milo
Sep 6, 04:53 PM
Apple's cheapest computer= Mac Mini. Also, I was comparing that to my less then 6 month old 1.83 Ghz MBP.
Ah, I misunderstood. Well, it shouldn't be a surprise. At some point even the $599 mini will have a chip faster than yours. That's just the way things go.
I wonder if Apple will be able to ship a monitorless, affordable, quiet core 2 computer before a boutique vendor fills the gap. If so, no mac for me!
There's a good reason apple didn't go Core2 on the mini...it would make it too close to the new minitower they'll be announcing soon!
Ah, I misunderstood. Well, it shouldn't be a surprise. At some point even the $599 mini will have a chip faster than yours. That's just the way things go.
I wonder if Apple will be able to ship a monitorless, affordable, quiet core 2 computer before a boutique vendor fills the gap. If so, no mac for me!
There's a good reason apple didn't go Core2 on the mini...it would make it too close to the new minitower they'll be announcing soon!
dime21
Apr 20, 09:26 PM
sorry no longer the case for most of that.
Manuals now cost more to buy than autos due to fewer of them being built so supply is lower.
No really cheaper to maintain. Hell manuals can go 200+k with out the tranny or the engine needing to be pulled. Manuals sorry you have to pull one of those items ever 100k miles to replace the clutch. That eats up the saving so at best it is a break even in that department.
Tranny might last longer but that is about it. Still has to be pulled ever 100k to replace clutch. Hell an auto tranny will out last the car any how so a non issue.
Power wise yes auto is going to eat a little more of the power off the engine but really not much less than the manuals eat due to modern hydrolics and more physical locking together of the engine and tranny.
Fuel economy. Sorry no longer the case. High way the get the same due to the fact that the tranny of both are physically locked to with the engine so no gain there. City mileage Autos can and often times do get better MPG even more so with the modern CVT. CVT for the extra gear ratios and on top of that you have computer controlled shifting that can time it quicker and faster and at better points for MPG than any human can.
Even Autos now have 5-7 gears so that gain is even lost from the manuals. They have the same number of gears pretty much standard now.
Now control. I will give you that. but that is about it.
sorry, but wherever you got your information, it is not correct. fwiw, my last car, a vw passat, i sold with 312k miles on it. i bought it new at the dealer. still had the original clutch. your 100k replacement claim is bogus.
highway mileage is different due to gear ratios, not "physically locked". automatics use different ratios than manuals, even with same engine. shift speed is irrelevant for mileage.
and lastly, manuals do not cost more. every car i've ever owned, new or old, including my 2007 porsche 911, have come standard with a manual transmission. if you want automatic, that's an option you pay extra for, several $thousand in some cases. i've never owned an American car, so maybe the domestics are different, but your blanket statement is still wrong.
on my wife's mercedes, it needs automatic fluid change every 30k miles. dealer charges ~$300 for this. That's $1000 in service in 90k miles assuming nothing breaks. My manual transmission requires no service or fluid changes for 100k miles. $1000 in maintenance vs $0 in maintenance. automatic is far more expensive from a maintenance standpoint.
Manuals now cost more to buy than autos due to fewer of them being built so supply is lower.
No really cheaper to maintain. Hell manuals can go 200+k with out the tranny or the engine needing to be pulled. Manuals sorry you have to pull one of those items ever 100k miles to replace the clutch. That eats up the saving so at best it is a break even in that department.
Tranny might last longer but that is about it. Still has to be pulled ever 100k to replace clutch. Hell an auto tranny will out last the car any how so a non issue.
Power wise yes auto is going to eat a little more of the power off the engine but really not much less than the manuals eat due to modern hydrolics and more physical locking together of the engine and tranny.
Fuel economy. Sorry no longer the case. High way the get the same due to the fact that the tranny of both are physically locked to with the engine so no gain there. City mileage Autos can and often times do get better MPG even more so with the modern CVT. CVT for the extra gear ratios and on top of that you have computer controlled shifting that can time it quicker and faster and at better points for MPG than any human can.
Even Autos now have 5-7 gears so that gain is even lost from the manuals. They have the same number of gears pretty much standard now.
Now control. I will give you that. but that is about it.
sorry, but wherever you got your information, it is not correct. fwiw, my last car, a vw passat, i sold with 312k miles on it. i bought it new at the dealer. still had the original clutch. your 100k replacement claim is bogus.
highway mileage is different due to gear ratios, not "physically locked". automatics use different ratios than manuals, even with same engine. shift speed is irrelevant for mileage.
and lastly, manuals do not cost more. every car i've ever owned, new or old, including my 2007 porsche 911, have come standard with a manual transmission. if you want automatic, that's an option you pay extra for, several $thousand in some cases. i've never owned an American car, so maybe the domestics are different, but your blanket statement is still wrong.
on my wife's mercedes, it needs automatic fluid change every 30k miles. dealer charges ~$300 for this. That's $1000 in service in 90k miles assuming nothing breaks. My manual transmission requires no service or fluid changes for 100k miles. $1000 in maintenance vs $0 in maintenance. automatic is far more expensive from a maintenance standpoint.
bri1212
Sep 18, 02:49 PM
Anyway, when a reviewing organization "doesn't recommend" what I consider the best phone I've ever owned, it sounds more like I shouldn't bother paying attention to that reviewing organization. Their taste just isn't relevant to mine.[/QUOTE]
Well said!
Well said!
Multimedia
Sep 6, 12:39 PM
Look, they discontinued the $50 BTO superdrive option on the lower end model. Are they purposely trying to drive me to Velocity Micro?The SAVE refurb page has what you want for $649. If you really want that model, pull the trigger.
aaps59
Feb 7, 04:38 PM
Very nice, how's yours holding up?
My parents have '07 LR3 and an '07 Range Rover sport. Both have been very reliable aside from some software issues in the RRS that were quickly sorted out. There have been a couple little things but overall they have been much more reliable than our previous Discoveries.
We had an LR4 as a loaner and it's like night and day over the LR3. The interior is significantly nicer and the ride is smoother.
Ja, well ours hasn't had really many issues. We bought it used, had it since early 08. Issues it has had are that mice once chewed some wires underneath it which controlled several things such as the height control, timing, gearing, such as it wouldnt really let it get out of 3rd gear. We had that fixed... =/ The dealer ((Ray Catena, Edison)) said it was quite common, and they took the liberty of exchanging our battery and adding even more to the already jaw-dropping service fees. Other issues consisted of a faulty electric parking break which still doesnt work, after we took it to the dealer.
So basically electric issues. Which is pretty common for the already unreliable Land Rovers. Me personally, I love em. :cool:
Yeah, LR4's look pretty epic, I like the exterior lighting much more, and the interior does seem to be much nicer. I heard about the Discovery issues and I agree that Land Rover quality changed a great deal after the 2005/2006 redesigns. I.e. the introduction of the RRS, facelifted RR, and the introduction of the LR3, AND the later introduction of the LR2.
My parents have '07 LR3 and an '07 Range Rover sport. Both have been very reliable aside from some software issues in the RRS that were quickly sorted out. There have been a couple little things but overall they have been much more reliable than our previous Discoveries.
We had an LR4 as a loaner and it's like night and day over the LR3. The interior is significantly nicer and the ride is smoother.
Ja, well ours hasn't had really many issues. We bought it used, had it since early 08. Issues it has had are that mice once chewed some wires underneath it which controlled several things such as the height control, timing, gearing, such as it wouldnt really let it get out of 3rd gear. We had that fixed... =/ The dealer ((Ray Catena, Edison)) said it was quite common, and they took the liberty of exchanging our battery and adding even more to the already jaw-dropping service fees. Other issues consisted of a faulty electric parking break which still doesnt work, after we took it to the dealer.
So basically electric issues. Which is pretty common for the already unreliable Land Rovers. Me personally, I love em. :cool:
Yeah, LR4's look pretty epic, I like the exterior lighting much more, and the interior does seem to be much nicer. I heard about the Discovery issues and I agree that Land Rover quality changed a great deal after the 2005/2006 redesigns. I.e. the introduction of the RRS, facelifted RR, and the introduction of the LR3, AND the later introduction of the LR2.
elmo151
Sep 18, 10:38 AM
CR often solves the wrong problems. Its rarely disclosed criteria are often off the mark.
did they compare the iPhone to the competition?
did they compare the iPhone to the competition?
davidgrimm
Sep 23, 08:25 PM
"Influential"?
Consumer Reports used to influence my opinion, but when they actually rank things I know a little about, I always find fault with their methods and so they really aren't that influential to me anymore. I mean if their methods stink on the categories I know of, they probably stink for the categories I don't know about.
Consumer Reports used to influence my opinion, but when they actually rank things I know a little about, I always find fault with their methods and so they really aren't that influential to me anymore. I mean if their methods stink on the categories I know of, they probably stink for the categories I don't know about.
sisyphus
Sep 6, 06:15 PM
I know they want to sell and that it is probably easier to manage, but I would rather rent than buy. I have bought a total of 4 DVDs. So few movies are worth owning. Some are actually worth renting.
islanders
Dec 27, 11:35 PM
TiVo doesn't download your shows over the internet, it records them off the cable TV or satellite receiver. The only reason it requires an internet connection is to get programming schedules and verify you're paying your monthly fee.
Why not? They are all TV's. There is nothing about the term television that confines it to analog tube sets. If your Plasma/LCD has an over the air tuner or any sort, it is a TV. If it doesn't, it's a monitor.
Do you have a source for that statement?
Apple thinks you are.
Nobody is going to offer TV without commercials. People seriously underestimate the cost of production and distribution of content.
Remember that songs/movies you buy from Apple are supposed to be yours, if they go to a streaming media service they become like a rental service in effect, as you have to maintain your relationship with Apple to keep viewing the content.
Your the one who said a TV wouldn�t even work as a monitor.
You consistently rearrange some of my post where I�m just speculating. And at the same time you avoid my main points.
I also realize by streaming a movie we would just be renting it, but as a BluRay cost $1000, and if iTV is significantly less to watch the same movie in HD, this would be a reasonable solution. You also said you were waiting for the battle to be settled and that�s consistent to what I was pointing out that HD iTV would have a niche.
Thanks for responding to some of my points, but I�m really curious where this is going.
I think I'm just going to wait and see.
Why not? They are all TV's. There is nothing about the term television that confines it to analog tube sets. If your Plasma/LCD has an over the air tuner or any sort, it is a TV. If it doesn't, it's a monitor.
Do you have a source for that statement?
Apple thinks you are.
Nobody is going to offer TV without commercials. People seriously underestimate the cost of production and distribution of content.
Remember that songs/movies you buy from Apple are supposed to be yours, if they go to a streaming media service they become like a rental service in effect, as you have to maintain your relationship with Apple to keep viewing the content.
Your the one who said a TV wouldn�t even work as a monitor.
You consistently rearrange some of my post where I�m just speculating. And at the same time you avoid my main points.
I also realize by streaming a movie we would just be renting it, but as a BluRay cost $1000, and if iTV is significantly less to watch the same movie in HD, this would be a reasonable solution. You also said you were waiting for the battle to be settled and that�s consistent to what I was pointing out that HD iTV would have a niche.
Thanks for responding to some of my points, but I�m really curious where this is going.
I think I'm just going to wait and see.
oldwatery
Apr 26, 07:31 PM
anyone else getting a little bit fed up of apples lawsuits?
Count me in there.
Apple have become Big Brother and Big Bully lately.
In the past they trod more lightly.
Count me in there.
Apple have become Big Brother and Big Bully lately.
In the past they trod more lightly.
marktech101
Jan 13, 04:18 PM
Come on, people!!
In my opinion, their quote, "There's something in the air," is nothing other than an allusion to the fact that they're going to introduce a 3G iPhone. We have all known that this was coming eventually; Jobs even said that the only thing stopping them from introducing it was low battery life.
In my opinion, their quote, "There's something in the air," is nothing other than an allusion to the fact that they're going to introduce a 3G iPhone. We have all known that this was coming eventually; Jobs even said that the only thing stopping them from introducing it was low battery life.
cube
Mar 24, 03:02 PM
OpenCL /DirectCompute are COMPUTE tasks that are hardly anything currently supports(both of which support hardware before DX11, completely eradicating the point of even bringing that up in the first place). You do not have a better CPU. In theory and vaporware tests you could outperform Sandy Bridge by itself. But Sandy Bridge with a discrete GPU will smoke Llano with a discrete GPU any day of the week.
I'm not talking about using a discrete GPU, but about what you can do with just the CPU (or should I call it "APU"?).
I'm not talking about using a discrete GPU, but about what you can do with just the CPU (or should I call it "APU"?).
bigdaddyp
Sep 14, 11:45 AM
They DO, I don't think you have the facts. CR held Lexus' feet to the fire to get them to act on the GX - http://blogs.consumerreports.org/cars/2010/04/consumer-reports-2010-lexus-gx-dont-buy-safety-risk.html .
Follow up - Lexus fixed the problem and CR lifted their "DO NOT BUY" recommendation - http://blogs.consumerreports.org/cars/2010/05/video-lexus-gx-460-passes-retest-consumer-reports-lifts-dont-buy-label.html . CR is *NOT* the problem here, it's Apple penchant for hubris/self-involvement. I love Apple and their products, but I'm not fooling myself to expect that they'll be any more consumer-friendly and honest than they need to be to turn a profit/feed Steve's ego.
The problem I sometimes have with their recommendations is that their reports are written to assume you are a total dumba$$ with no personal responsibility.
If you are driving a 2 1/2 ton suv like its a sports car then there is a good chance that you will be forcibly yanked out of the gene pool. Ten years ago many or most large suvs would have tipped over or gone out of control in that scenario. Instead of praising the advances automakers have made they instead have a hissy fit that a large, heavy automobile can get a bit loose when driven beyond its limits.
How about reminding their readers that electronic stability control can't overcome the laws of physics and extra care needs to taken when driving large, top heavy vehicles in curves.
Yes I am glad that Toyota tweaked and improved the stability control, but I think this illustrates that Cr. feels the consumer has no or little personal responsibility for their actions.
Follow up - Lexus fixed the problem and CR lifted their "DO NOT BUY" recommendation - http://blogs.consumerreports.org/cars/2010/05/video-lexus-gx-460-passes-retest-consumer-reports-lifts-dont-buy-label.html . CR is *NOT* the problem here, it's Apple penchant for hubris/self-involvement. I love Apple and their products, but I'm not fooling myself to expect that they'll be any more consumer-friendly and honest than they need to be to turn a profit/feed Steve's ego.
The problem I sometimes have with their recommendations is that their reports are written to assume you are a total dumba$$ with no personal responsibility.
If you are driving a 2 1/2 ton suv like its a sports car then there is a good chance that you will be forcibly yanked out of the gene pool. Ten years ago many or most large suvs would have tipped over or gone out of control in that scenario. Instead of praising the advances automakers have made they instead have a hissy fit that a large, heavy automobile can get a bit loose when driven beyond its limits.
How about reminding their readers that electronic stability control can't overcome the laws of physics and extra care needs to taken when driving large, top heavy vehicles in curves.
Yes I am glad that Toyota tweaked and improved the stability control, but I think this illustrates that Cr. feels the consumer has no or little personal responsibility for their actions.
pcharles
Mar 23, 07:58 AM
Correct me if I'm wrong here, but people keep going on about ThunderBolt like it's gonna fill 200gig ipods in a minute and how you can copy 500gig files between computers in minutes...
That may be the case between ThunderBolt connected RAID arrays, and Macbook Pros with lightning fast SSD write rates,
but isn't the case that the 1.8inch HDD in the ipod wouldn't be able to write files to it's disk at anything close to ThunderBolt speeds, I wouldn't be suprised if USB2.0 nearly saturates these 1.8inch drive write speeds.
I agree that Thunderbolt is overkill until we have raided SSD, but my old FW400 ipod fills much faster than my new USB2 iPod Video, so I do not think that USB2 is saturating the drive. There are plenty of benchmarks out there showing that FW is significantly faster for sustained read/write operations. Thunderbolt could be thought of as the new firewire because it supports fast sustained transfer, can be daisy chained, and supports other protocols such as networking and video. Its potential is amazing! Imagine a computer of the future with one port on to which you can daisy chain your monitor and all your peripherals, and still have bandwidth to spare!
That may be the case between ThunderBolt connected RAID arrays, and Macbook Pros with lightning fast SSD write rates,
but isn't the case that the 1.8inch HDD in the ipod wouldn't be able to write files to it's disk at anything close to ThunderBolt speeds, I wouldn't be suprised if USB2.0 nearly saturates these 1.8inch drive write speeds.
I agree that Thunderbolt is overkill until we have raided SSD, but my old FW400 ipod fills much faster than my new USB2 iPod Video, so I do not think that USB2 is saturating the drive. There are plenty of benchmarks out there showing that FW is significantly faster for sustained read/write operations. Thunderbolt could be thought of as the new firewire because it supports fast sustained transfer, can be daisy chained, and supports other protocols such as networking and video. Its potential is amazing! Imagine a computer of the future with one port on to which you can daisy chain your monitor and all your peripherals, and still have bandwidth to spare!
MacFanJeff
Mar 26, 04:00 AM
While professionals can say bye bye to nVidia's CUDA processing and PhysX.
:-(
ATI/AMD is doing what they can, developing an OpenCL driven bullet physics port to Maya but they always seem to be one step behind - announcing a plugin for Maya 2011 in the same week that Autodesk announced that nVidia Physx is being integrated directly into Maya 2012 with real time physx cloth deformation, rigid body dynamics, and physx accelerated calculations for DMM destruction.
On the windows side, 3ds Max is getting Physx integration, too. Open CL is cool but it's got some ground to make up in the application world.
If you refer to my prior post in this thread, I too am a professional 3D content creator. As things stand currently, all software I use take better advantage of nVidia compared to ATI. Most of what I use prefer "CUDA" cores and eventually more "PhysX" integration.
This is why I can no longer use Apple at all in my work, I can not come close to getting what I can from a pair of 580 GTX factory OC cards in SLI for a Mac Pro. In fact, most of what Apple offers is still behind the curve.
It is the single area where Apple fails and I know from attending conferences that most of the big names simply don't care because they do not have enough users on that platform to matter. Don't get me wrong, I still think Apple is great for most all other areas and I recommend them to family and friends. But for the 3D professional market, there is no way I can use Apple without making many sacrifices.
:-(
ATI/AMD is doing what they can, developing an OpenCL driven bullet physics port to Maya but they always seem to be one step behind - announcing a plugin for Maya 2011 in the same week that Autodesk announced that nVidia Physx is being integrated directly into Maya 2012 with real time physx cloth deformation, rigid body dynamics, and physx accelerated calculations for DMM destruction.
On the windows side, 3ds Max is getting Physx integration, too. Open CL is cool but it's got some ground to make up in the application world.
If you refer to my prior post in this thread, I too am a professional 3D content creator. As things stand currently, all software I use take better advantage of nVidia compared to ATI. Most of what I use prefer "CUDA" cores and eventually more "PhysX" integration.
This is why I can no longer use Apple at all in my work, I can not come close to getting what I can from a pair of 580 GTX factory OC cards in SLI for a Mac Pro. In fact, most of what Apple offers is still behind the curve.
It is the single area where Apple fails and I know from attending conferences that most of the big names simply don't care because they do not have enough users on that platform to matter. Don't get me wrong, I still think Apple is great for most all other areas and I recommend them to family and friends. But for the 3D professional market, there is no way I can use Apple without making many sacrifices.
mrapplegate
Apr 6, 08:14 AM
Ok I'm using a Late 2008 MBP model, 2.4 ghz IC2D , 4gig ram. But Launchpad is lagging for me big time, when I try to scroll thru my apps for instance. and when i switch windows its not always flowing. Now I know LION still has a few miles to go before it works perfectly, however I wanna know if its the same for other developers with later MBP's or does it flow perfectly?
I am using a late 2010 MBP, i5, 8GB RAM and I have no lagging issues with launchpad other than a slight delay opening folders. I don't use it much so it is not a noticible issue for me. Apps scroll quickly and I am able to page left or right seamlessly.
I am using a late 2010 MBP, i5, 8GB RAM and I have no lagging issues with launchpad other than a slight delay opening folders. I don't use it much so it is not a noticible issue for me. Apps scroll quickly and I am able to page left or right seamlessly.
AidenShaw
Aug 26, 09:26 AM
What do you think about the rumours that a single socket Conroe thanks to it�s superior memory handling effiency (~70%?) compared to Xeons DB-Dimm�s lousy (~25?) might crush a dual socket Xeon in memory intesive tasks, like photoshop.
Have you heard seen any data on that one,exept the specuatlion on Anandtech?
It's nonsense, frankly.
It is speculation (or FUD) based on a single facet of the system design, without considering all of the factors that affect real application performance. (Remember when Apple was whining about the horrible "pipeline bubble" problem with the Pentium - meanwhile Pentiums and Xeons were benchmarking just fine against the Apples?)
Dell has submitted SPEC results for Woodcrest and Conroe systems, and they're virtually the same - with a very slight advantage to Conroe.
Megan Fox
Megan Fox
Have you heard seen any data on that one,exept the specuatlion on Anandtech?
It's nonsense, frankly.
It is speculation (or FUD) based on a single facet of the system design, without considering all of the factors that affect real application performance. (Remember when Apple was whining about the horrible "pipeline bubble" problem with the Pentium - meanwhile Pentiums and Xeons were benchmarking just fine against the Apples?)
Dell has submitted SPEC results for Woodcrest and Conroe systems, and they're virtually the same - with a very slight advantage to Conroe.
kilidar
Mar 28, 03:07 AM
Playing that game with the HDMI dongle thingy hanging off an iPad looks, um, not ideal. Now, if it could stream it using AirPlay.
its got to run on the apple tv, airplay has lag, the game runs on the atv and the ios devices are controllers. ATV3?
its got to run on the apple tv, airplay has lag, the game runs on the atv and the ios devices are controllers. ATV3?
imac_japan
Mar 19, 06:14 AM
WOMBAT indeed!
Look, you don't have to call people names....
I just wanted to state that Apple should go on the Attack !! If it's a wombat then you should go and see Apple's situation outside of America.
In Australia (where Im from), the market is dead ! Most Apple Stores are large and if you ive in the Country - they don't exist. The rest of Asia is like that.
In Japan (where I live), alot of people have an Ipod but NOT a Macintosh...
Apple needs to push the market to get more...
Look, you don't have to call people names....
I just wanted to state that Apple should go on the Attack !! If it's a wombat then you should go and see Apple's situation outside of America.
In Australia (where Im from), the market is dead ! Most Apple Stores are large and if you ive in the Country - they don't exist. The rest of Asia is like that.
In Japan (where I live), alot of people have an Ipod but NOT a Macintosh...
Apple needs to push the market to get more...
MacRumors
Nov 27, 01:08 PM
http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com)
Digitimes claims (http://www.digitimes.com/displays/a20061127PD208.html) that Apple is planning on launching a 17" Widescreen LCD" monitor "by year-end or the first quarter of 2007".
According to vendors cited by the article, 17" widescreen monitors will not necessarily be more expensive than the current 17" 4:3 models.
Apple previously had sold a 17" 4:3 ratio LCD until June when it revamped (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2004/06/20040628150739.shtml) their monitor line to what it stands today:
� 20" Cinema (1680x1050) - $699
� 23" Cinema HD (1920x1200) - $999
� 30" Cinema HD (2560x1600) - $1999
A 17" Widescreen LCD would fall in the bottom end of the monitor line. While intriguing, the report comes from Digitimes whose rumor reports have been historically inaccurate.
Digitimes claims (http://www.digitimes.com/displays/a20061127PD208.html) that Apple is planning on launching a 17" Widescreen LCD" monitor "by year-end or the first quarter of 2007".
According to vendors cited by the article, 17" widescreen monitors will not necessarily be more expensive than the current 17" 4:3 models.
Apple previously had sold a 17" 4:3 ratio LCD until June when it revamped (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2004/06/20040628150739.shtml) their monitor line to what it stands today:
� 20" Cinema (1680x1050) - $699
� 23" Cinema HD (1920x1200) - $999
� 30" Cinema HD (2560x1600) - $1999
A 17" Widescreen LCD would fall in the bottom end of the monitor line. While intriguing, the report comes from Digitimes whose rumor reports have been historically inaccurate.
Gem�tlichkeit
Apr 19, 11:27 AM
the 256gb drive is pushing it for my needs. A 320gb flash drive or better yet, a 500gb flash drive in one of these babies would have me drooling. If they can get the prices down is the big question. Might need another couple years for that to happen.
256 should be perfect. If you need more space I'd say invest in a NAT or just external drive.
I do a ton of iMovie editing of trips n such and with itunes + movies + TV show's i'm only pushing 150gb right now on my MBP.
256 should be perfect. If you need more space I'd say invest in a NAT or just external drive.
I do a ton of iMovie editing of trips n such and with itunes + movies + TV show's i'm only pushing 150gb right now on my MBP.
digitalbiker
Sep 6, 08:21 PM
Ironically I've been a longtime reader myself and just registered because of this article, though for exactly the opposite reason as you. :D
And yes I realize my complaints about a mid-range tower probably seem pointless to most. But the iMac just doesn't seem to meet my needs. I'm happy with my current dual monitors (which match in size and resolution) and I'd prefer more than a 128mb graphics card.
Moreover, I've been a Mac user since 1993 and never owned a single LCD-based Mac which didn't have a dead pixel. That's about seven Macs, including my current MacBook. Bad luck, I realize but I'm just not buying an all-in-one desktop from Apple. :p
You are not alone. I think there are a lot of Apple users right now who would love to see Apple release a mac-mini pro.
It would fill the niche between the all in one iMac and the MacPro.
It would be slightly larger than a mini. It would be Conroe based with socketed CPU for future upgrades. Include a graphics card slot with a choice of built to order high-end GPU options.It would have the output connections of the MacPro. It would also have room enough for a 300 GB HDD and DL Super-Drive.
The price would range 1199 - 1899 depending on the built to order options.
All in all, a sweet mini-mini tower with power enough for most, and the elegance to act as a HD video, audio , game machine, etc mult purpose machine.
And yes I realize my complaints about a mid-range tower probably seem pointless to most. But the iMac just doesn't seem to meet my needs. I'm happy with my current dual monitors (which match in size and resolution) and I'd prefer more than a 128mb graphics card.
Moreover, I've been a Mac user since 1993 and never owned a single LCD-based Mac which didn't have a dead pixel. That's about seven Macs, including my current MacBook. Bad luck, I realize but I'm just not buying an all-in-one desktop from Apple. :p
You are not alone. I think there are a lot of Apple users right now who would love to see Apple release a mac-mini pro.
It would fill the niche between the all in one iMac and the MacPro.
It would be slightly larger than a mini. It would be Conroe based with socketed CPU for future upgrades. Include a graphics card slot with a choice of built to order high-end GPU options.It would have the output connections of the MacPro. It would also have room enough for a 300 GB HDD and DL Super-Drive.
The price would range 1199 - 1899 depending on the built to order options.
All in all, a sweet mini-mini tower with power enough for most, and the elegance to act as a HD video, audio , game machine, etc mult purpose machine.
nemaslov
Mar 22, 06:55 PM
It's for people who are SERIOUS about music and would never listen to anything less then lossless (whenever possible).
macgeek18
Feb 21, 07:46 PM
Not concerned with the impending refresh? Or do you plan to return and rebuy post-refresh?
I bought an 08 MacBook Aluminum. So No i'm not concerned or care about the upcoming refresh.
I bought an 08 MacBook Aluminum. So No i'm not concerned or care about the upcoming refresh.
