nitynate
Sep 12, 02:41 PM
Dear Apple,
YOU SUCK!
Love,
Nathan
PS- I will still buy your stuff.
YOU SUCK!
Love,
Nathan
PS- I will still buy your stuff.
EagerDragon
Sep 16, 12:51 PM
Did you see any PDA phone couldnt play video? $599 actually is a very low price. Many high-end PDA phones are selling close to $1000 even without a hard drive.
BTW, $1000 aud is $755 USD
I have to disagree on the price point.
For $1000 you can get a low level 17" iMac. Why would I want to pay that for a frikking phone?
$600 buys you a nice Mini with a dual core. Why pay that much for a phone?
The phone sweet spot is $299, with bluetooth, camera (optional), full pda capabilities, nice screen, voice command, 256 meg internal mem, 2-4 gig flash, new antenna design to pull in weak signals, open so that you can move it from carrier to carrier.
Something like that would sell like hot cakes. Not only that but it would beat a lot of the phones out there in price, usability, and coolness.
BTW, $1000 aud is $755 USD
I have to disagree on the price point.
For $1000 you can get a low level 17" iMac. Why would I want to pay that for a frikking phone?
$600 buys you a nice Mini with a dual core. Why pay that much for a phone?
The phone sweet spot is $299, with bluetooth, camera (optional), full pda capabilities, nice screen, voice command, 256 meg internal mem, 2-4 gig flash, new antenna design to pull in weak signals, open so that you can move it from carrier to carrier.
Something like that would sell like hot cakes. Not only that but it would beat a lot of the phones out there in price, usability, and coolness.
dongmin
Sep 4, 07:48 PM
I know it says Instead of a video iPod, they believe a video streaming device. As others have stated, this doesn't seem to be enough to warrant a "Special Media Event".
What if this rumor is half right: There is a new video streaming device ready to be demoed, but the "one more thing" could be that there is a video iPod also ready, and the movie service works the same way with it as the iTMS, but the video iPod can also stream the videos to your TV. There are limitations, such as battery life, but it could be limited to just being able to stream when the video iPod is connected to a power supply.
Just a thought....:rolleyes:You're right, it doesn't have to be either or. It could and should be both. iTunes will download the movies in high resolution (at least 480p) for the living room but also simultaneously compress down the movies for the iPod like it does with photos.
Anyways, don't discount this video-streaming Airport express hardware, especially if it has an IR receiver so that you can control Front Row 100% from the living room. It could be a pretty big improvement over the current setup which forces you to interact with your computer screen for these living room functions. Apple is smart to seperate them.
What if this rumor is half right: There is a new video streaming device ready to be demoed, but the "one more thing" could be that there is a video iPod also ready, and the movie service works the same way with it as the iTMS, but the video iPod can also stream the videos to your TV. There are limitations, such as battery life, but it could be limited to just being able to stream when the video iPod is connected to a power supply.
Just a thought....:rolleyes:You're right, it doesn't have to be either or. It could and should be both. iTunes will download the movies in high resolution (at least 480p) for the living room but also simultaneously compress down the movies for the iPod like it does with photos.
Anyways, don't discount this video-streaming Airport express hardware, especially if it has an IR receiver so that you can control Front Row 100% from the living room. It could be a pretty big improvement over the current setup which forces you to interact with your computer screen for these living room functions. Apple is smart to seperate them.
Amazing Iceman
Apr 4, 08:56 AM
Just another ploy to scare people into buying there over priced software.
I'm sure Apple takes security very very seriously. Is it me or is McAffee screaming wolf?
Why pay for bloatware, when Sophos is giving it away for free? Then, there's also ClamXAV.
I'm sure Apple takes security very very seriously. Is it me or is McAffee screaming wolf?
Why pay for bloatware, when Sophos is giving it away for free? Then, there's also ClamXAV.
ZipZap
Apr 19, 10:16 AM
Will be settled out of court with no disclosure of terms. Fees/royaltys will be paid....life goes on.
These are business actions and have little to do with what's right and wrong.
These are business actions and have little to do with what's right and wrong.
///mdriver
Sep 12, 02:35 PM
will search and quick scroll be in my ipod's next update?
rtharper
Sep 14, 10:08 AM
(I'm not saying it will happen, or that I'm expecting it, but I'm just surprised it's so easily dismissed by people who comment daily on how Apple should enter the cell phone market, DVR arena, PDA front, etc and - for the most part - scoffed at the intro of a consumer music player...)
The big distinction I would draw is that those are consumer products, not professional-grade hardware. Apple could co-brand but what would everyone's question be? "So, who actually made it?"
The big distinction I would draw is that those are consumer products, not professional-grade hardware. Apple could co-brand but what would everyone's question be? "So, who actually made it?"
amac4me
Aug 28, 12:16 PM
I think Apple will try to get these out prior to the Paris expo. Why give up sales to announce the product at a later date?
caspersoong
Apr 22, 05:06 AM
Useless to me if it is just for iTunes purchases. Please focus on more important things, Apple.
Mattie Num Nums
Apr 19, 09:01 AM
Android is a huge rip-off of the iPhone, that's obvious. Very early Android was more like a RIM or Symbian-looking thing and when the iPhone appeared it quickly started copying the heck out of that.
BUT - when the iPhone introduced the world to full touch screen phones, how else could someone make the same sort of device without it being a lot like an iPhone? Menus, icons, applications, grids... none of this is exactly new...
I can't stand Android and the layer of pointless fluff like HTC Sense that gets in your way with useless graphical nonsense and widgets. When I got a Desire after an iPhone 3G I thought I had a killer phone and 'got one over on the Apple tax' and would enjoy 'mulitasking' and 'openess'.
For five minutes.... Then I realised iOS is far more usable - even though the Desire was way faster with its 1gz processor much of the old iPhone 3G felt slicker. It makes sense not to have a layer of crap over the basic OS. It makes sense to ration multitasking so the phone doesn't bog down. Music playing on Android is rubbish. The iPhone dock is cool.
That's not to say everything on Android isn't good - in some cases auto text reflow would be GREAT on Safari.
Apple should just ignore the Android cloners and continue to innovate- and offer stripped down slickness as Android gets more and more overwrought.
You do realize that a bare bones Android OS looks nothing like iOS.
BUT - when the iPhone introduced the world to full touch screen phones, how else could someone make the same sort of device without it being a lot like an iPhone? Menus, icons, applications, grids... none of this is exactly new...
I can't stand Android and the layer of pointless fluff like HTC Sense that gets in your way with useless graphical nonsense and widgets. When I got a Desire after an iPhone 3G I thought I had a killer phone and 'got one over on the Apple tax' and would enjoy 'mulitasking' and 'openess'.
For five minutes.... Then I realised iOS is far more usable - even though the Desire was way faster with its 1gz processor much of the old iPhone 3G felt slicker. It makes sense not to have a layer of crap over the basic OS. It makes sense to ration multitasking so the phone doesn't bog down. Music playing on Android is rubbish. The iPhone dock is cool.
That's not to say everything on Android isn't good - in some cases auto text reflow would be GREAT on Safari.
Apple should just ignore the Android cloners and continue to innovate- and offer stripped down slickness as Android gets more and more overwrought.
You do realize that a bare bones Android OS looks nothing like iOS.
skunk
Apr 18, 04:07 PM
If you want a job with more vacation days, FIND ONE! no one owes you a darn thing, certainly not pay for days off.From your own assertion it would seem that some firms think they owe their workers a vacation.
1. If you are on Salary, you contractually agreed to get the job done regardless of the typical "work week". If you don't want to work long hours, don't accept a salaried position. Just because you contractually agree to do something does not change the fact that the conditions of your employment should meet some agreed minimum standard. Otherwise, in times of high unemployment, it would just be a hell-for-leather race to the bottom.
1. If you are on Salary, you contractually agreed to get the job done regardless of the typical "work week". If you don't want to work long hours, don't accept a salaried position. Just because you contractually agree to do something does not change the fact that the conditions of your employment should meet some agreed minimum standard. Otherwise, in times of high unemployment, it would just be a hell-for-leather race to the bottom.
Sean7512
Sep 12, 02:19 PM
Do the "older 5G" ipods support the new tv shows (640x480) and movies???? I don't care about the new search and such...Im just wondering about the movies and games.
Erwin-Br
Apr 19, 07:16 AM
Samsung is starting to be less and less innovative, they really are setting down at the drawing board , scratching their heads trying to come up with a design and then....." bing!!! their iphone mail alert just popped off and there is their next cell design!!
Samsung doesn't innovate on pretty case designs, and never has. They innovate on the stuff you can't see. You know, the stuff that gives function to those otherwise empty shells?
Samsung doesn't innovate on pretty case designs, and never has. They innovate on the stuff you can't see. You know, the stuff that gives function to those otherwise empty shells?
AidenShaw
Sep 9, 10:39 AM
As to logic-board being 32bits... Uh, no. There might be various reasons why it doesn't support 4GB of RAM, and it isn't due to "bitness" of the logic-board. And pray-tell: what exactly is a "32bit logic-board"?
The Napa chipset used with Yonah only supported 32 address lines.
A new Napa64 chipset is here that supports the additional address lines to allow > 4 GiB of physical memory.
http://www.cdrinfo.com/Forum/tm.asp?m=126194&mpage=1&key=𞳲
The Napa chipset used with Yonah only supported 32 address lines.
A new Napa64 chipset is here that supports the additional address lines to allow > 4 GiB of physical memory.
http://www.cdrinfo.com/Forum/tm.asp?m=126194&mpage=1&key=𞳲
res1233
Apr 30, 01:56 PM
USB 3 is coming next year. The only reason Apple has yet to implement it is because Intel hasn't. But that will change in Ivy Bridge.
Yep. There is little reason for Apple to fear USB 3. It's slower in both theoretical maximum speed and FAR slower in real world maximum speed. The only advantage is... Uhm... TB supports USB so... I guess there isn't one. Yes, I think USB 3 is quite possibly going to be the last iteration of USB.
Yep. There is little reason for Apple to fear USB 3. It's slower in both theoretical maximum speed and FAR slower in real world maximum speed. The only advantage is... Uhm... TB supports USB so... I guess there isn't one. Yes, I think USB 3 is quite possibly going to be the last iteration of USB.
MagnusVonMagnum
Apr 16, 11:21 AM
God forbid you carry around an inch long adapter in your laptop bag. Is that too much for you?
You keep talking about a non-existent adapter that costs $10 and comparing mini-display port adapters that merely convert signal paths isn't even in the same realm as converting to an entirely different interface. In other words your 'adapter' prices are 100% BS and you know it.
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
Don't tase me bro! :eek:
Seriously, you going to compare a demonstration with a professional mass storage array that isn't available to the public yet and which I said at the bottom of my last post is a perfect use for TB (i.e. with professional editing software) with the Lacie consumer grade 5200 RPM SLOW USB3 drive? Dude, you have to compare apples to apples. You're comparing a race car to a Chevette.... That neither proves nor disproves anything about the full capability of USB3. The ad on that box is marketing BS about the "interface" not the drive they're selling (which is a slow 5200 RPM SATA drive which all top out between 40-60MB/sec PERIOD, regardless whether they use SATA, USB3, Firewire 800 or Thunderbolt). Show me a 7200 RPM (or better yet a 10,000+ SCSI rated) drive connected to USB3 AND TB (or even FW800) and then compare their actual speeds. OR find an array that goes fast like the one Intel was using that also has USB3 on it and compare their actual speeds 1 to 1. Showing me Steak Diane on one plate and a hot dog on the other doesn't prove the cook who made the hot dog doesn't know how to cook. It simply proves he was given a hot dog to cook.
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.
In reality, you need an actual hard drive test that makes sense not comparing a Porsche to a lawn tractor.... :rolleyes:
So you are just ASSUMING that they will cost $250 more than USB 3 drives.
No more than you assuming you're going to get a $10 USB3 adapter. At least my assumption is based on Firewire statistics and early adoption rates. Yours is based on dreaming.
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
I think the 5200 RPM 2.5" drive that came with my MBP capped out around 50MB/sec using a SATA II interface (or 450mbps). Does that prove my SATA chip set SUCKS? NO, IT DOES NOT. When I replaced it with a 7200 RPM Hitachi, it now caps out around 110MB/sec (or 880mbps, well above FW800's theoretical cap even). Even my PPC G4 gets 105MB/sec caps with its 1.5TB 7200 RPM Seagate Barracuda drives (and SATA does eat CPU as well; if I try to run two of them at the same time I still get a total of around 100MB/sec with the CPU pegged at 95-100%. The older PCI bus is also in the way. Thus it's not the SATA interface there that's the problem either, but you might think so if you make assumptions based only on one test number and no idea what's in the computer being used or any statistics about the CPU or Bus while its being used. Your YouTube videos comparisons are absurd in that regard. Cheap mass storage devices (like the Lacie) aren't made for performance. Show me TB making that same drive do over 100MB/sec. It won't happen.
Your 'practical world' when you were just talking about how no one will pay a premium for USB 3.
I never said any such thing. I said they won't pay a premium for Thunderbolt for every-day use. If you're just going to lie and change what I said, I won't bother replying anymore.
USB 3 won't be a premium over anything. It's going to be dirt cheap and a simple performance upgrade for everyone. It already is cheap for new computers and a pretty cheap add-on for existing ones; you cannot add TB to existing computers so there's another problem it has to contend with, especially trying to get a large user base in any reasonable length of time. The longer it takes to get a large installed user base, the longer the prices will stay high on any TB products. It's plainly obvious that TB is going to be a high-end niche product just like FW800, at least for the forseeable future. While Intel's demo is totally cool, it doesn't remotely represent the AVERAGE PC user in any shape or form. Most people aren't editing 4 simultaneous streams of 1080p video on a mega-buck professional high-speed drive array.
I have NO problem with TB technology or its usefulness in certain applications. I do contend that most people aren't going to give a crap about it one way or the other since their computers will not have it or need it for their everyday uses. More to the point, most computers (save maybe those from Apple) will have ALSO have USB3, allowing the user to make the best possible choices for their needs. USB3 will not fail or go away simply because it is a cheap upgrade to USB2 that is fully backwards compatible. Computers will have it just for that reason alone even if the user doesn't make good use of it.
IF TB ever achieves mass acceptance, it will be years into the future. It takes time to build a user base on a totally new technology. USB3 is a simple dump and replace and still works with everything USB2. TB works with NOTHING that already exists (save a few Mini-display port monitors and that's only because it carries Mini-display port video signals). The fact that Intel plans to do USB3 alongside TB on their next chipset shows even they understand that TB is going to be high-end/niche product for some time to come.
I have said in the past that IF Intel had used the USB3 style connector and essentially had USB compatibility + MORE bandwidth THEN they might start appearing on everything. But they chose instead to use a connector that is hardly on anything (but newer Macs) and that isn't much different than starting over with a totally new connector and no compatibility with anything (outside breakout boxes that are essentially PCI cards in a box). When it comes down to it, TB is basically the entire PCIe bus on a single external connector.
You keep talking about a non-existent adapter that costs $10 and comparing mini-display port adapters that merely convert signal paths isn't even in the same realm as converting to an entirely different interface. In other words your 'adapter' prices are 100% BS and you know it.
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
Don't tase me bro! :eek:
Seriously, you going to compare a demonstration with a professional mass storage array that isn't available to the public yet and which I said at the bottom of my last post is a perfect use for TB (i.e. with professional editing software) with the Lacie consumer grade 5200 RPM SLOW USB3 drive? Dude, you have to compare apples to apples. You're comparing a race car to a Chevette.... That neither proves nor disproves anything about the full capability of USB3. The ad on that box is marketing BS about the "interface" not the drive they're selling (which is a slow 5200 RPM SATA drive which all top out between 40-60MB/sec PERIOD, regardless whether they use SATA, USB3, Firewire 800 or Thunderbolt). Show me a 7200 RPM (or better yet a 10,000+ SCSI rated) drive connected to USB3 AND TB (or even FW800) and then compare their actual speeds. OR find an array that goes fast like the one Intel was using that also has USB3 on it and compare their actual speeds 1 to 1. Showing me Steak Diane on one plate and a hot dog on the other doesn't prove the cook who made the hot dog doesn't know how to cook. It simply proves he was given a hot dog to cook.
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.
In reality, you need an actual hard drive test that makes sense not comparing a Porsche to a lawn tractor.... :rolleyes:
So you are just ASSUMING that they will cost $250 more than USB 3 drives.
No more than you assuming you're going to get a $10 USB3 adapter. At least my assumption is based on Firewire statistics and early adoption rates. Yours is based on dreaming.
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
I think the 5200 RPM 2.5" drive that came with my MBP capped out around 50MB/sec using a SATA II interface (or 450mbps). Does that prove my SATA chip set SUCKS? NO, IT DOES NOT. When I replaced it with a 7200 RPM Hitachi, it now caps out around 110MB/sec (or 880mbps, well above FW800's theoretical cap even). Even my PPC G4 gets 105MB/sec caps with its 1.5TB 7200 RPM Seagate Barracuda drives (and SATA does eat CPU as well; if I try to run two of them at the same time I still get a total of around 100MB/sec with the CPU pegged at 95-100%. The older PCI bus is also in the way. Thus it's not the SATA interface there that's the problem either, but you might think so if you make assumptions based only on one test number and no idea what's in the computer being used or any statistics about the CPU or Bus while its being used. Your YouTube videos comparisons are absurd in that regard. Cheap mass storage devices (like the Lacie) aren't made for performance. Show me TB making that same drive do over 100MB/sec. It won't happen.
Your 'practical world' when you were just talking about how no one will pay a premium for USB 3.
I never said any such thing. I said they won't pay a premium for Thunderbolt for every-day use. If you're just going to lie and change what I said, I won't bother replying anymore.
USB 3 won't be a premium over anything. It's going to be dirt cheap and a simple performance upgrade for everyone. It already is cheap for new computers and a pretty cheap add-on for existing ones; you cannot add TB to existing computers so there's another problem it has to contend with, especially trying to get a large user base in any reasonable length of time. The longer it takes to get a large installed user base, the longer the prices will stay high on any TB products. It's plainly obvious that TB is going to be a high-end niche product just like FW800, at least for the forseeable future. While Intel's demo is totally cool, it doesn't remotely represent the AVERAGE PC user in any shape or form. Most people aren't editing 4 simultaneous streams of 1080p video on a mega-buck professional high-speed drive array.
I have NO problem with TB technology or its usefulness in certain applications. I do contend that most people aren't going to give a crap about it one way or the other since their computers will not have it or need it for their everyday uses. More to the point, most computers (save maybe those from Apple) will have ALSO have USB3, allowing the user to make the best possible choices for their needs. USB3 will not fail or go away simply because it is a cheap upgrade to USB2 that is fully backwards compatible. Computers will have it just for that reason alone even if the user doesn't make good use of it.
IF TB ever achieves mass acceptance, it will be years into the future. It takes time to build a user base on a totally new technology. USB3 is a simple dump and replace and still works with everything USB2. TB works with NOTHING that already exists (save a few Mini-display port monitors and that's only because it carries Mini-display port video signals). The fact that Intel plans to do USB3 alongside TB on their next chipset shows even they understand that TB is going to be high-end/niche product for some time to come.
I have said in the past that IF Intel had used the USB3 style connector and essentially had USB compatibility + MORE bandwidth THEN they might start appearing on everything. But they chose instead to use a connector that is hardly on anything (but newer Macs) and that isn't much different than starting over with a totally new connector and no compatibility with anything (outside breakout boxes that are essentially PCI cards in a box). When it comes down to it, TB is basically the entire PCIe bus on a single external connector.
bdj21ya
Oct 12, 01:14 PM
Granted, this is a good thing.
But does anyone else find it ironic that the iPods in question are being made by people who according to media reports could use this type of financial subsidization as well?
It's not really the same. They are poor and struggling to improve their lives, but their entire people is not being wiped out by a disease that they don't have the resources to understand, much less combat.
But does anyone else find it ironic that the iPods in question are being made by people who according to media reports could use this type of financial subsidization as well?
It's not really the same. They are poor and struggling to improve their lives, but their entire people is not being wiped out by a disease that they don't have the resources to understand, much less combat.
zepharus
Apr 14, 07:17 PM
Makes zero cents.
Does it make any Dollars? :p
Does it make any Dollars? :p
Adidas Addict
Apr 22, 12:28 PM
what's the difference in the screen specs? i saw the air's screen at the apple store and it looked pretty nice to me
Specs? I have no idea, but from using both I can tell you that when it comes to viewing angles, colours, brightness, blacks and whites that the 13" MBP is superior in every way. (And I supposedly had the better part number for the screen in the MBA)
Specs? I have no idea, but from using both I can tell you that when it comes to viewing angles, colours, brightness, blacks and whites that the 13" MBP is superior in every way. (And I supposedly had the better part number for the screen in the MBA)
CANEHDN
Aug 23, 05:28 PM
Creative's stock up 30% in after-hours trading. The $100 million is a drop in the bucket for Apple, but it will certainly help Creative...
Which is probably why they sued. Knowing they are running out of cash, they figured "Let's jump on the bandwagon and sue someone".
Which is probably why they sued. Knowing they are running out of cash, they figured "Let's jump on the bandwagon and sue someone".
ksz
Jul 14, 11:40 AM
I have overclocked. My point is that someone buying a Professional Workstation and trying to overclock it is childish.
Overclocking has its uses, but I tend to agree that for most business applications, overclocking is frowned upon. I will not overclock a processor on a system I am spec'ing for a customer because it is a form of gambling. When you have to meet MTBF requirements, you tend to be conservative and cautious.
Overclocking has its uses, but I tend to agree that for most business applications, overclocking is frowned upon. I will not overclock a processor on a system I am spec'ing for a customer because it is a form of gambling. When you have to meet MTBF requirements, you tend to be conservative and cautious.
Kupp
Mar 23, 06:49 PM
I converted to Linux in 2007 and Mac in 2009 after using Windows since version 3.1 and don't miss a thing! It's true what they say "Mac's just work."
That is the funny thing I was thinking about either going Linux (just so I don't need to listen to my mac wife tease me about my conversion to the light.) But if I want something that as you say "Just works" why go linux, I might fool around with that by setting my Dell up to dual boot, just upgraded it to 300 GB internal drive so plenty of space.
I had also thought of grabbing a netbook, and making a hackintosh, but that isn't reliable or realistic for daily computing needs either.
But I must say the thing that was perhaps the most instrumental in my thinking of going mac, was android.
I wanted a phone that just worked and was looking at iPhone vs Android. In my opinion the iPhone is a more reliable platform, due to the fragmentation of droid. Too many manufacturers, with their own independent specs, and a separate entity creating the software.
If you extrapolate the fragmentation of droid argument, it is an equally valid argument against windows.
Apple is in my opinion the Volvo of the computer world. And at this point, working full time, while also taking night classes and working on an undergrad degree, a volvo is what I need.
On a side note, I just went to the apple store, and looked at the 27" imacs....
Ok, maybe I just should get one of those when they refresh. I thought my wife had the 27", but she must actually have the 24"
Those 27" ones are very pretty. More space than I have on the 2 screens I have now combined. I could just use my Ipad 2 when I get one as a 2nd remote screen and call it a day. Damn they look nice.
I've been told "Once you go Mac you don't go back!"
Judging from my experience with my iPhone 3GS making me wanting to get an iMac 27" inch Quad Core I may agree.
I think that is what my experience is turning into. Just swap for a iphone 4 and not caring as much about quad core.
That is the funny thing I was thinking about either going Linux (just so I don't need to listen to my mac wife tease me about my conversion to the light.) But if I want something that as you say "Just works" why go linux, I might fool around with that by setting my Dell up to dual boot, just upgraded it to 300 GB internal drive so plenty of space.
I had also thought of grabbing a netbook, and making a hackintosh, but that isn't reliable or realistic for daily computing needs either.
But I must say the thing that was perhaps the most instrumental in my thinking of going mac, was android.
I wanted a phone that just worked and was looking at iPhone vs Android. In my opinion the iPhone is a more reliable platform, due to the fragmentation of droid. Too many manufacturers, with their own independent specs, and a separate entity creating the software.
If you extrapolate the fragmentation of droid argument, it is an equally valid argument against windows.
Apple is in my opinion the Volvo of the computer world. And at this point, working full time, while also taking night classes and working on an undergrad degree, a volvo is what I need.
On a side note, I just went to the apple store, and looked at the 27" imacs....
Ok, maybe I just should get one of those when they refresh. I thought my wife had the 27", but she must actually have the 24"
Those 27" ones are very pretty. More space than I have on the 2 screens I have now combined. I could just use my Ipad 2 when I get one as a 2nd remote screen and call it a day. Damn they look nice.
I've been told "Once you go Mac you don't go back!"
Judging from my experience with my iPhone 3GS making me wanting to get an iMac 27" inch Quad Core I may agree.
I think that is what my experience is turning into. Just swap for a iphone 4 and not caring as much about quad core.
CapturedDarknes
Nov 13, 10:35 PM
That's interesting, I didn't know they did that. That's nice that they let them use the icons. I guess it reminds people go out and buy photoshop. :)
Mhm :) That's why you can export Office and iWork files to .pdf from in the program, without having to buy Acrobat.
Mhm :) That's why you can export Office and iWork files to .pdf from in the program, without having to buy Acrobat.
xUKHCx
Sep 10, 04:34 PM
I have the oringal iMac G5 bought on the very day they were announced. (well i dont have it as it is in for another replacement midplane - total worth of applecare to me so far is about the £1400 mark). It is feeling rather old and very slow for my tasks. I am now wishing i had that display so i could connect it to the mini or a mid range tower. I long for upgradable graphics as a not so proud owner of the geforce 5200 or whatever it is in my mac so such a pitiful perfonace it is not listed as Aperture capable. It really is a shocking video card. I have upgraded the harddrive that was a snap in the iMac, i have even replaced the logic board 30 mins no fuss. THings i liked about the original iMac ease of replacement parts. Things i didnt like: the non upgradable parts - processor and graphics.
I truely long for the Mid range tower.
double height Pci graphics slot ala Mac Pro with the X1900.
Space for two harddrives for Time Machine mostly.
Pretty beefy processor, preferably with some sort of upgrade path
Option to purchase a bundle display 17" really cheap option.
1 gb ram - 8 gb provided by 4 ram slots
Cost: £700
Cost: £850 with the 17 inch mointor
Cost: £1000 with the 20 inch mointor
I truely long for the Mid range tower.
double height Pci graphics slot ala Mac Pro with the X1900.
Space for two harddrives for Time Machine mostly.
Pretty beefy processor, preferably with some sort of upgrade path
Option to purchase a bundle display 17" really cheap option.
1 gb ram - 8 gb provided by 4 ram slots
Cost: £700
Cost: £850 with the 17 inch mointor
Cost: £1000 with the 20 inch mointor