Apple’s upcoming iPod touch

image Gadgets, gadgets; don’t you love ’em? Apple (read: Steve Jobs) has apparently made official the new, upcoming iPod, labeled iPod touch.

It practically looks and works like an iPhone except for the phone features, e.g., “flick through your photos”, “slide to unlock,” etc., although the lower “main” icons seem to be on top of a desk (with reflection). Pretty nice.

Further reading state that the iPod touch will initially come in two flavors: $300 for the 8 GB and $400 for the 16 GB. To read more about it, check out the post on Engadget.

I personally think the storage size is a demotion compared to the current iPod variations currently out there (e.g., 30 GB iPod Video). What I’m really trying to say is: Why won’t Apple offer a 30 GB iPod touch? It’s really only a hard drive in there, right? Hmmm…go figure.

Apple cuts 8GB iPhone price

image9/7/07 9:52 AM Update: Apple Gives $100 Store Credit to iPhone Customers

For the iPhone fans out there, the 8 GB is now – get this…$399 from $599. The 4 GB,  on the other hand is now $299, which Apple will be taking off the market (buy it while supplies last).

This sucks for the early adopters as they’ve just been had by Apple. Tsk, tsk, tsk…

Read more at Engadget.

AMD or Intel

Most people I know favor AMD processors over Intel. I myself have tried both and like AMD more – other than the Intel Core Duo on my Mac, which I’m very happy with. =0)

I’m posting an excerpt that I read on The Register regarding AMD’s less power-hungry processor (over Intel):

Computer performance consulting firm Neal Nelson & Associates claims that AMD-based servers have beaten Intel in 36 of the 57 power efficiency tests it has conducted. The tests put an AMD Opteron-based server up against an Intel Xeon-based server.

image The firm asserts the report was not funded or sponsored by any outside company or group. Tests were performed on servers configured with 2GB, 4GB, 6GB and 8GB of memory using various transaction processing load levels.

The results show that under certain configurations and load levels, the Intel server was 2.4 to 11.7 per cent more power efficient. But in a majority of cases, the AMD server was 9.2 to 23.1 per cent more efficient.

imagePerhaps more significantly, when the systems were idle and waiting for  transactions to process, the AMD server was 30.4 to 53.1 more power efficient. If accurate, it’s a noteworthy figure, considering many servers spend the most of their time waiting for work.

On the whole, NN&A’s tests showed that Intel’s power efficiency decreases as memory size increases. Conversely, AMD’s power efficiency increases as the memory is upped.

The firm uses a home-cooked benchmark — where web transactions are processed against a server configured with Novell’s SuSE Linux Enterprise Server, the Apache2 web server software, and the MySQL relational database.

The firm said they conducted the test in response to a statement made by Intel CEO Paul Otellini in July, where he claimed Intel was the leader in power efficiency.

“It appears Mr. Otellini’s statement is inconsistent with the test results,” said Nelson.

Intel, of course, disputes the results.

“The report doesn’t measure our latest Xeons, or quad cores,” said Intel rep Nick Knupffer in an email. We have 2 GHz quad cores in the market at 50 watts, 12.5 per core!”

“The report ignores performance, in that you’d use less Intel servers to get the same job done, meaning less electricity is needed.”

“We stand behind all our energy efficient claims, period. For those IT managers who don’t do their own in-house testing, we recommend that each look at the 100s of independently verified benchmarks and reviews that exist for the most credible assessment.”

In other words, test it out for yourself!

Vista Service Pack 1 details

Microsoft today released details about the upcoming first service pack (SP1) for Vista. They say it features security upgrades, improved performance, and support for emerging (read: new) hardware and standards.

It doesn’t look like it will be released to the general public yet, but only to a moderate sized audience. They say it will be available in the first quarter of 2008. Here’s what Nick White, a MS program manager said about the release:

“A small group of testers has been putting a preview of the SP1 Beta through its paces to help prepare for broader release,” as he wrote in a Wednesday blog post. “We made the choice to start with a very small group of testers because we think it’s better for both our customers and for Microsoft to keep the beta program small at the start.”

And added:

“A later pre-release of SP1 will be available to a larger group of testers via MSDN and TechNet subscribers.”

Additionally, Vista SP1 will be available in three forms: express, stand-alone, and slipstream. For more details on SP1, go here.

Researchers hack into iPhone via Web

image Yowza! The iPhone can be hijacked? Tsk, tsk, tsk…not good, but not surprising either. Nowadays, more and more companies try to release more while downplaying quality – quantity over quality, which is a shame.

I’m not saying all corporations do this, but in general, yes they do. Apple should’ve spent more time testing this kinda stuff, rather than deploying early. But as they say, “strike while the iron is hot.”

I believe it comes down to the economics and logistics of the business culture in the twenty-first century.