Even older iPhone 4 outpaces competitors in touch speed tests
A pair of new studies that tests touchscreen responsiveness among flagship tablets and top-selling smartphones has found that Apple's iPad and iPhone lead the field by a significant margin in both categories. The TouchMarks tests -- done by mobile ad firm Agawi -- pitted the iPad against leading brands of Android, Kindle and Windows RT offerings in tablets, and the iPhone against leading Android and Windows 8 phones. The current iPads and iPhone 5 (and even the iPhone 4) won against all competitors.
New network storage array to feature anti-virus, run applications
Storage solution provider Iomega announced a new flagship product today, the Iomega StorCenter px12-450r Network Storage array, a networked data storage system incorporating an Ivy Bridge processor from Intel. Iomega also announced the addition of McAfee VirusScan Enterprise to all Iomega StorCenter PX series products. Iomega's new storage option would appear to be the first non-computer product to feature an Ivy Bridge processor.
New MacBooks slower?
Primate Labs has taken a close look at the performance of Apple's lastest MacBook, and claims that the newest base model is slower than the previous generation. A performance comparison via Geekbench -- an application designed to test the speed of computers in various areas -- revealed higher scores for MacBooks released in early 2008 than the latest models offered by Apple. In overall performance the early 2008 2.4GHz Intel Core 2 Duo MacBook scored 3,135 against a baseline score of 1,000, which signifies the score a 1.6GHz Power Mac G5 would receive. Conversely, Apple's late 2008 2.2GHz MacBook scored 2,890 -- significantly less than the slightly older model.
MacBook Air battery life
The MacBook Air's touted five-hour battery life is an almost acceptable measure of the ultraportable's abilities, while enthusiast site Mac on Air has performed a full take-apart of the laptop. According to tests performed by AnandTech, the MacBook Air is capable of running for four and a quarter hours with normal web browsing, while playing MP3s in the background. The test was conducted by browsing 20 web pages, spending 20 seconds per page, and looping music in the background. This test was designed to emulate standard usage, as one would experience taking notes in class or using the Air during their daily commute.
New Mac Pro benchmarks
Benchmarks of Apple's new Mac Pro systems -- which began shipping earlier this year -- show how the latest systems stack up against each other as well as the company's older workstations. Overall performance ratings placed the Mac Pro 3.2GHz at the top of the charts in both 64-bit and 32-bit tests. Tests show that the performance difference between Apple's 2.8GHz and 3.2GHz Mac Pros is not as great as the difference between running 32-bit code and 64-bit code, according to the Primate Labs Blog.
Primate Labs tests Mac Pro
Primate Labs today released figures regarding performance of the new Mac Pro versus the old eight-core model. The old model is configured with the eight-core Xeon X5365, running at 3GHz, while the newer model features the Xeon W5462 running at 2.8GHz per core. Both machines were tested using Mac OS X 10.5.1, with the new Mac Pro using 2GB of RAM, versus the former that uses 1GB. Primate Labs says that the tests that GeekBench 2 uses to calculate RAM scores relies more on the speed of the memory rather than the quantity, so it was deemed a fair test.
Adipiscing tincidunt massa et rhoncus proin cum in magnis diam. Etiam nunc, rhoncus amet, risus odio, elementum, hac, velit tortor, elementum odio nec pid, tincidunt etiam pid, et rhoncus pulvinar pid natoque lundium urna magna augue tincidunt mid enim pid? Arcu cursus habitasse eu. Placerat ridiculus dignissim in ac. Urna enim odio! Dictumst! In, enim arcu duis dapibus, magnis urna ultrices augue pid tincidunt hac integer dis placerat placerat. Tempor a dignissim? Vel non lacus eros, rhoncus penatibus adipiscing parturient, placerat a magnis aenean! Porttitor tempor cursus arcu, quis habitasse, facilisis, amet etiam cras duis turpis. Mus sit turpis mid.