fishcove
May 3, 10:25 AM
Who has room for two external displays on a desk that already has a 27" iMac?! Dual outs on the MBP would make much more sense, although achieving it may be more of a technical challenge in terms of GPU power.
I'm thinking of a 3-monitor gaming/sim setup. No desk - think cockpit.
I'm thinking of a 3-monitor gaming/sim setup. No desk - think cockpit.
firsttube
Sep 9, 06:41 PM
minimum post requirements suck, if you've been lurking for years, but never post you still can't post in the marketplace. sorry this is OT
DVK916
Sep 17, 08:23 PM
ok.. see, i never said TECHNICALLY it was crap. OK, so CDMA can have higher speed than 3G GSM. ITS A MOBILE PHONE. what the hell do you need 14mbps for?
a jet car that goes 300mph on a drag strip is NOT better than a Audi/Merc/BMW/Bentley/etc that only does 250mph, but can drive on a normal road.
for consumers, it (CDMA) is crap. you are so used to having to choose a phone based on what your carrier supports (or vice-versa) that you can't see how that is a problem. GSM (which uses a SIM card) offers so much more flexibility. hell. I can take my phone to any country with a GSM network, put in a sim card, and VOILA i am connected (not that i need to worry anyway, with vodafone global roaming)
WRONG GSM does NOT work in Japan. You can't go to any country and use it. Japan doesn't have GSM.
a jet car that goes 300mph on a drag strip is NOT better than a Audi/Merc/BMW/Bentley/etc that only does 250mph, but can drive on a normal road.
for consumers, it (CDMA) is crap. you are so used to having to choose a phone based on what your carrier supports (or vice-versa) that you can't see how that is a problem. GSM (which uses a SIM card) offers so much more flexibility. hell. I can take my phone to any country with a GSM network, put in a sim card, and VOILA i am connected (not that i need to worry anyway, with vodafone global roaming)
WRONG GSM does NOT work in Japan. You can't go to any country and use it. Japan doesn't have GSM.
Joshuarocks
Apr 19, 11:45 AM
I'm salaried (aka "Exempt") in my job. We used to clock in and out but they made us quit several years ago and now there is no tracking of our hours. I was told at the time it was a legal requirement that we not be made to clock in and out.
In any event, there are rules defining what jobs are and are not eligible as exempt. There are lots of references online with information.
http://www.ehow.com/facts_5179644_exempt-salary-vs_-non-exempt.html
There is an upside to being exempt. While it's true I don't get paid extra if I work 45 hours this week, I will also not be paid less if I work 35 hours next week. In my job one is just as likely as the other.
Mind me asking you how high your unemployment rate is, and do you believe what your media tells you is true, or is the rate much higher than what is known?
In any event, there are rules defining what jobs are and are not eligible as exempt. There are lots of references online with information.
http://www.ehow.com/facts_5179644_exempt-salary-vs_-non-exempt.html
There is an upside to being exempt. While it's true I don't get paid extra if I work 45 hours this week, I will also not be paid less if I work 35 hours next week. In my job one is just as likely as the other.
Mind me asking you how high your unemployment rate is, and do you believe what your media tells you is true, or is the rate much higher than what is known?
Spagolli94
Sep 12, 03:46 PM
i'm sorry but the 30G iPod has a stupid price. If someone is that tight and has to get an iPod, they would probably buy used.
I will by the 30GB and am anything but tight. Why? Because I only have 15GB of music and have been adding music at a rate of about 1GB per year. I have no need to watch movies or look at photos on my iPod. If I'm traveling, I have a PowerBook on the plane with me. My iPod is used in the car and the gym, that's it.
That said, both the 30GB and 80GB have more than enough storage. So, I will make my decision based on physical dimensions - at the gym a smaller iPod is a big plus. The fact that the 30GB is cheaper is just icing on the cake. For my needs, I would have bought the 30GB, even it were the same price... even it the 30GB were more.
I agree with you though. If you currently have or anticipate needing over 30GB of space, the 80GB is a MUCH better value when it comes to GB per dollar.
I will by the 30GB and am anything but tight. Why? Because I only have 15GB of music and have been adding music at a rate of about 1GB per year. I have no need to watch movies or look at photos on my iPod. If I'm traveling, I have a PowerBook on the plane with me. My iPod is used in the car and the gym, that's it.
That said, both the 30GB and 80GB have more than enough storage. So, I will make my decision based on physical dimensions - at the gym a smaller iPod is a big plus. The fact that the 30GB is cheaper is just icing on the cake. For my needs, I would have bought the 30GB, even it were the same price... even it the 30GB were more.
I agree with you though. If you currently have or anticipate needing over 30GB of space, the 80GB is a MUCH better value when it comes to GB per dollar.
Aleen
Apr 25, 01:10 PM
They should better stick to the same design rather than messing things up. The current unibody is really great.
jeff1977
Mar 29, 02:24 PM
Just FYI...
File size wouldn't affect performance at all, as long as you're copying between locations on the same drive. The "file" that you see in the GUI is actually a link to a location on disk where your data is; all the OS has to move is the link, which is very tiny.
Thanks for clarifying that for me! I don't like doing things that I'm not sure about. As I said, my being unsure stemmed from windows that would sometimes come up in older versions of Photoshop, when closing, that mentioned clipboard sizes being too large. Or something along those lines. Again, thanks.
File size wouldn't affect performance at all, as long as you're copying between locations on the same drive. The "file" that you see in the GUI is actually a link to a location on disk where your data is; all the OS has to move is the link, which is very tiny.
Thanks for clarifying that for me! I don't like doing things that I'm not sure about. As I said, my being unsure stemmed from windows that would sometimes come up in older versions of Photoshop, when closing, that mentioned clipboard sizes being too large. Or something along those lines. Again, thanks.
iGary
Sep 14, 07:11 PM
Hmm didn't Apple release the 17" MacBook Pro at NAB earlier this year. :rolleyes:
Right, the invitation didn't have a bit Aperture logo on it, either. ;)
Right, the invitation didn't have a bit Aperture logo on it, either. ;)
clintob
Oct 12, 03:49 PM
You do realize HIV effects women differently than men? It also effects children differently than adults.
Do yourself a favor and do a quick google on how much money has been spent on HIV research and prevention for children and women, compare that to men with HIV. Then do a search on children/women with HIV and mortality rates compared to men w/HIV.
We live in a very sexist society. HIV research was never funded or taken seriously by society at large until heterosexual white men started to develop AIDS.
I don't want to pick a fight, because that wasn't the intention of my post, but I'm sorry - this statement is, if not patently false, at very least highly misguided and irresponsible.
The mortality rate of HIV is far higher in men than in women - and it always has been. You look this up very easily all over the web, on the CDC's website, and any number of other places... it's very clear. But if you really want to go there, here's an empirical medical fact: at its worst levels of infection (in the mid 1990s), HIV mortality rates were nearly 30 per 100,000 for men, and barely over 5 per 100,000 in women. Look it up.
As for the disease affecting men/women/children differently, sure that's true, but it's true for pretty much every disease. Children's mortality rates are almost always higher than healthy adults. They are smaller, weaker, and have less developed immune systems. That's got nothing to do with HIV.
And as for when HIV research was taken seriously, I think to make a sexist claim against that is pretty unfounded. You can certainly make the heterosexual part of the argument - that's been well documented. But to say that science discriminates between male and female disease affliction rates is completely irresponsible. Our society is sexist in many ways, no argument there, but to say that scientific research is based on the proportion of male afflictions to female afflictions is insane. If that were true, breast cancer (which, by the way, affects FAR less women than prostate cancer does men) wouldn't be on every commercial and in every fundraiser known to man.
Do yourself a favor and do a quick google on how much money has been spent on HIV research and prevention for children and women, compare that to men with HIV. Then do a search on children/women with HIV and mortality rates compared to men w/HIV.
We live in a very sexist society. HIV research was never funded or taken seriously by society at large until heterosexual white men started to develop AIDS.
I don't want to pick a fight, because that wasn't the intention of my post, but I'm sorry - this statement is, if not patently false, at very least highly misguided and irresponsible.
The mortality rate of HIV is far higher in men than in women - and it always has been. You look this up very easily all over the web, on the CDC's website, and any number of other places... it's very clear. But if you really want to go there, here's an empirical medical fact: at its worst levels of infection (in the mid 1990s), HIV mortality rates were nearly 30 per 100,000 for men, and barely over 5 per 100,000 in women. Look it up.
As for the disease affecting men/women/children differently, sure that's true, but it's true for pretty much every disease. Children's mortality rates are almost always higher than healthy adults. They are smaller, weaker, and have less developed immune systems. That's got nothing to do with HIV.
And as for when HIV research was taken seriously, I think to make a sexist claim against that is pretty unfounded. You can certainly make the heterosexual part of the argument - that's been well documented. But to say that science discriminates between male and female disease affliction rates is completely irresponsible. Our society is sexist in many ways, no argument there, but to say that scientific research is based on the proportion of male afflictions to female afflictions is insane. If that were true, breast cancer (which, by the way, affects FAR less women than prostate cancer does men) wouldn't be on every commercial and in every fundraiser known to man.
arn
Apr 11, 01:59 AM
They'll change the key and force a firmware update on any airport express user who wants to update itunes.
Are the 3rd party AirPlay speakers firmware upgradable?
http://www.apple.com/itunes/airplay/
That will break compatibility with those speakers.
arn
Are the 3rd party AirPlay speakers firmware upgradable?
http://www.apple.com/itunes/airplay/
That will break compatibility with those speakers.
arn
OwlsAndApples
Oct 27, 08:45 AM
....it's a computer, what are you going to make it out of? oak leaves and wood?
Yeah, and i know extreme hyperbole when I see it...:D :D
Ummm...
How about this one (http://www.engadget.com/2005/09/12/russian-wooden-pc-bigger-than-a-breadbox/)
Or this one (http://www.engadget.com/2006/10/03/suissa-computers-offers-up-custom-wooden-pcs/)
:D
Love the first computer! Wonder if it has a glossy screen..
Yeah, and i know extreme hyperbole when I see it...:D :D
Ummm...
How about this one (http://www.engadget.com/2005/09/12/russian-wooden-pc-bigger-than-a-breadbox/)
Or this one (http://www.engadget.com/2006/10/03/suissa-computers-offers-up-custom-wooden-pcs/)
:D
Love the first computer! Wonder if it has a glossy screen..
yellow
Apr 4, 12:33 PM
"Shooting To Wound" is purely a product of television, movies, and video games. In real situations where gunfire is exchanged, milliseconds count, and center mass until the target is down is the ONLY reality.
evilgEEk
Sep 19, 03:42 PM
I'm not touching it until they offer 5.1 sound. I'm sure its just a matter of time, though.
Sometimes it helps to do a quick search. ;)
They do have surround sound support. (http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=304277#faq26)
Sometimes it helps to do a quick search. ;)
They do have surround sound support. (http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=304277#faq26)
h00ligan
Apr 20, 10:53 AM
Is there a windows app for reading the data... Or cydia?
aiqw9182
Apr 16, 10:27 AM
Yes because everyone loves to carry around external breakout boxes with their sleek portable Macbooks.... :rolleyes:
And $10? For Thunderbolt? You are DREAMING. You can't even get a decent USB2 hub for $10.
Yeah because everyone loves to carry around an external hard drive with their sleek portable MacBooks. :rolleyes:
God forbid you carry around an inch long adapter in your laptop bag. Is that too much for you?
Oh and here's some adapter prices for you:
http://www.monoprice.com/products/product.asp?c_id=104&cp_id=10428&cs_id=1042802&p_id=5311
http://www.monoprice.com/products/subdepartment.asp?c_id=104&cp_id=10404
Twice the performance of USB3? That would be Thunderbolt's maximum possible data rate. No single consumer hard drive on earth supports that kind of speed (let alone even USB3's top speed) so I haven't a clue what you're getting at. Why would someone pay MORE to get a drive that is no faster than a USB3 drive? LOL, are you kidding me bro? Do you think USB 3 peaks out at it's max 5 Gbps? YOU are the one dreaming if you believe that. Here's some more evidence for your FUD:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CCz_c_rDAXw
USB 3 would completely choke in that situation let alone in a simply hard drive speed comparison. Give me a break. Here's another example for you to look at for some REAL WORLD USB 3 speeds:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qrtwtSjzjZI
In reality with USB 3 you get about 480 Megabits as opposed to the promised 5 Gpbs meaning Thunderbolt will be even faster than two times.
They would almost certainly have to as demand determines price/availability and there is nearly zero demand for TB devices at this point in time while USB3 are backwards compatible with the vast majority of the computers on the planet. My sales figures are based on the relative cost of drives with Firewire interfaces (the closest example that already exists to Thunderbolt in terms of technology versus low demand) against drives that only support USB2 and/or USB3. There is always a large premium for a drive with a FW interface, even today when a fair amount of computers exist with FW interfaces (i.e. SOME demand). So you are just ASSUMING that they will cost $250 more than USB 3 drives. OK, let's make that clear. You have no evidence to support that your $250 price difference has any validity other than the fact that FireWire drives were more expensive when it's already been explained twice and back why Thunderbolt won't be as 'exclusive' as FireWire. It's going to be on every Ivy Bridge chipset just like USB 3.0 is. Everyone's going to be using it, it's another checkmark for them to list. Why do you think PC manufactures still sell machines with eSata?
Therefore TB compatible drives will likely cost considerably more money than USB3 drives for the SAME underlying drive. You will pay a premium for the interface just like Firewire to offset the higher costs of low production numbers created by little demand compared to USB3/2 interfaces. There will be no speed advantage on a consumer drive because no consumer drive even comes CLOSE to the limits of either interface. So unlike YOUR $10 scenario, I didn't just make a number up out of thin air. Furthermore, the scenario is hardly half-baked given USB drives are already common at places like Best Buy (I personally already own TWO 3TB USB3 drives) so the unlikely 'friend' in the stated scenario would be more likely to already own a USB3 drive than a currently non-existent TB drive that will undoubtedly cost MORE when it does finally arrive.LOL, words can't describe how wrong you are. You think HDD speeds cap out at 480 Mbps? Maybe in your 'practical world' where you enjoy using inferior technology because it's 'what you're used to' that's the case. But for everyone else Thunderbolt will be a massive performance gain. Let alone when external SSD's really start hitting the market. USB 3 will really be proven for the piece of trash that it is and get wasted on all bandwidth comparisons. USB 3 is capped at a theoretical transfer rate of 5 Gbps. Thunderbolt is currently at 10 Gbps and can scale up to 100 Gbps in the future.
TB is more suited to high-end professional use where maximum overall data throughput (probably across multiple banks of drives per interface) and low overhead is desired (e.g. professional video, future high-speed server banks, live audio, etc.) The average consumer doesn't want to pay $50-100 more for FW800 drive interface over USB2 today (nor is their computer even likely to have FW if it's not a Mac) even if does have a benefit over USB2. They certainly aren't going to want to pay a potentially larger premium to get the same relative performance (perhaps with a bit of CPU overhead differences) versus USB3 with today's drives that don't come near USB3 levels, let alone Thunderbolt.Same relative performance? LMAO
Thunderbolt is suited for the future of high data transfer speeds that SSD's are capable of. Who wants the bottleneck to be the port on their computer? Because that's all USB 3 is going to be.
Be my guest and continue to insult and rant and dream big of TB heaven where USB doesn't exist. I live in a more practical and logical world.
Your 'practical world' when you were just talking about how no one will pay a premium for USB 3. Well the reason why no one's going to pay a premium for USB 3 is because it's a garbage update over USB 2.0. Thunderbolt will scale to the future. USB 3 is going to be trapped in limbo no matter what new peripherals come out down the road and given that it took them 8 years to release it a couple of years down the road when Thunderbolt is scaling even faster than USB 3. The only thing USB 3 is going to be used for down the road is nothing that USB 2 couldn't handle.
And $10? For Thunderbolt? You are DREAMING. You can't even get a decent USB2 hub for $10.
Yeah because everyone loves to carry around an external hard drive with their sleek portable MacBooks. :rolleyes:
God forbid you carry around an inch long adapter in your laptop bag. Is that too much for you?
Oh and here's some adapter prices for you:
http://www.monoprice.com/products/product.asp?c_id=104&cp_id=10428&cs_id=1042802&p_id=5311
http://www.monoprice.com/products/subdepartment.asp?c_id=104&cp_id=10404
Twice the performance of USB3? That would be Thunderbolt's maximum possible data rate. No single consumer hard drive on earth supports that kind of speed (let alone even USB3's top speed) so I haven't a clue what you're getting at. Why would someone pay MORE to get a drive that is no faster than a USB3 drive? LOL, are you kidding me bro? Do you think USB 3 peaks out at it's max 5 Gbps? YOU are the one dreaming if you believe that. Here's some more evidence for your FUD:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CCz_c_rDAXw
USB 3 would completely choke in that situation let alone in a simply hard drive speed comparison. Give me a break. Here's another example for you to look at for some REAL WORLD USB 3 speeds:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qrtwtSjzjZI
In reality with USB 3 you get about 480 Megabits as opposed to the promised 5 Gpbs meaning Thunderbolt will be even faster than two times.
They would almost certainly have to as demand determines price/availability and there is nearly zero demand for TB devices at this point in time while USB3 are backwards compatible with the vast majority of the computers on the planet. My sales figures are based on the relative cost of drives with Firewire interfaces (the closest example that already exists to Thunderbolt in terms of technology versus low demand) against drives that only support USB2 and/or USB3. There is always a large premium for a drive with a FW interface, even today when a fair amount of computers exist with FW interfaces (i.e. SOME demand). So you are just ASSUMING that they will cost $250 more than USB 3 drives. OK, let's make that clear. You have no evidence to support that your $250 price difference has any validity other than the fact that FireWire drives were more expensive when it's already been explained twice and back why Thunderbolt won't be as 'exclusive' as FireWire. It's going to be on every Ivy Bridge chipset just like USB 3.0 is. Everyone's going to be using it, it's another checkmark for them to list. Why do you think PC manufactures still sell machines with eSata?
Therefore TB compatible drives will likely cost considerably more money than USB3 drives for the SAME underlying drive. You will pay a premium for the interface just like Firewire to offset the higher costs of low production numbers created by little demand compared to USB3/2 interfaces. There will be no speed advantage on a consumer drive because no consumer drive even comes CLOSE to the limits of either interface. So unlike YOUR $10 scenario, I didn't just make a number up out of thin air. Furthermore, the scenario is hardly half-baked given USB drives are already common at places like Best Buy (I personally already own TWO 3TB USB3 drives) so the unlikely 'friend' in the stated scenario would be more likely to already own a USB3 drive than a currently non-existent TB drive that will undoubtedly cost MORE when it does finally arrive.LOL, words can't describe how wrong you are. You think HDD speeds cap out at 480 Mbps? Maybe in your 'practical world' where you enjoy using inferior technology because it's 'what you're used to' that's the case. But for everyone else Thunderbolt will be a massive performance gain. Let alone when external SSD's really start hitting the market. USB 3 will really be proven for the piece of trash that it is and get wasted on all bandwidth comparisons. USB 3 is capped at a theoretical transfer rate of 5 Gbps. Thunderbolt is currently at 10 Gbps and can scale up to 100 Gbps in the future.
TB is more suited to high-end professional use where maximum overall data throughput (probably across multiple banks of drives per interface) and low overhead is desired (e.g. professional video, future high-speed server banks, live audio, etc.) The average consumer doesn't want to pay $50-100 more for FW800 drive interface over USB2 today (nor is their computer even likely to have FW if it's not a Mac) even if does have a benefit over USB2. They certainly aren't going to want to pay a potentially larger premium to get the same relative performance (perhaps with a bit of CPU overhead differences) versus USB3 with today's drives that don't come near USB3 levels, let alone Thunderbolt.Same relative performance? LMAO
Thunderbolt is suited for the future of high data transfer speeds that SSD's are capable of. Who wants the bottleneck to be the port on their computer? Because that's all USB 3 is going to be.
Be my guest and continue to insult and rant and dream big of TB heaven where USB doesn't exist. I live in a more practical and logical world.
Your 'practical world' when you were just talking about how no one will pay a premium for USB 3. Well the reason why no one's going to pay a premium for USB 3 is because it's a garbage update over USB 2.0. Thunderbolt will scale to the future. USB 3 is going to be trapped in limbo no matter what new peripherals come out down the road and given that it took them 8 years to release it a couple of years down the road when Thunderbolt is scaling even faster than USB 3. The only thing USB 3 is going to be used for down the road is nothing that USB 2 couldn't handle.
toughboy
Aug 31, 11:45 AM
I don't care what it is, just give us something new to talk about. Mac Pro really nice machine but we saw it coming months in advance. Maybe not he exact spec but yeah we all knew it was coming. Same with Merom, Conroe etc... Give us something new, really new. All we have had for what seems like an age is Intel switch this Intel switch that. I don't care what processor they use as long as they are faster than they were before and it's still a Mac. I want nay, need a new product - something so I know that Apple are still innovating. Switching to Intel, no innovation there just good sense.
Stop reading forums and rumor sites, and everything will be news to you..
Stop reading forums and rumor sites, and everything will be news to you..
iMacZealot
Sep 14, 12:21 AM
I actually like the idea. There could be a virtual dial on the screen like an old school phone.
Silly me, though! :)
The hell with that. Just put in a rotary dial. :)
http://www.engadget.com/media/2006/05/sillyiphone.jpg
Silly me, though! :)
The hell with that. Just put in a rotary dial. :)
http://www.engadget.com/media/2006/05/sillyiphone.jpg
zero2dash
Jul 14, 10:44 AM
Conroe benchmarks posted on AnandTech (http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2795) are really good.
The overclocking features are even more impressive.
The $316 E6600 with a 2.4ghz cpu clock speed was air overclocked to 4ghz stable. ON AIR. I shudder to think of what they could do with liquid cooling.
This brings me to think another thing - conceivably Apple could forego the whole "Quad Woodcrest" setup (which will undoubtedly cost a boatload) and they could simply take a Core 2 and (with Intel's help) overclock it with the current air flow setup of the G5 case, and probably double cpu clock speed at a cheaper price.
But they won't do it. :( a) retail systems (save for the overpriced Dell XPS lineup) aren't usually overclocked and b) it would screw up their whole price scheme. It does bring up another interesting point though...people could coincidentally *possibly* overclock their [Core 2] Macs (since the technology is there in the cpu itself)...for the first time ever? We could see iMacs potentially being overclocked to outperform a Mac Pro. (if someone figures out how to do it that is)
The overclocking features are even more impressive.
The $316 E6600 with a 2.4ghz cpu clock speed was air overclocked to 4ghz stable. ON AIR. I shudder to think of what they could do with liquid cooling.
This brings me to think another thing - conceivably Apple could forego the whole "Quad Woodcrest" setup (which will undoubtedly cost a boatload) and they could simply take a Core 2 and (with Intel's help) overclock it with the current air flow setup of the G5 case, and probably double cpu clock speed at a cheaper price.
But they won't do it. :( a) retail systems (save for the overpriced Dell XPS lineup) aren't usually overclocked and b) it would screw up their whole price scheme. It does bring up another interesting point though...people could coincidentally *possibly* overclock their [Core 2] Macs (since the technology is there in the cpu itself)...for the first time ever? We could see iMacs potentially being overclocked to outperform a Mac Pro. (if someone figures out how to do it that is)
globalhemp
Mar 30, 11:54 AM
I believe Microsoft's #1 problem is that they are the king of generic names for products:
Word for word processing.
Windows for a graphical user interface that has content stores in windows.
Perhaps the only "cool" names Microsoft has are Excel and Xbox?
Damit! They want App Store for selling apps and Apple's already taken it.
Perhaps their argument will be, "How come Apple did not just name their online store the iApp Store, geez...."
Perhaps Microsoft will be left with no alternative but to use the mokier, "Microsoft Store," "Software Store," or "Soft Store?" They could even just call their store "M$ Store."
Word for word processing.
Windows for a graphical user interface that has content stores in windows.
Perhaps the only "cool" names Microsoft has are Excel and Xbox?
Damit! They want App Store for selling apps and Apple's already taken it.
Perhaps their argument will be, "How come Apple did not just name their online store the iApp Store, geez...."
Perhaps Microsoft will be left with no alternative but to use the mokier, "Microsoft Store," "Software Store," or "Soft Store?" They could even just call their store "M$ Store."
jamferma
Sep 5, 01:28 AM
:confused:
What is this....
www.apple.com/movies
comes up with
Forbidden
You don't have permission to access /movies on this server.
What might this mean
What is this....
www.apple.com/movies
comes up with
Forbidden
You don't have permission to access /movies on this server.
What might this mean
MagnusVonMagnum
Mar 19, 12:19 PM
You still haven't presented one argument
The sad thing is that I'm certain you really believe that. :cool:
The sad thing is that I'm certain you really believe that. :cool:
ctdonath
Apr 4, 12:45 PM
Very sad. Someone lost their life over something so trivial. And said that the guard has to live with knowing he took a life. :(
Sad indeed. Sympathies to the guard, who at least is alive to know what happened; if he hadn't done it, odds are too high that he wouldn't be.
Sad indeed. Sympathies to the guard, who at least is alive to know what happened; if he hadn't done it, odds are too high that he wouldn't be.
milo
Aug 28, 04:03 PM
ah yes. just like they did with the eMac back in the day. that was popular... you know, not having a product to ship for weeks.
Well, assuming they announced and shipped about the same time as the PC companies, there's really not that much to complain about. Don't forget, they did it with the MPB as well.
And if people are really unwilling to wait a couple weeks, nothing is stopping them from buying the yonah models.
Well, assuming they announced and shipped about the same time as the PC companies, there's really not that much to complain about. Don't forget, they did it with the MPB as well.
And if people are really unwilling to wait a couple weeks, nothing is stopping them from buying the yonah models.
sisyphus
Sep 10, 09:57 PM
That Mac + iPod promo ends this week!
Everybody does realize that this promo only applies to already existing hardware. It does not apply to the new Core 2 Duo iMacs, nor will it apply to any new hardware released on Tuesday. Just making sure everyone is in the know...
Everybody does realize that this promo only applies to already existing hardware. It does not apply to the new Core 2 Duo iMacs, nor will it apply to any new hardware released on Tuesday. Just making sure everyone is in the know...
