Got a question about technology? Ask it here. Discussion of hardware, software, TiVos, multi-region DVDs, Windows, Macs, LINUX, hand-helds, iPods, anything tech related. Better than any helpdesk!
I didn't realize it had taken hold in the consumer marketplace. I have never shopped for a new tv seriously, so I haven't noticed.
When I think of "Standby" I think of electronics like cameras and such that can be switched to a "Hot and waiting" mode that powers down the CRT or LCD.
In the old days, TVs had tubes that could be kept warm with an "instant on" feature in up through the 70s. I figured that sort of thing was moot after all-ic tvs came around.
What it looks like they need is a spec for "Standby" that says it can only consume enough energy to keep memory from erasing...or mandate Static Ram, I guess...
they need is a spec for "Standby" that says it can only consume enough energy to keep memory from erasing
Don't forget clocks. And the loss of ability to turn things on with a remote will be annoying.
And the loss of ability to turn things on with a remote will be annoying.
Perhaps that can be kept to a minimum of energy consumption. A device powering up from almost-dead instead of mostly alive would save power, but still provide utility. The response might be a split second slower.
My assumption would be that they are only using as much power to be able to come on and run timers/clocks. But who knows what convenience engineering mandated.
question/poll:
how many playlists do you have on your ipod (and/or itunes)
I'd be able to answer that if iTunes hadn't hosed my entire library last night. Grrrrrrr.
32. Maybe half of those are smart.
15, 7 smart
Intel Dual Core Macs only about 20% faster than the old ones:
Macworld Lab’s tests do show that the new Intel-based iMac is faster than the iMac G5 when running native applications. However, we found that those improvements are generally much less than what Apple claims is a 2x improvement in speed.
Instead, our tests found the new 2.0GHz Core Duo iMac takes rougly 10 to 25 percent less time than the G5 iMac to perform the same native application tasks, albeit with some notable exceptions. (If you'd prefer, that makes the Core Duo iMac 1.1 to 1.3 times as fast.) And we also found that applications that aren’t yet Intel-native—which must run using Apple’s Rosetta code-translation technology—tend to run half as fast as the same applications running natively on the iMac G5.
I was under the impression that Apple and Steve Jobs never claimed it was real world performance.
Ah, yes, here it is. [link]
Testing conducted by Apple in December 2005 using preproduction 20-inch iMac units with 2GHz Intel Core Duo; all other systems were shipping units. All scores are estimated. SPEC is a registered trademark of the Standard Performance Evaluation Corporation (SPEC); see www.spec.org for more information. Benchmarks were compiled using the IBM compiler and a beta version of the Intel compiler for Mac OS.
It doesn't surprise me that a computer manufacturer uses optimal numbers. They pretty much all do.
