razzmatazz
Aug 6, 10:43 PM
Yep. And Milk. Steve Jobs will climb down your chimney, eat the cookies, and pour the milk into any PCs he finds in your house :)
Well he won't find any PCs! Our house is PC free. We have a PowerMac G5, iMac G5, Powerbook G4, and a MacBook. He would be very happy :D
Well he won't find any PCs! Our house is PC free. We have a PowerMac G5, iMac G5, Powerbook G4, and a MacBook. He would be very happy :D
emotion
Aug 16, 07:36 AM
Wonder if the wireless ipod wont be the iphone.
I'm thinking this too. I thnk the rumours of a new nano enclosure may also be the iphone. I guess we'll see but as Chundles points out this isn't the most reliable source of info (Digitimes).
I'm thinking this too. I thnk the rumours of a new nano enclosure may also be the iphone. I guess we'll see but as Chundles points out this isn't the most reliable source of info (Digitimes).
Epsilon88
Oct 23, 10:32 PM
Just subscribed online w/ Consumer Reports. I've always trusted their advice, and it's led me well.
koobcamuk
Apr 2, 08:23 PM
Marketing geniuses :)
Hmmm... not really. I hate marketing. Nothing they say will change that. They also need to stop calling the iPad "magical". It really isn't. It's very nice, but not magical.
Hmmm... not really. I hate marketing. Nothing they say will change that. They also need to stop calling the iPad "magical". It really isn't. It's very nice, but not magical.
barkmonster
Apr 27, 11:59 AM
You can't be more wrong. I was writing Web Apps in the 90s using mod_perl, Apache and PostgreSQL.
Other OSes have also had Applications associated as a word to describe the software that runs on them by the media and internally, see this 1989 reference to OS/2 :
http://books.google.com/books?id=JzoEAAAAMBAJ&pg=PT40#v=onepage&q&f=false
I was simply suggesting that Apple used the term "App" as a familiar leaning to the way they call software "Applications" in Mac OS. Also, Apple have being refering to software that runs on their operating systems as "Applications" since 1980: -
The Apple Lisa (precursor to the original 1984 Macintosh) had an Applications folder in 1980.
http://www.guidebookgallery.org/articles/inventingthelisauserinterface/pics/fig6
The Macintosh has obviously had an Applications folder from 1984 to present
In terms of GUI history and it's conventions, there was the Xerox Alto as far back as 1973 but from all the screen shot hunting I've done, it seems to have no Applications or Programs folder because it has a "starting point" (indicated by the Start box) and then a list of files to open, some of which end in .run which presumably are executable programs/applications: -
http://www.computerhistory.org/revolution/input-output/14/347/1857
So yeah, "The Macintosh" wasn't the first GUI that had APPlicationS but Apple appear to have a LOT of prior use of the term with the Lisa OS before it in 1980 and GUI consistency between Mac OS X and iOS being a cut down version OS X, they logically refer to Applications on iOS devices in a cut down form too.
Other OSes have also had Applications associated as a word to describe the software that runs on them by the media and internally, see this 1989 reference to OS/2 :
http://books.google.com/books?id=JzoEAAAAMBAJ&pg=PT40#v=onepage&q&f=false
I was simply suggesting that Apple used the term "App" as a familiar leaning to the way they call software "Applications" in Mac OS. Also, Apple have being refering to software that runs on their operating systems as "Applications" since 1980: -
The Apple Lisa (precursor to the original 1984 Macintosh) had an Applications folder in 1980.
http://www.guidebookgallery.org/articles/inventingthelisauserinterface/pics/fig6
The Macintosh has obviously had an Applications folder from 1984 to present
In terms of GUI history and it's conventions, there was the Xerox Alto as far back as 1973 but from all the screen shot hunting I've done, it seems to have no Applications or Programs folder because it has a "starting point" (indicated by the Start box) and then a list of files to open, some of which end in .run which presumably are executable programs/applications: -
http://www.computerhistory.org/revolution/input-output/14/347/1857
So yeah, "The Macintosh" wasn't the first GUI that had APPlicationS but Apple appear to have a LOT of prior use of the term with the Lisa OS before it in 1980 and GUI consistency between Mac OS X and iOS being a cut down version OS X, they logically refer to Applications on iOS devices in a cut down form too.
siurpeeman
Jan 12, 12:45 AM
i think you guys are all missing the big picture. "smell in the air"? obviously, mac os x is bringing smell-o-vision (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smell-o-vision)! that's right, you heard it here first. :)
Earendil
Nov 28, 10:32 AM
Well, you just made my point better than me. Of the millions of Macs sold, how many are to customers needing correct color and really care about the finer details of the monitor's specs?
*snip*
I have both the Dell and the Apple cinema display 20".
*snip*
But who cares? A very small percentage of Apple's market cares or could even tell the difference.
And that percentage shoots up when you take into account only the Pro style Towers. And it's a shame your Cinema display is showing age sooner than I would think it should. Still, in my own experience with color reproduction and accuracy in Photography, the cinema displays I have used have exceeded my Dell 2005. In regular computer use I wouldn't be able to tell them apart (aside from the back light bleed on the Dell).
If Apple has been all about getting "switchers" and trying to persuade Windows users that Apple and OS X is better, than why is Apple ignoring that market with their monitor offering? You said so yourself, these are "PRO" monitors. Because they want you to buy iMacs. That's an extremely limited choice if you ask me. Oh, I can hear the fan boys now, screw you if you don't care about color seperation and the finer details of image quality. Go buy your $hi+ dell and get off of this board.
Do you see any fan boys making posts here? I see some people here that are ignorant of the way monitors work and yet are trying to pass opinions on Apple/Dell/LCD market as gold though.
That's the issue though, currently Apple doesn't sell a consumer computer that either doesn't already come with a monitor, or where you aren't supposed to already have a monitor.
the MacBook and iMac both have screens built in, the MacMini, if you saw any of it's advertisements or presentation, is meant as a direct replacement for a PC box. i.e. bring your own mouse, keyboard and monitor. I as well as another guy have already said this though.
It's a problem, still, I want too want Apple to sell a consumer level monitor. But Apple certainly doesn't have to enter that market if they don't want to. Besides, the market for a cheap 17" monitor is TINY. You're talking Mini owners (who don't already have a monitor) maybe a few laptop owners, and...? G5 owners? If you're plugin a $150 LCD up to a G5 you should be shot :P Unless you are running three at once or something.
Apple sells a consumer mini, but not a consumer monitor? Why not? You all are hammering away at the professional quality of this monitor. But I have both the Dell and the Apple and they look about the same to me. Actually, before Apple updated their monitors the 20" looked terrible next to the Dell. (I have both generations) And are the "Pros" who need that color perfection buying 20" monitors? Probably not. 23" and 30" would be my guess. So why have a high priced 20" display?
Many professionals run Duel 20" screens. In fact I see this setup far more often that a 30" screen.
So all this hupla about color correction is making my point. Apple wants you to buy an iMac and they keep their monitors price high and limit their computer offerings to give you the incentive to buy one.
wow wow wow. You just me on that logic jump. Apple sells some high end systems to Professions in industry that demand at least a certain standard. Apple also sells other computers. Apple Sells monitors that are aiming at (hitting is another matter) those professionals that demand a certain standard. Apple doesn't currently sell any other monitors. How is that proof that Apple is trying to personally screw you out of your cash?
Since that's all they sell they are making a good profit off of them. Don't get me wrong, they are nice computers, beautiful even, but what if I wan't something more flexable? Maybe a little more expandible. My choice is a $600 mini (not too flexable or expandable) or a $2400 Mac Pro. Big Difference. Oh, that $1499 price spot fits nicely with an iMac however. See my point?
Yeah, there is a gap, and I do see it as a problem. No one in the entire thread is disagreeing with that. You ideas on why there is a gap is viewed a little bit more negative than I would, but whatever.
If they lower the price of the 20" any more it will cut into their sales of 20" iMacs. And that is why it's hovering close to $700 and not $200 or $300 cheaper.
Another huge jump in logic based on no facts and stretched assumptions. Do you know what Apple takes home at the end of the day from each monitor sale, each iMac sale, and each Mini sale? Can you provide that data to back up any of your conclusions? It sure would go a long way in getting anyone to side with you on that point. However, until you do, I'm going to say this one more time:
Cinema Display = Pro quality Display (I don't give a hoot if your eyes can't see it, the components alone show it, and that is what cost money to make not your eye sight)
Pro Quality = not cheap, don't go looking for a $200 monitor for pro work.
And for the last time, I'm still waiting for someone to show me a display that matches the Cinemas tech specs and qualifications and also cost downwards in the $400 range that people keep speaking about. Because until someone does, I'm inclined to believe, based on my own looking, that Apple is right with the industry on this one (or close) and all our whining on cost means jack.
So, comfort yourself all you want that you have a "pro" quality monitor. If that makes you feel better parting with $300 then go for it.
In light of that little sarcastc jab, the irony is that you are one of, if not the only user, to have admitted to owning a 20" Cinema display in this thread so far :rolleyes:
[quote]I doubt you could tell the differnce with both monitors sitting side by side. I have both and I can't realy see a $200 - $300 price justification, at least at the low end. Oh, I'm just a poor consumer, not a "pro", so I should go buy my crappy Dell and be happy. Right?
I'll just quote myself on this one...
[QUOTE=Earendil]You seem to be coming at me as if I stand on some high ground, when in fact I own (as stated in my signature) a 20" wide Dell monitor
So just trust me when I say that the difference in my Photographs, and Photo editing on my Dell vs an Apple monitor is different, and a noticeable difference not just in color, but in back lighting and change in color based on viewing angle. When I'm surfing the web I don't notice/care, or playing games, or just about anything else. And since I don't make money on my photos, or do too much printing, I went with the Dell because the price/benefits ratio did not justify the Apple monitor. I wish Apple had provided a consumer level monitor for me to buy, it would go far better with my Powerbook, but they didn't. I'm not going to discount their current line up just because I can't afford it, and I don't think you should discount it just because you don't understand it technically.
But if you had been following the thread you'd know that about me already...
But if Apple really want's to get people to switch in larger numbers they need to offer a little more choice at a competitive price. A nice quality 20" monitor competitvly priced to go with that mini or a mid-range tower. I'm asking Apple to drop their price on their monitors $200 and offer a $1200 - $1500 tower. Is that asking too much?
No, you are asking for two very different things here.
1. You are asking Apple to produce a consumer level monitor that you can afford and falls in line with the market. I think everyone agrees with this idea, whether there is a large enough market for Apple to justify it (only Aple costumers would consider them) is up for debate.
and...
2. You are asking Apple to drop the price on their Pro displays without giving a reason (all your reasons apply to a consumer LCD), nor have you provided a similarly speced display to show that Apple is out of line with it's pricing.
There are large difference between a Mini and a G5. Just because most people wouldn't notice it doesn't mean it isn't there. Just relax and trust me that in two properly functioning displays, Apple's monitors are very good, and imho should never be compared to Apple's displays unless you are trying to convince a consumer (who can't tell the difference) not to buy it and buy an alternative display. I have done this before. Just like you'd never compare a Mini and a G5 unless grandma was thinking about buying a G5 to surf the web with...
~Tyler
*snip*
I have both the Dell and the Apple cinema display 20".
*snip*
But who cares? A very small percentage of Apple's market cares or could even tell the difference.
And that percentage shoots up when you take into account only the Pro style Towers. And it's a shame your Cinema display is showing age sooner than I would think it should. Still, in my own experience with color reproduction and accuracy in Photography, the cinema displays I have used have exceeded my Dell 2005. In regular computer use I wouldn't be able to tell them apart (aside from the back light bleed on the Dell).
If Apple has been all about getting "switchers" and trying to persuade Windows users that Apple and OS X is better, than why is Apple ignoring that market with their monitor offering? You said so yourself, these are "PRO" monitors. Because they want you to buy iMacs. That's an extremely limited choice if you ask me. Oh, I can hear the fan boys now, screw you if you don't care about color seperation and the finer details of image quality. Go buy your $hi+ dell and get off of this board.
Do you see any fan boys making posts here? I see some people here that are ignorant of the way monitors work and yet are trying to pass opinions on Apple/Dell/LCD market as gold though.
That's the issue though, currently Apple doesn't sell a consumer computer that either doesn't already come with a monitor, or where you aren't supposed to already have a monitor.
the MacBook and iMac both have screens built in, the MacMini, if you saw any of it's advertisements or presentation, is meant as a direct replacement for a PC box. i.e. bring your own mouse, keyboard and monitor. I as well as another guy have already said this though.
It's a problem, still, I want too want Apple to sell a consumer level monitor. But Apple certainly doesn't have to enter that market if they don't want to. Besides, the market for a cheap 17" monitor is TINY. You're talking Mini owners (who don't already have a monitor) maybe a few laptop owners, and...? G5 owners? If you're plugin a $150 LCD up to a G5 you should be shot :P Unless you are running three at once or something.
Apple sells a consumer mini, but not a consumer monitor? Why not? You all are hammering away at the professional quality of this monitor. But I have both the Dell and the Apple and they look about the same to me. Actually, before Apple updated their monitors the 20" looked terrible next to the Dell. (I have both generations) And are the "Pros" who need that color perfection buying 20" monitors? Probably not. 23" and 30" would be my guess. So why have a high priced 20" display?
Many professionals run Duel 20" screens. In fact I see this setup far more often that a 30" screen.
So all this hupla about color correction is making my point. Apple wants you to buy an iMac and they keep their monitors price high and limit their computer offerings to give you the incentive to buy one.
wow wow wow. You just me on that logic jump. Apple sells some high end systems to Professions in industry that demand at least a certain standard. Apple also sells other computers. Apple Sells monitors that are aiming at (hitting is another matter) those professionals that demand a certain standard. Apple doesn't currently sell any other monitors. How is that proof that Apple is trying to personally screw you out of your cash?
Since that's all they sell they are making a good profit off of them. Don't get me wrong, they are nice computers, beautiful even, but what if I wan't something more flexable? Maybe a little more expandible. My choice is a $600 mini (not too flexable or expandable) or a $2400 Mac Pro. Big Difference. Oh, that $1499 price spot fits nicely with an iMac however. See my point?
Yeah, there is a gap, and I do see it as a problem. No one in the entire thread is disagreeing with that. You ideas on why there is a gap is viewed a little bit more negative than I would, but whatever.
If they lower the price of the 20" any more it will cut into their sales of 20" iMacs. And that is why it's hovering close to $700 and not $200 or $300 cheaper.
Another huge jump in logic based on no facts and stretched assumptions. Do you know what Apple takes home at the end of the day from each monitor sale, each iMac sale, and each Mini sale? Can you provide that data to back up any of your conclusions? It sure would go a long way in getting anyone to side with you on that point. However, until you do, I'm going to say this one more time:
Cinema Display = Pro quality Display (I don't give a hoot if your eyes can't see it, the components alone show it, and that is what cost money to make not your eye sight)
Pro Quality = not cheap, don't go looking for a $200 monitor for pro work.
And for the last time, I'm still waiting for someone to show me a display that matches the Cinemas tech specs and qualifications and also cost downwards in the $400 range that people keep speaking about. Because until someone does, I'm inclined to believe, based on my own looking, that Apple is right with the industry on this one (or close) and all our whining on cost means jack.
So, comfort yourself all you want that you have a "pro" quality monitor. If that makes you feel better parting with $300 then go for it.
In light of that little sarcastc jab, the irony is that you are one of, if not the only user, to have admitted to owning a 20" Cinema display in this thread so far :rolleyes:
[quote]I doubt you could tell the differnce with both monitors sitting side by side. I have both and I can't realy see a $200 - $300 price justification, at least at the low end. Oh, I'm just a poor consumer, not a "pro", so I should go buy my crappy Dell and be happy. Right?
I'll just quote myself on this one...
[QUOTE=Earendil]You seem to be coming at me as if I stand on some high ground, when in fact I own (as stated in my signature) a 20" wide Dell monitor
So just trust me when I say that the difference in my Photographs, and Photo editing on my Dell vs an Apple monitor is different, and a noticeable difference not just in color, but in back lighting and change in color based on viewing angle. When I'm surfing the web I don't notice/care, or playing games, or just about anything else. And since I don't make money on my photos, or do too much printing, I went with the Dell because the price/benefits ratio did not justify the Apple monitor. I wish Apple had provided a consumer level monitor for me to buy, it would go far better with my Powerbook, but they didn't. I'm not going to discount their current line up just because I can't afford it, and I don't think you should discount it just because you don't understand it technically.
But if you had been following the thread you'd know that about me already...
But if Apple really want's to get people to switch in larger numbers they need to offer a little more choice at a competitive price. A nice quality 20" monitor competitvly priced to go with that mini or a mid-range tower. I'm asking Apple to drop their price on their monitors $200 and offer a $1200 - $1500 tower. Is that asking too much?
No, you are asking for two very different things here.
1. You are asking Apple to produce a consumer level monitor that you can afford and falls in line with the market. I think everyone agrees with this idea, whether there is a large enough market for Apple to justify it (only Aple costumers would consider them) is up for debate.
and...
2. You are asking Apple to drop the price on their Pro displays without giving a reason (all your reasons apply to a consumer LCD), nor have you provided a similarly speced display to show that Apple is out of line with it's pricing.
There are large difference between a Mini and a G5. Just because most people wouldn't notice it doesn't mean it isn't there. Just relax and trust me that in two properly functioning displays, Apple's monitors are very good, and imho should never be compared to Apple's displays unless you are trying to convince a consumer (who can't tell the difference) not to buy it and buy an alternative display. I have done this before. Just like you'd never compare a Mini and a G5 unless grandma was thinking about buying a G5 to surf the web with...
~Tyler
macquariumguy
Jan 5, 04:04 PM
I'm still driving the NSX every day. Coming up on 6 years.
http://techquarium.com/gallery2z/d/37750-2/DSC_5361.jpg
http://techquarium.com/gallery2z/d/37750-2/DSC_5361.jpg
bellman
Apr 20, 06:02 AM
So what are we looking at? 1-2 weeks?:cool:
macgeek18
Feb 20, 11:49 PM
It is time to drink the intel Kool-aid my friend
Lol I again drank it 2 days ago by buying a Intel MacBook. Sorry G4's, looks like retirement is looming again. ;)
Lol I again drank it 2 days ago by buying a Intel MacBook. Sorry G4's, looks like retirement is looming again. ;)
blindzero
Nov 28, 11:09 AM
guys i think you're being too hard on zune. play with one. it's not THAT bad. it's ugly, but the interface isn't bad at all. I don't plan on buying a zune (my ipod is fine and i'm waiting on a video pod), but it's good to have it in the marketplace for competition sake. maybe apple will actually pay attention to some of the features like the built in radio tuner which is a nobrainer...
rezenclowd3
Jan 8, 07:17 PM
I was finally able to take my own pics of my just acquired '88 BMW 325is with M50B25TU engine swap. Darn this car is quick and handles so very well.
Don't mind my nerdy self, It's who I am and I have come to accept it over a decade ago:D
http://oomsgfx.com/misc/Posts%20on%20Forums/E30%20pics/DSC_4945.jpg
http://oomsgfx.com/misc/Posts%20on%20Forums/E30%20pics/DSC_4961.jpg
http://oomsgfx.com/misc/Posts%20on%20Forums/E30%20pics/DSC_4998.jpg
http://oomsgfx.com/misc/Posts%20on%20Forums/E30%20pics/DSC_5027.jpg
Don't mind my nerdy self, It's who I am and I have come to accept it over a decade ago:D
http://oomsgfx.com/misc/Posts%20on%20Forums/E30%20pics/DSC_4945.jpg
http://oomsgfx.com/misc/Posts%20on%20Forums/E30%20pics/DSC_4961.jpg
http://oomsgfx.com/misc/Posts%20on%20Forums/E30%20pics/DSC_4998.jpg
http://oomsgfx.com/misc/Posts%20on%20Forums/E30%20pics/DSC_5027.jpg
heffemonkeyman
Sep 6, 07:41 PM
Can people please stop with the whole, I want 1080p resolution download files!
It's insane, it would never ever work, Apple would sell far more movies at the current resolution than if they did HD. Sure, you guys would probably buy, if you had the patience to wait for 2 and a half days to download the film, and then be able to fit maybe 2 or 3 onto your hard drive, and that's it! Not going to happen. The majority of the world is not as obsessed with quality, they'll choose convenience. Nobody thinks "I fancy watching a film, maybe I'll go buy it off iTunes so I can watch it in 3 days time". The idea is convenience people, if it takes longer than 4 hours to download it will never fly.
Using an advanced video codec like h.264, you can get decent quality in 720p at 6 Mbps and 1080p at 8 Mbps. (Look at the HD trailers on apple.com)
With current cable modems now getting 8 Mbps download speeds, we're not talking 2 and a half days, we're talking realtime or close to it.
I'm betting apple skips "DVD Quality" (whatever that means) and goes straight into HD. It is the 21st Century after all...
It's insane, it would never ever work, Apple would sell far more movies at the current resolution than if they did HD. Sure, you guys would probably buy, if you had the patience to wait for 2 and a half days to download the film, and then be able to fit maybe 2 or 3 onto your hard drive, and that's it! Not going to happen. The majority of the world is not as obsessed with quality, they'll choose convenience. Nobody thinks "I fancy watching a film, maybe I'll go buy it off iTunes so I can watch it in 3 days time". The idea is convenience people, if it takes longer than 4 hours to download it will never fly.
Using an advanced video codec like h.264, you can get decent quality in 720p at 6 Mbps and 1080p at 8 Mbps. (Look at the HD trailers on apple.com)
With current cable modems now getting 8 Mbps download speeds, we're not talking 2 and a half days, we're talking realtime or close to it.
I'm betting apple skips "DVD Quality" (whatever that means) and goes straight into HD. It is the 21st Century after all...
Ravich
Mar 20, 04:31 PM
Enough with the false comparisons. Homeopathy doesnt actively harm people that buy into it. "ex-gay" therapy is harmful.
Do you think that anyone would stand for a KKK app under the reasoning of "free speech"?
Do you think that anyone would stand for a KKK app under the reasoning of "free speech"?
ssn637
Mar 31, 02:41 AM
Can we perform a clean installation with DP2 or do we have to first install DP1? I just deleted the original Lion installation image from my backup drive, thinking I could restore the DP2 image to an external drive and boot from there. But it looks more like this requires Lion DP1. How do I download DP1 again from the AppStore if I need it? :(
Stella
Nov 27, 01:53 PM
Why do you continue to link to DigiTimes? Its not worth the time and effort, they are highly inaccurate - 100% wrong.
BlizzardBomb
Sep 1, 01:01 PM
No way would I pay an extra $500 for an 8% faster machine and a slighly larger display, when for that money I can go with the 20" and buy a second widescreen 20" display and have a HUGE viewable area.
The 23" is going to have to be a LOT closer to the 20" in order for it to sell. I'm thinking $1899 or $1999, or else it will have to be decked out with extra RAM, HD space, or CPU speed.
There are of course disadvantages to dual displays...
Meet dani shay the ladies put
justin bieber look alike dani.
The 23" is going to have to be a LOT closer to the 20" in order for it to sell. I'm thinking $1899 or $1999, or else it will have to be decked out with extra RAM, HD space, or CPU speed.
There are of course disadvantages to dual displays...
xelavelobos
Jan 1, 07:29 PM
I am very excited about this year, but apple will be smart not to do too much in one show. I mean how many surprises and new products can they release at one time before the public gets overwhelmed or exhausted (i.e. the dinosaur sequence in king kong)? I think they will focus on a few special things, probably not the phone though.
zelet
Aug 25, 09:20 AM
my beef with the mini is when I boot into 'doze and wanna play games - that GMA950 just cant cut the mustard.
So what would make me rush out and buy a new mini (and put this one under the TV) would be a faster graphics processor.
Cant see that happening any time soon tho.
I agree to that. I got the Mini thinking the GPU couldn't be that bad. I was really wrong. If they up the GPU I'll buy another one and be happy. If not - I'll live with the underpowered video of the mini until Apple finally releases a headless iMac (or something equivalent).
So what would make me rush out and buy a new mini (and put this one under the TV) would be a faster graphics processor.
Cant see that happening any time soon tho.
I agree to that. I got the Mini thinking the GPU couldn't be that bad. I was really wrong. If they up the GPU I'll buy another one and be happy. If not - I'll live with the underpowered video of the mini until Apple finally releases a headless iMac (or something equivalent).
Panther71
Oct 21, 04:38 PM
I just received my Proporta aluminum-lined leather case. I got it from Amazon for $29.95 with free shipping. It is exactly what I was looking for in a case that will protect the screen when I have my Ipod Touch in my pocket. It is a quality built case at a very good price for a leather case.
Josias
Nov 27, 01:49 PM
Don't they already make one? Its called a 17" MacBook Pro... :)
Yes, they also make an iMac.
No way people get a MacMini and a MacBook Pro. Pull out the display, hack it in a dell casing etc...:confused:
BTW, with the intro of the low end iMac, I find this to be bogus.
Yes, they also make an iMac.
No way people get a MacMini and a MacBook Pro. Pull out the display, hack it in a dell casing etc...:confused:
BTW, with the intro of the low end iMac, I find this to be bogus.
J the Ninja
Apr 12, 09:27 PM
""Magnetic Timeline": audio moves vertically out of the way instead of causing a trim collision"
YEAH!
YEAH!
digitalnicotine
Nov 27, 11:59 AM
It was my annual Black Friday "Buy a ton of video games" day today. Most of them on sale quite a lot, so it worked out nicely. I got 6 really awesome games for just over $100....
Nice! Don't forget to look out a window once in a while. ;)
Nice! Don't forget to look out a window once in a while. ;)
rickdollar
Apr 19, 02:55 PM
The logical thing would to mirror the recent MBP refresh. I really dont think they would include USB 3.0 ports until Ivy Bridge.
It doesn't look like it according to the quote but he was referring to Ivy Bridge.
It doesn't look like it according to the quote but he was referring to Ivy Bridge.
No comments:
Post a Comment