VPrime
Jan 5, 10:21 PM
Sounds good then, but keep in mind the sheer downtime you will have, even if you do the repairs yourself.
FTR my E36 was a complete cream puff, one owner, full service records and regular maintenance--and it was the biggest piece of crap I ever had. I unloaded it needing $4500 worth of work, on top of the massive piles of money I had to throw into it over my four years.
Good luck, but you have been warned.;)
heh down time is nothing. My last toy was down for 2 years ;)
FTR my E36 was a complete cream puff, one owner, full service records and regular maintenance--and it was the biggest piece of crap I ever had. I unloaded it needing $4500 worth of work, on top of the massive piles of money I had to throw into it over my four years.
Good luck, but you have been warned.;)
heh down time is nothing. My last toy was down for 2 years ;)
hyperpasta
Sep 6, 08:43 AM
Poop. And I was hoping for a $100 price drop.
I see why Apple came out with a 24-inch iMac the same day... we can't complain! :p
I see why Apple came out with a 24-inch iMac the same day... we can't complain! :p
Carniphage
Nov 30, 03:22 AM
I'll speak loud and clear:
DVR
iTunes Store can't now nor will it likely ever replace Dish Network for me. Just let me record my shows either directly with iTV or via something connected to it. I hope when this is released, HD DVD and Blu-ray make there way into Macs.
No No No No No!
All a DVR is - is a better VHS. A way of watching broadcast TV a little more easily. It's a timeshifter, but it is not revolutionary.
DVRs are popular with the (few) people who have them because they end some of the scheduling tyranny of the broadcasters.
But the problem is not scheduling. The problem is broadcasting itself.
Every modern business has had to face up to the opportunities and challenges of the Internet. One of the most significant is what they call disintermediation. Cutting out the middle men. Buying direct.
TV needs to be disintermediated. The advertisers and the networks get in the way. There needs to be a better pathway between producers and consumers.
Advertisers screw-up television. They influence content. Great shows are pulled, not because they don't have enough enthusiastic viewers, but because they don't attract enough consumers of sanitary towels or tooth whitener.
Lousy shows clog up the airwaves because they attract a large number of bottom-dwelling viewers who might just notice the ad for low-price hemorrhoid cream.
Broadcast TV is a business model from the 50s which needs to die. But if you *really* want your TV content determined by the marketeers of ant-acid remedies then stick with your DVR. Stick with Celebrity Love Spacktard. Cheer it up for American Idle. Wave pom poms like a sixteen year-old for the vacuous, empty spam that the networks churn out, to fill the gaps between revenue-generating advertising.
But while dreaming of Celebutard Love Assault... just for a second, imagine how much better TV could be if we could pay Joss Wheadon for Firefly DIRECTLY, or pay someone to make Star Trek with the same level of integrity as Battlestar.
Hint - if it started to suck, we would stop paying.
I'd prefer my television direct.
Screw the advertisers. Screw the networks. Screw Rupert Murdoch. In fact, pull down your dish and cram it in Rupert Murdoch.
Go iTV
C.
DVR
iTunes Store can't now nor will it likely ever replace Dish Network for me. Just let me record my shows either directly with iTV or via something connected to it. I hope when this is released, HD DVD and Blu-ray make there way into Macs.
No No No No No!
All a DVR is - is a better VHS. A way of watching broadcast TV a little more easily. It's a timeshifter, but it is not revolutionary.
DVRs are popular with the (few) people who have them because they end some of the scheduling tyranny of the broadcasters.
But the problem is not scheduling. The problem is broadcasting itself.
Every modern business has had to face up to the opportunities and challenges of the Internet. One of the most significant is what they call disintermediation. Cutting out the middle men. Buying direct.
TV needs to be disintermediated. The advertisers and the networks get in the way. There needs to be a better pathway between producers and consumers.
Advertisers screw-up television. They influence content. Great shows are pulled, not because they don't have enough enthusiastic viewers, but because they don't attract enough consumers of sanitary towels or tooth whitener.
Lousy shows clog up the airwaves because they attract a large number of bottom-dwelling viewers who might just notice the ad for low-price hemorrhoid cream.
Broadcast TV is a business model from the 50s which needs to die. But if you *really* want your TV content determined by the marketeers of ant-acid remedies then stick with your DVR. Stick with Celebrity Love Spacktard. Cheer it up for American Idle. Wave pom poms like a sixteen year-old for the vacuous, empty spam that the networks churn out, to fill the gaps between revenue-generating advertising.
But while dreaming of Celebutard Love Assault... just for a second, imagine how much better TV could be if we could pay Joss Wheadon for Firefly DIRECTLY, or pay someone to make Star Trek with the same level of integrity as Battlestar.
Hint - if it started to suck, we would stop paying.
I'd prefer my television direct.
Screw the advertisers. Screw the networks. Screw Rupert Murdoch. In fact, pull down your dish and cram it in Rupert Murdoch.
Go iTV
C.
ranviper
Jan 5, 12:21 AM
My jeep is currently in shop getting
1) new tires
2) oil and filter change
3) new brakes
4) inspection
It's an 05' Liberty 4WD and I love the thing. Ill clean it up and post some pics tomorrow. :cool:
1) new tires
2) oil and filter change
3) new brakes
4) inspection
It's an 05' Liberty 4WD and I love the thing. Ill clean it up and post some pics tomorrow. :cool:
Ravich
Mar 20, 10:13 PM
Maybe Apple should ban all religious apps.
That's for apple to decide.
In a way, religion is very like homeopathy, since it pretends that something non-existant has the ability to cure/help/heal etc.
I'll say it again: homeopathy is not directly harmful. Ex-gay therapy is.
Like homeopathy, religion can encourage one to do nothing of value ('let's pray for Japan', 'let's try to cure cancer with just water') rather than something physical which actually has an effect. It could be construed as being dangerous and damaging in that sense.
Again: how is that directly harmful? Directly. Harmful.
That's for apple to decide.
In a way, religion is very like homeopathy, since it pretends that something non-existant has the ability to cure/help/heal etc.
I'll say it again: homeopathy is not directly harmful. Ex-gay therapy is.
Like homeopathy, religion can encourage one to do nothing of value ('let's pray for Japan', 'let's try to cure cancer with just water') rather than something physical which actually has an effect. It could be construed as being dangerous and damaging in that sense.
Again: how is that directly harmful? Directly. Harmful.
Surreal
May 2, 06:00 PM
This will be interesting. The issue that I see concerns ancillary data. I really dislike how the iphone handles application data, but it is--at the very least--consistent. You delete the app, you delete the data.
I haven't had the occasion to see how MAS works with deleting, but I can't imagine it doing anything similar, and that creates a rift, in my opinion.
I haven't had the occasion to see how MAS works with deleting, but I can't imagine it doing anything similar, and that creates a rift, in my opinion.
marksman
Mar 27, 11:36 PM
It is amazing how limited in vision some people are...
Seriously people stuck with this idea that the future of gaming is going to be non-portable systems with game controllers forever are going to be very disappointed in the future.
Ultimately gesture based movements and other mechanisms will be used for gaming, not a freaking glorified joystick. It is silly to believe otherwise.
Again people saying you couldn't play with a touchscreen device without looking at it have no imagination or understanding. Definately within two years you will be shown to be horribly wrong on this point.
You keep believing the future of gaming is going to remain in the hands of traditional 8 year console development cycles... It is not going to happen.
It would be like saying you can't play any real game on a console, you need a pc for it. I certainly can do much more in terms of controlling and playing a game on a computer than I can do with any console controller.
Seriously people stuck with this idea that the future of gaming is going to be non-portable systems with game controllers forever are going to be very disappointed in the future.
Ultimately gesture based movements and other mechanisms will be used for gaming, not a freaking glorified joystick. It is silly to believe otherwise.
Again people saying you couldn't play with a touchscreen device without looking at it have no imagination or understanding. Definately within two years you will be shown to be horribly wrong on this point.
You keep believing the future of gaming is going to remain in the hands of traditional 8 year console development cycles... It is not going to happen.
It would be like saying you can't play any real game on a console, you need a pc for it. I certainly can do much more in terms of controlling and playing a game on a computer than I can do with any console controller.
AFPoster
Mar 22, 12:52 PM
So Apple should have the choice what they allow and don't allow?
Yes, it's a company that makes it's own decisions and it's own products. They choose what they will allow and won't allow. If you are a car company you choose to make a mini van or not. Apple chooses what they want, we accept what they give us. If you don't, dont download it or get it, no one is forcing you to have it!
Yes, it's a company that makes it's own decisions and it's own products. They choose what they will allow and won't allow. If you are a car company you choose to make a mini van or not. Apple chooses what they want, we accept what they give us. If you don't, dont download it or get it, no one is forcing you to have it!
Mike84
Apr 26, 02:29 PM
You make it sound as though this is such an obvious distinction that Apple could never get a trademark for "app store". But apparently this argument is not so strong in trademark law as Apple actually has the trademark already. If that were not the case how could they sue another entity for trademark infringement?
I think all of you who believe you have trademark law all figured out should keep this in mind. Apple has a trademark for app store. Previously another company had a trademark for "appstore" which is very similar.
You can write about the topic as though you have it all figured out but clearly your interpretation is not definitive as Apple was awarded the trademark.
Now perhaps eventually apple will lose it or have to modify it but the fact that they got the trademark and a legal battle would need to be waged for them to lose proves that your opinion of trademark law in this case is oversimplified.
It was.
Can you please show me the trademark that was granted to Apple for App Store by the USPTO? You won't be able to find it because their trademark has not been approved. An opposition to their application was filed, if you didn't catch that from the text.
Trademark is having property rights in a trade name. Apple, or any other company, can file to protect a trademark they have been using and the USPTO decides if it is too generic to be an actual trademark. I suggest you learn about the process of how trademarks.
"How does a mark qualify for federal registration?
To register a trademark with the PTO, the mark's owner first must put it into use " in commerce that Congress may regulate." This means the mark must be used on a product or service that crosses state, national or territorial lines or that affects commerce crossing such lines--for example, a catalog business or a restaurant or motel that caters to interstate or international customers. Even if the owner files an intent-to-use (ITU) trademark application (ITU applications are discussed in the previous set of questions), the mark will not actually be registered until it is used in commerce."
Source: http://www.inc.com/articles/1999/10/14646.html
Also, take a look at the Lanham Act, which is pretty important when it comes to trademark law ;)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lanham_Act <-- particularly Subchapters I and II.
Just because you use a mark does not mean you have been granted the trademark rights in it.
So, as you can see Apple does not have the trademark to App Store. Therefore, your argument fails on that premise alone.
I think all of you who believe you have trademark law all figured out should keep this in mind. Apple has a trademark for app store. Previously another company had a trademark for "appstore" which is very similar.
You can write about the topic as though you have it all figured out but clearly your interpretation is not definitive as Apple was awarded the trademark.
Now perhaps eventually apple will lose it or have to modify it but the fact that they got the trademark and a legal battle would need to be waged for them to lose proves that your opinion of trademark law in this case is oversimplified.
It was.
Can you please show me the trademark that was granted to Apple for App Store by the USPTO? You won't be able to find it because their trademark has not been approved. An opposition to their application was filed, if you didn't catch that from the text.
Trademark is having property rights in a trade name. Apple, or any other company, can file to protect a trademark they have been using and the USPTO decides if it is too generic to be an actual trademark. I suggest you learn about the process of how trademarks.
"How does a mark qualify for federal registration?
To register a trademark with the PTO, the mark's owner first must put it into use " in commerce that Congress may regulate." This means the mark must be used on a product or service that crosses state, national or territorial lines or that affects commerce crossing such lines--for example, a catalog business or a restaurant or motel that caters to interstate or international customers. Even if the owner files an intent-to-use (ITU) trademark application (ITU applications are discussed in the previous set of questions), the mark will not actually be registered until it is used in commerce."
Source: http://www.inc.com/articles/1999/10/14646.html
Also, take a look at the Lanham Act, which is pretty important when it comes to trademark law ;)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lanham_Act <-- particularly Subchapters I and II.
Just because you use a mark does not mean you have been granted the trademark rights in it.
So, as you can see Apple does not have the trademark to App Store. Therefore, your argument fails on that premise alone.
silentnite
Apr 24, 11:21 AM
No one should freak out and panic just yet, I'm sure apple has a logical explanation behind this.
iGav
Feb 25, 07:51 AM
looking at the very current and very genius Fiat Twin Air engines i have to say that very refined turbocharged small displacement/ few cylinder engines are actually the next step over the overly complicated hybrid systems
The Twin Air is conceptually brilliant... but its real world numbers haven't anywhere near matched up to Fiat's official figures (68.9mpg official - 35.7mpg real world, neither of which are particularly brilliant to begin with) and there lies one of the problems with small capacity engines, in anything other than ideal test conditions (i.e. rolling road), it is extraordinarily difficult to even approach the officials figures in everyday conditions, because put simply, they have to be razzed.
Like what you've said though, there's a compelling argument to be made that a diesel-electric hybrid (like VW's XL1 Concept), with energy recovery would probably be the best arrangement (particularly for an urban car), in this instance the diesel engine is isolated from the actually drivetrain (reducing NVH etc) and the electric motors counter the age old argument of petrol>diesel refinement.
I do think that smaller capacity, fewer cylinder engines are the way to go, but only if the absolutely most important factor is addressed first, and that is one of weight, until then...
The Twin Air is conceptually brilliant... but its real world numbers haven't anywhere near matched up to Fiat's official figures (68.9mpg official - 35.7mpg real world, neither of which are particularly brilliant to begin with) and there lies one of the problems with small capacity engines, in anything other than ideal test conditions (i.e. rolling road), it is extraordinarily difficult to even approach the officials figures in everyday conditions, because put simply, they have to be razzed.
Like what you've said though, there's a compelling argument to be made that a diesel-electric hybrid (like VW's XL1 Concept), with energy recovery would probably be the best arrangement (particularly for an urban car), in this instance the diesel engine is isolated from the actually drivetrain (reducing NVH etc) and the electric motors counter the age old argument of petrol>diesel refinement.
I do think that smaller capacity, fewer cylinder engines are the way to go, but only if the absolutely most important factor is addressed first, and that is one of weight, until then...
kadajawi
Sep 7, 05:56 AM
"Sin City was 40 million, Renaissance 14 million �, A Scanner Darkly 8.5 millions"
These were cheaper because they relied on digital effects to make a visual impression, rather than a couple hundred tons of actual explosives blowing up a genuine Boieng 747 as you might have in a Hollywood blockbuster.
Good to see you mentioned 2046. Great movie ^^ Wong Kar-Wai is awesome.
Right, but there were tons of artists working on the overpainting of A Scanner Darkly. And they don't blow up 747 anymore... they did such things with Tora! Tora! Tora! and other old movies, but today there is a lot of CGI involved. Remember Batman Begins and how proud they were that the car scene was without any CGI?
Initial D had a tiny budget compared to The Fast and the Furious I and II, yet it had great car scenes with lots of drifting and a nice story. I thought it was by far superior to the Fast ... movies, and it's far more stylish. But it had the Infernal Affairs directors, so that's pretty obvious.
I think big budget today means the studios think it appeals to the masses. They will try to put in a star not for the acting talent or because the star fits in the role best, but because of the name and the promo. They movie will be made for the mainstream, so there will be a bit of a love story, some action scenes, or just some obscene humor. Maybe a remake. And don't experiment. Shouldn't be intellectually challenging. Boring!
Yeah, Wong Kar-Wai is awesome, though I prefer his Chungking Express. Dunno how the budget was on that one, but I'd guess pretty much non existant.
These were cheaper because they relied on digital effects to make a visual impression, rather than a couple hundred tons of actual explosives blowing up a genuine Boieng 747 as you might have in a Hollywood blockbuster.
Good to see you mentioned 2046. Great movie ^^ Wong Kar-Wai is awesome.
Right, but there were tons of artists working on the overpainting of A Scanner Darkly. And they don't blow up 747 anymore... they did such things with Tora! Tora! Tora! and other old movies, but today there is a lot of CGI involved. Remember Batman Begins and how proud they were that the car scene was without any CGI?
Initial D had a tiny budget compared to The Fast and the Furious I and II, yet it had great car scenes with lots of drifting and a nice story. I thought it was by far superior to the Fast ... movies, and it's far more stylish. But it had the Infernal Affairs directors, so that's pretty obvious.
I think big budget today means the studios think it appeals to the masses. They will try to put in a star not for the acting talent or because the star fits in the role best, but because of the name and the promo. They movie will be made for the mainstream, so there will be a bit of a love story, some action scenes, or just some obscene humor. Maybe a remake. And don't experiment. Shouldn't be intellectually challenging. Boring!
Yeah, Wong Kar-Wai is awesome, though I prefer his Chungking Express. Dunno how the budget was on that one, but I'd guess pretty much non existant.
Blue Velvet
Mar 24, 12:49 PM
You weren't born gay, you chose to be gay.
Please provide some medical, scientific or psychiatric evidence from a reputable source that sexual orientation is a choice.
Please provide some medical, scientific or psychiatric evidence from a reputable source that sexual orientation is a choice.
Surely
Nov 27, 12:34 PM
After being here for 3 years, Surely he's not a troll. ;)
My god, the dog with the goggles is right! I think I like him just as much as the donkey astronaut.
Oh, another set of these:
http://i.imgur.com/1IdVf.jpg
My god, the dog with the goggles is right! I think I like him just as much as the donkey astronaut.
Oh, another set of these:
http://i.imgur.com/1IdVf.jpg
Thunderbird
Apr 19, 03:17 PM
I'll put in a plug again hoping for a Matte screen option.
Yay, I'm hoping for a redesign..
Although I probably would not get an iMac anymore, reason being I've had three in the past and all of them had dead pixels, two of them also had yellow tint, infact I was seeing more and more dead pixels over the time I've used it, I have no clue what the cause is, but I until these issues are resolved I'll stick with my Dell Ultrasharp 2405FPW & Hackintosh..
Current imac with the 5750 is technically a 5850m. A 6850m is a slight downgrade from the 5850m. The 6950m is only a slight upgrade from the current imac.
Let's hope for a 6970m. Temps and power requirements are similar between the two but the performance gain is decent. It's the best we can hope for. And given the higher resolution of the 27" I would say it needs it.
I think it's safe to say they will get sandy bridge and thunderbolt but what I would also like to see is better speakers.
Apple will be pushing out Thunderbolt for sure....
I wonder when the cinema displays will get the thunderbolt port for daisychaining ?
Macbook Air with the iMac?
I think Professionals will be waiting to upgrade to hardware unless it thunderbolt ready like the MBP....huge advantage for Pro use with thunderbolt as opposed to current firewire 800.
I fancy a bit of a redesign (nothing wild, maybe a bit thinner and change of colour? a bit bored of them now, but probably just me).
But yeah, good stuff :)
Since my iMac is one of the white iMacs (1st gen Intel) I'm fine with silver - but I agree, the design, as beautiful as it is, could be updated. I would love thinner (no practical use, just looks so much nicer than ... and the apple trend seems to 'thinner is better')
oh joy:D, wondering what the high-end iMac will look like (since that's the one I'm planning on getting!)
I'm looking forward to seeing the new iMacs (and eventually Mac Minis).
Computer-wise I'm set for the next 3 years, but it's always nice to see the computers get updated.
Fingers crossed for no screen etc. issues.
Good grief, man! We just had an MBA refresh a couple months ago. Give it a break!
Personally, I'm waiting for the next major iMac update that puts it into an all new chassis.
Folks, this is going to be a spec bump, not a redesign. It will be the last such refresh before Mac OS X Lion comes out in the late summer. There will be an iMac redesign just before or just after Lion is released. The late summer redesigned iMacs will include Thunderbolt and quite possibly a collapsable stand, like this Dell ST2202...
http://i50.photobucket.com/albums/f309/hadza/dell.jpg
That's why there is so much work being done in Lion to make it more iOS-like.
Anyway, that's what Brian Tong told me....;)
Yay, I'm hoping for a redesign..
Although I probably would not get an iMac anymore, reason being I've had three in the past and all of them had dead pixels, two of them also had yellow tint, infact I was seeing more and more dead pixels over the time I've used it, I have no clue what the cause is, but I until these issues are resolved I'll stick with my Dell Ultrasharp 2405FPW & Hackintosh..
Current imac with the 5750 is technically a 5850m. A 6850m is a slight downgrade from the 5850m. The 6950m is only a slight upgrade from the current imac.
Let's hope for a 6970m. Temps and power requirements are similar between the two but the performance gain is decent. It's the best we can hope for. And given the higher resolution of the 27" I would say it needs it.
I think it's safe to say they will get sandy bridge and thunderbolt but what I would also like to see is better speakers.
Apple will be pushing out Thunderbolt for sure....
I wonder when the cinema displays will get the thunderbolt port for daisychaining ?
Macbook Air with the iMac?
I think Professionals will be waiting to upgrade to hardware unless it thunderbolt ready like the MBP....huge advantage for Pro use with thunderbolt as opposed to current firewire 800.
I fancy a bit of a redesign (nothing wild, maybe a bit thinner and change of colour? a bit bored of them now, but probably just me).
But yeah, good stuff :)
Since my iMac is one of the white iMacs (1st gen Intel) I'm fine with silver - but I agree, the design, as beautiful as it is, could be updated. I would love thinner (no practical use, just looks so much nicer than ... and the apple trend seems to 'thinner is better')
oh joy:D, wondering what the high-end iMac will look like (since that's the one I'm planning on getting!)
I'm looking forward to seeing the new iMacs (and eventually Mac Minis).
Computer-wise I'm set for the next 3 years, but it's always nice to see the computers get updated.
Fingers crossed for no screen etc. issues.
Good grief, man! We just had an MBA refresh a couple months ago. Give it a break!
Personally, I'm waiting for the next major iMac update that puts it into an all new chassis.
Folks, this is going to be a spec bump, not a redesign. It will be the last such refresh before Mac OS X Lion comes out in the late summer. There will be an iMac redesign just before or just after Lion is released. The late summer redesigned iMacs will include Thunderbolt and quite possibly a collapsable stand, like this Dell ST2202...
http://i50.photobucket.com/albums/f309/hadza/dell.jpg
That's why there is so much work being done in Lion to make it more iOS-like.
Anyway, that's what Brian Tong told me....;)
LastLine
Jul 19, 05:35 PM
Where are all you "Apple is doomed" sayers now?:p :D
Apples sells ~4 Million Macs per quater. That's ~16 Mio a year. Given a 4 Year Life time that's "only" ~64 Mio Mac's installed, maybe more. That should be enough to keep developers happy.
So ADOBE, release those f#$%ing universal binaries NOW!!!!
*Most critical applications will be converted by September*
Interesting...
Apples sells ~4 Million Macs per quater. That's ~16 Mio a year. Given a 4 Year Life time that's "only" ~64 Mio Mac's installed, maybe more. That should be enough to keep developers happy.
So ADOBE, release those f#$%ing universal binaries NOW!!!!
*Most critical applications will be converted by September*
Interesting...
jeanlain
Apr 6, 05:51 PM
I can't even edit an audio clip in quicklime (10.1). This looks like a regression because Quicktime X allows trimming in 10.6.
EDIT: scratch that, I wasn't looking in the right menu. It works fine.
EDIT: scratch that, I wasn't looking in the right menu. It works fine.
lapeno
Mar 24, 01:59 PM
Great news:D:D
hyperpasta
Aug 6, 09:20 PM
Blah, it should read "Mac OS X Leopard, introducing Panter 2.0"
ehhhhh? :confused:
ehhhhh? :confused:
MarkMS
Mar 30, 09:17 PM
Don't know about you guys, but this new iCal is killing me. Just doesn't look right. :confused:
relimw
Sep 6, 09:13 AM
A thread on the new mac mini where everybody is bitching about the MacBook and the new iMac G5. :confused: :rolleyes:
As a side note, I think I'll buy a new mini now...
LOL, you're right, we did sort of stray off topic there. :)
As a side note, I think I'll buy a new mini now...
LOL, you're right, we did sort of stray off topic there. :)
Silentwave
Jul 14, 02:57 AM
... and what you'd loose when the disk goes bad :mad:
so just burn two :)
or just wait until ferroelectric memory comes out- imagine having the equivalent of a few 500GB external HDs in a device the size of a small thumb drive, solid state but without any heads to crash- the capacity of huge HDs, the reliability and ability to maintain data without power of flash memory, and access speed like RAM.
so just burn two :)
or just wait until ferroelectric memory comes out- imagine having the equivalent of a few 500GB external HDs in a device the size of a small thumb drive, solid state but without any heads to crash- the capacity of huge HDs, the reliability and ability to maintain data without power of flash memory, and access speed like RAM.
Waterboy4
Apr 19, 01:05 PM
The iMac update is likely to be a spec bump, Sandy Bridge, better Graphics, etc...plus Thunderbolt. I plan to hang on to my current model for now.
I am more excited about a potential Mac Mini Update, because I need one of those.
+1 for the mac mini update. My G4 is getting long in the tooth (ancient by computer standards), but still chuggin' away. I want a MM and Lion upgrade.
I am more excited about a potential Mac Mini Update, because I need one of those.
+1 for the mac mini update. My G4 is getting long in the tooth (ancient by computer standards), but still chuggin' away. I want a MM and Lion upgrade.
jgould
Feb 20, 03:05 PM
I picked up a 13.3" MacBook Pro this morning, and this is the current setup before I move the Mini back to the corner that it lived in before and grab it's monitor for the MBP...
No comments:
Post a Comment