KnightWRX
Apr 27, 09:59 AM
This was my point.
Wait, I don't get it. You're telling me there's tons of more stuff to care about while trying to tell someone else that if he doesn't care, he shouldn't comment.
I really don't get your point. Nor do I find the "there's more important stuff to care about" argument valid in any kind of way.
Wait, I don't get it. You're telling me there's tons of more stuff to care about while trying to tell someone else that if he doesn't care, he shouldn't comment.
I really don't get your point. Nor do I find the "there's more important stuff to care about" argument valid in any kind of way.
kavika411
Mar 24, 02:10 PM
Where did I make that statement? :confused:
Fair enough. Let's do it this way. Why did you inject "WASP" into a conversation about racism? What point were you making about a "vast majority of WASPs" comprising conservatives. Last time I checked, your injection into the conversation was to defend rdowns supposition that those against Obama are against him because of his "color."
Are you saying that the conservatives' broader strategy for opposing liberals in congress is totally unrelated to their (disingenuous) opposition to intervention in Libya? That's quite rich.
I wish I were, but alas, I believe my comment was rather straight forward - very few words even. But I'll rephrase: It is asinine to hide behind accusations of racism against people who disagree with Obama on his ongoing and new military campaigns. I believe that is as straightforward as I know how to be, but feel free to respond with another question that is both rhetorical and a red herring to what was being discussed.
I don't see why I should try to find a link that supports your mischaracterization of my statements.
2010 VW New Beetle Coupe And
2010 Volkswagen New Beetle
vw beetle 2010. Vw New Beetle
The New Beetle Final Edition
volkswagen new beetle 2010
new volkswagen beetle 2010.
New Volkswagen Beetle 2010.
2010 Volkswagen New Beetle
new vw beetle 2010. new beetle
vw beetle 2010. New Volkswagen
2010 Volkswagen Beetle
new vw beetle 2010. new
new volkswagen beetle 2010.
volkswagen beetle 2010
2010 Volkswagen New Beetle
2011 Volkswagen New Beetle
New VW Beetle 2011
Fair enough. Let's do it this way. Why did you inject "WASP" into a conversation about racism? What point were you making about a "vast majority of WASPs" comprising conservatives. Last time I checked, your injection into the conversation was to defend rdowns supposition that those against Obama are against him because of his "color."
Are you saying that the conservatives' broader strategy for opposing liberals in congress is totally unrelated to their (disingenuous) opposition to intervention in Libya? That's quite rich.
I wish I were, but alas, I believe my comment was rather straight forward - very few words even. But I'll rephrase: It is asinine to hide behind accusations of racism against people who disagree with Obama on his ongoing and new military campaigns. I believe that is as straightforward as I know how to be, but feel free to respond with another question that is both rhetorical and a red herring to what was being discussed.
I don't see why I should try to find a link that supports your mischaracterization of my statements.
mdriftmeyer
Aug 26, 12:37 PM
California, it's replies like this that pisses switchers off, even seasones mac users get upset with these replies. What the hell is Rev A?. What idiot argument is this?. That's it ok for apple to make a ****ed-up product cause it's the first version?. What?.. apple just started making computers that they don't know how to make quality products until they already made the first version?. Apple should be horrified at your suggestion. Imagine if no one bought Rev A (whatever the **** that means) machines from Apple. APPLE WOULD GO BROKE!!. There's always Rev A machines when it comes to computers dude. The next mac pro upgrade will use a new processor, faster, new video, more ram, newer harddrive and becomes rev A cause THEY ARE THE FIRST APPLE PRODUCTS TO USE THE NEW UPGRADED PROCESSOR, NEW HARDDIVE, ETC. Really, stop with this nonsense. You are like the 10th idiotic apple fan I have read using this dumb argument.
Let's make it clear. The first revision of any highly integrated system is produced with an acceptable failure rate. With results coming in, failures recorded and internal testing continuous between the life of the first and second revision you will see a drop in failures in the next revision.
Every item that is in the next revision will have been tested, more flaws removed, etc. No piece of hardware is released with zero defects. [human interference aside such as dropping the product, overheating it, intentionally forcing failure]
If for every 1000 systems shipped approximately 20 fail, after a minimum predicted total hours, this 2% attrition rate is highly desirable. If you can't accept it you can stop using technology, now.
For every ten people bitching on this board about failures there is over 1,000 that don't.
Let's make it clear. The first revision of any highly integrated system is produced with an acceptable failure rate. With results coming in, failures recorded and internal testing continuous between the life of the first and second revision you will see a drop in failures in the next revision.
Every item that is in the next revision will have been tested, more flaws removed, etc. No piece of hardware is released with zero defects. [human interference aside such as dropping the product, overheating it, intentionally forcing failure]
If for every 1000 systems shipped approximately 20 fail, after a minimum predicted total hours, this 2% attrition rate is highly desirable. If you can't accept it you can stop using technology, now.
For every ten people bitching on this board about failures there is over 1,000 that don't.
ccrandall77
Aug 11, 03:53 PM
I suppose you would be by the cell company.
Well, I had been screwed about 4x as much as a typical cell user... at least when I had the misfortune and poor sense to have a Cingular contract.
Well, I had been screwed about 4x as much as a typical cell user... at least when I had the misfortune and poor sense to have a Cingular contract.
Macaroony
Mar 5, 02:53 AM
I never said heterosexual people should stop having sex and produce children, I don't know where you got that from. Next time, please be more clear about who and what you're quoting and what your exact response is. Thank you.
Logic is such a rational thing. The world population is exponentially increasing. 50 years ago, the estimated number was at 6 billion, 10 years ago, it jumped the 7-billion mark and in 2050 they are predicting the world population to reach a staggering amount of 10 billion.
Society isn't going anywhere - no matter how many gays you have out there. Straight men will find dozens of fertile women to makes babies with - wanted and unwanted.
I recently saw a report about homeless children in India who aren't even recognized as citizens and are having tremendous problems getting by day by day. There should be programs that integrate these children into society and I'm certain that many gays are more willing to do so then straight people.
And next time, please give more than one-sentence answers, it is hard getting a deeper understanding of your world view and logic. After all, this is a forum and not Twitter.
Logic is such a rational thing. The world population is exponentially increasing. 50 years ago, the estimated number was at 6 billion, 10 years ago, it jumped the 7-billion mark and in 2050 they are predicting the world population to reach a staggering amount of 10 billion.
Society isn't going anywhere - no matter how many gays you have out there. Straight men will find dozens of fertile women to makes babies with - wanted and unwanted.
I recently saw a report about homeless children in India who aren't even recognized as citizens and are having tremendous problems getting by day by day. There should be programs that integrate these children into society and I'm certain that many gays are more willing to do so then straight people.
And next time, please give more than one-sentence answers, it is hard getting a deeper understanding of your world view and logic. After all, this is a forum and not Twitter.
fastlane1588
Jul 27, 12:19 PM
thats a pretty cool concept i must say
wmmk
Jul 14, 06:07 PM
the question still remains--will the powermacs be able to use standard, off the shelf, pc video cards?
i know that you couldn't do so in the power architecture due to the bios irregularities. now that they're using efi, does this still mean we have to buy mac based cards? because that's really the question nobody seems to ask and nobody seems to have an answer for.
what this new mac workstation will mean is the chance to upgrade your macs based on commodity parts. no more mac tax for hardware. i remember when the radeon 9700 was king, the price was around $299 for pc version and $399 for mac version.
think about this, the ability to upgrade processor, video card, and sound card without having to pay the apple tax.
that's what it really comes down to. the speculative "good" version of the mac pro has a so-so video card, but it's not really worth the $600 more just to get a 1800, i'd rather just get the 1600 and upgrade on my own.
oh, btw, i did some of my own investigations and found this site:
http://www.nvidia.com/object/7_series_techspecs.html
which may mean that the standard cards are compatible with mac os x now.
i'v actually heard that with a normal PC, you can make almost any NVIDIA card compatible with mac, but it takes a bit of geekery and hackery.
i know that you couldn't do so in the power architecture due to the bios irregularities. now that they're using efi, does this still mean we have to buy mac based cards? because that's really the question nobody seems to ask and nobody seems to have an answer for.
what this new mac workstation will mean is the chance to upgrade your macs based on commodity parts. no more mac tax for hardware. i remember when the radeon 9700 was king, the price was around $299 for pc version and $399 for mac version.
think about this, the ability to upgrade processor, video card, and sound card without having to pay the apple tax.
that's what it really comes down to. the speculative "good" version of the mac pro has a so-so video card, but it's not really worth the $600 more just to get a 1800, i'd rather just get the 1600 and upgrade on my own.
oh, btw, i did some of my own investigations and found this site:
http://www.nvidia.com/object/7_series_techspecs.html
which may mean that the standard cards are compatible with mac os x now.
i'v actually heard that with a normal PC, you can make almost any NVIDIA card compatible with mac, but it takes a bit of geekery and hackery.
guzhogi
Jul 15, 11:20 AM
Something I liked about the power supply in my beige G3 was that not only did it have a power in socket, but allso a power out one too to a monitor or something.
severe
Jun 21, 11:49 PM
...I may be an idiot for trusting radioshack but I want to trade in my 3GS so... I'll be waiting outside of my radioshack atleast an hour before they open on Thursday. Wish me luck!
I would sell the 3GS privately. You're almost guaranteed to get more for it. Post it somewhere tonight and I'll bet you that you get more for it than what Radio Shack will offer you.
Radio Shack's trade-in program is a decent option, but one could do much better with a little leg work.
I would sell the 3GS privately. You're almost guaranteed to get more for it. Post it somewhere tonight and I'll bet you that you get more for it than what Radio Shack will offer you.
Radio Shack's trade-in program is a decent option, but one could do much better with a little leg work.
rdowns
Apr 28, 05:06 PM
Surely the comb-over is enough?
One would think.
http://www.pollsb.com/photos/o/35182-donald_trump_comb_over.jpg
One would think.
http://www.pollsb.com/photos/o/35182-donald_trump_comb_over.jpg
leekohler
Apr 28, 05:44 PM
all want to know is was why it always has to go to name calling..be it..wacko christians, teabaggers or racists conservatives..it seems like every thread any of the liberals on the forum posts always goes to calling names at whatever group it is that they have a problem with today.
Well, you tell me what we're supposed to call people who do things like this? Sane, sensible people? They aren't. I for one am not going to treat a bunch of idiots in tin foil hats like they're respectable. Same goes for people who wish to deny me rights. I'm sorry, they have not earned my respect.
Well, you tell me what we're supposed to call people who do things like this? Sane, sensible people? They aren't. I for one am not going to treat a bunch of idiots in tin foil hats like they're respectable. Same goes for people who wish to deny me rights. I'm sorry, they have not earned my respect.
skunk
Feb 28, 07:12 PM
2) okay, they can pretend to get marriedNo, you are absolutely wrong., They can get married like any other couple where the laws allow. Marriage is not a special preserve of any religion. You cannot just commandeer it.
No, I'm not kidding. To the Catholic Church sex outside of a valid sacramental marriage is fornicationWho cares what Catholic dogma claims? It's an irrelevance.
Last time I checked when the vast majority of people did such behavior it was with the opposite gender not the same.So what is the problem? Are you against variation?
Do you have proof that Plato was a repressed homosexual?No, not proof
"Homosexuality," Plato wrote, "is regarded as shameful by barbarians and by those who live under despotic governments just as philosophy is regarded as shameful by them, because it is apparently not in the interest of such rulers to have great ideas engendered in their subjects, or powerful friendships or passionate love-all of which homosexuality is particularly apt to produce." This attitude of Plato's was characteristic of the ancient world, and I want to begin my discussion of the attitudes of the Church and of Western Christianity toward homosexuality by commenting on comparable attitudes among the ancients.
To a very large extent, Western attitudes toward law, religion, literature and government are dependent upon Roman attitudes. This makes it particularly striking that our attitudes toward homosexuality in particular and sexual tolerance in general are so remarkably different from those of the Romans. It is very difficult to convey to modern audiences the indifference of the Romans to questions of gender and gender orientation. The difficulty is due both to the fact that the evidence has been largely consciously obliterated by historians prior to very recent decades, and to the diffusion of the relevant material.
Romans did not consider sexuality or sexual preference a matter of much interest, nor did they treat either in an analytical way. An historian has to gather together thousands of little bits and pieces to demonstrate the general acceptance of homosexuality among the Romans.
One of the few imperial writers who does appear to make some sort of comment on the subject in a general way wrote, "Zeus came as an eagle to god like Ganymede and as a swan to the fair haired mother of Helen. One person prefers one gender, another the other, I like both." Plutarch wrote at about the same time, "No sensible person can imagine that the sexes differ in matters of love as they do in matters of clothing. The intelligent lover of beauty will be attracted to beauty in whichever gender he finds it." Roman law and social strictures made absolutely no restrictions on the basis of gender. It has sometimes been claimed that there were laws against homosexual relations in Rome, but it is easy to prove that this was not the case. On the other hand, it is a mistake to imagine that anarchic hedonism ruled at Rome. In fact, Romans did have a complex set of moral strictures designed to protect children from abuse or any citizen from force or duress in sexual relations. Romans were, like other people, sensitive to issues of love and caring, but individual sexual (i.e. gender) choice was completely unlimited. Male prostitution (directed toward other males), for instance, was so common that the taxes on it constituted a major source of revenue for the imperial treasury. It was so profitable that even in later periods when a certain intolerance crept in, the emperors could not bring themselves to end the practice and its attendant revenue.
Gay marriages were also legal and frequent in Rome for both males and females. Even emperors often married other males. There was total acceptance on the part of the populace, as far as it can be determined, of this sort of homosexual attitude and behavior. This total acceptance was not limited to the ruling elite; there is also much popular Roman literature containing gay love stories. The real point I want to make is that there is absolutely no conscious effort on anyone's part in the Roman world, the world in which Christianity was born, to claim that homosexuality was abnormal or undesirable. There is in fact no word for "homosexual" in Latin. "Homosexual" sounds like Latin, but was coined by a German psychologist in the late 1 9th century. No one in the early Roman world seemed to feel that the fact that someone preferred his or her own gender was any more significant than the fact that someone preferred blue eyes or short people. Neither gay nor straight people seemed to associate certain characteristics with sexual preference. Gay men were not thought to be less masculine than straight men and lesbian women were not thought of as less feminine than straight women. Gay people were not thought to be any better or worse than straight people-an attitude which differed both from that of the society that preceded it, since many Greeks thought gay people were inherently better than straight people, and from that of the society which followed it, in which gay people were often thought to be inferior to others.
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/pwh/1979boswell.html
The most celebrated account of homosexual love comes in Plato's Symposium, in which homosexual love is discussed as a more ideal, more perfect kind of relationship than the more prosaic heterosexual variety. This is a highly biased account, because Plato himself was homosexual and wrote very beautiful epigrams to boys expressing his devotion. Platonic homosexuality had very little to do with sex; Plato believed ideally that love and reason should be fused together, while concern over the body and the material world of particulars should be annihilated. Even today, "Platonic love" refers to non-sexual love between two adults.
Behind Plato's contempt for heterosexual desire lay an aesthetic, highly intellectual aversion to the female body. Plato would have agreed with Schopenhauer's opinion that "only a male intellect clouded by the sexual drive could call the stunted, narrow-shouldered, broad-hipped and short-legged sex the fair sex".
http://www.newstatesman.com/199908230009
No, I'm not kidding. To the Catholic Church sex outside of a valid sacramental marriage is fornicationWho cares what Catholic dogma claims? It's an irrelevance.
Last time I checked when the vast majority of people did such behavior it was with the opposite gender not the same.So what is the problem? Are you against variation?
Do you have proof that Plato was a repressed homosexual?No, not proof
"Homosexuality," Plato wrote, "is regarded as shameful by barbarians and by those who live under despotic governments just as philosophy is regarded as shameful by them, because it is apparently not in the interest of such rulers to have great ideas engendered in their subjects, or powerful friendships or passionate love-all of which homosexuality is particularly apt to produce." This attitude of Plato's was characteristic of the ancient world, and I want to begin my discussion of the attitudes of the Church and of Western Christianity toward homosexuality by commenting on comparable attitudes among the ancients.
To a very large extent, Western attitudes toward law, religion, literature and government are dependent upon Roman attitudes. This makes it particularly striking that our attitudes toward homosexuality in particular and sexual tolerance in general are so remarkably different from those of the Romans. It is very difficult to convey to modern audiences the indifference of the Romans to questions of gender and gender orientation. The difficulty is due both to the fact that the evidence has been largely consciously obliterated by historians prior to very recent decades, and to the diffusion of the relevant material.
Romans did not consider sexuality or sexual preference a matter of much interest, nor did they treat either in an analytical way. An historian has to gather together thousands of little bits and pieces to demonstrate the general acceptance of homosexuality among the Romans.
One of the few imperial writers who does appear to make some sort of comment on the subject in a general way wrote, "Zeus came as an eagle to god like Ganymede and as a swan to the fair haired mother of Helen. One person prefers one gender, another the other, I like both." Plutarch wrote at about the same time, "No sensible person can imagine that the sexes differ in matters of love as they do in matters of clothing. The intelligent lover of beauty will be attracted to beauty in whichever gender he finds it." Roman law and social strictures made absolutely no restrictions on the basis of gender. It has sometimes been claimed that there were laws against homosexual relations in Rome, but it is easy to prove that this was not the case. On the other hand, it is a mistake to imagine that anarchic hedonism ruled at Rome. In fact, Romans did have a complex set of moral strictures designed to protect children from abuse or any citizen from force or duress in sexual relations. Romans were, like other people, sensitive to issues of love and caring, but individual sexual (i.e. gender) choice was completely unlimited. Male prostitution (directed toward other males), for instance, was so common that the taxes on it constituted a major source of revenue for the imperial treasury. It was so profitable that even in later periods when a certain intolerance crept in, the emperors could not bring themselves to end the practice and its attendant revenue.
Gay marriages were also legal and frequent in Rome for both males and females. Even emperors often married other males. There was total acceptance on the part of the populace, as far as it can be determined, of this sort of homosexual attitude and behavior. This total acceptance was not limited to the ruling elite; there is also much popular Roman literature containing gay love stories. The real point I want to make is that there is absolutely no conscious effort on anyone's part in the Roman world, the world in which Christianity was born, to claim that homosexuality was abnormal or undesirable. There is in fact no word for "homosexual" in Latin. "Homosexual" sounds like Latin, but was coined by a German psychologist in the late 1 9th century. No one in the early Roman world seemed to feel that the fact that someone preferred his or her own gender was any more significant than the fact that someone preferred blue eyes or short people. Neither gay nor straight people seemed to associate certain characteristics with sexual preference. Gay men were not thought to be less masculine than straight men and lesbian women were not thought of as less feminine than straight women. Gay people were not thought to be any better or worse than straight people-an attitude which differed both from that of the society that preceded it, since many Greeks thought gay people were inherently better than straight people, and from that of the society which followed it, in which gay people were often thought to be inferior to others.
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/pwh/1979boswell.html
The most celebrated account of homosexual love comes in Plato's Symposium, in which homosexual love is discussed as a more ideal, more perfect kind of relationship than the more prosaic heterosexual variety. This is a highly biased account, because Plato himself was homosexual and wrote very beautiful epigrams to boys expressing his devotion. Platonic homosexuality had very little to do with sex; Plato believed ideally that love and reason should be fused together, while concern over the body and the material world of particulars should be annihilated. Even today, "Platonic love" refers to non-sexual love between two adults.
Behind Plato's contempt for heterosexual desire lay an aesthetic, highly intellectual aversion to the female body. Plato would have agreed with Schopenhauer's opinion that "only a male intellect clouded by the sexual drive could call the stunted, narrow-shouldered, broad-hipped and short-legged sex the fair sex".
http://www.newstatesman.com/199908230009
uncclew
Apr 7, 10:41 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8F190 Safari/6533.18.5)
It's about consistent sales numbers, lower volatility. I'm sure bonus numbers etc. are tied to this. Just like when a company has a great quarter, they may try to push out revenue to the next quarter. Less volatile net income equals stronger stock price.
Not that this move would necessarily influence the stock significantly but same concept.
It's about consistent sales numbers, lower volatility. I'm sure bonus numbers etc. are tied to this. Just like when a company has a great quarter, they may try to push out revenue to the next quarter. Less volatile net income equals stronger stock price.
Not that this move would necessarily influence the stock significantly but same concept.
KnightWRX
Apr 6, 10:52 AM
The Intel IGP is a serious downgrade. It's too bad Intel kicked nVidia out of the market, they have no talent for graphics. I would not have bought a SB MBA with Intel graphics, quite happy with my C2D+320m one.
~Shard~
Jul 15, 12:58 AM
It would be ridiculous if it came with just 512 mb's of ram...
Steve Jobs-"The New Octa-Core Mac Pro with 512 mb's of ram" It just doesn't fit...
I agree, it wouldn't make sense. Might as well sell a new Lamborghini with a 1.8L 4-banger... ;)
Steve Jobs-"The New Octa-Core Mac Pro with 512 mb's of ram" It just doesn't fit...
I agree, it wouldn't make sense. Might as well sell a new Lamborghini with a 1.8L 4-banger... ;)
cbronfman
Apr 11, 06:35 PM
I'm with the other 3GS posters who hoped to be able to upgrade in June when our phones will be 2 years old (and showing their age for a tech product). I can wait until September (well, I'll have to as I don't want an iP4 which will be a year old by then). If something goes awry with my 3GS I'll have a problem as I don't want to be locked into a contract with AT&T buying a iP4 a year after it was released, and my iPhone 2G (original) has no GPS so some of the functionality I rely on will be gone). Maybe I'll schedule a genius bar check-up for my 3GS before my Apple Care expires. I don't expect LTE although it woudl be nice. I do hope for 3G+, dual core processor, improved antenna (although the signal strength on the IP4 is much stronger than on the 3GS) and thinner would be nice. I'd also really like it to be like the iPad2 with the GSM version able to work on other GSM networks by a quick change in SIM card and not locked to AT&T for those that travel a lot abroad or to Canada.
PhantomPumpkin
Apr 27, 10:50 AM
I think it's not as bad as what the media would have you believe, BUT it is worse than what Apple wants you to think.
Sure, cell towers could be up to 100 miles away. And when I ran the mapping tool and plotted my locations, and zoom in far enough, I do indeed see a grid of cell towers as opposed to actual locations where I've been standing. All anyone could know is that I've been "somewhere" in the vicinity.
(And this isn't new. Some time ago I came upon a car crash and called 911 on my cell phone to report it. They were able to get the location to send emergency services just by where I was calling from. It wasn't 100% accurate -- they asked if I was near a major intersection and I told them it was about a block from there.)
However, if it's also tracking wifi hotspots, those can pinpoint you pretty closely. Most people stay within 30-50 feet of their wireless router, and the ones you spend the most time connected to will be the ones at home, at work, and and at your friends' houses.
Potentially yes. However as people stated, it was way out of proportion. Media is one end, Apple is the other like you said. I'm sure like 99.1% of things, it lies somewhere in between them.
Sure, cell towers could be up to 100 miles away. And when I ran the mapping tool and plotted my locations, and zoom in far enough, I do indeed see a grid of cell towers as opposed to actual locations where I've been standing. All anyone could know is that I've been "somewhere" in the vicinity.
(And this isn't new. Some time ago I came upon a car crash and called 911 on my cell phone to report it. They were able to get the location to send emergency services just by where I was calling from. It wasn't 100% accurate -- they asked if I was near a major intersection and I told them it was about a block from there.)
However, if it's also tracking wifi hotspots, those can pinpoint you pretty closely. Most people stay within 30-50 feet of their wireless router, and the ones you spend the most time connected to will be the ones at home, at work, and and at your friends' houses.
Potentially yes. However as people stated, it was way out of proportion. Media is one end, Apple is the other like you said. I'm sure like 99.1% of things, it lies somewhere in between them.
undead-design
Sep 19, 06:37 AM
Get off your high horse already, if you disagree just keep it to yourself. Not like your arrogant rants contributed anything either.
is it just me, or are these forums getting really ugly over this MBP not already being in our hands thing. SPEED BUMP THIS! 64-BIT THAT! HDD REPLACEABLE THIS! SAME CASE THAT! i'm starting to feel like we are a pack of rabid animals in a cage. i want a new laptop too, i have an old 1GHz iBook G4...its three years or, so its showing its age...not to mention that I've been putting it off since the end of July beginning of August (missing out of the free iPod nano deal and whatever else about the Office and what not).
It's worth it to me to wait for Merom/Memrom/Moron, I can't buy a new laptop every year like some people. It's a future-proofing type of thing. you know?! :) :D
is it just me, or are these forums getting really ugly over this MBP not already being in our hands thing. SPEED BUMP THIS! 64-BIT THAT! HDD REPLACEABLE THIS! SAME CASE THAT! i'm starting to feel like we are a pack of rabid animals in a cage. i want a new laptop too, i have an old 1GHz iBook G4...its three years or, so its showing its age...not to mention that I've been putting it off since the end of July beginning of August (missing out of the free iPod nano deal and whatever else about the Office and what not).
It's worth it to me to wait for Merom/Memrom/Moron, I can't buy a new laptop every year like some people. It's a future-proofing type of thing. you know?! :) :D
Simiber
Apr 25, 01:54 PM
I'm not from the US so if someone with some legal background over there could point out to me how this would work..? Where I'm from you have to have suffered damages in order to sue someone, otherwise a government regulator would just impose a fine on the company or require them to stop what they are doing..? How have these people (who are suing apple) suffered losses as a result of this apparent spying technology..?
georgi0
Sep 19, 01:08 AM
i agree and i believe that Apple should keep at least for 1 year the same models before updating, except when a new tech comes out like true 64 bit support.
let's see now....
let's see now....
maclaptop
Apr 12, 07:41 AM
Again I am amazed at how many people here think a 4" screen is the wave of the future. It is not.
A 4" display is already the standard size.
Just because Apple has not progressed is no indicator of their plans for the upcoming model. To continue to lag behind the rest of the pack with a little display would be sad.
A 4" display is already the standard size.
Just because Apple has not progressed is no indicator of their plans for the upcoming model. To continue to lag behind the rest of the pack with a little display would be sad.
sunfast
Aug 17, 09:07 AM
If you buy a Xeon 5160 (3.0GHz) at the moment they are �570. Apple are charging �530 to upgrade from Xeon 5150 (2.66GHz) to the Xeon 5160. Bearing in mind that you can probably sell the original 2.66Gz chip for around �300, it would be cheaper to buy the lower spec Mac Pro and upgrade yourself.
Forgive the � for those that think in $.
Aren't there 2 chips though?
Forgive the � for those that think in $.
Aren't there 2 chips though?
mencles
Sep 19, 01:10 AM
If they don't update their MBs before October '06 - I see myself forced to buy a PC Laptop- because I really need one for university and I am not buying an outdated product.
Dr.Gargoyle
Aug 11, 03:22 PM
Who wants to go through the trouble of doing a software change to unlock their phone.
It is a code you are given to unlock the cell. NOT a software change, unless the carrier changes the entire phone software.
It is a code you are given to unlock the cell. NOT a software change, unless the carrier changes the entire phone software.