction with the Paris expo. That's what I gathered anyway.
Coolerking
Sep 8, 08:35 AM
Because I don't know much about computers- can Leopard run on just Core Duo processors or does it need to be Core 2 Duo?
asdf542
Apr 14, 01:44 PM
I was asking you what I thought would be an easy question for you to answer. I'll ask again, it will work with any USB device, do you think that is an incentive for drive vendors to invest in it? I'll wait.
Yeah, it is. USB 3.0 is not that big of a step up from USB 2.0 so those that really need the extra bandwidth will not bother with it and go straight to Thunderbolt. Simple as that. Leave your rinky dink Toys R Us low bandwidth peripherals to USB and leave the big boy peripherals to Thunderbolt.
And I've posted no strawman arguments. I didn't insult you either. It was an observation. Reading difficulty is a problem, sure, but it is a a challenge that many people face. I am hopeful that those with this limitation can better themselves perhaps by taking some courses. Dialog is always better with someone that understands and can follow the discussion.Sure you have, you've completely ignored my other post then changed the subject to reading comprehension to smokescreen the topic at hand. Oh and give me a break with your non-insult ********. You have been making jabs about short buses and taking comprehension classes over a Thunderbolt and USB discussion. If anything you are the one that needs to take some classes, maybe not on comprehension but I'm sure you get the idea.
To properly recap, I believe it could be a repeat of FW and it could end up being considered 'Mac only'. I know it is subtle that a claim it will be DOA (well, subtle like a baseball bat, I guess), but it shouldn't be this difficult for you to understand. You are really, truly, picking the wrong fight. I think we actually agree on a lot of points. I'd like it to succeed, but can see things that might be obstacles. You don't see those as obstacles or perhaps don't see them at all. But, really, stop arguing against things I never said.Actually let's do a real recap:
You agree with a claim that Thunderbolt will be Mac only
I respond with an article that simply states it won't be
You respond with the reason it won't take off as manufacturers will have to add it separately
Econgeek tells you it's a completely different scenario because they don't need a license through Apple
I tell you Intel will be supporting both
You then start with your strawman argument and ignore a portion of what I stated
You also follow that up with some insults
I respond with video proof of why Thunderbolt will be popular with many devices
You ignore then respond with more insults
Yeah, it is. USB 3.0 is not that big of a step up from USB 2.0 so those that really need the extra bandwidth will not bother with it and go straight to Thunderbolt. Simple as that. Leave your rinky dink Toys R Us low bandwidth peripherals to USB and leave the big boy peripherals to Thunderbolt.
And I've posted no strawman arguments. I didn't insult you either. It was an observation. Reading difficulty is a problem, sure, but it is a a challenge that many people face. I am hopeful that those with this limitation can better themselves perhaps by taking some courses. Dialog is always better with someone that understands and can follow the discussion.Sure you have, you've completely ignored my other post then changed the subject to reading comprehension to smokescreen the topic at hand. Oh and give me a break with your non-insult ********. You have been making jabs about short buses and taking comprehension classes over a Thunderbolt and USB discussion. If anything you are the one that needs to take some classes, maybe not on comprehension but I'm sure you get the idea.
To properly recap, I believe it could be a repeat of FW and it could end up being considered 'Mac only'. I know it is subtle that a claim it will be DOA (well, subtle like a baseball bat, I guess), but it shouldn't be this difficult for you to understand. You are really, truly, picking the wrong fight. I think we actually agree on a lot of points. I'd like it to succeed, but can see things that might be obstacles. You don't see those as obstacles or perhaps don't see them at all. But, really, stop arguing against things I never said.Actually let's do a real recap:
You agree with a claim that Thunderbolt will be Mac only
I respond with an article that simply states it won't be
You respond with the reason it won't take off as manufacturers will have to add it separately
Econgeek tells you it's a completely different scenario because they don't need a license through Apple
I tell you Intel will be supporting both
You then start with your strawman argument and ignore a portion of what I stated
You also follow that up with some insults
I respond with video proof of why Thunderbolt will be popular with many devices
You ignore then respond with more insults
MrFirework
Oct 27, 01:19 PM
I guess I'm at a loss for what rights we have actually lost under the Bush Presidency...
BUT... BUT... BUT...
...uhhhh...
...but... ummmmmm...
...he's really STUPID!
;)
BUT... BUT... BUT...
...uhhhh...
...but... ummmmmm...
...he's really STUPID!
;)
HecubusPro
Aug 28, 06:08 PM
Quote:
"Originally Posted by X5-452
So, uh.... PowerBook G5's tomorrow?"
Ha, it makes me laugh still, 'cause it annoys other people..! :p
You certainly know how to make friends, sir.
"Originally Posted by X5-452
So, uh.... PowerBook G5's tomorrow?"
Ha, it makes me laugh still, 'cause it annoys other people..! :p
You certainly know how to make friends, sir.
Gasu E.
Apr 22, 08:34 AM
I'm amazed that no-one is seeing the very dangerous path we could be heading down here. Will people only see it when it's too late?
Are we looking into the jaws of the future where you pay, but never OWN anything? Music, Movies, Apps.
You pay to have the right to listen/watch/use the data.
The data is never downloaded to your device to do as you wish, it's always held by the owners. or distributors.
I can see this coming like a flashing red warning sign.
You never OWNED any of this stuff. You owned the physical media, and you had an unlimited license to you. The technology is just clarifying this.
If you had actually owned it, you could have copied it as much as you wanted-- legally-- and resold the copies to others. You have been capable of doing this, but it was illegal; it also was difficult to enforce the law. Now the technology is actually starting to match your legal rights. It's actually wonderful. You are not losing anything you had legally, but the true owners (the content creators and the people who support them financially) can stop getting ripped off by criminals.
Are we looking into the jaws of the future where you pay, but never OWN anything? Music, Movies, Apps.
You pay to have the right to listen/watch/use the data.
The data is never downloaded to your device to do as you wish, it's always held by the owners. or distributors.
I can see this coming like a flashing red warning sign.
You never OWNED any of this stuff. You owned the physical media, and you had an unlimited license to you. The technology is just clarifying this.
If you had actually owned it, you could have copied it as much as you wanted-- legally-- and resold the copies to others. You have been capable of doing this, but it was illegal; it also was difficult to enforce the law. Now the technology is actually starting to match your legal rights. It's actually wonderful. You are not losing anything you had legally, but the true owners (the content creators and the people who support them financially) can stop getting ripped off by criminals.
shigzeo
Apr 19, 10:45 AM
And then Apple would ruin Samsung, cratering them with winning lawsuits. Also, Samsung would lose their reputation in the supply chain as well as their credibility, and it would likely damage the Korean economy as a whole, and South Korea politically as well. You're talking about one company causing problems for tens of millions of consumers, and a mountain of negative news. If Samsung wanted to be bankrupted within a decade, this would be a way, for sure.
That would be true if and only IF Samsung were an electronics company only. Again, they own everything in South Korea from grocery stores to construction companies, to apartments, to cars, to electronics. The last two are their newest branches. Samsung are doing well in every sector, but you have to remember that firstly, they are a grocery company, then they are everything else.
Samsung's total assets dwarf Apple many times over. There is no fear of them falling down (unfortunately).
That would be true if and only IF Samsung were an electronics company only. Again, they own everything in South Korea from grocery stores to construction companies, to apartments, to cars, to electronics. The last two are their newest branches. Samsung are doing well in every sector, but you have to remember that firstly, they are a grocery company, then they are everything else.
Samsung's total assets dwarf Apple many times over. There is no fear of them falling down (unfortunately).
twostep665
Apr 4, 12:08 PM
...Eh, shoot back? But not in the head... A head shot, geez... That wasn't meant to stop him, that was meant to kill him...
Have you ever fired a gun under pressure? How do you know that he was aiming at the head. When your life is on the line and a weapon is in your hand, your accuracy may not be perfect. My opinion is the security guard did the public a service by eliminating this scum.
Have you ever fired a gun under pressure? How do you know that he was aiming at the head. When your life is on the line and a weapon is in your hand, your accuracy may not be perfect. My opinion is the security guard did the public a service by eliminating this scum.
Silentwave
Jul 16, 04:09 AM
I got do a firmware upgrade and get on that X2 sales action. I just hope it will be fairly priced like the non X2's.
Opps forgot to post the cnet review. http://reviews.cnet.com/Dell_XPS_700_Intel_Core_2_Extreme_X6800/4505-3118_7-31972975.html?tag=cnetfd.sd
Hrm...I don't trust cnet: looking at their comparisons I was struck by the XPS 700 with the X6800 being so much faster than the intel board testbed for the X6800. Then I saw what was going on....they skewed the results by using only half the RAM in the X6800.
Of course considering how it performed despite this, i'm very glad we're using intel core :D
Opps forgot to post the cnet review. http://reviews.cnet.com/Dell_XPS_700_Intel_Core_2_Extreme_X6800/4505-3118_7-31972975.html?tag=cnetfd.sd
Hrm...I don't trust cnet: looking at their comparisons I was struck by the XPS 700 with the X6800 being so much faster than the intel board testbed for the X6800. Then I saw what was going on....they skewed the results by using only half the RAM in the X6800.
Of course considering how it performed despite this, i'm very glad we're using intel core :D
Tommyg117
Sep 26, 12:14 PM
Well, it looks like I wont be getting this phone now. Sorry, I'm Verizon and so are all the people I talk to, so I'm not gonna switch for this.
roland.g
Mar 30, 11:33 AM
They hire lawyers. They hire linguists. They hire PR agents. They hire advertising companies. They hire survey companies. All that money and they still don't know that they should invest in doing some real research and development, and innovation instead. Brings me back to that old, tried but true, Apple commercial from the "Get a Mac" campaign...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mjo629JpTyE
I think it is all those commercials that has made M$ say "Let's dump as much $$ at making whatever we can difficult for Steve & Co."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mjo629JpTyE
I think it is all those commercials that has made M$ say "Let's dump as much $$ at making whatever we can difficult for Steve & Co."
mactactic
Apr 14, 12:38 PM
I knew this was coming , knowing when to upgrade to a new mac
PRICELESS !!! :D:apple:
PRICELESS !!! :D:apple:
ReanimationLP
Sep 12, 02:30 PM
The headphones look different on the specs page, new earbuds mayhaps?
munkery
Mar 18, 08:10 PM
Linux = ~1%
Malware, in relation to Linux, shows that the market share argument is a fallacy.
Linux dominantes the segment of the market share that includes high value server targets.
Controlling a large number of servers would be much more profitable than infecting a large number of home users.
For example, take control of a large number of servers and set up a web filter proxy on each server to modify the affiliate tags associated with advertising moving through the server to direct the profit of the advertising away from the sites hosting the ads to the individual that controls the server. With this type of attack, exploiting one server is the equivalent of exploiting every machine that passes data through that server.
More info here. (https://help.ubuntu.com/community/Antivirus#Possible%20reasons%20linux%20is%20less%20prone%20to%20malware) -> The root user vs normal usage counter argument also applies to Mac OS X.
Malware, in relation to Linux, shows that the market share argument is a fallacy.
Linux dominantes the segment of the market share that includes high value server targets.
Controlling a large number of servers would be much more profitable than infecting a large number of home users.
For example, take control of a large number of servers and set up a web filter proxy on each server to modify the affiliate tags associated with advertising moving through the server to direct the profit of the advertising away from the sites hosting the ads to the individual that controls the server. With this type of attack, exploiting one server is the equivalent of exploiting every machine that passes data through that server.
More info here. (https://help.ubuntu.com/community/Antivirus#Possible%20reasons%20linux%20is%20less%20prone%20to%20malware) -> The root user vs normal usage counter argument also applies to Mac OS X.
retroactiv
Mar 29, 11:52 AM
Since 1984:
Cmd-X = Cut
Cmd-C = Copy
Cmd-V = Past
Grab will snap a picture of a window, the entire screen etc. There is also print to PDF.
CMD-X does NOT cut a file and let you move it. I am in SL right now. DOESN'T work.
Cmd-X = Cut
Cmd-C = Copy
Cmd-V = Past
Grab will snap a picture of a window, the entire screen etc. There is also print to PDF.
CMD-X does NOT cut a file and let you move it. I am in SL right now. DOESN'T work.
vitaboy
Aug 24, 04:52 AM
The cost of litigation would not even remotely approached 100 million. The cost of losing (ie, having a judgement against apple), now that would have probably exceeded 100 million. When a company is not sure about it's position, the best thing is to settle. You don't see IBM settling their Linux suit, do you?. And SCOunix hasn't even paid close to 100 mil in lawyers fees yet and they are fighting a losing battle..
I think you are seriously underestimating how expensive these type of patent battles can be. Check out the following story:
http://www.internetnews.com/bus-news/article.php/3402321
Regarding its ongoing legal battles with IBM (Quote, Chart) and Novell over Linux code claims, SCO announced an agreement with its legal firm that would cap its legal costs at $31 million. As part of the deal, SCO's legal firm Boies, Schiller & Flexner could be awarded between 20 and 33 percent of any potential settlement that may arise from SCO's claims.
So SCO obviously expected its legal costs to spiral beyond $31 million to make a special deal with its law firm to cap costs. The fact they are willing to give as much as 33% of any potential winnings with the legal firm indicates that the final tally could easily approach $100 million if not for the cap.
It is quite clear that Apple would have made life very, very expensive and excruciating for Creative's legal team. $100 million in legal costs is not unrealistic considering that you not only had the original suit, but countersuits by Apple involving 4 bonafide patents.
I think you are seriously underestimating how expensive these type of patent battles can be. Check out the following story:
http://www.internetnews.com/bus-news/article.php/3402321
Regarding its ongoing legal battles with IBM (Quote, Chart) and Novell over Linux code claims, SCO announced an agreement with its legal firm that would cap its legal costs at $31 million. As part of the deal, SCO's legal firm Boies, Schiller & Flexner could be awarded between 20 and 33 percent of any potential settlement that may arise from SCO's claims.
So SCO obviously expected its legal costs to spiral beyond $31 million to make a special deal with its law firm to cap costs. The fact they are willing to give as much as 33% of any potential winnings with the legal firm indicates that the final tally could easily approach $100 million if not for the cap.
It is quite clear that Apple would have made life very, very expensive and excruciating for Creative's legal team. $100 million in legal costs is not unrealistic considering that you not only had the original suit, but countersuits by Apple involving 4 bonafide patents.
theelysium
Mar 30, 11:54 AM
I'll say it again "App Store" is a generic term, I think everyone should be able to use it.. I hope Apple doesn't win this one.. If someone used "Mac App Store", completely understandable..
It's not generic they coined it. It's theres.
It's not generic they coined it. It's theres.
snebes
Apr 4, 12:00 PM
How sad,
I mean a person lost his life because of his actions, and the guard now has to live with the fact that he took a life. All for what - some iToys? Doesn't seem worth it. :(
I don't mean to be off-topic with this, nor am I pro-guns or anything, but the security guard was protecting himself from people that had no respect for life to begin with. Would your story be the same if the felons killed the security guard? or if they were robbing your house?
I mean a person lost his life because of his actions, and the guard now has to live with the fact that he took a life. All for what - some iToys? Doesn't seem worth it. :(
I don't mean to be off-topic with this, nor am I pro-guns or anything, but the security guard was protecting himself from people that had no respect for life to begin with. Would your story be the same if the felons killed the security guard? or if they were robbing your house?
paradox00
Apr 14, 01:27 PM
It's pretty funny that people think that TB is designed to replace USB and therefore competing against it. Saying that is like suggesting that PCIe and DP are competing against USB, because that's what TB is. If your computer doesn't have USB 3.0 and you want it, what do you plug the USB 3.0 controller card into? PCIe of course... how is USB 3.0 competing with the thing it plugs into???
Intel announcing that their future chipsets will support TB and USB 3.0 is great news. It makes a monitor (connected to a computer through a single cable) with a USB 3.0 dock possible and it means all Intel based PCs will ship with TB standard.
TB isn't there to replace USB mice. It's there to provide high speed access to raid arrays, enable universal docking stations with a full array of ports (think USB, eSata, HDMI, audio, etc) connected to a computer through a single cable, and allow laptops to better utilize external graphics cards. The possibilities of extending the PCIe bus outside of the computer are limitless, I can't wait to see what people dream up (especially as speeds ramp up).
USB and TB are largely complimentary. One exception is external hard drives of course and TB is far superior in that aspect (theres a reason raid controllers are plugged into PCIe). Why people are opposed to this is beyond me.
Intel announcing that their future chipsets will support TB and USB 3.0 is great news. It makes a monitor (connected to a computer through a single cable) with a USB 3.0 dock possible and it means all Intel based PCs will ship with TB standard.
TB isn't there to replace USB mice. It's there to provide high speed access to raid arrays, enable universal docking stations with a full array of ports (think USB, eSata, HDMI, audio, etc) connected to a computer through a single cable, and allow laptops to better utilize external graphics cards. The possibilities of extending the PCIe bus outside of the computer are limitless, I can't wait to see what people dream up (especially as speeds ramp up).
USB and TB are largely complimentary. One exception is external hard drives of course and TB is far superior in that aspect (theres a reason raid controllers are plugged into PCIe). Why people are opposed to this is beyond me.
GregA
Sep 15, 08:33 PM
I believe this is because of the pricing. Europe is much cheaper when it comes to price-per-minute.
Also in the US and Canada, you pay to receive a phone call. Not so in Europe, or Australia... if you only answer calls it costs you nothing.
Many people here buy a cheap phone on a cheap plan and say "It's for others to contact me, and for emergencies". Of course in reality someone pays to call them, and when they make their occassional call it costs a lot... still, the concept removes the barrier to people buying a phone.
The main thing I've noticed travelling is there's far more young people with cell phones here than in the US. btw... Australia has more active cellphones than people now.
Also in the US and Canada, you pay to receive a phone call. Not so in Europe, or Australia... if you only answer calls it costs you nothing.
Many people here buy a cheap phone on a cheap plan and say "It's for others to contact me, and for emergencies". Of course in reality someone pays to call them, and when they make their occassional call it costs a lot... still, the concept removes the barrier to people buying a phone.
The main thing I've noticed travelling is there's far more young people with cell phones here than in the US. btw... Australia has more active cellphones than people now.
dwman
Apr 4, 11:54 AM
The security guard just saved CA taxpayers a nice chunk of change.
munkery
Mar 22, 08:35 PM
Kernel
A privilege checking issue existed in the i386_set_ldt system call's handling of call gates. A local user may be able to execute arbitrary code with system privileges. This issue is addressed by disallowing creation of call gate entries via i386_set_ldt().
Generating a successful malware from that list of vulnerabilities has two requirements:
1) A remote arbitrary code execution vulnerability has to be linked to a local privilege escalation vulnerability.
2) Those vulnerabilities that can be linked together must both be exploitable. Not all vulnerabilities are exploitable.
The only local privilege escalation vulnerability in that update is shown above. To be linked to a remote vulnerability to create a successful malware requires the following:
1) The call function must be used by a process that also has an remote vulnerability so that the vulns can be linked together to install a payload, such as rootkit. It is likely that not all processes will use that call function. Also, that call function is for 32-bit processes and most client side software in Mac OS X that may contain a remote exploit are 64-bit processes.
2) The two vulnerabilities have to be reliably exploitable once linked together as well as being reliably exploitable independently so that they can actually be linked together. Again, not all vulnerabilities are exploitable.
Linking together remote and local exploits is more difficult in Mac OS X than Windows. This is because Windows has far more local privilege escalation exploits than Mac OS X. Another factor is that the different levels of Windows are less insulated from each other than the different levels of Mac OS X. A common method to achieve privilege escalation in Windows is by manipulating registry values.
http://www.exploit-db.com/bypassing-uac-with-user-privilege-under-windows-vista7-mirror/ -> outlines how to exploit win32k.sys vulnerabilities by manipulating registry values.
http://cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvekey.cgi?keyword=win32k -> list of win32k.sys vulnerabilities.
A privilege checking issue existed in the i386_set_ldt system call's handling of call gates. A local user may be able to execute arbitrary code with system privileges. This issue is addressed by disallowing creation of call gate entries via i386_set_ldt().
Generating a successful malware from that list of vulnerabilities has two requirements:
1) A remote arbitrary code execution vulnerability has to be linked to a local privilege escalation vulnerability.
2) Those vulnerabilities that can be linked together must both be exploitable. Not all vulnerabilities are exploitable.
The only local privilege escalation vulnerability in that update is shown above. To be linked to a remote vulnerability to create a successful malware requires the following:
1) The call function must be used by a process that also has an remote vulnerability so that the vulns can be linked together to install a payload, such as rootkit. It is likely that not all processes will use that call function. Also, that call function is for 32-bit processes and most client side software in Mac OS X that may contain a remote exploit are 64-bit processes.
2) The two vulnerabilities have to be reliably exploitable once linked together as well as being reliably exploitable independently so that they can actually be linked together. Again, not all vulnerabilities are exploitable.
Linking together remote and local exploits is more difficult in Mac OS X than Windows. This is because Windows has far more local privilege escalation exploits than Mac OS X. Another factor is that the different levels of Windows are less insulated from each other than the different levels of Mac OS X. A common method to achieve privilege escalation in Windows is by manipulating registry values.
http://www.exploit-db.com/bypassing-uac-with-user-privilege-under-windows-vista7-mirror/ -> outlines how to exploit win32k.sys vulnerabilities by manipulating registry values.
http://cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvekey.cgi?keyword=win32k -> list of win32k.sys vulnerabilities.
TigerWoodsIV
Mar 23, 05:56 PM
Miles you make a great point... You also confirm that Apple better pull them, its a pointless app because if your so drunk then you can't operate a phone let alone an app.
I beg to differ. I can operate my phone quite well and not even remember doing it lol. Although, you just shouldn't be driving drunk so that you have to avoid the checkpoints.
I beg to differ. I can operate my phone quite well and not even remember doing it lol. Although, you just shouldn't be driving drunk so that you have to avoid the checkpoints.
simon.hibbs
Sep 1, 07:06 AM
Core 2 Duo will be the star.
End of Core Solo minis.
With you so far, but I don't think Core 2 Duo is realy all that much of a big deal for Apple in the grand scheme of things. It's a small speed bump, with 64 bit as a bonus extra.
All new redesigned MacBook Pro.
All new iMac design with Conroe inside.
iTunes Media Store Movie Downloads.
I don't believe any of this. The intel MacBook Pros just came out, and the main advantage of the 2 Duo is it's socet compatible with it's predecessor. Why screw aroud with a proven design, when there's absolutely no need. You do that sort of thing when the chipset and whatnot changes and you have to redesign the internals anyway.
The same goes for the iMac, it's a great design. They had a chance to rev the designs when they moved to intel and chose not to. They're not going to rework the internals now just for the sake of it. The next opportunity for that is with the next major rework of the mainboard and peripheral connections, whenever that will be.
As for movie download, it's possible but I think it would be a premature move. Further expansion of their TV show range is much more likely as it fits the casual listening/watching pattern of iPod owners.
Finaly, Merom whatnot are being very much overhyped. The main tech advancements for most users came with Core Duo. iMac and mac Mini prices dropped in the UK in the summer so when Core 2 Duo gets announced you can bet they'll be back up at the release price of the respective hardware platform (iMac, Mini, PBP, etc). Thus you will get more power, but you'll pay for it so bang for buck wise I realy don't think it will make a massive difference.
Simon Hibbs
End of Core Solo minis.
With you so far, but I don't think Core 2 Duo is realy all that much of a big deal for Apple in the grand scheme of things. It's a small speed bump, with 64 bit as a bonus extra.
All new redesigned MacBook Pro.
All new iMac design with Conroe inside.
iTunes Media Store Movie Downloads.
I don't believe any of this. The intel MacBook Pros just came out, and the main advantage of the 2 Duo is it's socet compatible with it's predecessor. Why screw aroud with a proven design, when there's absolutely no need. You do that sort of thing when the chipset and whatnot changes and you have to redesign the internals anyway.
The same goes for the iMac, it's a great design. They had a chance to rev the designs when they moved to intel and chose not to. They're not going to rework the internals now just for the sake of it. The next opportunity for that is with the next major rework of the mainboard and peripheral connections, whenever that will be.
As for movie download, it's possible but I think it would be a premature move. Further expansion of their TV show range is much more likely as it fits the casual listening/watching pattern of iPod owners.
Finaly, Merom whatnot are being very much overhyped. The main tech advancements for most users came with Core Duo. iMac and mac Mini prices dropped in the UK in the summer so when Core 2 Duo gets announced you can bet they'll be back up at the release price of the respective hardware platform (iMac, Mini, PBP, etc). Thus you will get more power, but you'll pay for it so bang for buck wise I realy don't think it will make a massive difference.
Simon Hibbs
