New posts

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="eburness" data-source="post: 42100">Ok, as a PC user, this seems like an obvious thing to do, so maybe I'm missing somethign, but here goes.If Apple (or any maker of any notebook), wants to improve performance of it's notebooks while not having to sacrifice significant battery life each time they add a faster CPU, why don't they simply eschew raw CPU mhz for from front-side bus speed?????In my time on both Intel and AMD based systems, increasing the FSB has made an enormous difference in system performance. In fact, my mom's 1.8ghz athlon with a DDR FSB of 266mhz is not nearly as fast in tons of situations (games, photoshop, web browsing, overall system performance) as the chip is when I downclock it to 1.6ghz, but up the FSB to 400mhz or higher.That said, couldn't Apple make significantly more powerful notebooks if it simply upped the FSB of it's memory and chipset?? Honestly, a 1ghz CPU running at a FSB of 400 or 450 or 500mhz (or even higher) (which is more than doable with today's memory) would smoke the bejeezus out of, say, a 1.0-1.33 ghz CPU with a 266 or 333fsb. On top of that, keeping the chip at a lower speed would keep battery life long. It seems to me that Apple should stop worrying a/b the raw ghz (don't get me wrong, however, more is certainly better) of it's notebooks and simply name their peformance levels A, B, C, D, etc, and then let the performance of the system be (along with the existing sex appeal), the main selling point.I hope I didn't say something you all alreayd have said or sounded arrogant or antogonizing, just that I think apple generally makes wonderful products and could increase their reputation as innovators if they pursued this particular niche of notebook technology.</blockquote>

Verification: How many occurrences of a n-u-m-b-e-r between "d" and "f" in this example...(sdgs6ngklu3gd#f9%)?