MacBoobsPro
Aug 7, 05:42 AM
Haha I was trying to help you out and you turn on me?! What are you, Italian? :p
You'd think that wouldn't you? :p
You'd think that wouldn't you? :p
Angrisano
Sep 6, 08:45 PM
You are not alone. I think there are a lot of Apple users right now who would love to see Apple release a mac-mini pro.
Well I posted it in another thread however I just built a PC with some amazing specs for under $500. It was a P4 3ghz, 2gb ram, 250GB HD, 256MB GPU, DVDR, bluetooth, wifi. The kicker is it's a Shuttle so it's tiny, not much bigger than a mini, and it's made of aluminum. The thing is very Mac like. And being able to build it so cost effectively, really ticked me off.
Because no matter what I'd get on the Apple side it would either cost much, much more or it would be hobbled in some way (GPU, monitor, etc.). In the end you have to realize that as a Mac user you're paying more for a brand and for the ability to run OS X. That's fine, provided you can find a system which meets your needs.
(yeah it's late and I'm cranky) :P
Well I posted it in another thread however I just built a PC with some amazing specs for under $500. It was a P4 3ghz, 2gb ram, 250GB HD, 256MB GPU, DVDR, bluetooth, wifi. The kicker is it's a Shuttle so it's tiny, not much bigger than a mini, and it's made of aluminum. The thing is very Mac like. And being able to build it so cost effectively, really ticked me off.
Because no matter what I'd get on the Apple side it would either cost much, much more or it would be hobbled in some way (GPU, monitor, etc.). In the end you have to realize that as a Mac user you're paying more for a brand and for the ability to run OS X. That's fine, provided you can find a system which meets your needs.
(yeah it's late and I'm cranky) :P
hypmatize
Nov 28, 03:31 AM
http://cdn1.gamepro.com/box/box_165006-hd.jpg sport games should always be 35 bucks not only for 3 days
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/6/67/Psych_season4_DVD.jpg/200px-Psych_season4_DVD.jpg awesome deal on amazon only 25 bucks brand new! :D
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/6/67/Psych_season4_DVD.jpg/200px-Psych_season4_DVD.jpg awesome deal on amazon only 25 bucks brand new! :D
iJawn108
Jan 1, 05:24 PM
I think we'll see QT 8 previewed.:D
Project
Jan 11, 06:04 PM
i highly highly doubt they are calling it the "macbook air." that's borderline laughable.
I said the same thing about the rumours of the Powerbook becoming the "MacBook Pro"
I said the same thing about the rumours of the Powerbook becoming the "MacBook Pro"
elgruga
Sep 7, 01:41 AM
Reasoning goes like this:
Music costs a small amount to make - can be as low as $10k for an album.
Sell a bunch and make some profit.
Movies cost upwards of $50 million to make, often $100mil or more, so you got to rent them and sell them and do whatever you can to get that cash back.
And its got to go out the door at $25 if you are buying.
Thing is, if Apple want me to buy a movie for $15, I can rent it for $5 at the store.....and copy it if I want.
Yeah, I know thats against the law but a LOT of people do it, and anyway, if you d/l from Apple, where are you going to keep them all?
250 gig drive will hold about 30 movies. Thats not a lot of movies, and most people dont have 250 drives yet.....
Music costs a small amount to make - can be as low as $10k for an album.
Sell a bunch and make some profit.
Movies cost upwards of $50 million to make, often $100mil or more, so you got to rent them and sell them and do whatever you can to get that cash back.
And its got to go out the door at $25 if you are buying.
Thing is, if Apple want me to buy a movie for $15, I can rent it for $5 at the store.....and copy it if I want.
Yeah, I know thats against the law but a LOT of people do it, and anyway, if you d/l from Apple, where are you going to keep them all?
250 gig drive will hold about 30 movies. Thats not a lot of movies, and most people dont have 250 drives yet.....
iStudentUK
Mar 19, 06:21 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8F190 Safari/6533.18.5)
I'm very pleased about this- many countries working together following a proper UN resolution. Using air support and missiles but not troops.
This also seems like a good example of cooporation, even though any country with a decent airforce could go it alone against Libyia right now! All sorts of countries involved, with France, UK and US doing most at the moment.
I'm very pleased about this- many countries working together following a proper UN resolution. Using air support and missiles but not troops.
This also seems like a good example of cooporation, even though any country with a decent airforce could go it alone against Libyia right now! All sorts of countries involved, with France, UK and US doing most at the moment.
bigpics
Mar 24, 12:57 PM
Dude, I'm sorry to inform you that what you're saying is an outright lie, and there are guys from the Lossless Compression Clan, called "Apple Lossless codec", "FLAC", and "APE", standing with heavy cluebats in their hands, ready to perform a painful reality sync on anyone thinking compression ALWAYS degrades quality.
Because it doesn't, full stop.You're (very probably) right. My comments were aimed at those who were saying the Classic is overkill because who could ever "need" anything more than 128 or even 256 kbps AAC's or mp3's. (Nobody even mentioned 320, at which many of my fave songs are ripped.)
So as for the "lossless" CODECs, my reach exceeds my grasp. When it comes to photo files I pretty much understand the principles of ZFW lossless compression in TIFF files and have thousands of 'em. And in case anyone doesn't know, if you work on JPEG's and do multiple editing sessions on a photo, you do introduce new compression artifacts every time you re-save even at the highest settings. I've done tests for kicks and giggles - repeatedly opening and saving .jpg's and you reach a point where the image looks like a (very) bad xerox copy.
Back to audio, I've plowed through a few articles on formats - years ago - and I've seen slightly differing conclusions about Apple Lossless and FLAC ('tho all felt that these were alternatives worth considering for at least the great majority of people serious about sound), but, frankly, I lack the chops to have an informed opinion of my own, and know nada about APE.
And, no, while I can appreciate friends' systems that are tricked out with vacuum tube amps, "reference" speakers and high-end vinyl pressings, I'm hardly one of the hard-core audiophiles in practice. My files are mostly 256 and 320 kbps, my home speaker placements are wrong and I use preset ambiance settings that totally mess with the sound to produce surround effects from AAC's.
Worse, the great majority of my listening is on the mid-level rig in my car at freeway speeds or in city traffic, meaning I and millions of others are constantly fighting like, what, 20-30 db of non-music noise that totally overwhelms delicate nuances in sound. And worst, some of my earliest pre-iPod rips (back when I had a massive 20 GB HDD) were done in RealPlayer at 96 or even 64 kbps - before I sold or traded those CDs - and yeah, in the car, some of those still sound "pretty good" to me (tho' some clearly don't).
Add the (lack of) quality of most ear buds and headsets used by most people, and there's probably less than 5% of music listeners experiencing "true high-fidelity." To turn around an old ad campaign, no, our music listening today is "not live - it's Memorex."
But my point was and is that there's no reason to champion lossy compression per se other than for the economies of storage space it provides, and for fungible uses like topical podcasts.
As long as we have the space, "data fidelity" is desirable so that the files we produce which will be around for many years - and get spread to many people - don't discard signal for no real gain. No one would put up with "lossy" word processing compression that occasionally turned "i's" into "l's" after all.
And those audio files will still be around in a future of better DAC's, speakers, active systems which routinely monitor and cancel out things like apartment, road and car noise (in quieter electric cars with better road noise supression in the first place), better mainstream headsets and who knows what other improvements.
Compatibility between players (software or hardware) used to be another reason to choose, say, mp3's, but there's really no meaningful competition to Apple's portable sound wonders any more.
So please keep those "cluebats" holstered! No offense intended. ;)
Because it doesn't, full stop.You're (very probably) right. My comments were aimed at those who were saying the Classic is overkill because who could ever "need" anything more than 128 or even 256 kbps AAC's or mp3's. (Nobody even mentioned 320, at which many of my fave songs are ripped.)
So as for the "lossless" CODECs, my reach exceeds my grasp. When it comes to photo files I pretty much understand the principles of ZFW lossless compression in TIFF files and have thousands of 'em. And in case anyone doesn't know, if you work on JPEG's and do multiple editing sessions on a photo, you do introduce new compression artifacts every time you re-save even at the highest settings. I've done tests for kicks and giggles - repeatedly opening and saving .jpg's and you reach a point where the image looks like a (very) bad xerox copy.
Back to audio, I've plowed through a few articles on formats - years ago - and I've seen slightly differing conclusions about Apple Lossless and FLAC ('tho all felt that these were alternatives worth considering for at least the great majority of people serious about sound), but, frankly, I lack the chops to have an informed opinion of my own, and know nada about APE.
And, no, while I can appreciate friends' systems that are tricked out with vacuum tube amps, "reference" speakers and high-end vinyl pressings, I'm hardly one of the hard-core audiophiles in practice. My files are mostly 256 and 320 kbps, my home speaker placements are wrong and I use preset ambiance settings that totally mess with the sound to produce surround effects from AAC's.
Worse, the great majority of my listening is on the mid-level rig in my car at freeway speeds or in city traffic, meaning I and millions of others are constantly fighting like, what, 20-30 db of non-music noise that totally overwhelms delicate nuances in sound. And worst, some of my earliest pre-iPod rips (back when I had a massive 20 GB HDD) were done in RealPlayer at 96 or even 64 kbps - before I sold or traded those CDs - and yeah, in the car, some of those still sound "pretty good" to me (tho' some clearly don't).
Add the (lack of) quality of most ear buds and headsets used by most people, and there's probably less than 5% of music listeners experiencing "true high-fidelity." To turn around an old ad campaign, no, our music listening today is "not live - it's Memorex."
But my point was and is that there's no reason to champion lossy compression per se other than for the economies of storage space it provides, and for fungible uses like topical podcasts.
As long as we have the space, "data fidelity" is desirable so that the files we produce which will be around for many years - and get spread to many people - don't discard signal for no real gain. No one would put up with "lossy" word processing compression that occasionally turned "i's" into "l's" after all.
And those audio files will still be around in a future of better DAC's, speakers, active systems which routinely monitor and cancel out things like apartment, road and car noise (in quieter electric cars with better road noise supression in the first place), better mainstream headsets and who knows what other improvements.
Compatibility between players (software or hardware) used to be another reason to choose, say, mp3's, but there's really no meaningful competition to Apple's portable sound wonders any more.
So please keep those "cluebats" holstered! No offense intended. ;)
dornoforpyros
Nov 29, 08:15 AM
you know, I'm trying to figure out why the Zune is so universally hated, and I can't.
I mean, yes it's Microsoft, but given the success of the xBox I would have thought some faith had been restored in them. I mean no one has even used the damn thing yet and their panning it as if it's the worse mp3 ever released. Yes, it's meant to go head to head with the iPod, and yes, it will probably fail, but why are we not giving credit where it's due?
The 3 days/3 plays thing is kinda bunk, but the wifi sharing in the first place is a pretty neat idea. How many of you use iTunes sharing at work or in the dorm? Wouldn't it be nice if your iPods could do the same?
And what's wrong with a larger screen that works in both landscape and portrait? I have a feeling that were the iPod to have gotten this functionality first everyone would be tripping over their credit cards to order one.
I dunno, just seems like everyone is getting overly excited on joining the "trash the zune" bandwagon that they aren't willing to give any credit where it's due.
I mean, yes it's Microsoft, but given the success of the xBox I would have thought some faith had been restored in them. I mean no one has even used the damn thing yet and their panning it as if it's the worse mp3 ever released. Yes, it's meant to go head to head with the iPod, and yes, it will probably fail, but why are we not giving credit where it's due?
The 3 days/3 plays thing is kinda bunk, but the wifi sharing in the first place is a pretty neat idea. How many of you use iTunes sharing at work or in the dorm? Wouldn't it be nice if your iPods could do the same?
And what's wrong with a larger screen that works in both landscape and portrait? I have a feeling that were the iPod to have gotten this functionality first everyone would be tripping over their credit cards to order one.
I dunno, just seems like everyone is getting overly excited on joining the "trash the zune" bandwagon that they aren't willing to give any credit where it's due.
glennsan
Aug 24, 06:38 PM
Maybe dual optical drives like the Mac pro. This is getting standard on Macs obviously.
:p
The only Mac that currently has the dual optical drive is the Mac Pro. I would not think that the iMac and Mini would get a dual as well. But I will admit that stranger things have happened.
:p
The only Mac that currently has the dual optical drive is the Mac Pro. I would not think that the iMac and Mini would get a dual as well. But I will admit that stranger things have happened.
lordonuthin
May 3, 12:21 PM
so running things like itunes and iphoto, and surfing the web, things are fine?
I also have the terminal going with 6 tabs, each running folding on another machine. I worried about iTunes because I had heard that it took quite a bit of cpu, but not for me it doesn't seem to have any effect on folding.
I also have the terminal going with 6 tabs, each running folding on another machine. I worried about iTunes because I had heard that it took quite a bit of cpu, but not for me it doesn't seem to have any effect on folding.
leftbanke7
Mar 19, 12:37 PM
there's no reason to argue that their strategy is wrong...
I don't argue that their strategy is wrong. They are a profitable, debt-free company. They obviously have some clue as to what's going on.
However, as a Mac lover on a budget, I hate only having the option of an iMac or an eMac. I dislike both of them. I dislike the design and I dislike that they are essentually unupgradable. If I am going to spend money on a product, I had better like looking at it. I also don't want to have to use a G4 MDD as it's old technology. Granted, it's life is far from over but I get the impression that Apple is telling me that unless I am willing to pony up $2500.00 - $3000.00, that my only options are either old or unupgradable products.
A Bargain PC may be a POS, but for a good group of people, it's all they can afford...and I am almost to that point. My old computer can only take me so much farther.
I don't argue that their strategy is wrong. They are a profitable, debt-free company. They obviously have some clue as to what's going on.
However, as a Mac lover on a budget, I hate only having the option of an iMac or an eMac. I dislike both of them. I dislike the design and I dislike that they are essentually unupgradable. If I am going to spend money on a product, I had better like looking at it. I also don't want to have to use a G4 MDD as it's old technology. Granted, it's life is far from over but I get the impression that Apple is telling me that unless I am willing to pony up $2500.00 - $3000.00, that my only options are either old or unupgradable products.
A Bargain PC may be a POS, but for a good group of people, it's all they can afford...and I am almost to that point. My old computer can only take me so much farther.
andrew.gw
Apr 5, 05:23 PM
All together I just love Lion, and there's no going back to SL! :)
Snow Leopard feels like Windows XP to me, now. All the little UI enhancements really add�up.
Snow Leopard feels like Windows XP to me, now. All the little UI enhancements really add�up.
EagerDragon
Nov 16, 12:53 PM
Previous question: How hard could it be to take advangate of the multi-cores.
The first thing is that it depends on what you are starting with. If you have zero code out there, you can come up with a nice design for your program that takes advantage of as many cores as you throw at it. If on the other hand you have large chunks of legacy code that was written in the time of single cores, it may be close to a re-write to fully take advantage of the hardware. In some cases it will be easier in some cases to throw the old code away.
But some of it is imagination, if you can look at a problem and the solution you orginaly came up with, and using your imagination look at the problem at hand in inovative ways, parts of the programs could be re-written to take advantage of the hardware and other parts can be left alone (for the short term). This is an incremental step, you gain X% in one area and little to nothing in another area. The key is to determine what your program spends most of it time doing and re-write/re-design that section of the code for the biggest short-term gains.
I remeber working in assembler and selecting the correct combination of instructions based on their function and the number of CPU cycles it took to execute each instruction. Sometimes a set of 12 instructions was faster than a different set of 8 instructions in accomplishing the same result. Use your imagination and look at the problem from a different angle. If your brain only sees a number of serialized steps, you won't be able to come up with anything that takes advange of the hardware.
What you start with (old code) and your imagination can get you there quicker or slower.
Short answer: It depends.
The first thing is that it depends on what you are starting with. If you have zero code out there, you can come up with a nice design for your program that takes advantage of as many cores as you throw at it. If on the other hand you have large chunks of legacy code that was written in the time of single cores, it may be close to a re-write to fully take advantage of the hardware. In some cases it will be easier in some cases to throw the old code away.
But some of it is imagination, if you can look at a problem and the solution you orginaly came up with, and using your imagination look at the problem at hand in inovative ways, parts of the programs could be re-written to take advantage of the hardware and other parts can be left alone (for the short term). This is an incremental step, you gain X% in one area and little to nothing in another area. The key is to determine what your program spends most of it time doing and re-write/re-design that section of the code for the biggest short-term gains.
I remeber working in assembler and selecting the correct combination of instructions based on their function and the number of CPU cycles it took to execute each instruction. Sometimes a set of 12 instructions was faster than a different set of 8 instructions in accomplishing the same result. Use your imagination and look at the problem from a different angle. If your brain only sees a number of serialized steps, you won't be able to come up with anything that takes advange of the hardware.
What you start with (old code) and your imagination can get you there quicker or slower.
Short answer: It depends.
Chef Medeski
Jul 14, 10:17 AM
It would be nice - in theory - to have a hyper-fast wireless connection; however, what does it matter if my outside line stays at 2M/512k speed? The B-spec is perfectly fine for quite some time.
Personally the only thing the speed helps is within a network. You see I have a mac server (old G4 B&W) that holds all my music and photos to be broadcasted over the connection. If I want to transfer some songs or photos to e-mail, well it helps to have the extra speed. But your right thats really minimally helping...
the big help would be range. I mean G was supposed to make covering a whole house no problem, but guess what I reguarly spot out a floor below and to the left. I'm about to install two extenders, so I actually get service throughout the house :rolleyes: .... hopefully with n, I wouldn't have to wry about that.
Personally the only thing the speed helps is within a network. You see I have a mac server (old G4 B&W) that holds all my music and photos to be broadcasted over the connection. If I want to transfer some songs or photos to e-mail, well it helps to have the extra speed. But your right thats really minimally helping...
the big help would be range. I mean G was supposed to make covering a whole house no problem, but guess what I reguarly spot out a floor below and to the left. I'm about to install two extenders, so I actually get service throughout the house :rolleyes: .... hopefully with n, I wouldn't have to wry about that.
reticulate
Apr 19, 11:42 PM
The new CPU ships February 20 and it takes two months for supplies to become constrained. Knowing Apple they'll deliberately hold off another month just to make sure they're a full quarter behind everyone else. After all desktop computers are so last century. Except that "we" need something to plug our iDevices into.
I don't though. My only iDevice is a touch that's now too old to accept the latest OS and there's zero chance that I'll ever buy another one of those. I can't justify the monthly charges for an iPhone and the iPad is pointless if you don't live in coffee shops and carry your life around in a messenger bag.
Part of me is glad Apple is doing well, but I don't see any indications that Apple will ever again make products for me. Guess I need to start learning about "distros".
Well Sandy Bridge has had its fair share of issues, so a delayed launch for the revised chipset is actually a good move. Especially on a machine like the iMac where they have more than a couple of SATA ports available for stuff.
The iMac is still an excellent consumer machine. Pricey, but eminently capable of just about anything that's not native resolution gaming for the latest titles. In fact, given how good the Core i7's are, they represent a very capable Mac Pro replacement with the added goodness of a 27" IPS screen.
I think you might be selling the Mac offerings a little short, to be honest.
I don't though. My only iDevice is a touch that's now too old to accept the latest OS and there's zero chance that I'll ever buy another one of those. I can't justify the monthly charges for an iPhone and the iPad is pointless if you don't live in coffee shops and carry your life around in a messenger bag.
Part of me is glad Apple is doing well, but I don't see any indications that Apple will ever again make products for me. Guess I need to start learning about "distros".
Well Sandy Bridge has had its fair share of issues, so a delayed launch for the revised chipset is actually a good move. Especially on a machine like the iMac where they have more than a couple of SATA ports available for stuff.
The iMac is still an excellent consumer machine. Pricey, but eminently capable of just about anything that's not native resolution gaming for the latest titles. In fact, given how good the Core i7's are, they represent a very capable Mac Pro replacement with the added goodness of a 27" IPS screen.
I think you might be selling the Mac offerings a little short, to be honest.
GregA
Dec 31, 11:08 PM
.. they could just use a similar setup as their Podcast listings... Apple lists em, for free so far, but the podcasters host the files.True, as long as there is a payment model that works too (for stuff like HBO On Demand). I would prefer to have a single bill for all subscriptions, but if I'm only watching a couple then I could pay them directly.
Of course, if I'm downloading direct from the provider, then someone still has to pay to provide shows (there's a specific cost for each show downloaded). Till now, the purchase model has ensured people pay a larger price per show, and only download once - while a subscription model would be a smaller price per show and it's feasible that some subscribers will watch the same thing again a week later. The download fee becomes a larger portion of the cost.
If Apple released a bittorrent model, it would move the upload cost to subscribers, who often pay nothing for uploads. TWiT reckons it costs Apple 25c/song for a download ... if they're right this would be a significant saving to Apple. If iTunes goes Bittorrent it might fundamentally change usage patterns of the net.
On another note, this would allow Apple to offer a 'backup' of everyone's purchased music and shows - which just means you can re-download them anytime you want rather than store them locally.
Of course, if I'm downloading direct from the provider, then someone still has to pay to provide shows (there's a specific cost for each show downloaded). Till now, the purchase model has ensured people pay a larger price per show, and only download once - while a subscription model would be a smaller price per show and it's feasible that some subscribers will watch the same thing again a week later. The download fee becomes a larger portion of the cost.
If Apple released a bittorrent model, it would move the upload cost to subscribers, who often pay nothing for uploads. TWiT reckons it costs Apple 25c/song for a download ... if they're right this would be a significant saving to Apple. If iTunes goes Bittorrent it might fundamentally change usage patterns of the net.
On another note, this would allow Apple to offer a 'backup' of everyone's purchased music and shows - which just means you can re-download them anytime you want rather than store them locally.
thefourthpope
May 2, 07:42 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_2 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8H7 Safari/6533.18.5)
you people like to discuss about everything.
Wanna talk about it? ;-)
you people like to discuss about everything.
Wanna talk about it? ;-)
Indiana Mac
Mar 20, 10:23 PM
First is advertising. Sure Apple's commericals are cute and award winning. But for once can we show some hard hitting ads that are shown more than just occasionally? Apple needs to advertise, and more than just the chic oh, that was nice. What I want to see is ads showing how much easier it is to use a mac than a pc, or how less venerable macs are to virus and hacking, then show the things for goodness sakes!!
Second is quality control.
Considering the recent problems with the ibook's logic board (over a years worth of laptops sold before admitting a problem?), problems with the 15in powerbook (wait almost a year for memory problems and white spots?) problems with the 12in powerbook(warping cases), and the old windtunnels, I'd say that Apple's quality control is slipping. Are they crap, no, but for the premium that we all pay they deserve to be better.
I do not mind a 500 dollar computer dying on me, but a 1700 laptop less than a year old? Yes I most certainly do. Having to pay $300 dollars to cover it? yes i do. Knowing a guy who sent in a 15in Albook three times for the screen? yes I do. A friend who owns a 12in whose case is warping, yes i do.
Price is not as much of an issue. Many of the people who buy 500 dollar computers would not take the time to learn about why a mac is better, they are too dollar concious(the Wal-Mart mentality, if its cheaper its better.)
Do I think Apple is dying, no. But we have an opportunity to regain market share if apple plays hardball.
Second is quality control.
Considering the recent problems with the ibook's logic board (over a years worth of laptops sold before admitting a problem?), problems with the 15in powerbook (wait almost a year for memory problems and white spots?) problems with the 12in powerbook(warping cases), and the old windtunnels, I'd say that Apple's quality control is slipping. Are they crap, no, but for the premium that we all pay they deserve to be better.
I do not mind a 500 dollar computer dying on me, but a 1700 laptop less than a year old? Yes I most certainly do. Having to pay $300 dollars to cover it? yes i do. Knowing a guy who sent in a 15in Albook three times for the screen? yes I do. A friend who owns a 12in whose case is warping, yes i do.
Price is not as much of an issue. Many of the people who buy 500 dollar computers would not take the time to learn about why a mac is better, they are too dollar concious(the Wal-Mart mentality, if its cheaper its better.)
Do I think Apple is dying, no. But we have an opportunity to regain market share if apple plays hardball.
Stella
Aug 16, 09:33 AM
If the report is from Digitimes then it can't be true.
They are consistently full of *****.
I'm surpised this isn't on page 2.
They are consistently full of *****.
I'm surpised this isn't on page 2.
Multimedia
Aug 25, 05:37 PM
Bingo! Bring on the iMac Ultra with Conroe, 23" display and a powerful GPU. Now that would be an immediate purchase for me.Span that puppy with a second 23" Apple or 24" Dell Display and you have a fairly ultimate desktop. Better yet have Apple make the DVI Port Dual so you can span to a 30" Screen. Now that would be truly the ultimate iMac - Until they offer a 30" iMac. :p
obey908
Feb 19, 08:40 PM
crapy iphone pics
http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y52/ObeyHK/photo.jpg
http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y52/ObeyHK/photo-1.jpg
http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y52/ObeyHK/photo.jpg
http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y52/ObeyHK/photo-1.jpg
MacSA
Aug 29, 11:21 AM
Apple's laptop sales have soared in the last 12 months or so, while desktop sales have seen quite a drop. A price cut to the Mini might go some way to rectifying that problem.
coffey7
Sep 6, 08:37 PM
I rather just buy a dvd for $10-20. I'm not downloading anything from the apple store for that price.
No comments:
Post a Comment