• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

"Apple rewrites history" ..."Still getting its facts wrong"

Actually, you people don't know if it is true or not.

Pressler was the first 65nm chip launched. It does not mean it was the first chip produced using 65nm. Yonah, although launched after, could've been produced first internally.
 
Jobs has the RDF (reality distortion field) working overtime. Anyways, marketing speak. Take it with a grain of salt. It's not as bad as some of the crap coming out of other large corporations but it's certainly far away from the best. Macbook does sound silly though and I think they should have kept the Powerbook name. As always, I think Apple's computers are rooted in their OS. And what's with the Macinteltosh moniker used by Inquirer? Mactel is what most people use.
 
Originally posted by: dmens
How is it wrong? Yonah taped out a month before Cedarmill and booted first.

Originally posted by: dexvx
Actually, you people don't know if it is true or not.

Pressler was the first 65nm chip launched. It does not mean it was the first chip produced using 65nm. Yonah, although launched after, could've been produced first internally.

Yeah... what they said.
 
I went to CES last week with a friend who works for Intel. He claimed that Yonah could have shipped earlier than it did, but that the timing of the January release was better for Intel's purposes. This may be what the claim on the Apple site is alluding to. Unless someone here has some inside knowledge the rest of us aren't aware of, I don't think there is much merit in attacking the credibility of Apple's statement.
 
Originally posted by: tribbles
I went to CES last week with a friend who works for Intel. He claimed that Yonah could have shipped earlier than it did, but that the timing of the January release was better for Intel's purposes. This may be what the claim on the Apple site is alluding to. Unless someone here has some inside knowledge the rest of us aren't aware of, I don't think there is much merit in attacking the credibility of Apple's statement.

Intel Yonah Performance Preview - Part I: The Exclusive First Look at Yonah
Review | Nov 30th, 2005 2:50 AM
We've had Yonah for a month, but we finally got a motherboard that it'll work in.

Feasible and evidenced from multiple sources that Yonah has been around a while.
 
Back
Top