Very unlikely.

More likely is a capacitive multitouch screen with some kind of RF pen. That's what current multitouch/pen tablets use.

More likely is that Apple did something stupid in their drivers that's having a problem with this chipset.

I've certainly done it before with USB drivers. If it was anyone but Apple, I'd say, "I'd expect better from x..."

I bet Apple did something stupid in their drivers.

I would never judge this kind of design until I've used it.

If it remains stable under use, then it's actually pretty clever. If not, then it's absolutely a failure.

>Win 7 does NOT do that.

Actually, Windows 7 does automatically defrag your drive. As well, there is a small performance benefit to the deferred defragmentation scheme implemented by Windows, versus the on-the-fly defragging that some other filesystems use.

Either way, unless you're using ZFS, which you probably aren't, shut the fuck up. Your filesystem is an antiquated piece of crap compared to NTFS or Reiser.

>In what way is the Macbook not optimized to run Windows?

Apple supplies the drivers used in Bootcamp, and it has been a long standing complaint that they suck balls.

But that's not important. The important thing is that the software used for the "multimedia multitasking" test was Quicktime, which has god-awful performance on Windows, and they used iTunes for the other benchmark, which has god-awful performance on Windows.

>(and that would yes, include iTunes and QuickTime

But why? It's a very, very well known fact that both QuickTime and iTunes have awful performance on Windows compared to other multimedia programs and the OSX version. On my core i7 with a velociraptor, iTunes takes nearly 30 seconds just to start!

An unbiased comparison of the operating systems themselves would be to use programs like LAME and x264.

Comparing iTunes on Windows and OSX does exactly that, compares iTunes on Windows and OSX. It does not in any way shape or form benchmark the operating system.

I didn't say that it was purposeful. Though, it likely is so that they can manipulate users into switching to OSX.

Either way, it certainly makes the benchmarks meaningless, which was my point.

And since Apple happened to write the apps that every benchmark was performed with, you can be damned sure that the Windows versions were very, very poorly written.

Indeed. This benchmark is bullshit. At most, it highlights how poor Apple's porting skills are.

Do some tests with some real software. Encode some MP3s with LAME on either OS and see how it fares.