stcanard
Nov 28, 04:53 PM
Word? Word's being replaced more and more by e-mail. I used to type my notes in GMail and sometimes I write essays in GMail
You might, but most businesses don't. Look at how many job applications require resumes in MS Word format. Its not the simple letters and essays that are the issue (especially with OOo being so good on import/export) but the complicated documents that come out of managers and product managers. With a resume I ceratainly don't want to risk that their version of word isn't quite compatible with my OOo export, but that's why I send it in PDF since I don't even trust Word.
Thank+you+letter+template
thank you letter after
thank you letter after
thank you letter template.
Thank you letter writing,
thank you letter
Kids thank you letters
gt;-seekers must send thank-you
How to Make a Thank You Card
thank you letter template for
thank you letter template for
professional thank you letter
Thanksgiving Thank You Letters
Post-Interview Thank You
thank you letter template for
Used as shouldapr , follow-up letter template An interview, as a freejob-seekers must send thank-you letter Full ofarchitect firm rejection letters Je
thank you letter free
GDM Thank you letter
You might, but most businesses don't. Look at how many job applications require resumes in MS Word format. Its not the simple letters and essays that are the issue (especially with OOo being so good on import/export) but the complicated documents that come out of managers and product managers. With a resume I ceratainly don't want to risk that their version of word isn't quite compatible with my OOo export, but that's why I send it in PDF since I don't even trust Word.
freebooter
Sep 1, 12:13 PM
Call the 23" iMac Pro, paint it black, give it a glossy screen, charge 30% more, awright!! The prestige!!
Joking.
I think a 23" iMac would be close in price to a standard MacPro tower...it would make my next upgrade a tougher decision than otherwise would be the case. I'd probably go for the 23 if she had 4GB ram (easily acquirable ram) potential and a decent GPU. God! I'd have a 19" + 23" setup!! Holy Mother of Jesus!! I think I just soiled myself.
Oh, I think disposing of the chin would be desirable and might be possible.
Joking.
I think a 23" iMac would be close in price to a standard MacPro tower...it would make my next upgrade a tougher decision than otherwise would be the case. I'd probably go for the 23 if she had 4GB ram (easily acquirable ram) potential and a decent GPU. God! I'd have a 19" + 23" setup!! Holy Mother of Jesus!! I think I just soiled myself.
Oh, I think disposing of the chin would be desirable and might be possible.
bigandy
Nov 29, 01:51 PM
Actually, I was thinking they were working on a car ;)
oh hell yeah, the iCar? Couldn't be iDrive - that's already a BMW thing :rolleyes:
I thought this the minute the thing was demonstrated - it'll be a whole lot more than they showed, and it'll look a whole lot different too, methinks. :)
oh hell yeah, the iCar? Couldn't be iDrive - that's already a BMW thing :rolleyes:
I thought this the minute the thing was demonstrated - it'll be a whole lot more than they showed, and it'll look a whole lot different too, methinks. :)
lyzardking
Feb 8, 07:51 AM
congrats to lyzardking for 6 million points!
Thanx!
Never thought I'd ever get to this point when I started folding (almost) 4 years ago
;)
Thanx!
Never thought I'd ever get to this point when I started folding (almost) 4 years ago
;)
Tubby The Bull
Oct 23, 08:49 AM
Hi folks!
I've read Macrumors every day for years, so I figure I may as well start participating :)
Last Friday, we took our Nov'05 PowerBook into the local Apple dealer to trade it in for a MBP. We've been with particular dealer for over 10 years, so there is a good trust/freindship thing going on. Anyhow, the dealer told us he expects new MBP models within 10 days, so he is holding our order until Halloween.
He's been right before, so we have a pretty good feeling about October 31st.
Obviously, it can't be verified... I'm just relaying the info I've been given.
Don't flame me - I'm a friendly Canuk :p
Tubby
I've read Macrumors every day for years, so I figure I may as well start participating :)
Last Friday, we took our Nov'05 PowerBook into the local Apple dealer to trade it in for a MBP. We've been with particular dealer for over 10 years, so there is a good trust/freindship thing going on. Anyhow, the dealer told us he expects new MBP models within 10 days, so he is holding our order until Halloween.
He's been right before, so we have a pretty good feeling about October 31st.
Obviously, it can't be verified... I'm just relaying the info I've been given.
Don't flame me - I'm a friendly Canuk :p
Tubby
swingerofbirch
Jul 18, 12:57 PM
I couldn't imagine movie production companies letting first run movies be downloaded before the DVD's come out. I would much rather go see it as a social thing then watch it in my own home.
Wow. Different worlds. If there's one thing I can't stand, it's people. I would pay top dollar to see first runs without going to a theatre.
Plus where I live we don't even get a lot of movies. It took months for us to get Brokeback Mountain, and there's no telling if we'll ever get Strangers with Candy.
Wow. Different worlds. If there's one thing I can't stand, it's people. I would pay top dollar to see first runs without going to a theatre.
Plus where I live we don't even get a lot of movies. It took months for us to get Brokeback Mountain, and there's no telling if we'll ever get Strangers with Candy.
Northgrove
Apr 21, 11:28 AM
Although this isn't stopping me from using my phone, I still think this is definitely the right move and I'm interested in hearing what Apple has to say about it, and hope they are pressured on this topic. As for Google: a) this discussion isn't about Google so that company is off-topic, and b) assuming it *was* about Google rather than Apple, I would have liked to see the same steps taken there.
Storing a user's whereabouts for the foreseeable future with no system to remove old data (like Google and other search companies does it, anonymizing data within 18-24 months) and not even tell your users about it is definitely not good. When data is collected that can compromise a user's privacy, they need to include details on this in their end-user agreement.
Storing a user's whereabouts for the foreseeable future with no system to remove old data (like Google and other search companies does it, anonymizing data within 18-24 months) and not even tell your users about it is definitely not good. When data is collected that can compromise a user's privacy, they need to include details on this in their end-user agreement.
NXTMIKE
May 2, 04:22 PM
Whatever happened to Command-Delete?
....this is starting to look like Aero in Windows Vista.
See any similarities?
http://thecustomizewindows.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/How-to-remove-the-confirmation-prompt-to-delete-any-file-in-Windows-7-2.png
http://cdn.macrumors.com/article/2011/05/02/171331-lion_delete_evernote.jpg
....this is starting to look like Aero in Windows Vista.
See any similarities?
http://thecustomizewindows.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/How-to-remove-the-confirmation-prompt-to-delete-any-file-in-Windows-7-2.png
http://cdn.macrumors.com/article/2011/05/02/171331-lion_delete_evernote.jpg
maverick808
Oct 24, 06:26 AM
dun get excited it is just routine maintanace. The new mbk will will be released late november
sorry
There has NEVER been routine maintainence carried out early on Tuesday mornings. NEVER.
Maintainence always happens in the evenings.
Also, what's and MBK?
sorry
There has NEVER been routine maintainence carried out early on Tuesday mornings. NEVER.
Maintainence always happens in the evenings.
Also, what's and MBK?
Nugget
Jan 1, 05:20 PM
Sounds like the keynote will either be really boring or really surprising.
donlphi
Nov 29, 02:05 PM
It's true then; Apple are releasing a toilet with an iPod dock! SWEET!!!! :eek:
Already been done...
http://www.tuaw.com/2006/01/11/atechs-toilet-paper-dispenser-ipod-dock/
Already been done...
http://www.tuaw.com/2006/01/11/atechs-toilet-paper-dispenser-ipod-dock/
Lord Blackadder
Mar 22, 12:41 AM
Well, personally I would consider "loyalists" part of military assets. And I'm sure most generals do as well because that's the way they talk about killing soldiers. Thus inflicting "material" damage should include the people who operate the weapons via command.
And one would figure that since there are a huge number of "defectors", some of these loyalists must be pretty hard-core and you'll have to kill them to prevent them from picking up a simple AK and IED later on and blow up things from the shadows. This might seem harsh, but the reality of it is that if they pick a side, they accept their fate as a loser.
The UN mandate calls for a no-fly zone. Under current military doctrine that requires that the opponent's air defense network be degraded. Some military personnel will inevitably die when their air defense installations come under attack. Other than that, we don't have the authority to attack loyalists unless they are threatening the safety of civilians by bombarding rebel cities or some such, and then only if they can be clearly identified and attacked without risking civilian lives. Loyalist units that are simply surrounding a rebel strongholds are not legitimate targets at this stage.
However, in light of the situation, I would understand the need to leave some "real warriors" alive and hope they join the new administration because looking at these rebels, they are mostly a bunch of city slickers or something that found a gun, see smoke, run toward the front lines all exited...to come right back carrying their dead in a bedsheet. It's a real joke how they handle this rebelion. If this is how it is, we're going to need troops on the ground to get these guys in shape...if not during...then after the supplanting of Quadafi.
This is pretty much how any irregular force has behaved at any time in history (see the beginnings of the American and French revolutions for example) It's not something we can control. Some rebel units are made up of defected regular army units, they will undoubtedly form the core of any rebel advance and show better cohesion. By merely existing as a force in being the, the irregular units (or more correctly, loose bands) legitimize the opposition, and they've proven somewhat effective in defense.
As for troops on the ground - this is a Libyan civil war. The UN's mission is to prevent Gaddafi from murdering his own people in his attempt to maintain power. The Libyans must do the rest.
I honestly wouldn't be surprised if the end result of all this is not at all dissimilar to the goings-on in Iraq.
As long as we don't invade, this is unlikely to be as bad as Iraq. We are aiding a popular uprising against hated autocrat, not invading a foreign country with plans of occupation and prolonged rooting out of insurgents. There are still many potential pitfalls and I am not arguing that the situation is necessarily a good one, but it is certainly less risky than the 2003 Iraq invasion.
And one would figure that since there are a huge number of "defectors", some of these loyalists must be pretty hard-core and you'll have to kill them to prevent them from picking up a simple AK and IED later on and blow up things from the shadows. This might seem harsh, but the reality of it is that if they pick a side, they accept their fate as a loser.
The UN mandate calls for a no-fly zone. Under current military doctrine that requires that the opponent's air defense network be degraded. Some military personnel will inevitably die when their air defense installations come under attack. Other than that, we don't have the authority to attack loyalists unless they are threatening the safety of civilians by bombarding rebel cities or some such, and then only if they can be clearly identified and attacked without risking civilian lives. Loyalist units that are simply surrounding a rebel strongholds are not legitimate targets at this stage.
However, in light of the situation, I would understand the need to leave some "real warriors" alive and hope they join the new administration because looking at these rebels, they are mostly a bunch of city slickers or something that found a gun, see smoke, run toward the front lines all exited...to come right back carrying their dead in a bedsheet. It's a real joke how they handle this rebelion. If this is how it is, we're going to need troops on the ground to get these guys in shape...if not during...then after the supplanting of Quadafi.
This is pretty much how any irregular force has behaved at any time in history (see the beginnings of the American and French revolutions for example) It's not something we can control. Some rebel units are made up of defected regular army units, they will undoubtedly form the core of any rebel advance and show better cohesion. By merely existing as a force in being the, the irregular units (or more correctly, loose bands) legitimize the opposition, and they've proven somewhat effective in defense.
As for troops on the ground - this is a Libyan civil war. The UN's mission is to prevent Gaddafi from murdering his own people in his attempt to maintain power. The Libyans must do the rest.
I honestly wouldn't be surprised if the end result of all this is not at all dissimilar to the goings-on in Iraq.
As long as we don't invade, this is unlikely to be as bad as Iraq. We are aiding a popular uprising against hated autocrat, not invading a foreign country with plans of occupation and prolonged rooting out of insurgents. There are still many potential pitfalls and I am not arguing that the situation is necessarily a good one, but it is certainly less risky than the 2003 Iraq invasion.
Reach9
Mar 22, 03:58 PM
I wish i had that many songs that i listen to :(
markgixxer750
Jan 2, 05:50 PM
http://forums.macrumors.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=266117&stc=1&d=1294012075
http://forums.macrumors.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=266118&stc=1&d=1294012078
http://forums.macrumors.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=266119&stc=1&d=1294012078
http://forums.macrumors.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=266120&stc=1&d=1294012078
http://forums.macrumors.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=266118&stc=1&d=1294012078
http://forums.macrumors.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=266119&stc=1&d=1294012078
http://forums.macrumors.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=266120&stc=1&d=1294012078
rkmac
Nov 26, 02:52 AM
Logitech diNovo Mac Edition Keyboard
I finally decided that I couldn't put up with not having a number pad any longer. Feels good to have a full sized keyboard again.
I finally decided that I couldn't put up with not having a number pad any longer. Feels good to have a full sized keyboard again.
IbisDoc
Mar 25, 04:31 PM
I recall some of the naysayers around here not even a year ago stating that such a device would never be suitable for gaming. And here we are. With HD output to your TV.
Vision, people. Vision.
How does your vision plan to implement any non-steering games on the big screen? You can either look at your iPad, or look at the television. There is a reason physical buttons are important for big screen gaming. Touch screen gaming will always suck for anything more than flinging birds into bricks.
Vision, people. Vision.
How does your vision plan to implement any non-steering games on the big screen? You can either look at your iPad, or look at the television. There is a reason physical buttons are important for big screen gaming. Touch screen gaming will always suck for anything more than flinging birds into bricks.
MacBoobsPro
Aug 7, 05:50 AM
An iPhone, not as a cell phone, but as a landline skype style wifi cordless phone to go with iChat. Wouldn't that make sense for Apple to make? Ties in with their computers & iLife, would work in all countries, and would be easy, and possibly cheap for them to make.
Steve Jobs, would probably want want to make a phone that transitions seamlessly between indoor wifi and the cell networks.
I was thinking that. Maybe thats why the iPhone pix look more like a house phone instead of cell phone?
Hmmmm... ?
Steve Jobs, would probably want want to make a phone that transitions seamlessly between indoor wifi and the cell networks.
I was thinking that. Maybe thats why the iPhone pix look more like a house phone instead of cell phone?
Hmmmm... ?
Leoff
Nov 27, 09:05 PM
IMAGINED?
Let's look at the facts.
20" Apple $699 - Dell $399
23" Apple $999 - Dell $799 (24")
30" Apple $1999 - Dell $1499
Those are real numbers. Dell has brighter specs, more connection options, and with the 23" they have a 24" that's still $200 cheaper.
What imaginary planet are you on? $300, $200, and $500 difference in price respectively. That's real money. And it pressures people into considering a Dell. (Bad Apple!) All you are really getting for those extra hundres of dollars is a display that looks nice with your mini, MBP, or MP.
You claim that Apple's monitors are selling well, but you have no facts to back that up. Apple doesn't post their sales numbers for products like this so you're just making it up. Those sales numbers could suck a$$ and you wouldn't know. And I believe they do suck, but Apple won't tell you that, it sucks because they want them to suck. Keep reading.
I believe Apple does this to encourage people to buy iMacs. If your willing to pony up $2400 or more on a Mac Pro then maybe an extra $500 doesn't bother you for the two 30" displays your going to use, and if all you can afford is mini Apple doesn't seem to mind you buying that Dell monitor. By pricing the monitors several hundred more than they are really worth, you are now in the iMac price range. I bet if you could see and add up the numbers, buying a mini and an over priced cinema display gives Apple the same profit margin as an iMac. Apple doesn't have a mid range tower. Again, because they want to sell you an iMac. By keeping their product line simple they reduce costs; making one widget as apposed to five different widgets is cheaper. But that limits choice.
I have an iMac, but I really don't want one. I want a mid-range tower and an external monitor. I'm not alone either. Apple's monitor price is a "choice incentive". It may help their bottom line, but it limits my choice. And since I hate Windows I'm forced into Apple's program. This is really what people are complaining about here. They want a mini and 20" cinema for under $1000, and I want a 23" and tower for under $2000, not a 24" iMac!
So, back to a 17" cinema. Why would Apple do this? I don't think they will. A 17" iMac is only $899. That's where they make their money, oh, and people like me willing to pay premium because we value esthetics.
Wow. For someone who seems to have all the answers, you're not reading the rest of this thread very well.
http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=252327
In short, Apple's monitors are for higher-end users. Anyone can go out and get a Dell. Most people do. If you want cheap and easy, you get a Dell monitor.
I noticed that you didn't mention any of the 20" NEC Displays that run much, MUCH higher in price than even Apple's. Now why are they so much more expensive? Are they too high-priced? Vastly overpriced?
There are differences. You'd know that if you took the time to look.
Yes, you are indeed correct. Those are "real" numbers. Numbers that are comparing two different types of monitors.
Next time you wish to present facts, try and present them all instead of just the ones that support your case.
Let's look at the facts.
20" Apple $699 - Dell $399
23" Apple $999 - Dell $799 (24")
30" Apple $1999 - Dell $1499
Those are real numbers. Dell has brighter specs, more connection options, and with the 23" they have a 24" that's still $200 cheaper.
What imaginary planet are you on? $300, $200, and $500 difference in price respectively. That's real money. And it pressures people into considering a Dell. (Bad Apple!) All you are really getting for those extra hundres of dollars is a display that looks nice with your mini, MBP, or MP.
You claim that Apple's monitors are selling well, but you have no facts to back that up. Apple doesn't post their sales numbers for products like this so you're just making it up. Those sales numbers could suck a$$ and you wouldn't know. And I believe they do suck, but Apple won't tell you that, it sucks because they want them to suck. Keep reading.
I believe Apple does this to encourage people to buy iMacs. If your willing to pony up $2400 or more on a Mac Pro then maybe an extra $500 doesn't bother you for the two 30" displays your going to use, and if all you can afford is mini Apple doesn't seem to mind you buying that Dell monitor. By pricing the monitors several hundred more than they are really worth, you are now in the iMac price range. I bet if you could see and add up the numbers, buying a mini and an over priced cinema display gives Apple the same profit margin as an iMac. Apple doesn't have a mid range tower. Again, because they want to sell you an iMac. By keeping their product line simple they reduce costs; making one widget as apposed to five different widgets is cheaper. But that limits choice.
I have an iMac, but I really don't want one. I want a mid-range tower and an external monitor. I'm not alone either. Apple's monitor price is a "choice incentive". It may help their bottom line, but it limits my choice. And since I hate Windows I'm forced into Apple's program. This is really what people are complaining about here. They want a mini and 20" cinema for under $1000, and I want a 23" and tower for under $2000, not a 24" iMac!
So, back to a 17" cinema. Why would Apple do this? I don't think they will. A 17" iMac is only $899. That's where they make their money, oh, and people like me willing to pay premium because we value esthetics.
Wow. For someone who seems to have all the answers, you're not reading the rest of this thread very well.
http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=252327
In short, Apple's monitors are for higher-end users. Anyone can go out and get a Dell. Most people do. If you want cheap and easy, you get a Dell monitor.
I noticed that you didn't mention any of the 20" NEC Displays that run much, MUCH higher in price than even Apple's. Now why are they so much more expensive? Are they too high-priced? Vastly overpriced?
There are differences. You'd know that if you took the time to look.
Yes, you are indeed correct. Those are "real" numbers. Numbers that are comparing two different types of monitors.
Next time you wish to present facts, try and present them all instead of just the ones that support your case.
*LTD*
Apr 3, 02:00 PM
So we actually need sarcasm tags in forums now. :D
m4rc
Mar 24, 03:02 AM
But Apple's market is shrinking.....
What you are possibly forgetting is that although, yes, Apple's market share may be shrinking, the market it self - the number of units actualy shifted - is growing at massive rates. I don't really have to explain percentages now do I, it is obvious that 1.7% or whatever it is of 10,000,000 (a figure pulled from the air, I have NO idea how many units are shifted :)) is a much higher number than say 5% of 1,000,000. Apple is shifting more units - may not be computers, iPods are obviously helping Apple to succeed, and do remember that some of these iPod users are going to like the thing so much that they start taking a healthy interest in the rest of Apple's product range.
Apple may be many things, but the way they have turned there fortunes around, going from the brink to billions in the bank and zero debt, shows the one thing they are not is stupid. They realise what the market is doing, and are releasing the products that make the most profit. It is all about profit, as in pretty much any bussiness. I started my business doing I.T Support, Servicing, Installations etc. I found a market niche where I could make some serious profit, and have completely remodelled the company to that, even though what we as a company always wanted to do was I.T Services. You have to go where the money is. And I obviouslly don't know the numbers, but I would bet that the profit does not come with shifting units that make you a few dollars just to increase your market share a little.
I like the references people have made to other iconic brands - BMW, Ferrari, Tiffany's, there are many. These companies could all increase their market share massively by selling cheaper stripped down products, and to some extent BMW is doing just this, but to go for a car that aims at the bottom end of the market, that would hurt BMW too much. More likely, they would aquire a low end car manufacturer and improve the organisation, a little like VAG and Seat and Skoda - may not have all of those brands in the states though.
I would like to see Apple increasing it's market share too, but not at any cost. It would be very easy to just chuck out a budget box and lose money on it, what would thay gain? Lower profits possibley, and an increased market share, but to what end? Some companies have a lovely large market share, and are teetering on the edge as they are just not profitable. Apple know's it's business, and it will do whatever it has to do to succeed and profit. I do agree however, that they have current issues over product quality and service support, but again, these will be sorted over time.
Marc
What you are possibly forgetting is that although, yes, Apple's market share may be shrinking, the market it self - the number of units actualy shifted - is growing at massive rates. I don't really have to explain percentages now do I, it is obvious that 1.7% or whatever it is of 10,000,000 (a figure pulled from the air, I have NO idea how many units are shifted :)) is a much higher number than say 5% of 1,000,000. Apple is shifting more units - may not be computers, iPods are obviously helping Apple to succeed, and do remember that some of these iPod users are going to like the thing so much that they start taking a healthy interest in the rest of Apple's product range.
Apple may be many things, but the way they have turned there fortunes around, going from the brink to billions in the bank and zero debt, shows the one thing they are not is stupid. They realise what the market is doing, and are releasing the products that make the most profit. It is all about profit, as in pretty much any bussiness. I started my business doing I.T Support, Servicing, Installations etc. I found a market niche where I could make some serious profit, and have completely remodelled the company to that, even though what we as a company always wanted to do was I.T Services. You have to go where the money is. And I obviouslly don't know the numbers, but I would bet that the profit does not come with shifting units that make you a few dollars just to increase your market share a little.
I like the references people have made to other iconic brands - BMW, Ferrari, Tiffany's, there are many. These companies could all increase their market share massively by selling cheaper stripped down products, and to some extent BMW is doing just this, but to go for a car that aims at the bottom end of the market, that would hurt BMW too much. More likely, they would aquire a low end car manufacturer and improve the organisation, a little like VAG and Seat and Skoda - may not have all of those brands in the states though.
I would like to see Apple increasing it's market share too, but not at any cost. It would be very easy to just chuck out a budget box and lose money on it, what would thay gain? Lower profits possibley, and an increased market share, but to what end? Some companies have a lovely large market share, and are teetering on the edge as they are just not profitable. Apple know's it's business, and it will do whatever it has to do to succeed and profit. I do agree however, that they have current issues over product quality and service support, but again, these will be sorted over time.
Marc
QuarterSwede
Apr 9, 11:51 PM
I've never owned an automatic. I'm addicted to driving a sports car with a manual gearbox.
After owning several I simply cannot imagine anything else. I enjoy driving too much to drive an automatic sedan.
You probably aren't carting around kids.
After owning several I simply cannot imagine anything else. I enjoy driving too much to drive an automatic sedan.
You probably aren't carting around kids.
2ndPath
Sep 1, 01:33 PM
Is there really a big market for a 23" iMac @ 2000? I hope this rumor is bogus. I'd much rather see Apple come out with a headless Gaming mid-tower with a Core 2 Duo Extreme and X1600 card. Dual HD bays and one optical bay. AP/BT built in. 3 PCIe slots (one used by X1600). I think that would would fill a gap Apple has in their consumer line-up right now.
That would be a nice machine. But remember: Apple seems to think in black and white. For them there is nothing in between the consume and the pro.
That would be a nice machine. But remember: Apple seems to think in black and white. For them there is nothing in between the consume and the pro.
macfan881
Jul 18, 03:37 PM
there r plenty movies i watch more than once i would rather buy a movie though from itunes rather than rent as i have netflix already and it would be a better fit i think steve went to rental if its true cause of the price diffrence he wants 9.99 for a movie the studios want atleast 19.99 so thats why i think this would be true even if they both comprimise and be 12-14 and maybe through some exclusive content bonus featurs i would still buy movies for itunes espiecaily once i get my ipod video
mccldwll
Sep 1, 02:49 PM
New form for imac--
--headless, docks to 17", 20" or 23" isight enabled displays (have to buy display w/ mac--priced together)
--but can buy displays separately for upgrade
--home entertainment model
--headless unit can be carried to tv room w/o hauling display (putting old imac near a TV very bad design since 2 focal points, and SJ hates bad design)
--headless, docks to 17", 20" or 23" isight enabled displays (have to buy display w/ mac--priced together)
--but can buy displays separately for upgrade
--home entertainment model
--headless unit can be carried to tv room w/o hauling display (putting old imac near a TV very bad design since 2 focal points, and SJ hates bad design)
No comments:
Post a Comment