Erasmus
Sep 11, 06:09 AM
Not naming names, but I find it funny how everyone suddenly becomes an engineer.:rolleyes:
Who said anything about suddenly?
I, with all of my first year Aeronautical Engineering Uni experience say a Mini Mac Pro is possible. :D :cool:
I think it would be really cool if it had support for a kentsfield or conroe if it's possible, as well as future support as well. It should also have four RAM slots. Two Hard Drive bays, and two PCI Extreme slots. All for under 2 grand Australian currency, so I can buy a 23" screen and a Macbook for about AU$5G, and I'll be one very happy, and very poor individual.
Four cores would be fantastic for working with Matlab for Uni.
Who said anything about suddenly?
I, with all of my first year Aeronautical Engineering Uni experience say a Mini Mac Pro is possible. :D :cool:
I think it would be really cool if it had support for a kentsfield or conroe if it's possible, as well as future support as well. It should also have four RAM slots. Two Hard Drive bays, and two PCI Extreme slots. All for under 2 grand Australian currency, so I can buy a 23" screen and a Macbook for about AU$5G, and I'll be one very happy, and very poor individual.
Four cores would be fantastic for working with Matlab for Uni.
Shaneuk
Mar 22, 01:39 PM
I would like one. But I doubt I'll get one. My next computer will either be a Macbook pro or a Mac pro. But that will be a while into the future before I get anything.
calculus
Oct 28, 03:23 AM
something to do with the magna carte
Does Magna Carta mean nothing to you? Did she die in vain!
...sorry, couldn't resist.:)
Does Magna Carta mean nothing to you? Did she die in vain!
...sorry, couldn't resist.:)
GGJstudios
Mar 19, 02:17 PM
Malware includes computer viruses, worms, trojan horses, spyware and other malicious and unwanted software or programs. The idea that OSX and/or Unix/Linux based operating systems is free from such threats is absurd.
No one has presented the idea that Mac OS X is free from all malware threats. Since your reading comprehension might need some help, I'll repeat my statement again:
there is no Mac malware in the wild that can't be avoided with some common sense and prudent action on the part of the user.
Viruses for Mac OS X don't exist, so antivirus isn't needed to protect against them.
Trojans for Mac OS X do exist, but can be avoided by the user being careful what they install, so antivirus isn't needed to protect against them.
Meanwhile, the answer on here to avoiding potential pitfalls in things like Flash is to (surprise), not install or use it. Hey guys, don't power on your computers and you will always be safe! :rolleyes:
I use Flash all the time and have never had any issues with it.
Even Apple themselves regularly release security updates. WTF is the point of a security update if there's no possible threat to OSX?
Again, no one has said there are not threats to Mac OS X; only that those threats don't require any AV software to defend against them.
Just because a threat is less likely than on other systems does not mean that it does not exist. Yet people on here won't even admit that much.
Either you're not reading or not comprehending the posts that have been made. No one is saying that NO threats exist; only that those threats can be avoided by the user without the need for AV software.
Only a fanboy would take a post that suggests that a false sense of security can lead to dangerous behavior that might be a liability in the future (good advice in almost any market/situation) and twist it into "Boy you're ignorant; we are INVULNERABLE! OSX cannot be hacked or attacked! It's impossible!
Who are you referring to? I haven't seen anyone say such things in this thread or any other.
"fanboy"
Again, who are you referring to? I'm not a fanboy, or a boy of any kind. I have no allegiance or loyalty to any brand or manufacturer (except Harley-Davidson, but for very different reasons). It's amusing to see how people try to bash Apple or Macs for the wrong reasons, then resort to calling people "fanboys" when their arguments aren't accepted. Apple and Macs have plenty of weaknesses. Attack one of the legitimate ones and you'll have sensible people agree with you. Make a case against Apple or John Deere or Mattel or Coca-Cola or any other company that isn't based in fact, and you'll get resistance. That doesn't make those who oppose such a case "fanboys".
Malware includes computer viruses, worms, trojan horses, spyware and other malicious and unwanted software or programs. The idea that OSX and/or Unix/Linux based operating systems is free from such threats is absurd.
No one has presented the idea that Mac OS X is free from all malware threats. Since your reading comprehension might need some help, I'll repeat my statement again:
there is no Mac malware in the wild that can't be avoided with some common sense and prudent action on the part of the user.
Viruses for Mac OS X don't exist, so antivirus isn't needed to protect against them.
Trojans for Mac OS X do exist, but can be avoided by the user being careful what they install, so antivirus isn't needed to protect against them.
Meanwhile, the answer on here to avoiding potential pitfalls in things like Flash is to (surprise), not install or use it. Hey guys, don't power on your computers and you will always be safe! :rolleyes:
I use Flash all the time and have never had any issues with it.
Even Apple themselves regularly release security updates. WTF is the point of a security update if there's no possible threat to OSX?
Again, no one has said there are not threats to Mac OS X; only that those threats don't require any AV software to defend against them.
Just because a threat is less likely than on other systems does not mean that it does not exist. Yet people on here won't even admit that much.
Either you're not reading or not comprehending the posts that have been made. No one is saying that NO threats exist; only that those threats can be avoided by the user without the need for AV software.
Only a fanboy would take a post that suggests that a false sense of security can lead to dangerous behavior that might be a liability in the future (good advice in almost any market/situation) and twist it into "Boy you're ignorant; we are INVULNERABLE! OSX cannot be hacked or attacked! It's impossible!
Who are you referring to? I haven't seen anyone say such things in this thread or any other.
No one has presented the idea that Mac OS X is free from all malware threats. Since your reading comprehension might need some help, I'll repeat my statement again:
there is no Mac malware in the wild that can't be avoided with some common sense and prudent action on the part of the user.
Viruses for Mac OS X don't exist, so antivirus isn't needed to protect against them.
Trojans for Mac OS X do exist, but can be avoided by the user being careful what they install, so antivirus isn't needed to protect against them.
Meanwhile, the answer on here to avoiding potential pitfalls in things like Flash is to (surprise), not install or use it. Hey guys, don't power on your computers and you will always be safe! :rolleyes:
I use Flash all the time and have never had any issues with it.
Even Apple themselves regularly release security updates. WTF is the point of a security update if there's no possible threat to OSX?
Again, no one has said there are not threats to Mac OS X; only that those threats don't require any AV software to defend against them.
Just because a threat is less likely than on other systems does not mean that it does not exist. Yet people on here won't even admit that much.
Either you're not reading or not comprehending the posts that have been made. No one is saying that NO threats exist; only that those threats can be avoided by the user without the need for AV software.
Only a fanboy would take a post that suggests that a false sense of security can lead to dangerous behavior that might be a liability in the future (good advice in almost any market/situation) and twist it into "Boy you're ignorant; we are INVULNERABLE! OSX cannot be hacked or attacked! It's impossible!
Who are you referring to? I haven't seen anyone say such things in this thread or any other.
"fanboy"
Again, who are you referring to? I'm not a fanboy, or a boy of any kind. I have no allegiance or loyalty to any brand or manufacturer (except Harley-Davidson, but for very different reasons). It's amusing to see how people try to bash Apple or Macs for the wrong reasons, then resort to calling people "fanboys" when their arguments aren't accepted. Apple and Macs have plenty of weaknesses. Attack one of the legitimate ones and you'll have sensible people agree with you. Make a case against Apple or John Deere or Mattel or Coca-Cola or any other company that isn't based in fact, and you'll get resistance. That doesn't make those who oppose such a case "fanboys".
Malware includes computer viruses, worms, trojan horses, spyware and other malicious and unwanted software or programs. The idea that OSX and/or Unix/Linux based operating systems is free from such threats is absurd.
No one has presented the idea that Mac OS X is free from all malware threats. Since your reading comprehension might need some help, I'll repeat my statement again:
there is no Mac malware in the wild that can't be avoided with some common sense and prudent action on the part of the user.
Viruses for Mac OS X don't exist, so antivirus isn't needed to protect against them.
Trojans for Mac OS X do exist, but can be avoided by the user being careful what they install, so antivirus isn't needed to protect against them.
Meanwhile, the answer on here to avoiding potential pitfalls in things like Flash is to (surprise), not install or use it. Hey guys, don't power on your computers and you will always be safe! :rolleyes:
I use Flash all the time and have never had any issues with it.
Even Apple themselves regularly release security updates. WTF is the point of a security update if there's no possible threat to OSX?
Again, no one has said there are not threats to Mac OS X; only that those threats don't require any AV software to defend against them.
Just because a threat is less likely than on other systems does not mean that it does not exist. Yet people on here won't even admit that much.
Either you're not reading or not comprehending the posts that have been made. No one is saying that NO threats exist; only that those threats can be avoided by the user without the need for AV software.
Only a fanboy would take a post that suggests that a false sense of security can lead to dangerous behavior that might be a liability in the future (good advice in almost any market/situation) and twist it into "Boy you're ignorant; we are INVULNERABLE! OSX cannot be hacked or attacked! It's impossible!
Who are you referring to? I haven't seen anyone say such things in this thread or any other.
Takeo
May 3, 10:42 AM
The trackpad option is awesome. Every bundled Apple mouse I've gotten for the past 15 years has gone straight in the trash. The only good mouse Apple ever made was the ADB II. At least now I get a free trackpad to play with! Cool!
charlituna
May 3, 11:05 AM
So when is the ACD gonna support thunderbolt?
Likely never. At least by Apple. That is old school tech that they want you to replace.
Likely never. At least by Apple. That is old school tech that they want you to replace.
Gem�tlichkeit
Apr 20, 01:22 PM
Wasn't this the same info they told us about when they were collecting signal information?
Location and signal strength.
Location and signal strength.
Evangelion
Sep 9, 11:41 AM
Sounds like a set of chips to me ;)
dave
By "chipset" people usually refer to the southbridge/northbridge-combo. In this case that is the Intel Express 945.
dave
By "chipset" people usually refer to the southbridge/northbridge-combo. In this case that is the Intel Express 945.
LarryC
Apr 30, 03:28 PM
delete. sorry.
samiwas
Apr 20, 02:47 PM
The free market would suck if it were run in the way your brain imagines it. But imagine if you ran a company, and your chief goal is to make a profit. Having happy employees who are payed fairly and receive vacation days, benefits, etc, is definitely a better business model than working your employees like slaves.
OK, so why don't more businesses do that, instead of doing everything they can to "cut costs" to "generate higher profits"? Obviously, a business needs to make a profit. But instead of just making a profit, it seems that nowadays a business is not considered successful unless that business generates massive profits, or highly increased profits over the previous year. And if a business doesn't make as much as they thought they might (even though they've pulled in billions in profit), they are considered failed and their stock tumbles.
Honestly, I don't believe the "free market" that you or any Republican/Tea Partier/Libertarian believes in would work either, except for funneling even more dough to the top (which I actually think might be the way you want to see it, and thus believe would be successful). If you really believe that without some sort of regulation, all businesses would be spending MORE on their employees, you are hopeless.
Benefits shouldn't be government regulated. However, the slave labor that you describe should most certainly not be allowed, duh. Try cutting back on the straw man argument some.
My example may have been a little over the top, but let's not pretend for one second that plenty of employers out there would think nothing of asking their employees to come in on weekends or stay late nights with no extra compensation.
Benefits should have some sort of MINIMAL regulation. The US has pretty much the fewest benefits of any developed nation, and this is considered a good thing....because it benefits the business and not the worker.
It's humorous that when people imagine a free market, they ignore that in a free market, employers would be fighting for good employees as much as employees are fighting for the employers.
Wait...what?? Employers are currently not trying to get good employees? What does this even mean?
It's sad that the government is the largest charity, because it's just so darn inefficient. I have an idea. Private charity.
Somehow, I can't imagine a private charity large enough to take care of all of America's bottom class or replace existing "entitlement programs". The largest charity in the US is the United Way with $3.8billion in income. As for current government program expenses, even Tenant-based Rental Assistance is at $18.2billion, and that's just a single line item in a portion of one part of programs. I just cannot see how private charity could have the kind of reach that the government does. And I'm guessing that the people who do run the government programs make a little less than the $715,000 salary of the head of the United Way.
For all the bleeding heart liberals I've spoken with over the years, who want crazy amounts taxed in order to support social uplift programs, I never see any of them giving away 50+% of their income to charity. It's a lot easier to ask the government to give other peoples money to charity.
I can tell you right now that my family gives >50% of its total income.
However, if you think that taxes = charity, what incentive do you have to give? (to the organizations that are 90+% efficient rather than whatever the crap the government is)
So, AFTER paying 30% in federal and state income taxes, whatever percentage in sales and property tax, you are still able give away an additional 50% or more to charity? So you are able to live on like 3% of your earnings? I would LOVE to be in that position! It's very admirable, but hardly reachable for the average person. I try to give whenever I can, but I can admit that's it's usually around $2k a year.
Anyway, the topic is about the influx of low-wage, no-benefit jobs with no worker protections during times of high profitability and skyrocketing leadership pay. Some people actually see this as good. Some see it as bad. If you see this as a good thing, then we're at an impasse.
OK, so why don't more businesses do that, instead of doing everything they can to "cut costs" to "generate higher profits"? Obviously, a business needs to make a profit. But instead of just making a profit, it seems that nowadays a business is not considered successful unless that business generates massive profits, or highly increased profits over the previous year. And if a business doesn't make as much as they thought they might (even though they've pulled in billions in profit), they are considered failed and their stock tumbles.
Honestly, I don't believe the "free market" that you or any Republican/Tea Partier/Libertarian believes in would work either, except for funneling even more dough to the top (which I actually think might be the way you want to see it, and thus believe would be successful). If you really believe that without some sort of regulation, all businesses would be spending MORE on their employees, you are hopeless.
Benefits shouldn't be government regulated. However, the slave labor that you describe should most certainly not be allowed, duh. Try cutting back on the straw man argument some.
My example may have been a little over the top, but let's not pretend for one second that plenty of employers out there would think nothing of asking their employees to come in on weekends or stay late nights with no extra compensation.
Benefits should have some sort of MINIMAL regulation. The US has pretty much the fewest benefits of any developed nation, and this is considered a good thing....because it benefits the business and not the worker.
It's humorous that when people imagine a free market, they ignore that in a free market, employers would be fighting for good employees as much as employees are fighting for the employers.
Wait...what?? Employers are currently not trying to get good employees? What does this even mean?
It's sad that the government is the largest charity, because it's just so darn inefficient. I have an idea. Private charity.
Somehow, I can't imagine a private charity large enough to take care of all of America's bottom class or replace existing "entitlement programs". The largest charity in the US is the United Way with $3.8billion in income. As for current government program expenses, even Tenant-based Rental Assistance is at $18.2billion, and that's just a single line item in a portion of one part of programs. I just cannot see how private charity could have the kind of reach that the government does. And I'm guessing that the people who do run the government programs make a little less than the $715,000 salary of the head of the United Way.
For all the bleeding heart liberals I've spoken with over the years, who want crazy amounts taxed in order to support social uplift programs, I never see any of them giving away 50+% of their income to charity. It's a lot easier to ask the government to give other peoples money to charity.
I can tell you right now that my family gives >50% of its total income.
However, if you think that taxes = charity, what incentive do you have to give? (to the organizations that are 90+% efficient rather than whatever the crap the government is)
So, AFTER paying 30% in federal and state income taxes, whatever percentage in sales and property tax, you are still able give away an additional 50% or more to charity? So you are able to live on like 3% of your earnings? I would LOVE to be in that position! It's very admirable, but hardly reachable for the average person. I try to give whenever I can, but I can admit that's it's usually around $2k a year.
Anyway, the topic is about the influx of low-wage, no-benefit jobs with no worker protections during times of high profitability and skyrocketing leadership pay. Some people actually see this as good. Some see it as bad. If you see this as a good thing, then we're at an impasse.
globalhemp
Mar 30, 11:54 AM
I believe Microsoft's #1 problem is that they are the king of generic names for products:
Word for word processing.
Windows for a graphical user interface that has content stores in windows.
Perhaps the only "cool" names Microsoft has are Excel and Xbox?
Damit! They want App Store for selling apps and Apple's already taken it.
Perhaps their argument will be, "How come Apple did not just name their online store the iApp Store, geez...."
Perhaps Microsoft will be left with no alternative but to use the mokier, "Microsoft Store," "Software Store," or "Soft Store?" They could even just call their store "M$ 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."
Mattsasa
Apr 30, 06:47 PM
Glad, hoping for a redesign, but probably unlikely, also would be great to see the yellow tint issue resolved..
Yea I don't think I redesign is likely, Apple likes the current one still, and it is pretty nice IMO
Yea I don't think I redesign is likely, Apple likes the current one still, and it is pretty nice IMO
.jpg "Arnold Schwarzenegger Rare")
WillEH
Apr 19, 05:19 PM
What do Apple want out of this? more money?
markw10
Sep 14, 10:27 AM
I'm hoping for a MBP. It'll be my first Mac. My son just started college and we were going to buy him a Mac Mini. Then I heard about new imacs coming and waited it out and I found that to be a better value than a mac mini. Well he just got it a week ago and it's great! Now I've decided to switch from Windows to Mac and will get a MBP but am waiting for the next generation. I was disappointed it didn't come last week but maybe the 24th. Isn't it unusual for Apple to have something like this on a Sunday? I hear so much about Tuesdays but as other's have said maybe the 19th. I've heard estimates of as late as January becuase of a meron shortage. I can't wait that long to switch to Mac! :)
SBacklin
Apr 22, 09:34 AM
Man, stop it with the cloud service already. :rolleyes: You can't rely on the internet availability for listening to music. It's unreliable. Plus, the streaming will probably be low resolution, drain battery life, eat into data caps, not display lyrics, and generally be a crappy experience. If I wanted to stream, I can do it from my home computer where my music already resides with one of the 100 apps already available and not have to fight through all the bandwidth issues that are probably gonna result from Apple's side. What's the point? I can do this now.
Of course what we really need if more friggin' flash memory on our devices! Apple's been stuck on 32 GB on the iPhone for almost 3 years!
Tony
Good points made. Like I complained about, cellular data connectivity when out and about isn't very reliable and then there is data caps.
Of course what we really need if more friggin' flash memory on our devices! Apple's been stuck on 32 GB on the iPhone for almost 3 years!
Tony
Good points made. Like I complained about, cellular data connectivity when out and about isn't very reliable and then there is data caps.
PlaceofDis
Oct 12, 06:57 PM
im so tired about apple having partnerships with groups i dont like. to each his own but why does U2 have to keep pushing their own ipod, i thought the last one sucked. give me a band i actually like
except this isn't about a band. its about a charity.
except this isn't about a band. its about a charity.
Old Smuggler
Sep 13, 10:03 PM
all i know is i refuse to buy it unless it has these features
http://www.apple-museum.gr.jp/museum/tenji/3d08.jpg
http://www.apple-museum.gr.jp/museum/tenji/3d08.jpg
ChazUK
Mar 23, 04:35 PM
Wirelessly posted (Opera/9.80 (Android 2.3.3; Linux; Opera Mobi/ADR-1103211415; U; en-GB) Presto/2.7.81 Version/11.00)
Anything that may encourage someone to risk a journey in a car whilst under the influence of Alcohol/drugs be steering themselves away from law enforcement is wrong in my opinion. I say pull them.
Anything that may encourage someone to risk a journey in a car whilst under the influence of Alcohol/drugs be steering themselves away from law enforcement is wrong in my opinion. I say pull them.
ipoddin
Aug 31, 06:30 PM
Just guessing (obviously), but I just can't see where processor upgrades to MacBooks and/or Mini's and/or iMacs and/or MacBook Pros warrant a big ol' SF > London-streamed Stevenote.
Nah. This feels bigger. Smells more of an iPod/Movie Store announcement to me.
My crazy/he's hitting the rock again call of the day would be that on the 12th, Steve shocks the world with a redefinition of the whole mobile phone experience. Announcing the new iPod phone.
Where's my pipe?
You're probably right. An event isn't the place to only announce processor upgrades to the current line. Something bigger is to be announced and the processor upgrades thrown in for good measure!
Nah. This feels bigger. Smells more of an iPod/Movie Store announcement to me.
My crazy/he's hitting the rock again call of the day would be that on the 12th, Steve shocks the world with a redefinition of the whole mobile phone experience. Announcing the new iPod phone.
Where's my pipe?
You're probably right. An event isn't the place to only announce processor upgrades to the current line. Something bigger is to be announced and the processor upgrades thrown in for good measure!
MagnusVonMagnum
Apr 15, 06:50 PM
Even USB 2.0 has a pathetic 50% effective utilization rate, while Firewire is ~95%. USB 2.0 is 480 Mb/s, which equals 60 MB/s, yet in real world speeds, you're lucky if you see 30 MB/s - HALF it's rated bandwidth. USB is just plain horrible for bulk data transfer, and the new 3.0 iteration is no different. The protocol overhead is atrocious.
No different? What planet on you living on because it's not Earth.... The link quoted tested a slow 2.5" drive and still showed a 3.5x speed improvement. USB3 can only go as fast as the drive it's connected to. You're going to find that out with TB as well. You can't make gold out of dirt.
These people on here suggesting Intel should can USB3 are not real computer users. They're non-computer types that don't know WTF they're talking about. Period. There is NO reason to NOT use USB3 on new computers. Their cost is next to nothing. They're 100% backwards compatible with USB2.0,1.1 and 1.0 and you'll need those ports regardless whether your computer has TB or not. Not having USB3 simply means less flexibility. Even if you hate it, your friend comes over with his 7200RPM USB3 drive and connects it to your Mac using USB 2.0 and instead of going 110MB/sec as it would under USB3, it goes 30-35MB/sec under USB 2.0. He then asks you why your Mac SUCKS SO HARD and your reply will be that he should have paid $400 for that drive with a TB connector instead of $150 with a USB3 connector (even though TB will not go faster because that's the limit of the drive itself). Your friend will then suggest you give him some money since you're stinking loaded to WASTE $250 more on the TB drive when USB3 would have done just as well. But then you remind him that Apple don't support no stinking USB3 and he then tells you that his PC just 'PWNED' your 'Crapple'. :eek:
Apple isn't doing themselves ANY favors to ignore mainstream tech. They want TB? Fine, but don't leave out USB3 to spite yourself. Oh wait. They already did that with Blu-Ray.... :rolleyes:
No different? What planet on you living on because it's not Earth.... The link quoted tested a slow 2.5" drive and still showed a 3.5x speed improvement. USB3 can only go as fast as the drive it's connected to. You're going to find that out with TB as well. You can't make gold out of dirt.
These people on here suggesting Intel should can USB3 are not real computer users. They're non-computer types that don't know WTF they're talking about. Period. There is NO reason to NOT use USB3 on new computers. Their cost is next to nothing. They're 100% backwards compatible with USB2.0,1.1 and 1.0 and you'll need those ports regardless whether your computer has TB or not. Not having USB3 simply means less flexibility. Even if you hate it, your friend comes over with his 7200RPM USB3 drive and connects it to your Mac using USB 2.0 and instead of going 110MB/sec as it would under USB3, it goes 30-35MB/sec under USB 2.0. He then asks you why your Mac SUCKS SO HARD and your reply will be that he should have paid $400 for that drive with a TB connector instead of $150 with a USB3 connector (even though TB will not go faster because that's the limit of the drive itself). Your friend will then suggest you give him some money since you're stinking loaded to WASTE $250 more on the TB drive when USB3 would have done just as well. But then you remind him that Apple don't support no stinking USB3 and he then tells you that his PC just 'PWNED' your 'Crapple'. :eek:
Apple isn't doing themselves ANY favors to ignore mainstream tech. They want TB? Fine, but don't leave out USB3 to spite yourself. Oh wait. They already did that with Blu-Ray.... :rolleyes:
mike2q
Oct 27, 06:01 PM
I think someone was right when they pointed out that Apple was attacked because Green Peace believed that we as Mac lovers are all tree hugging hippies. I think this thread alone put an end to that train of thought.
This has NOTHING to do with environmentalism, president Bush, or freedom of speech. It has to do with a the organizers of a privately held event kicking out an attendee for violating the terms it had set. As the organizer and funder of the event it had every right to kick out anyone it saw fit for any reason. If green peace was making it slightly uncomfortable for Apples other attendees then they are very justified in their reaction.
Just my 2 cents.
This has NOTHING to do with environmentalism, president Bush, or freedom of speech. It has to do with a the organizers of a privately held event kicking out an attendee for violating the terms it had set. As the organizer and funder of the event it had every right to kick out anyone it saw fit for any reason. If green peace was making it slightly uncomfortable for Apples other attendees then they are very justified in their reaction.
Just my 2 cents.
Multimedia
Sep 12, 07:02 PM
just before i jump between covers.... a rip from handbrake in 100% quality i had from before, DV Pal footage, 720p and 1080i footage all opened in quicktime and just gone to export for iPod all worked fine.
bluewire
Sep 9, 09:11 PM
Driving 1.5 hours to the Apple store this morning and the same on the way back. But I am not buying yet, just looking and getting a feel for the entire line. Oh I forgot.... and turning green with envy. Boy is going to be hard.
I've been calling around, there are 3 stores near me but none have a 24" iMac for me to look at yet. :( I'm looking to see what the annoucement is on Tuesday is...Cube redux? :eek:
I've been calling around, there are 3 stores near me but none have a 24" iMac for me to look at yet. :( I'm looking to see what the annoucement is on Tuesday is...Cube redux? :eek:
mazola
Sep 5, 10:29 PM
This bodes well.
Wasn't the tagline for the last Apple Special Event "It's Leather"?
Wasn't the tagline for the last Apple Special Event "It's Leather"?
0 comments:
Post a Comment