APPLE, DO NOT MAKE THE SAME MISTAKE AGAIN!!!
Apple made a big mistake not licensing Mac OS 22 years ago allowing clones. Otherwise Mac OS X would be now the mainstream operating system.
Now history repeats. Apple has now the oppotunity to take over and beat Windows. But for that it is absolutely essential to allow Mac OS X to run on ANY PC out there.
Why does Apple make the same mistake?
Even more, if Apple would open Mac OS X completely including Aqua and give it for free as Linux, then Windows would be history in a few months!!!
Apple, are you listening?
Apple made a big mistake not licensing Mac OS 22 years ago allowing clones. Otherwise Mac OS X would be now the mainstream operating system.
Now history repeats. Apple has now the oppotunity to take over and beat Windows. But for that it is absolutely essential to allow Mac OS X to run on ANY PC out there.
Why does Apple make the same mistake?
Even more, if Apple would open Mac OS X completely including Aqua and give it for free as Linux, then Windows would be history in a few months!!!
Apple, are you listening?
I'd still argue that communism isn't really open because it's a top down government, but in theory it is more open than it is in reality.
In Texas, people are so ignorant about different forms of government, I forget that other people are more educated.
I was referring to things that work in theory and not in practice. Now that you have me going about it though, communism is, in theory, open and in practice, not open.
In Texas, people are so ignorant about different forms of government, I forget that other people are more educated.
I was referring to things that work in theory and not in practice. Now that you have me going about it though, communism is, in theory, open and in practice, not open.
I need something more with more power than iPhoto, and would love to be able to batch edit, and Watermark (can Aperture even do this ? )
Yes Aperture can apply your watermark on export. You can do all sorts of bulk edits as well with the lift/stamp tool etc.
Yes Aperture can apply your watermark on export. You can do all sorts of bulk edits as well with the lift/stamp tool etc.
Methinks you don't have a good grasp of public key encryption. (Or at least how it's supposed to work).
The encryption key is the one that is top secret because it's the one you keep private, and is the one which would allow DoubleTwist (or anyone else) to masquerade as iTS. The decryption key, by it's very nature, is vulnerable and in effect "public" (since it must be on the client machine, so it can be discovered). There is a flaw in the FairPlay system that Jon has exploited before (as I mentioned earlier in the thread) which has to do with the fact that the files are personalized locally on the client machine, so if they can fool iTunes into personalizing third party files, they're in like Flynn. (This also has the effect of making a private key or equivalent available on the system which may be the chink in FairPlay's armor).
Essentially, the FairPlay system is one that implies a certain amount of trust. Once you authorize a machine all of the purchased tracks from that account on the machines can be decrypted. Even if they are not on the machine at the time of the authorization and the machine is not on the network at the time (I have played back encrypted videos on DVD-R on my iBook while it was not on the 'net.)
I don't know how often it needs to "phone home" so you can't just load up 5 machines with protected content, detach them from the network and deactivate all of your machines at iTMS... Then spend the next year working on 5 more systems...
B
good lord, if anyone actually got through reading all this, can there be any doubt left that all consumers want is DRM-free content??? There's a simple rule that exists - the more complicated the DRM you put on your content, the less likely that people are going to buy it. Hence, people are downloading music and movies for free, and ripping Netflix DVDs to their hard drives to burn their own copies.
You can't put the genie back in the bottle. Until there's DRM-free movies and music for sale online, so-called pirated downloads will continue to dwarf legal downloads. End of story.
The encryption key is the one that is top secret because it's the one you keep private, and is the one which would allow DoubleTwist (or anyone else) to masquerade as iTS. The decryption key, by it's very nature, is vulnerable and in effect "public" (since it must be on the client machine, so it can be discovered). There is a flaw in the FairPlay system that Jon has exploited before (as I mentioned earlier in the thread) which has to do with the fact that the files are personalized locally on the client machine, so if they can fool iTunes into personalizing third party files, they're in like Flynn. (This also has the effect of making a private key or equivalent available on the system which may be the chink in FairPlay's armor).
Essentially, the FairPlay system is one that implies a certain amount of trust. Once you authorize a machine all of the purchased tracks from that account on the machines can be decrypted. Even if they are not on the machine at the time of the authorization and the machine is not on the network at the time (I have played back encrypted videos on DVD-R on my iBook while it was not on the 'net.)
I don't know how often it needs to "phone home" so you can't just load up 5 machines with protected content, detach them from the network and deactivate all of your machines at iTMS... Then spend the next year working on 5 more systems...
B
good lord, if anyone actually got through reading all this, can there be any doubt left that all consumers want is DRM-free content??? There's a simple rule that exists - the more complicated the DRM you put on your content, the less likely that people are going to buy it. Hence, people are downloading music and movies for free, and ripping Netflix DVDs to their hard drives to burn their own copies.
You can't put the genie back in the bottle. Until there's DRM-free movies and music for sale online, so-called pirated downloads will continue to dwarf legal downloads. End of story.
I thought it was 5pm?
At 10am in Cupertino it will be 6pm in London.
At 10am in Cupertino it will be 6pm in London.
I'm sure you could -- go ahead, try me. :)
With each and every release of a new OS (going back beyond Windows), Microsoft has made hyperbolic claims about how good it was going to be. As anyone who's followed this for a while knows, Microsoft's claims rarely live up to reality. The fact is, a lot of people never even bothered to get onto the XP bandwagon. Do you think they're going to be excited about Vista? Unfortunately for Microsoft, their "good enough" philosophy also works for a lot of their customers. They're used to not being motivated by newer and theoretically better. As you admit, the first version of Vista is going to be a dog, just as the first versions of 95, 98 and XP were. People do learn that the risks can outweigh the benefits. My attitude detector reports that hardly anybody cares about Vista.
All that being said, Microsoft will sell a zillion copies of Vista. Most of those will be through the OEM pipeline. The OEMs will buy it because they don't have a choice. This is how each and every version of Windows has become a "success." It's Microsoft's dirty little secret.
vista has zero buzz. i have been in this industry for a little too long, and generally a new win OS creates three specific attitudes in people:
1) the gamers/geeks "this will be the greatest thing ever! have you seen all the cool (insert useless feature here) and can you imagine what games will be able to do on this thing?!?"
2) the average person "i don't know, they say it won't crash, and last week i lost everything when (insert virus name here) hit me and this one is supposed to be better about that stuff."
3) the IT department "we will not be installing any of this platform until it has been tested for compatibility and security for our environment. maybe a year."
so far on Vista, the gamers have made a few "maybe it will be good" comments. the average joe hasn't said word one. the IT depts i know all have said they won't touch it with a 10 meter cattle prod.
but we have a 4th user, the MS diehard who is running the beta and RC stuff and keep trying to work up enthusiasm. and nobody cares.
but as you point out, they WILL sell million of copies. all OEM. if they didn't have their OEM channel so locked down with anti-competative measures, they would have perished after that dog release of windows ME......
With each and every release of a new OS (going back beyond Windows), Microsoft has made hyperbolic claims about how good it was going to be. As anyone who's followed this for a while knows, Microsoft's claims rarely live up to reality. The fact is, a lot of people never even bothered to get onto the XP bandwagon. Do you think they're going to be excited about Vista? Unfortunately for Microsoft, their "good enough" philosophy also works for a lot of their customers. They're used to not being motivated by newer and theoretically better. As you admit, the first version of Vista is going to be a dog, just as the first versions of 95, 98 and XP were. People do learn that the risks can outweigh the benefits. My attitude detector reports that hardly anybody cares about Vista.
All that being said, Microsoft will sell a zillion copies of Vista. Most of those will be through the OEM pipeline. The OEMs will buy it because they don't have a choice. This is how each and every version of Windows has become a "success." It's Microsoft's dirty little secret.
vista has zero buzz. i have been in this industry for a little too long, and generally a new win OS creates three specific attitudes in people:
1) the gamers/geeks "this will be the greatest thing ever! have you seen all the cool (insert useless feature here) and can you imagine what games will be able to do on this thing?!?"
2) the average person "i don't know, they say it won't crash, and last week i lost everything when (insert virus name here) hit me and this one is supposed to be better about that stuff."
3) the IT department "we will not be installing any of this platform until it has been tested for compatibility and security for our environment. maybe a year."
so far on Vista, the gamers have made a few "maybe it will be good" comments. the average joe hasn't said word one. the IT depts i know all have said they won't touch it with a 10 meter cattle prod.
but we have a 4th user, the MS diehard who is running the beta and RC stuff and keep trying to work up enthusiasm. and nobody cares.
but as you point out, they WILL sell million of copies. all OEM. if they didn't have their OEM channel so locked down with anti-competative measures, they would have perished after that dog release of windows ME......
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPod; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8G4 Safari/6533.18.5)
The iOS scrollbars ALWAYS looked that way to me. Dunno why. XD
I kinda liked the 'old' switch look to the tab selection, but that's just me.
Seriously though, no changes to Spaces...? :/
The iOS scrollbars ALWAYS looked that way to me. Dunno why. XD
I kinda liked the 'old' switch look to the tab selection, but that's just me.
Seriously though, no changes to Spaces...? :/
It is folding at stock speed with threading turned off and it is doing big normal units at 3 minutes per frame. For some reason it hasn't gotten any -bigadv units since I set it up like this. It is using all 6 cores at least.
awe man. well at least you have it going. it's too bad you don't have it running bigadv units though.
3.7 is still really good, hope it stays there ok.
thanks. yeah i can live with 3.7. i just hope it stays stable
I'm starting to think that gpu's are the only way to go from now on; you tend not to lose wu's on them and if you do it only takes a couple of hours to catch up to where you were on the last one, not the day or 2 like bigadv units.
Hope that Alienware rig works ok now, can you get anymore gpu's in it?
yeah that's true, but the gpus use more power and so then more heat than the bigadv units. with bigadv, you get more points/power usage, which is a big deal. but they can be a headache.
thanks. no, the alienware only holds 2 double wide gpus. now i have to in there and they are both going.
awe man. well at least you have it going. it's too bad you don't have it running bigadv units though.
3.7 is still really good, hope it stays there ok.
thanks. yeah i can live with 3.7. i just hope it stays stable
I'm starting to think that gpu's are the only way to go from now on; you tend not to lose wu's on them and if you do it only takes a couple of hours to catch up to where you were on the last one, not the day or 2 like bigadv units.
Hope that Alienware rig works ok now, can you get anymore gpu's in it?
yeah that's true, but the gpus use more power and so then more heat than the bigadv units. with bigadv, you get more points/power usage, which is a big deal. but they can be a headache.
thanks. no, the alienware only holds 2 double wide gpus. now i have to in there and they are both going.
Contract terms require "consideration" from both parties to be legally binding. Consideration is something you provide to the other party (i.e., money from you, data services from your carrier).
What consideration are the carriers offering you for tethering? You're already paying $X for Y GB of data used on your phone. It doesn't matter to the carrier if your Netflix app is using it, or your tethering app is sending the data to your laptop. Nothing changes on their end, they just send the data that you've already paid for to your phone, and your phone handles the rest.
You're right, it is black and white. It's a scam aimed at exploiting consumers like yourself who don't know any better, with an illegal contract term. I hope this goes to court soon, before the carriers in Canada (where I am) try to pull the same BS.
They are offering you more bandwidth to use a higher bandwidth service like tethering.
The consideration is very clear. Thanks for quoting the premise for contract law, but claiming there is no consideration there is ridiculous.
People who tether use more bandwidth, so the cost associated with their usage is more expensive. The carriers can either charge those people for tethering or they can raise the price for EVERYONE.
They choose to charge the people who tether. It is a perfectly reasonable choice on their part.
Hey a cable line comes into my house with all the channels on it. I can just jimmy off a filter and get all the channels without paying any more. They are already delivering it to my house, why can't I just get all of them since they are there anyways and I am paying for cable right?
You are not paying for tethering unless you are paying for tethering. The math is simple. People who tether use more bandwidth. Wireless providers set their data prices based on AVERAGE usage. Tethering makes the average usage go up, so the revenue to cover those costs has to come from somewhere.
So they can either charge EVERYONE more or charge the people who tether more.. Again they choose the later.
What consideration are the carriers offering you for tethering? You're already paying $X for Y GB of data used on your phone. It doesn't matter to the carrier if your Netflix app is using it, or your tethering app is sending the data to your laptop. Nothing changes on their end, they just send the data that you've already paid for to your phone, and your phone handles the rest.
You're right, it is black and white. It's a scam aimed at exploiting consumers like yourself who don't know any better, with an illegal contract term. I hope this goes to court soon, before the carriers in Canada (where I am) try to pull the same BS.
They are offering you more bandwidth to use a higher bandwidth service like tethering.
The consideration is very clear. Thanks for quoting the premise for contract law, but claiming there is no consideration there is ridiculous.
People who tether use more bandwidth, so the cost associated with their usage is more expensive. The carriers can either charge those people for tethering or they can raise the price for EVERYONE.
They choose to charge the people who tether. It is a perfectly reasonable choice on their part.
Hey a cable line comes into my house with all the channels on it. I can just jimmy off a filter and get all the channels without paying any more. They are already delivering it to my house, why can't I just get all of them since they are there anyways and I am paying for cable right?
You are not paying for tethering unless you are paying for tethering. The math is simple. People who tether use more bandwidth. Wireless providers set their data prices based on AVERAGE usage. Tethering makes the average usage go up, so the revenue to cover those costs has to come from somewhere.
So they can either charge EVERYONE more or charge the people who tether more.. Again they choose the later.
Were this true, you would realize that there are fifty states each with their own crimes and with unique elements of those crimes. It would be difficult to make a blanket statement that OP committed "retail theft."
But what do I know - I'm only the President of the United States. :rolleyes:
Retail theft is on the books everywhere and rooted in old common law. The States only vary on degrees (ie classes of misdemeanors).
But what do I know - I'm only the President of the United States. :rolleyes:
Retail theft is on the books everywhere and rooted in old common law. The States only vary on degrees (ie classes of misdemeanors).
too bad osx cant utilise GPUs and whatnot. :( otherwise id let my 4850 have a crack - better then the CPU thats for sure!
yeah i wish they had gpu folding for mac os x. but really, there aren't that many mac video cards
yeah i wish they had gpu folding for mac os x. but really, there aren't that many mac video cards
Cool..happy birthday...
great OS
great OS
Apple products look unique from the outside, but in reality they are the same devices others have but in different packages.
Which makes all the difference. Night and day. As far as anyone is concerned, making tech usable and desirable to that degree is pretty innovative.
Which makes all the difference. Night and day. As far as anyone is concerned, making tech usable and desirable to that degree is pretty innovative.
Believe me... THESE are the prices:
"Joy to the Wallet" sale only on black friday '06:
iMac: $898-$1958
MacBook: $998-$1398
.Mac: $68
iPod Nano (except Reds): $138-$228
iPod: $228-$318
Wireless Mighty Mouse: $58
+ various select accessories with varying discounts usually 10%-25% depending on product....
...and this includes select speakers, headphones, external hard drives, ipod cases, nike+ipod sport kit, etc...
"Joy to the Wallet" sale only on black friday '06:
iMac: $898-$1958
MacBook: $998-$1398
.Mac: $68
iPod Nano (except Reds): $138-$228
iPod: $228-$318
Wireless Mighty Mouse: $58
+ various select accessories with varying discounts usually 10%-25% depending on product....
...and this includes select speakers, headphones, external hard drives, ipod cases, nike+ipod sport kit, etc...
Is it just the zombie packs you get with the hardened edition? I already have all those on W@W, not paying for them again.
I believe it's just the zombie maps from WaW you get.
I believe it's just the zombie maps from WaW you get.
Well actually we know the TSA methods don't work because both of the incidents were from European airports that mirror what the TSA does. Added to the number of weapons that make it through TSA checkpoints, it's easy to see that the TSA does in fact not work to the extent that it is expected to.
All we know is that increased security screening is not perfect. Perhaps you can extrapolate the European experience (in this case) to the TSA... but that's as far as you can go.
I understood your rather simplistic attempt at game theory just fine. The problem remains that one side is not a rational actor. The command portion of terrorists have virtually nothing to lose with a botched attempt, and neither does the fanatic patsy. A 50/50 ratio isn't good enough for our security because the downside for both command and patsy are much smaller than the upside (from their perspective). The chances of failure need to be much higher in order to effectively deter terrorists.
Do you always start with the insulting tone (see bolding) when the debate isn't going your way? I would argue that both sides are rational actors, though both sides may also employ non-rational players. The higher echelons of terrorist organizations have shown themselves to very worried about being captured by the fact that they are so hard to catch. If they didn't care, they wouldn't be going to a great deal of trouble to avoid it. Therefore, to my mind, they are rational actors. That 50/50 number is one that I threw into the argument as an "for argument's sake". Please don't rely on it for anything factual. The TSA in fact catches more than 50% of their training/testing planted weapons. And yes, I think even if the the number was as low as 50/50 a rational actor would do everything... oh heck... I've already written all that - you've not presented anything else of substance in it's place, so I'll just save my typing finger....
Sacrificing these things is appropriate when there is a tangible gain. There hasn't been much of a tangible gain with TSA, and this is coming from the head of Israeli Security. We're paying a lot and getting almost nothing in return. Every year there's a new "standard" put out there to make it seem like TSA is doing something, but time and again security experts have lambasted TSA and its efforts as a dog and pony show.
Your own opinion of flying should be an example of how ridiculous things have gotten. If people now become disgruntled and irritated every time they fly, for perhaps marginal gains in security, then our methods have failed.
That's the funny thing. I've never actually said that the TSA is the best thing around. All I've said is that the TSA is doing something. That's all - that the TSA is doing something right. Not everything. Just something. Go back and look it up. Even the head of the Israeli security never said they were useless (as in doing nothing right). Just that it wasn't the best use of resources. Oh, and if you know Israelis (and I do), then you'll also know that there is another Israeli who knows just as much as that first fellow, and she thinks the TSA is doing things just fine.
It is difficult to prove, but you can make an educated guess about what the cause is. Other than the correlational evidence, there is no other good data to suggest that TSA has actually been effective. In no field is correlation enough to establish anything but correlation.
That's the problem with 90% of the decisions Governments make. All they have is correlational connections. Or incomplete causal relationships. Or... basically the best they can do is make an educated guess, and hope for the best.
No, that's not how it works. If you want to assert your idea as correct, the burden is on you to show that it is correct. I am going to try to poke holes in your reasoning, and it's up to you to show that my criticisms are invalid on the bases of logic and evidence.
No, on two counts. 1) You asserted "Our attempts at security are at best as good as Lisa's rock...". I countered your assertion by saying that the TSA must be doing something right, and used the stats on hijackings. I (to paraphrase you) "poked hole in your reasoning". You've presented nothing that counters my evidence, except to try mocking it as simplistic. If it is, then show how it is.... If my argument doesn't convince you. Then say so, and then leave it at that. I have my opinion, you have yours. But if you want me to change my opinion you had better do better. 2) I've forgotten - cr*p.
So far you've only cited correlation, which is not sufficient evidence for causation. You ignored my criticism based on military intervention, changing travel patterns, etc, and only want to trumpet your belief that correlation is enough. It's not. If you don't want to do more on Mac Rumors, then don't post anymore on this topic concerning this line of discussion.
You are right correlations don't show causation. But they are evidence for it. If you have evidence that shows otherwise, present it.
partes del corazon.
partes del corazon. del
partes del corazon. Chile
All we know is that increased security screening is not perfect. Perhaps you can extrapolate the European experience (in this case) to the TSA... but that's as far as you can go.
I understood your rather simplistic attempt at game theory just fine. The problem remains that one side is not a rational actor. The command portion of terrorists have virtually nothing to lose with a botched attempt, and neither does the fanatic patsy. A 50/50 ratio isn't good enough for our security because the downside for both command and patsy are much smaller than the upside (from their perspective). The chances of failure need to be much higher in order to effectively deter terrorists.
Do you always start with the insulting tone (see bolding) when the debate isn't going your way? I would argue that both sides are rational actors, though both sides may also employ non-rational players. The higher echelons of terrorist organizations have shown themselves to very worried about being captured by the fact that they are so hard to catch. If they didn't care, they wouldn't be going to a great deal of trouble to avoid it. Therefore, to my mind, they are rational actors. That 50/50 number is one that I threw into the argument as an "for argument's sake". Please don't rely on it for anything factual. The TSA in fact catches more than 50% of their training/testing planted weapons. And yes, I think even if the the number was as low as 50/50 a rational actor would do everything... oh heck... I've already written all that - you've not presented anything else of substance in it's place, so I'll just save my typing finger....
Sacrificing these things is appropriate when there is a tangible gain. There hasn't been much of a tangible gain with TSA, and this is coming from the head of Israeli Security. We're paying a lot and getting almost nothing in return. Every year there's a new "standard" put out there to make it seem like TSA is doing something, but time and again security experts have lambasted TSA and its efforts as a dog and pony show.
Your own opinion of flying should be an example of how ridiculous things have gotten. If people now become disgruntled and irritated every time they fly, for perhaps marginal gains in security, then our methods have failed.
That's the funny thing. I've never actually said that the TSA is the best thing around. All I've said is that the TSA is doing something. That's all - that the TSA is doing something right. Not everything. Just something. Go back and look it up. Even the head of the Israeli security never said they were useless (as in doing nothing right). Just that it wasn't the best use of resources. Oh, and if you know Israelis (and I do), then you'll also know that there is another Israeli who knows just as much as that first fellow, and she thinks the TSA is doing things just fine.
It is difficult to prove, but you can make an educated guess about what the cause is. Other than the correlational evidence, there is no other good data to suggest that TSA has actually been effective. In no field is correlation enough to establish anything but correlation.
That's the problem with 90% of the decisions Governments make. All they have is correlational connections. Or incomplete causal relationships. Or... basically the best they can do is make an educated guess, and hope for the best.
No, that's not how it works. If you want to assert your idea as correct, the burden is on you to show that it is correct. I am going to try to poke holes in your reasoning, and it's up to you to show that my criticisms are invalid on the bases of logic and evidence.
No, on two counts. 1) You asserted "Our attempts at security are at best as good as Lisa's rock...". I countered your assertion by saying that the TSA must be doing something right, and used the stats on hijackings. I (to paraphrase you) "poked hole in your reasoning". You've presented nothing that counters my evidence, except to try mocking it as simplistic. If it is, then show how it is.... If my argument doesn't convince you. Then say so, and then leave it at that. I have my opinion, you have yours. But if you want me to change my opinion you had better do better. 2) I've forgotten - cr*p.
So far you've only cited correlation, which is not sufficient evidence for causation. You ignored my criticism based on military intervention, changing travel patterns, etc, and only want to trumpet your belief that correlation is enough. It's not. If you don't want to do more on Mac Rumors, then don't post anymore on this topic concerning this line of discussion.
You are right correlations don't show causation. But they are evidence for it. If you have evidence that shows otherwise, present it.
I wonder how many people have been targeted/prosecuted based on the false assumption that the data logged was a record of the user's location, and not simply a list of WiFi and Cell tower devices obtained over a series of months.
I'd hate to think someone is sitting in jail as a result of this pseudo science being accepted as 'fact' by the courts.
I'd hate to think someone is sitting in jail as a result of this pseudo science being accepted as 'fact' by the courts.
If they are real, following the iPad style of back.
Missing a flash though, which is a consistent rumour.
Missing a flash though, which is a consistent rumour.
Always. Kind of hoping that they would come back with some definitive info.
I just saw that his screen name was "getalifemacfans". Definitely a Positive influence. ;)
ok look a this.
it dont have 3 g
it dont have mms
you cant send messages to more then one at a time.
you cant drag over music in itunes you have to put it on list who must syncronise(not the biggest problem)
it is not possible to download contacts from sim
its more difficult to call,set up contacts and so on compare to sony/nokia
you cant connect to more then one computer(apple think youre a thief if you do?)
But idoes haves it ups but all in all i think it sucks(i not you)..he,he
So hopefully the next iphone will fix some of this problem ergo the statement...
best regards:)
I just saw that his screen name was "getalifemacfans". Definitely a Positive influence. ;)
ok look a this.
it dont have 3 g
it dont have mms
you cant send messages to more then one at a time.
you cant drag over music in itunes you have to put it on list who must syncronise(not the biggest problem)
it is not possible to download contacts from sim
its more difficult to call,set up contacts and so on compare to sony/nokia
you cant connect to more then one computer(apple think youre a thief if you do?)
But idoes haves it ups but all in all i think it sucks(i not you)..he,he
So hopefully the next iphone will fix some of this problem ergo the statement...
best regards:)
It's very hard to take anyone seriously who believes in fairy tales like karma.
The Mini is pretty powerful. Sorry to discount your argument, but I think that it's more than enough for people out there that aren't power users/computer nerds. Heck, my dad runs engineering software all day long on his Pentium 3 733mhz, 256MB RAM computer and doesn't feel the need to upgrade.
It being in a small case is even better for the common user. Maybe to us, a small case seems like a bad computer, but the specs are similar to MacBook specs, which seems like enough for almost all users out there.
Minis suck for gaming (and iMacs aren't much better). Much as people like to play this issue down, I think it's relatively significant problem for machines that are being primarily marketed at home users.
Certainly, the single biggest reason I haven't replaced my Desktop PC with a Mac - despite *really* wanting to (even though it would run Windows as much as OS X) - is because a Mac that can play current games well is frighteningly expensive.
It being in a small case is even better for the common user. Maybe to us, a small case seems like a bad computer, but the specs are similar to MacBook specs, which seems like enough for almost all users out there.
Minis suck for gaming (and iMacs aren't much better). Much as people like to play this issue down, I think it's relatively significant problem for machines that are being primarily marketed at home users.
Certainly, the single biggest reason I haven't replaced my Desktop PC with a Mac - despite *really* wanting to (even though it would run Windows as much as OS X) - is because a Mac that can play current games well is frighteningly expensive.
If look at the word "iPhone", it doesn't look like the font that Apple usually printed on the back of their products. Does anyone else think it looks odd?
I am just interested in a black Macbook pro with the new Core 2 Duo w/800 FSB ... in either 15" or 17" ... if they can come up with a better video ipod may be.
Purchased another "ticket" to have my brother partake in this event with me as he is going to be visiting at just the right dates!
That and another helmet so that I can give him back his motorcycle helmet.
Rock on! In the E30?
I'm going up to Little Rock (Arkansas) for their regions SCCA autocross event on April 17. They don't preregister anymore so I can't really chalk it up as a "purchase" yet :o
That and another helmet so that I can give him back his motorcycle helmet.
Rock on! In the E30?
I'm going up to Little Rock (Arkansas) for their regions SCCA autocross event on April 17. They don't preregister anymore so I can't really chalk it up as a "purchase" yet :o
