dr_lha
Oct 18, 05:40 PM
Its clear Apple is missing something in the midrange desk top line. Its time for the Cube or Macintosh or headless iMac or Max Mini or something. iMac isnt for everyone and the world has billions of big beautiful displays just waiting for a midrange Mac but if Apple prices it again the same as the towers it will be another failure. Its way past time for the next Macintosh. Needs a real GPU, at least 1 expansion slot and should be priced right along with ugly iMac:D or a pinch below.
Must every thread have this post in it?
Must every thread have this post in it?
Jason Beck
Apr 12, 05:58 AM
http://fc07.deviantart.net/fs71/f/2011/101/3/4/buds_2_by_jasonbeck-d3dsp1n.jpg
ChazUK
May 1, 05:34 AM
And the differences between iPad / iPod / iPhone are orders of magnitude less than the differences between the ultra-high and ultra-low ends of what is being counted as Android "phones".
You do realize that there are a set of minimum requirements that an Android phone must adhere to to be granted access to Android Market?
I don't know how long you have been into Smartphones but smartphone marketshare has always been calculated this way, even in the old days of Symbian and Windows Mobile which also ran on non smart phone PDA's.PDA's were excluded from smart phone market share despite running the same OS.
"Smartphone OS" market share has been around before Android and iOS even existed as a platform and isnt some tool to belittle Apple's perceived performance in any way. Its just a metric in a sea of metrics that count things to different cirteria.
You do realize that there are a set of minimum requirements that an Android phone must adhere to to be granted access to Android Market?
I don't know how long you have been into Smartphones but smartphone marketshare has always been calculated this way, even in the old days of Symbian and Windows Mobile which also ran on non smart phone PDA's.PDA's were excluded from smart phone market share despite running the same OS.
"Smartphone OS" market share has been around before Android and iOS even existed as a platform and isnt some tool to belittle Apple's perceived performance in any way. Its just a metric in a sea of metrics that count things to different cirteria.
crainial
Oct 18, 11:37 PM
Its clear Apple is missing something in the midrange desk top line. Its time for the Cube or Macintosh or headless iMac or Max Mini or something. iMac isnt for everyone and the world has billions of big beautiful displays just waiting for a midrange Mac but if Apple prices it again the same as the towers it will be another failure. Its way past time for the next Macintosh. Needs a real GPU, at least 1 expansion slot and should be priced right along with ugly iMac:D or a pinch below.
I couldn't agree more. A Conroe machine would fit this bill nicely. I don't have $2500 to spend on a CPU, but want a more powerful desktop. Not that a Mac is a mere PC, but the VAST majority of Windoze PCs are under $600. Why not put out a $700-1000 Mac? Increase the market share even more. Of course then Wal-Mart would want them, a sure sign of the end...
I couldn't agree more. A Conroe machine would fit this bill nicely. I don't have $2500 to spend on a CPU, but want a more powerful desktop. Not that a Mac is a mere PC, but the VAST majority of Windoze PCs are under $600. Why not put out a $700-1000 Mac? Increase the market share even more. Of course then Wal-Mart would want them, a sure sign of the end...
more...
bpaluzzi
May 3, 08:06 AM
I hope I'm not the only one disappointed that you see an i7 in 3 out of the 4 MBPs, but i7 is only available for an extra $180 in the iMac.
The i5 2400 costs $150 @ MicroCenter, and that's the processor they use in the $2000 iMac!!! This is why people say Macs are overpriced (and they most certainly are). That having been said, I'll be buying an MBA or MBP 13 soon enough.
One thing to consider -- the iMac slots into the "midrange" position for the Apple desktop family (above Mini, below Pro), while the MBP is in the "high end" position for the laptop family.
Not going to go into the spec-chasing / validating. People have feelings one way or the other, and discussing / arguing online isn't likely to change either side's opinion :-)
The i5 2400 costs $150 @ MicroCenter, and that's the processor they use in the $2000 iMac!!! This is why people say Macs are overpriced (and they most certainly are). That having been said, I'll be buying an MBA or MBP 13 soon enough.
One thing to consider -- the iMac slots into the "midrange" position for the Apple desktop family (above Mini, below Pro), while the MBP is in the "high end" position for the laptop family.
Not going to go into the spec-chasing / validating. People have feelings one way or the other, and discussing / arguing online isn't likely to change either side's opinion :-)
notabadname
Apr 22, 12:12 PM
Ok with me. I wouldn't pay for the 4G upgrade from a provider anyway until it was as common nationally as 3G is today. Doing it right is a good plan.
more...
DJRVDIO
Apr 26, 04:59 PM
I saw and got my hands on a possible prototype IMac that had a touchable screen and a smug free screen. It also had the earlier uncoded virtual keyboard in the Lion OS. though it was only a prototype but a very realistic one for production. I believe it to be the IMac I and my father both got our hands on earlier this year.:apple:
daveschroeder
Oct 23, 08:35 AM
Dave,
I understand where you are coming from, but I still don't interpret the EULA as you do. Neither does Paul Thurrott http://www.winsupersite.com/showcase/winvista_licensing.asp. Can you please provide links to others who think like you, preferably if they happen to work for MS. ;)
Coincidentally, I had just emailed Paul.
He already responded:
From: thurrott [at] gmail.com
Subject: RE: Row over Vista virtualization much ado about nothing?
Date: October 23, 2006 8:23:04 AM CDT
To: das [at] doit.wisc.edu
Microsoft told me that the retail EULA forbids the installation of Windows
Vista Home Basic or Home Premium in virtual machines. They said that if
developers wanted to do this, they should get an MSDN subscription, which
has a different license allowing such an install. All that said, there's
nothing technical from preventing users from installing any Vista version in
a virtual machine.
Paul
...to which I replied:
From: das [at] doit.wisc.edu
Subject: Re: Row over Vista virtualization much ado about nothing?
Date: October 23, 2006 8:30:57 AM CDT
To: thurrott [at] gmail.com
Security: Signed
So Microsoft actually does intend the EULA to prohibit someone from, say, buying Vista Home as a retail box and then installing it in Parallels Desktop on a Mac? (I know there is nothing technical preventing that.)
This still seems curious, given that in that scenario, not only does Vista Ultimate allow VM use, but also includes an additional license specifically so that same copy can be installed in a VM on the same device. Why wouldn't Home's license allow a single instance of itself to be used in a VM as long as it's not already installed somewhere else? The language all revolves around "the software installed on the licensed device", and I take that to mean the software *already* installed on that device, but I suppose that could be argued to mean that it can't be installed on *any* device where it would be used in a virtualization environment...
Update: Paul's response:
From: thurrott [at] gmail.com
Subject: RE: Row over Vista virtualization much ado about nothing?
Date: October 23, 2006 8:34:07 AM CDT
To: das [at] doit.wisc.edu
Yeah, that's what they told me. My guess is that they don't want people
purchasing the low-cost versions, installing them on virtual machine
environments they don't understand (like Parallels) and then demanding
support.
You can understand why this is an issue, given that the Business and Ultimate EULAs not only explicitly allow VM use, but also include additional licenses to use that copy a second time in a VM, legally (on the same device). Also, all the language, as I said, revolves around using "the software installed on the licensed device" (implying that it's an installation that already exists on a licensed device) in a VM.
So I'll say that, if this is accurate, I stand corrected. After a few years of reading Microsoft (and other) EULAs, even I thought Microsoft wouldn't be that retarded. ;-)
Given the language, and given the additional-license situation with Business and Ultimate, I still have to say I'm surprised.
I understand where you are coming from, but I still don't interpret the EULA as you do. Neither does Paul Thurrott http://www.winsupersite.com/showcase/winvista_licensing.asp. Can you please provide links to others who think like you, preferably if they happen to work for MS. ;)
Coincidentally, I had just emailed Paul.
He already responded:
From: thurrott [at] gmail.com
Subject: RE: Row over Vista virtualization much ado about nothing?
Date: October 23, 2006 8:23:04 AM CDT
To: das [at] doit.wisc.edu
Microsoft told me that the retail EULA forbids the installation of Windows
Vista Home Basic or Home Premium in virtual machines. They said that if
developers wanted to do this, they should get an MSDN subscription, which
has a different license allowing such an install. All that said, there's
nothing technical from preventing users from installing any Vista version in
a virtual machine.
Paul
...to which I replied:
From: das [at] doit.wisc.edu
Subject: Re: Row over Vista virtualization much ado about nothing?
Date: October 23, 2006 8:30:57 AM CDT
To: thurrott [at] gmail.com
Security: Signed
So Microsoft actually does intend the EULA to prohibit someone from, say, buying Vista Home as a retail box and then installing it in Parallels Desktop on a Mac? (I know there is nothing technical preventing that.)
This still seems curious, given that in that scenario, not only does Vista Ultimate allow VM use, but also includes an additional license specifically so that same copy can be installed in a VM on the same device. Why wouldn't Home's license allow a single instance of itself to be used in a VM as long as it's not already installed somewhere else? The language all revolves around "the software installed on the licensed device", and I take that to mean the software *already* installed on that device, but I suppose that could be argued to mean that it can't be installed on *any* device where it would be used in a virtualization environment...
Update: Paul's response:
From: thurrott [at] gmail.com
Subject: RE: Row over Vista virtualization much ado about nothing?
Date: October 23, 2006 8:34:07 AM CDT
To: das [at] doit.wisc.edu
Yeah, that's what they told me. My guess is that they don't want people
purchasing the low-cost versions, installing them on virtual machine
environments they don't understand (like Parallels) and then demanding
support.
You can understand why this is an issue, given that the Business and Ultimate EULAs not only explicitly allow VM use, but also include additional licenses to use that copy a second time in a VM, legally (on the same device). Also, all the language, as I said, revolves around using "the software installed on the licensed device" (implying that it's an installation that already exists on a licensed device) in a VM.
So I'll say that, if this is accurate, I stand corrected. After a few years of reading Microsoft (and other) EULAs, even I thought Microsoft wouldn't be that retarded. ;-)
Given the language, and given the additional-license situation with Business and Ultimate, I still have to say I'm surprised.
more...
AaronEdwards
Apr 29, 01:50 AM
Ok, that works if you are thinking of getting a cellphone vs. not getting a cellphone.
But when you are thinking of getting what type of cellphone, no, it doesn't count. Cause by deciding you are getting a cellphone but trying to decide which type, you already committed to buying the plan,what type of cellphone does not affect the cost of the plan, you are going to pay it regardless. So the cost of the plan really doesn't count for the cost of the cellphone when you are comparing cellphones together.
Maybe if we were comparing getting a landline to a cellphone (where the costs of the service for the landline are going to be drastically different).
Or even if we were comparing going from AT&T to Verizon there might be some small difference. So only if the cellphones are on different networks (with the iphone though, this only matters if you are comparing to a T-Mobile or Sprint phone as you can get an iphone on either AT&T or Verizon so the plan cost will be the same for the iphone as whatever other phone you want to get on either network).
You still don't get the point.
The point is when we are comparing different cellphones to each other, the service doesn't matter cause if you are getting the cellphone, you are going to pay the service regardless and which cellphone you get isn't going to affect the service's price. Therefore it is irrelevant when talking cost of one cellphone vs. another to bring in the cost o the contract.
Total cost matters. And since you are going to have to pay the monthly payment even if you don't use the phone one second or download even one byte, then, yes, the plan is part of the total cost of the phone.
Without the plan, the 3GS costs $449 not $49.
The monthly cost for a 3GS will be higher than the initial payment. And my example is with the cheapest plan I could get, with a more expensive plan the difference in what you pay for the phone will matter even less. And mccldwll has an excellent point about the value of the phone at the end of contract period.
Anyone who is unable to pay the extra $150 up front, probably shouldn't get a phone with a plan that will at least cost you $55/month. And if go for the cheapest plan, then what's the point of getting a smart phone?
Is there actually anyone here who would buy a 3GS over a 4? Anyone who thinks that's a good idea? For themselves? Considering that most people here are talking about waiting for the 4S/5.
But when you are thinking of getting what type of cellphone, no, it doesn't count. Cause by deciding you are getting a cellphone but trying to decide which type, you already committed to buying the plan,what type of cellphone does not affect the cost of the plan, you are going to pay it regardless. So the cost of the plan really doesn't count for the cost of the cellphone when you are comparing cellphones together.
Maybe if we were comparing getting a landline to a cellphone (where the costs of the service for the landline are going to be drastically different).
Or even if we were comparing going from AT&T to Verizon there might be some small difference. So only if the cellphones are on different networks (with the iphone though, this only matters if you are comparing to a T-Mobile or Sprint phone as you can get an iphone on either AT&T or Verizon so the plan cost will be the same for the iphone as whatever other phone you want to get on either network).
You still don't get the point.
The point is when we are comparing different cellphones to each other, the service doesn't matter cause if you are getting the cellphone, you are going to pay the service regardless and which cellphone you get isn't going to affect the service's price. Therefore it is irrelevant when talking cost of one cellphone vs. another to bring in the cost o the contract.
Total cost matters. And since you are going to have to pay the monthly payment even if you don't use the phone one second or download even one byte, then, yes, the plan is part of the total cost of the phone.
Without the plan, the 3GS costs $449 not $49.
The monthly cost for a 3GS will be higher than the initial payment. And my example is with the cheapest plan I could get, with a more expensive plan the difference in what you pay for the phone will matter even less. And mccldwll has an excellent point about the value of the phone at the end of contract period.
Anyone who is unable to pay the extra $150 up front, probably shouldn't get a phone with a plan that will at least cost you $55/month. And if go for the cheapest plan, then what's the point of getting a smart phone?
Is there actually anyone here who would buy a 3GS over a 4? Anyone who thinks that's a good idea? For themselves? Considering that most people here are talking about waiting for the 4S/5.
djrod
Apr 24, 05:38 AM
Apparently it has an A5 chip in it.
http://www.9to5mac.com/63457/leaked-t-mobile-iphone-has-an-a5-chip-might-be-the-iphone-4s/
http://www.9to5mac.com/63457/leaked-t-mobile-iphone-has-an-a5-chip-might-be-the-iphone-4s/
more...
The Maestro
Oct 24, 09:28 AM
i took the plunge
MacBook Pro, 15-inch, 2.33GHz
Part Number: MA610
2GB 667 DDR2 - 2x1GB SO-DIMMs
SuperDrive 6x (DVD+R DL/DVD RW/CD-RW)
MacBook Pro 15-inch Widescreen Display
Backlit Keyboard (English) & Mac OS (English)
Country kit
120GB Serial ATA drive (5400rpm)
2.33GHz Intel Core 2 Duo
Ready to ship: 4 days
MacBook Pro, 15-inch, 2.33GHz
Part Number: MA610
2GB 667 DDR2 - 2x1GB SO-DIMMs
SuperDrive 6x (DVD+R DL/DVD RW/CD-RW)
MacBook Pro 15-inch Widescreen Display
Backlit Keyboard (English) & Mac OS (English)
Country kit
120GB Serial ATA drive (5400rpm)
2.33GHz Intel Core 2 Duo
Ready to ship: 4 days
Consultant
Nov 10, 05:41 PM
I wonder what battery life will be like.
Also, how many people downloaded it just so they could watch porn?
Many Porn sites are smart enough to provide HTML5 alternative.
Also, how many people downloaded it just so they could watch porn?
Many Porn sites are smart enough to provide HTML5 alternative.
more...
FloatingBones
Nov 23, 11:35 PM
I'll say this one last time. Flash is not an app! It's a method of delivering content on a web site.
If there were not Flash applications, then Adobe would not have developed and released its Packager for iPhone (http://labs.adobe.com/technologies/packagerforiphone/).
Flash is also a way to deliver video. The Skyfire App (http://skyfire.com/product/iphone) is a way for iOS users to view those legacy Flash videos. When sites update their video to be HTML compliant, bridging services like Skyfire will no longer be needed for that conversion.
Finally, as you note, Flash is also a way to deliver web content.
You cannot make iOS "apps" to replace a web page dude.
Why not? That sounds like the exact purpose of Adobe's new packager tool.
As long as there are Flash only web sites, there will be a demand for Flash plugins.
Users of the 120M+ iOS devices are doing just fine without Flash plugins.
As long as websites serve up some or all of their content solely through Flash, they will be shut out from users on those iOS devices. Adobe recognizes this shortcoming in Flash and is rapidly developing a Flash to HTML5 converter (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1039999):
Here's what Adobe blogged about that (http://blogs.adobe.com/jnack/2010/10/adobe-demos-flash-to-html5-conversion-tool.html) after a demo at their Adobe MAX 2010 conference in October:
How could I create rich experiences that run on desktops (where Flash is the obvious, consistent (cross-browser/-platform) choice) and on iOS devices where Flash isn�t allowed? I�d have to create two versions of a everything�one Flash, and one HTML5*. Good luck getting clients to double their budgets, though, and yet they don�t want richness cut in half.
So, the opportunity: Cut the cost of targeting multiple runtimes & we�ll deliver real wins: more richness for clients, and a competitive advantage for customers. [...]
Adobe lives or dies by its ability to help customers solve real problems. That means putting pragmatism ahead of ideology.
Once a website has gone through the process of serving up HTML5, why bother serving up Flash to anybody? This tool will continue to lessen the need for Flash on the browser for everybody.
This Skyfire app is proof of that.
Not exactly. Skyfire is not optimal for iPhone users, because videos they request have to go through Skyfire's servers for conversion. It's also not a complete solution for websites, because only a fraction of the iOS users will purchase the Skyfire app. Skyfire functions as a bridging app to give websites access to iOS users until they convert their video inventory to HTML5.
I won't bother arguing anymore about the other things as it's a complete waste of my time.
That would be good.
Ironically, Adobe's new conversion tools will accelerate the demise of Flash on the web.
If there were not Flash applications, then Adobe would not have developed and released its Packager for iPhone (http://labs.adobe.com/technologies/packagerforiphone/).
Flash is also a way to deliver video. The Skyfire App (http://skyfire.com/product/iphone) is a way for iOS users to view those legacy Flash videos. When sites update their video to be HTML compliant, bridging services like Skyfire will no longer be needed for that conversion.
Finally, as you note, Flash is also a way to deliver web content.
You cannot make iOS "apps" to replace a web page dude.
Why not? That sounds like the exact purpose of Adobe's new packager tool.
As long as there are Flash only web sites, there will be a demand for Flash plugins.
Users of the 120M+ iOS devices are doing just fine without Flash plugins.
As long as websites serve up some or all of their content solely through Flash, they will be shut out from users on those iOS devices. Adobe recognizes this shortcoming in Flash and is rapidly developing a Flash to HTML5 converter (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1039999):
Here's what Adobe blogged about that (http://blogs.adobe.com/jnack/2010/10/adobe-demos-flash-to-html5-conversion-tool.html) after a demo at their Adobe MAX 2010 conference in October:
How could I create rich experiences that run on desktops (where Flash is the obvious, consistent (cross-browser/-platform) choice) and on iOS devices where Flash isn�t allowed? I�d have to create two versions of a everything�one Flash, and one HTML5*. Good luck getting clients to double their budgets, though, and yet they don�t want richness cut in half.
So, the opportunity: Cut the cost of targeting multiple runtimes & we�ll deliver real wins: more richness for clients, and a competitive advantage for customers. [...]
Adobe lives or dies by its ability to help customers solve real problems. That means putting pragmatism ahead of ideology.
Once a website has gone through the process of serving up HTML5, why bother serving up Flash to anybody? This tool will continue to lessen the need for Flash on the browser for everybody.
This Skyfire app is proof of that.
Not exactly. Skyfire is not optimal for iPhone users, because videos they request have to go through Skyfire's servers for conversion. It's also not a complete solution for websites, because only a fraction of the iOS users will purchase the Skyfire app. Skyfire functions as a bridging app to give websites access to iOS users until they convert their video inventory to HTML5.
I won't bother arguing anymore about the other things as it's a complete waste of my time.
That would be good.
Ironically, Adobe's new conversion tools will accelerate the demise of Flash on the web.
BoyBach
Jul 21, 03:12 PM
Well, it's official now.
http://www.engadget.com/2006/07/21/microsoft-confirms-zune-project/
http://www.engadget.com/2006/07/21/microsoft-confirms-zune-project/
more...
KnightWRX
Mar 29, 08:24 AM
There won't be iPhone 5!
With an A5 chip and called the iPhone 4S!
Uh, that would be an iPhone 5. You do realise that 5 is the generation when people talk about iPhone. Apple has yet to name their next device, but whatever real name it will have, it will still be the 5th generation iPhone.
The one next year would be iPhone 6.
With an A5 chip and called the iPhone 4S!
Uh, that would be an iPhone 5. You do realise that 5 is the generation when people talk about iPhone. Apple has yet to name their next device, but whatever real name it will have, it will still be the 5th generation iPhone.
The one next year would be iPhone 6.
stroked
Apr 24, 07:06 PM
Define "dude".
anyone born with a penis
except a child of course
anyone born with a penis
except a child of course
more...
jonharris200
Jul 21, 12:14 PM
I'm holding off until WWDC to decide what route of "Mac conversion" I am going to be using. If Leopard has a built in Parallels type solution (which I believe it will), then I will absolutely begin my church's mac conversion in January.
"my church's mac conversion". your church needs converting? :p
"my church's mac conversion". your church needs converting? :p
peskaa
Nov 1, 11:43 AM
Canon 200mm f/2?
Me too.
Looks more like the 300mm f/2.8L. The IS switches are in the wrong locations for the 200 f/2L.
</nerd>
Me too.
Looks more like the 300mm f/2.8L. The IS switches are in the wrong locations for the 200 f/2L.
</nerd>
hobo.hopkins
Mar 31, 01:13 PM
Bad interfaces based on silly metaphors isn't a new phenomenon at Apple. May I remind you of this abomination?
http://www.dailyapplequiz.com/wp-content/uploads/quicktime_4_player.jpg
To be fair, the brushed metal interface first debuted in 1999 with Quicktime 4.0. Compared to the horrendous user interfaces of the time period, that looks amazing. It is sad though that it took them until leopard to get rid of it...
http://www.dailyapplequiz.com/wp-content/uploads/quicktime_4_player.jpg
To be fair, the brushed metal interface first debuted in 1999 with Quicktime 4.0. Compared to the horrendous user interfaces of the time period, that looks amazing. It is sad though that it took them until leopard to get rid of it...
dextertangocci
Jul 25, 09:40 AM
First of all, I think this should have been released at most a couple months after the introduction of the Mighty Mouse. Taking a year to give it BT capabilities is ridiculous.
And $70 for a ****ing mouse is absurd. Doesn't look like I'll be buying anymore mice from apple.
I payed more than that for my Apple BT mouse a few days ago:mad: :rolleyes: :(
And $70 for a ****ing mouse is absurd. Doesn't look like I'll be buying anymore mice from apple.
I payed more than that for my Apple BT mouse a few days ago:mad: :rolleyes: :(
marksman
Apr 28, 12:14 PM
.....About the the mentality of the people who buy a two year old phone just so they can say they have an iPhone.
Actually it is because a 2 year old iPhone is better than any Android device out there.
We all know the iPhone 4 is streets ahead of any other smartphone, but the 3GS provides a superior experience as well. It is not about spec sheets, it is about performance, software, reliability and the rest.
I agree with others that it is very telling that the 3GS outsells every single android iPhone on the market. That tells me people just buy random Androids when they go to buy a phone because they are cheaper or on deal, or if they don't have a choice to get an iPhone.
It is not like the general consumer is going "Wow this HTC magicamalcallit is so awesome. I tell all my friends to get it." or "This Samsung Soslightynotasbad is really an awesome phone and people are eating them up."
They might as well not even put labels on android phones. They are essentially a commodity compromised of a big pile of iPhone copycats with an inferior ecosystem. It almost seems like Cell Phone stores require people buying android devices to do so blindfolded.
Actually it is because a 2 year old iPhone is better than any Android device out there.
We all know the iPhone 4 is streets ahead of any other smartphone, but the 3GS provides a superior experience as well. It is not about spec sheets, it is about performance, software, reliability and the rest.
I agree with others that it is very telling that the 3GS outsells every single android iPhone on the market. That tells me people just buy random Androids when they go to buy a phone because they are cheaper or on deal, or if they don't have a choice to get an iPhone.
It is not like the general consumer is going "Wow this HTC magicamalcallit is so awesome. I tell all my friends to get it." or "This Samsung Soslightynotasbad is really an awesome phone and people are eating them up."
They might as well not even put labels on android phones. They are essentially a commodity compromised of a big pile of iPhone copycats with an inferior ecosystem. It almost seems like Cell Phone stores require people buying android devices to do so blindfolded.
Grakkle
Dec 2, 09:46 AM
I'll say it before, and I'll say it again, this is a critical time for Apple and it's no time to be an Apple apologist. It's time to hold Apple's feet to the fire. Being soft on them isn't helping them. It's just enabling them not to realize their full potential.
OSX is good, but that's no reason for complacency. If Apple doesn't work out these bugs (and I know of more than a few irritating ones, besides the kernal vulnerabilities) it's not going to remain a quality product.
OSX is good, but that's no reason for complacency. If Apple doesn't work out these bugs (and I know of more than a few irritating ones, besides the kernal vulnerabilities) it's not going to remain a quality product.
TheMacFeed
Jan 31, 03:06 PM
New battey grips for both of my dslr's, And two new bags, Well the Nikon bag is new but the Pullman is a well looked afer bag I had from years ago.
New iphone dock in background...
snip
Why have a Canon and a Nikon? Does that not mean you have to buy lenses for both?
New iphone dock in background...
snip
Why have a Canon and a Nikon? Does that not mean you have to buy lenses for both?
Farns514
Nov 1, 07:56 PM
Bose Cinemate GS Series for the Living Room Entertainment set-up.
http://images.bestbuy.com:80/BestBuy_US/images/products/9480/9480411_sa.jpg
http://images.bestbuy.com:80/BestBuy_US/images/products/9480/9480411_sa.jpg
No comments:
Post a Comment