Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
Home
Discussion Groups
General
GeneralPortable MacsHardwareNetworking
Applications
Mac ApplicationsEudoraFirefox / MozillaInternet ExplorerOutlook ExpressMS OfficeEntourageExcelPowerPointWordVirtual PCMedia PlayerOther MS Products
Programming
Mac ProgrammingCodeWarriorPerl
Country Specific
Australian Mac GroupUK Mac Group

Mac Forum / Country Specific / UK Mac Group / May 2008



Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

The new iMacs

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
iBallooka - 06 May 2008 19:31 GMT
Anyone taken delivery of the new 24" iMac 3.6 ghz with the Nvidia
Graphics card...

Our elderly G5's  are due for replacements and we primarly use only CS3
Photoshop and Lightroom gave up on Aperture spinning beach balls
brought frustration and a full swear box...

Be interesting to hear comments on the new imacs using the above and
editing raw images in the real world....

Signature

Mike

Peace and Happiness is a State of Mind....

Chris Ridd - 06 May 2008 19:41 GMT
> Anyone taken delivery of the new 24" iMac 3.6 ghz with the Nvidia
> Graphics card...

3.*0*6, don't forget the 0 :-)

Cheers,

Chris
iBallooka - 06 May 2008 21:38 GMT
>> Anyone taken delivery of the new 24" iMac 3.6 ghz with the Nvidia
>> Graphics card...
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>
> Chris

Whoooooops not till next 3.6 until then 3.06 GHz...
Signature

Mike

Peace and Happiness is a State of Mind....

Woody - 06 May 2008 22:30 GMT
>> Anyone taken delivery of the new 24" iMac 3.6 ghz with the Nvidia
>> Graphics card...
>
> 3.*0*6, don't forget the 0 :-)

Yes. When did we get 3.06 as a measurement. I would just describe that as 3

Signature

Woody

Richard Tobin - 06 May 2008 22:42 GMT
>Yes. When did we get 3.06 as a measurement.

It's because they're multiples of 133MHz.

2.4 = 18x, 2.66 = 20x, 2.8 = 21x, 3.06 = 23x.

-- Richard
:wq
Woody - 06 May 2008 23:37 GMT
> >Yes. When did we get 3.06 as a measurement.
>
> It's because they're multiples of 133MHz.
>
> 2.4 = 18x, 2.66 = 20x, 2.8 = 21x, 3.06 = 23x.

Still, 3 would sound a lot better than 3.06

Signature

Woody

www.alienrat.com

Pd - 07 May 2008 09:14 GMT
> > >Yes. When did we get 3.06 as a measurement.
> >
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>
> Still, 3 would sound a lot better than 3.06

Yebbut, it's important to be able to say "the processor runs at *over* 3
GHz".

Signature

Pd

Woody - 07 May 2008 17:55 GMT
> > > >Yes. When did we get 3.06 as a measurement.
> > >
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> Yebbut, it's important to be able to say "the processor runs at *over* 3
> GHz".

I guess it probably does!

Signature

Woody

www.alienrat.com

 
Sign In
Join
My Latest Posts
My Monitored Threads
My Blog
My Photo Gallery
My Profile
My Homepage

Start New Thread
Enable EMail Alerts
Rate this Thread



©2008 Advenet LLC   Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.