rjohnstone
Apr 25, 02:55 PM
On any android device, you can opt out beginning with the setup of the device. It's not hidden in the TOS when you buy the device.
This...
You are explicitly asked if you want Google to collect this information.
You can say NO. It does reduce the accuracy of some programs when you opt out, but YOU have the choice.
You do have the option to enable this feature at any time if you feel you need too.
This...
You are explicitly asked if you want Google to collect this information.
You can say NO. It does reduce the accuracy of some programs when you opt out, but YOU have the choice.
You do have the option to enable this feature at any time if you feel you need too.
rmwebs
Mar 26, 04:43 AM
Looks like they are going for another Snow Leopard (aka disappointingly small) release.
Not sure about what everyone else wants out of the OS, but I certainly don't want ANY of the iOS style features they have announced. I can see launchpad becoming another unused feature (I'm looking at you dashboard!) that people forget about.
I guess we'll know just how committed Apple are to the Mac after this. We already know they couldn't give a damn about the hardware side of the business any more. The final stab in the back would be XCode for windows.
I really do fear that within 3-5 years Apple will have a tiny mac lineup with all focus on iOS. No more yearly OS updates, no more updates to iLife, etc. They make peanuts from it compared to the iOS income.
Not sure about what everyone else wants out of the OS, but I certainly don't want ANY of the iOS style features they have announced. I can see launchpad becoming another unused feature (I'm looking at you dashboard!) that people forget about.
I guess we'll know just how committed Apple are to the Mac after this. We already know they couldn't give a damn about the hardware side of the business any more. The final stab in the back would be XCode for windows.
I really do fear that within 3-5 years Apple will have a tiny mac lineup with all focus on iOS. No more yearly OS updates, no more updates to iLife, etc. They make peanuts from it compared to the iOS income.
notjustjay
Sep 19, 08:38 AM
All you people who keep whining about "But I want 64 bit!!!" need to step back and think about what possible benefit a 64-bit system will give you. Those of you who need to address more than 4 gigs of RAM are excused. The rest of you, tell me WHY you need 64-bit computing.
When they go Merom I want the MBP's and MB's to have useful, practical features. More ports, user-removable hard drive, better battery life, better video card, stuff like that. I'm waiting just as impatiently as everyone else, but the hype needs to be toned way down.
When they go Merom I want the MBP's and MB's to have useful, practical features. More ports, user-removable hard drive, better battery life, better video card, stuff like that. I'm waiting just as impatiently as everyone else, but the hype needs to be toned way down.
KnightWRX
Apr 7, 04:43 AM
See, that is exactly not the purpose of OpenCL. OpenCL can also use specialized DSPs, if someone writes a compiler for them. OpenCL is GPU-independent, which is a problem, if you want to optimize your OpenCL-code for a specific GPU.
See, that's exactly the same thing I said. And see, that's exactly what the SB + Intel 3000 HD solution does not do. :rolleyes:
Look, you're saying the same thing I am, you just don't want to agree that the Intel 3000 HD solution is sub-par for OpenCL, a big feature Apple pushed with Snow Leopard. Stop being obtuse. Right now, SB does not run OpenCL code on a DSP or anything else, it runs on it the CPU, defeating the whole purpose.
nVidia 320M si about 20W, so they can use 17W processors on 11,6" and 25W processors on 13", with an increased battery life on both models.
You're forgetting that the 320m is more than just a graphics processor. SB still requires a south bridge which will also have a power rating.
See, that's exactly the same thing I said. And see, that's exactly what the SB + Intel 3000 HD solution does not do. :rolleyes:
Look, you're saying the same thing I am, you just don't want to agree that the Intel 3000 HD solution is sub-par for OpenCL, a big feature Apple pushed with Snow Leopard. Stop being obtuse. Right now, SB does not run OpenCL code on a DSP or anything else, it runs on it the CPU, defeating the whole purpose.
nVidia 320M si about 20W, so they can use 17W processors on 11,6" and 25W processors on 13", with an increased battery life on both models.
You're forgetting that the 320m is more than just a graphics processor. SB still requires a south bridge which will also have a power rating.
Mr. Retrofire
Apr 6, 07:07 AM
I doubt Apple will ship a new version of FCP before they ship lion, there are simply no real video editor APIs in Snow Leopard that are capable of 64 bit, QT Kit is a joke.
HOWEVER, according to the developer page for Lion there will be a brand new A/V API in Lion that will be 64 bit and FCP will most likely be written in that.
I guess they could back port the entire API to Snow Leopard, but I wouldn't count on it.
The functions inside FCP do not need the OS support. Apple can install private frameworks, and they do it already, for their own applications. So i think they will support SL.
AV Foundation brings back QT7-features to QTX. Apple uses AV Foundation in the new QTX-player of Lion.
HOWEVER, according to the developer page for Lion there will be a brand new A/V API in Lion that will be 64 bit and FCP will most likely be written in that.
I guess they could back port the entire API to Snow Leopard, but I wouldn't count on it.
The functions inside FCP do not need the OS support. Apple can install private frameworks, and they do it already, for their own applications. So i think they will support SL.
AV Foundation brings back QT7-features to QTX. Apple uses AV Foundation in the new QTX-player of Lion.
the.snitch
Aug 7, 06:58 PM
Holy crap, Time machine looks amazing! I'm happy with all the other features, about on-par with what I expect. That french dude in the presentation really made Microsoft look like fools - infact, just this iteration of OS X seems to add more features than Vista adds over XP. I'm looking forward to leopard, and I wonder what the "Top Secret" features are, that are yet-to-be-revealed.
themoonisdown09
Apr 12, 07:07 AM
I just choked on my own vomit. I really want a new iPhone this summer.
john123
Sep 19, 09:35 AM
You can get a real speed boost just by compiling to 64-bit (naturally this depends on the source). The 64-bit benefit will increase over time on the Mac platform. On 64-bit Gentoo I had the chance to compare 32-bit & 64-bit binaries on exactly the same PC, & disagree entirely with your statement. Programs that can take advantage of 64-bit architecture, & are subsequently compiled for it, are definitely something to be desired.
Add grudging 32-bit hanger-ons to the spoiled 13 year olds on here.
Sometimes you can; sometimes not. That depends on a lot of factors. It's not universal. On the cluster we designed at my office with Opterons, we are actually using 32 bit (albeit with some software enhancements) because it came out considerably faster than the 64 bit implementations. So it's not a universal thing.
Add grudging 32-bit hanger-ons to the spoiled 13 year olds on here.
Sometimes you can; sometimes not. That depends on a lot of factors. It's not universal. On the cluster we designed at my office with Opterons, we are actually using 32 bit (albeit with some software enhancements) because it came out considerably faster than the 64 bit implementations. So it's not a universal thing.
bibbz
Jun 14, 06:34 PM
I hate Radio Shack.
Salesman have their heads up their butts
or corporate does not know what to tell them.
The 4th store I called said if you have a PIN
you are guaranteed a phone.
I understand your frustration, but apple kept us all in the dark until the very last minute. Before 3:30 no body knew anything. It will take it a little while to roll down hill.
I think we all know how secretive apple is don't we?
I just manage a store in the best region in the company. We have a very effective chain of command here in E. Texas.
Salesman have their heads up their butts
or corporate does not know what to tell them.
The 4th store I called said if you have a PIN
you are guaranteed a phone.
I understand your frustration, but apple kept us all in the dark until the very last minute. Before 3:30 no body knew anything. It will take it a little while to roll down hill.
I think we all know how secretive apple is don't we?
I just manage a store in the best region in the company. We have a very effective chain of command here in E. Texas.
Some_Big_Spoon
Aug 27, 12:56 PM
I'd like to see a couple pounds shaved off the iMac. I know it sounds goofy, but I'd like a machine thatI could transport easily either to work, or just room to room. It's very light now (considering how much is in there), but - 2 to 5 lbs. would be great.
Also, and I know peeps don't dig them, but the glossy screen would be nice. The glare's not cool, but the rich colors and brightness are tops.
Also, and I know peeps don't dig them, but the glossy screen would be nice. The glare's not cool, but the rich colors and brightness are tops.
JS77
Apr 10, 03:28 AM
wow. You'd think a fcp users group would be able to track down a halfway decent graphic artist to make their banner graphic...
+1,000,000
+1,000,000
skunk
Feb 28, 07:12 PM
2) okay, they can pretend to get marriedNo, you are absolutely wrong., They can get married like any other couple where the laws allow. Marriage is not a special preserve of any religion. You cannot just commandeer it.
No, I'm not kidding. To the Catholic Church sex outside of a valid sacramental marriage is fornicationWho cares what Catholic dogma claims? It's an irrelevance.
Last time I checked when the vast majority of people did such behavior it was with the opposite gender not the same.So what is the problem? Are you against variation?
Do you have proof that Plato was a repressed homosexual?No, not proof
"Homosexuality," Plato wrote, "is regarded as shameful by barbarians and by those who live under despotic governments just as philosophy is regarded as shameful by them, because it is apparently not in the interest of such rulers to have great ideas engendered in their subjects, or powerful friendships or passionate love-all of which homosexuality is particularly apt to produce." This attitude of Plato's was characteristic of the ancient world, and I want to begin my discussion of the attitudes of the Church and of Western Christianity toward homosexuality by commenting on comparable attitudes among the ancients.
To a very large extent, Western attitudes toward law, religion, literature and government are dependent upon Roman attitudes. This makes it particularly striking that our attitudes toward homosexuality in particular and sexual tolerance in general are so remarkably different from those of the Romans. It is very difficult to convey to modern audiences the indifference of the Romans to questions of gender and gender orientation. The difficulty is due both to the fact that the evidence has been largely consciously obliterated by historians prior to very recent decades, and to the diffusion of the relevant material.
Romans did not consider sexuality or sexual preference a matter of much interest, nor did they treat either in an analytical way. An historian has to gather together thousands of little bits and pieces to demonstrate the general acceptance of homosexuality among the Romans.
One of the few imperial writers who does appear to make some sort of comment on the subject in a general way wrote, "Zeus came as an eagle to god like Ganymede and as a swan to the fair haired mother of Helen. One person prefers one gender, another the other, I like both." Plutarch wrote at about the same time, "No sensible person can imagine that the sexes differ in matters of love as they do in matters of clothing. The intelligent lover of beauty will be attracted to beauty in whichever gender he finds it." Roman law and social strictures made absolutely no restrictions on the basis of gender. It has sometimes been claimed that there were laws against homosexual relations in Rome, but it is easy to prove that this was not the case. On the other hand, it is a mistake to imagine that anarchic hedonism ruled at Rome. In fact, Romans did have a complex set of moral strictures designed to protect children from abuse or any citizen from force or duress in sexual relations. Romans were, like other people, sensitive to issues of love and caring, but individual sexual (i.e. gender) choice was completely unlimited. Male prostitution (directed toward other males), for instance, was so common that the taxes on it constituted a major source of revenue for the imperial treasury. It was so profitable that even in later periods when a certain intolerance crept in, the emperors could not bring themselves to end the practice and its attendant revenue.
Gay marriages were also legal and frequent in Rome for both males and females. Even emperors often married other males. There was total acceptance on the part of the populace, as far as it can be determined, of this sort of homosexual attitude and behavior. This total acceptance was not limited to the ruling elite; there is also much popular Roman literature containing gay love stories. The real point I want to make is that there is absolutely no conscious effort on anyone's part in the Roman world, the world in which Christianity was born, to claim that homosexuality was abnormal or undesirable. There is in fact no word for "homosexual" in Latin. "Homosexual" sounds like Latin, but was coined by a German psychologist in the late 1 9th century. No one in the early Roman world seemed to feel that the fact that someone preferred his or her own gender was any more significant than the fact that someone preferred blue eyes or short people. Neither gay nor straight people seemed to associate certain characteristics with sexual preference. Gay men were not thought to be less masculine than straight men and lesbian women were not thought of as less feminine than straight women. Gay people were not thought to be any better or worse than straight people-an attitude which differed both from that of the society that preceded it, since many Greeks thought gay people were inherently better than straight people, and from that of the society which followed it, in which gay people were often thought to be inferior to others.
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/pwh/1979boswell.html
The most celebrated account of homosexual love comes in Plato's Symposium, in which homosexual love is discussed as a more ideal, more perfect kind of relationship than the more prosaic heterosexual variety. This is a highly biased account, because Plato himself was homosexual and wrote very beautiful epigrams to boys expressing his devotion. Platonic homosexuality had very little to do with sex; Plato believed ideally that love and reason should be fused together, while concern over the body and the material world of particulars should be annihilated. Even today, "Platonic love" refers to non-sexual love between two adults.
Behind Plato's contempt for heterosexual desire lay an aesthetic, highly intellectual aversion to the female body. Plato would have agreed with Schopenhauer's opinion that "only a male intellect clouded by the sexual drive could call the stunted, narrow-shouldered, broad-hipped and short-legged sex the fair sex".
http://www.newstatesman.com/199908230009
No, I'm not kidding. To the Catholic Church sex outside of a valid sacramental marriage is fornicationWho cares what Catholic dogma claims? It's an irrelevance.
Last time I checked when the vast majority of people did such behavior it was with the opposite gender not the same.So what is the problem? Are you against variation?
Do you have proof that Plato was a repressed homosexual?No, not proof
"Homosexuality," Plato wrote, "is regarded as shameful by barbarians and by those who live under despotic governments just as philosophy is regarded as shameful by them, because it is apparently not in the interest of such rulers to have great ideas engendered in their subjects, or powerful friendships or passionate love-all of which homosexuality is particularly apt to produce." This attitude of Plato's was characteristic of the ancient world, and I want to begin my discussion of the attitudes of the Church and of Western Christianity toward homosexuality by commenting on comparable attitudes among the ancients.
To a very large extent, Western attitudes toward law, religion, literature and government are dependent upon Roman attitudes. This makes it particularly striking that our attitudes toward homosexuality in particular and sexual tolerance in general are so remarkably different from those of the Romans. It is very difficult to convey to modern audiences the indifference of the Romans to questions of gender and gender orientation. The difficulty is due both to the fact that the evidence has been largely consciously obliterated by historians prior to very recent decades, and to the diffusion of the relevant material.
Romans did not consider sexuality or sexual preference a matter of much interest, nor did they treat either in an analytical way. An historian has to gather together thousands of little bits and pieces to demonstrate the general acceptance of homosexuality among the Romans.
One of the few imperial writers who does appear to make some sort of comment on the subject in a general way wrote, "Zeus came as an eagle to god like Ganymede and as a swan to the fair haired mother of Helen. One person prefers one gender, another the other, I like both." Plutarch wrote at about the same time, "No sensible person can imagine that the sexes differ in matters of love as they do in matters of clothing. The intelligent lover of beauty will be attracted to beauty in whichever gender he finds it." Roman law and social strictures made absolutely no restrictions on the basis of gender. It has sometimes been claimed that there were laws against homosexual relations in Rome, but it is easy to prove that this was not the case. On the other hand, it is a mistake to imagine that anarchic hedonism ruled at Rome. In fact, Romans did have a complex set of moral strictures designed to protect children from abuse or any citizen from force or duress in sexual relations. Romans were, like other people, sensitive to issues of love and caring, but individual sexual (i.e. gender) choice was completely unlimited. Male prostitution (directed toward other males), for instance, was so common that the taxes on it constituted a major source of revenue for the imperial treasury. It was so profitable that even in later periods when a certain intolerance crept in, the emperors could not bring themselves to end the practice and its attendant revenue.
Gay marriages were also legal and frequent in Rome for both males and females. Even emperors often married other males. There was total acceptance on the part of the populace, as far as it can be determined, of this sort of homosexual attitude and behavior. This total acceptance was not limited to the ruling elite; there is also much popular Roman literature containing gay love stories. The real point I want to make is that there is absolutely no conscious effort on anyone's part in the Roman world, the world in which Christianity was born, to claim that homosexuality was abnormal or undesirable. There is in fact no word for "homosexual" in Latin. "Homosexual" sounds like Latin, but was coined by a German psychologist in the late 1 9th century. No one in the early Roman world seemed to feel that the fact that someone preferred his or her own gender was any more significant than the fact that someone preferred blue eyes or short people. Neither gay nor straight people seemed to associate certain characteristics with sexual preference. Gay men were not thought to be less masculine than straight men and lesbian women were not thought of as less feminine than straight women. Gay people were not thought to be any better or worse than straight people-an attitude which differed both from that of the society that preceded it, since many Greeks thought gay people were inherently better than straight people, and from that of the society which followed it, in which gay people were often thought to be inferior to others.
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/pwh/1979boswell.html
The most celebrated account of homosexual love comes in Plato's Symposium, in which homosexual love is discussed as a more ideal, more perfect kind of relationship than the more prosaic heterosexual variety. This is a highly biased account, because Plato himself was homosexual and wrote very beautiful epigrams to boys expressing his devotion. Platonic homosexuality had very little to do with sex; Plato believed ideally that love and reason should be fused together, while concern over the body and the material world of particulars should be annihilated. Even today, "Platonic love" refers to non-sexual love between two adults.
Behind Plato's contempt for heterosexual desire lay an aesthetic, highly intellectual aversion to the female body. Plato would have agreed with Schopenhauer's opinion that "only a male intellect clouded by the sexual drive could call the stunted, narrow-shouldered, broad-hipped and short-legged sex the fair sex".
http://www.newstatesman.com/199908230009
Vercingetorix
Mar 31, 10:33 PM
I completely disagree.
Going open sounded like a great idea in the beginning. Fast forward to today, and manufacturers have used the openness against the platform by creating custom versions of android that aren't readily upgradable.
This has hurt the platform more than 'being open' helped it and google is right to start regulating what can and cannot be done.
I think we're all pretty lucky to have experienced both sides of the spectrum to be honest :)
Whether they're right to start regulating or not, they're still shamless hypocrites. What happened to all the principles that they waved around in the air? Andy Rubin himself said that the "definition of open" was that anyone could download the Android source and do whatever they wanted to it. Now people have to kiss his ring?
Google are the ones who waved the bloody shirt and shrieked about how Android-vs-the-iPhone was about freedom. Just because they're forced to backtrack now doesn't mean it's not blatant hypocrisy.
Going open sounded like a great idea in the beginning. Fast forward to today, and manufacturers have used the openness against the platform by creating custom versions of android that aren't readily upgradable.
This has hurt the platform more than 'being open' helped it and google is right to start regulating what can and cannot be done.
I think we're all pretty lucky to have experienced both sides of the spectrum to be honest :)
Whether they're right to start regulating or not, they're still shamless hypocrites. What happened to all the principles that they waved around in the air? Andy Rubin himself said that the "definition of open" was that anyone could download the Android source and do whatever they wanted to it. Now people have to kiss his ring?
Google are the ones who waved the bloody shirt and shrieked about how Android-vs-the-iPhone was about freedom. Just because they're forced to backtrack now doesn't mean it's not blatant hypocrisy.
ZoomZoomZoom
Sep 18, 11:13 PM
Let the "free market" decide? Oh wait, I forgot, for Macs there is no free market, it is basically a monopoly.
Yeah. I keep on thinking of going for a Thinkpad, but every time I think to how hooked I am on OS X, I can't do it. But I refuse to pay good money for now "outdated" hardware in a flagship notebook computer line. Ridiculous.
Yeah. I keep on thinking of going for a Thinkpad, but every time I think to how hooked I am on OS X, I can't do it. But I refuse to pay good money for now "outdated" hardware in a flagship notebook computer line. Ridiculous.
Heilage
Mar 1, 06:23 AM
I have no right to condemn anyone to hell.
If heaven were very crowded, it wouldn't be very heavenly, would it?
Fair point. Then again, if one makes the assumption that Heaven is full of people with ideas like yours, I'd rather stay here or in Hell. Which is basically the same thing anyway. :p
If heaven were very crowded, it wouldn't be very heavenly, would it?
Fair point. Then again, if one makes the assumption that Heaven is full of people with ideas like yours, I'd rather stay here or in Hell. Which is basically the same thing anyway. :p
ergle2
Sep 20, 01:50 PM
No, one that just ignores you and your inquiries because it was already clear where you were coming from..thus I feel no obligation to engage you in my thought process and your self important questioning. Has nothing to do with my maturity, and everything to do with my lack of caring about you or your opinion.
Ah, a response that is pompous, imperious, petulant, inconsistent AND incorrect -- you didn't ignore me, after all, you were simply obnoxious and evasive with a serious of ridiculous replies.
Nice projection with the "self-important", though.
Where I was coming from was purely from a sense of curiosity as to why someone would apparently feel that technology can advance too quickly. It's not unobvious, I grant you, but a rather unobjectionable query to my mind.
Interestingly, it would appear you do care enough about my opinion - or perhaps that of other forum denizens? - to respond in a way you apparently consider to be "clever". Feel free to ignore me -- really, I can take it! I mean, I'm sure I'll probably suffer a couple of seconds of heartbreak sometime around, say, 2020, but I'll survive.
Oh and "thought process" - ROTFL - lovely!
Ah, a response that is pompous, imperious, petulant, inconsistent AND incorrect -- you didn't ignore me, after all, you were simply obnoxious and evasive with a serious of ridiculous replies.
Nice projection with the "self-important", though.
Where I was coming from was purely from a sense of curiosity as to why someone would apparently feel that technology can advance too quickly. It's not unobvious, I grant you, but a rather unobjectionable query to my mind.
Interestingly, it would appear you do care enough about my opinion - or perhaps that of other forum denizens? - to respond in a way you apparently consider to be "clever". Feel free to ignore me -- really, I can take it! I mean, I'm sure I'll probably suffer a couple of seconds of heartbreak sometime around, say, 2020, but I'll survive.
Oh and "thought process" - ROTFL - lovely!
BLUELION
Apr 25, 02:21 PM
...The "tracking" is widely used by many apps. Perhaps we should all just wait and see the details before you jump on the "OMG I'm being tracked, and the sky is falling" wagon.
If you are really paranoid about it, delete the darn file and there...Done!
Wounded, Apple will go on strike and remove all GPS from future devices now. ;)
If you are really paranoid about it, delete the darn file and there...Done!
Wounded, Apple will go on strike and remove all GPS from future devices now. ;)
ECUpirate44
Apr 11, 06:39 PM
Apple is already starting to fall behind in the cell phone market, the iphone 4 has the best gui, but not the best specs...waiting till Christmas will only push them farther behind
What are you limited doing because of the current specs of the iPhone 4?
What are you limited doing because of the current specs of the iPhone 4?
skunk
Aug 6, 01:48 PM
good catch - I still think it won't matter...But it would be impossibly risky to give the machines a name which might be disallowed.
msb3079
Apr 7, 10:59 PM
Obviously you know little about retail and accounting.
I was a manager at Circuit City for several years and I could not disagree any more.
The quicker you move stock, the better.
Obviously, you DON'T know.
I was a manager at Circuit City for several years and I could not disagree any more.
The quicker you move stock, the better.
Obviously, you DON'T know.
skunk
Aug 6, 01:39 PM
As Apple applied for the trademark, it will not be approved.
It is up to Apple how they want to proceed. A fight that can't win, no matter how much money they have.
Mac Pro has been the premier Mac dealer in the same county as Apple since 1988. Out of all the names for this new line of computers, why choose one that they know they cannot have.
We are already getting countless support calls for the macbook pro. It seems they assume we made them When we can't help them, they seem to get very upset.
Mac Pro is in a position to file for a court order not to release any computer that bears our name.
So get ready WWDC, we will be watching.
Mike Ajlouny
President
MAC-PRO.comFascinating. What will they call it? Macintosh Pro?
It is up to Apple how they want to proceed. A fight that can't win, no matter how much money they have.
Mac Pro has been the premier Mac dealer in the same county as Apple since 1988. Out of all the names for this new line of computers, why choose one that they know they cannot have.
We are already getting countless support calls for the macbook pro. It seems they assume we made them When we can't help them, they seem to get very upset.
Mac Pro is in a position to file for a court order not to release any computer that bears our name.
So get ready WWDC, we will be watching.
Mike Ajlouny
President
MAC-PRO.comFascinating. What will they call it? Macintosh Pro?
deannnnn
Jun 8, 09:24 PM
Why would there be any difference? Do Cheese Doodles purchased form the Piggly Wiggly taste any better than those purchased from Publix?
Food from Publix is always better.
Publix groupie right here. Didn't realize how much I love them until I started going to school in NYC!
Food from Publix is always better.
Publix groupie right here. Didn't realize how much I love them until I started going to school in NYC!
ezekielrage_99
Aug 17, 01:19 AM
Yes...Photoshop can only run under Rosetta on the Intel machines...there's no universal version of it.
It was just the performance was dam quick I just wasn't sure if there was an Intel version out or not, either way that is killer performance.
It was just the performance was dam quick I just wasn't sure if there was an Intel version out or not, either way that is killer performance.
dextertangocci
Jul 27, 10:21 AM
Can I swop the Merom with the Yonah in my MB?