ju5tin81
Oct 23, 03:21 PM
How exactly is Apple making a big deal out of small updates? The recent processor updates Apple has done (Core Duo to Core 2 Duo on the iMac and the speedbumped Core Duos on the MBP earlier this year) were quiet launches, with no announcements or hoopla at all really. The only real hoopla with the iMac was about the 24" screen, but it was certainly subdued. Hell, Apple made a bigger deal out of the Apple Hi-Fi.
The only people making a big deal out of it are ourselves.
Lets not also forget that the MacBook just appeared one day! A 'whole' Tuesday before the rumour sites thought it would. :rolleyes:
(With minimal fanfare)
The only people making a big deal out of it are ourselves.
Lets not also forget that the MacBook just appeared one day! A 'whole' Tuesday before the rumour sites thought it would. :rolleyes:
(With minimal fanfare)
aswitcher
Jan 11, 05:17 PM
like i submitted and you ignored completely...they are of the aluminum build which would make it appear to be on the PRO side. Why would they build something identical to the current macbook???
Because its not going to be identical.
Neither will have built in superdrive, but will have the same external model.
Pro machine will have additional stuff like backlit keyboard, FW800, graphics card. Probably be even smaller and lighter. Maybe have a touch screen.
They will be quite clearly different and $ differences as well.
Because its not going to be identical.
Neither will have built in superdrive, but will have the same external model.
Pro machine will have additional stuff like backlit keyboard, FW800, graphics card. Probably be even smaller and lighter. Maybe have a touch screen.
They will be quite clearly different and $ differences as well.
kidwithdimples
Feb 20, 03:39 PM
Who's the gal? ;)
She looks like Mila Kunis.
She looks like Mila Kunis.
osxhero
Apr 12, 09:31 PM
People detection or NSA spoofer code. People should have the right to turn this stuff off. Hope FCP doesn't impose it without an option to disable.
ten-oak-druid
Apr 26, 02:38 PM
I am a current law student who has concentrated in IP, particularly trademark law.
Can you please show me the trademark that was granted to Apple for App Store by the USPTO? You won't be able to find it because their trademark has not been approved. An opposition to their application was filed, if you didn't catch that from the text.
It was my understanding that Apple filed in 2008 and got some level of approval in early 2011. I imagine it is analogous to a "patent pending".
I imagine this case will then bear on the final full approval of the trademark.
Apple should file for "The App Store" in the interim as well as "appstore". The latter is used by amazon.
Can you please show me the trademark that was granted to Apple for App Store by the USPTO? You won't be able to find it because their trademark has not been approved. An opposition to their application was filed, if you didn't catch that from the text.
It was my understanding that Apple filed in 2008 and got some level of approval in early 2011. I imagine it is analogous to a "patent pending".
I imagine this case will then bear on the final full approval of the trademark.
Apple should file for "The App Store" in the interim as well as "appstore". The latter is used by amazon.
BlizzardBomb
Sep 1, 12:23 PM
Hmph...I don't really trust masOSXrumors at all...
You can trust AppleInsider though and they too have said 23" and Merom iMacs. Looks like pretty solid evidence now but we'll have to wait and see.
I wonder if it'll use the same poor quality 23" panel that the ACD does.
Well, if you like everything rose-tinted it's OK :p
New 23" displays do not have the pink tint.
You can trust AppleInsider though and they too have said 23" and Merom iMacs. Looks like pretty solid evidence now but we'll have to wait and see.
I wonder if it'll use the same poor quality 23" panel that the ACD does.
Well, if you like everything rose-tinted it's OK :p
New 23" displays do not have the pink tint.
appleguy123
Mar 20, 05:00 PM
No. Homeopathy does not require people to forgo medicine that actually works.
Of course it doesn't require it, just like Christianity doesn't require you to stop being gay. However, some who use homeopathy trust it more than modern medicine.
Also, I never intended to make a metaphor betweenhomeopathy and this app. I was saying that Apple cannot be worried about "medicine without a license" because they allow the homeopathy apps in the store.
Of course it doesn't require it, just like Christianity doesn't require you to stop being gay. However, some who use homeopathy trust it more than modern medicine.
Also, I never intended to make a metaphor betweenhomeopathy and this app. I was saying that Apple cannot be worried about "medicine without a license" because they allow the homeopathy apps in the store.
cozmot
Apr 26, 05:15 AM
Would feel the same way if it was Google or Microsoft or any other company?
Um, yes. My credit card companies have a real good idea of where I've been. Google stores my search data. My ISP knows where I go on the Net. But if the FBI is listening in on my phone conversations or reading my emails -- as they are known to have done *even* when a citizen is not a suspect in any scheme -- I have a problem with that. The Patriot Act is the real threat to our privacy.
Um, yes. My credit card companies have a real good idea of where I've been. Google stores my search data. My ISP knows where I go on the Net. But if the FBI is listening in on my phone conversations or reading my emails -- as they are known to have done *even* when a citizen is not a suspect in any scheme -- I have a problem with that. The Patriot Act is the real threat to our privacy.
Northgrove
Apr 21, 11:28 AM
Although this isn't stopping me from using my phone, I still think this is definitely the right move and I'm interested in hearing what Apple has to say about it, and hope they are pressured on this topic. As for Google: a) this discussion isn't about Google so that company is off-topic, and b) assuming it *was* about Google rather than Apple, I would have liked to see the same steps taken there.
Storing a user's whereabouts for the foreseeable future with no system to remove old data (like Google and other search companies does it, anonymizing data within 18-24 months) and not even tell your users about it is definitely not good. When data is collected that can compromise a user's privacy, they need to include details on this in their end-user agreement.
Storing a user's whereabouts for the foreseeable future with no system to remove old data (like Google and other search companies does it, anonymizing data within 18-24 months) and not even tell your users about it is definitely not good. When data is collected that can compromise a user's privacy, they need to include details on this in their end-user agreement.
peakchua
Jun 23, 10:12 AM
i hope that apple will not implement touch screen **** due to other companies pressure. i would make 2 series. imac touch which has ok specs and a touch screen and imac pro which is HIGH SPECS, BEAUTIFUL DISPLAY, and cheaper. personally, i would like touch to be INTEGRATED not with ibitchos layer. (sorry kinda pissed apple is all IPHONE!!) if a touchscreen must be used, do not implement ios since its such a smartphone based os.
nylonsteel
Mar 23, 10:17 AM
1 Terabyte Classic - not
Chef Medeski
Jul 14, 12:15 PM
As I said they aren't attacking the Consumer market because they have no Backing. Who can beat Sony when Sony pay's best buy to Disply the blue rays and HD-DVD no longer is displayed?
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn8370
This link says 2006
http://www.engadget.com/2005/04/18/inphase-announces-300gb-holographic-discs/
This says 2006 for 300 GBS/ 2009 for 1TB
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/11/24/maxell_holo_storage/
"Late 2006"
http://www.pcpro.co.uk/news/80850/holographic-discs-set-for-retail-next-year.html
2006...
http://www.techtree.com/techtree/jsp/article.jsp?article_id=69424&cat_id=581
2006...
http://www.layersmagazine.com/beta/article/holographic-discs-set-for-retail-next-year.html
2006...
http://news.softpedia.com/news/Optware-Announces-200GB-Holographic-Discs-for-2006-10859.shtml
2006 - for 200 gbs
http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1558,1785630,00.asp
2006...
http://www.computerworld.com/hardwaretopics/storage/story/0,10801,95446,00.html
2006... though this was written (2004) so...
http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/articleshow/1311642.cms
2006...
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1759,1821012,00.asp
2006..
From Wikipedia (your source) - "160 times the capacity of single-layer Blu-ray Discs, and about 8 times the capacity of standard computer hard drives with space that accounts for year 2006 standards. Optware is expected to release a 200 GB disc in early June of and Maxell in September 2006 with a capacity of 300 GB and transfer rate of 20 MB/sec [3] [4].
Selena Gomez and Justin Bieber
Camille on httpaf ffjustin ieber Tipe in oscars party cyrus selena gomez justin smooch with their Justin+ieber+and+selena+gomez+kissing+oscars+2011
selena gomez dating justin
Justinbieber kissing
mp3 free download, Justin
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn8370
This link says 2006
http://www.engadget.com/2005/04/18/inphase-announces-300gb-holographic-discs/
This says 2006 for 300 GBS/ 2009 for 1TB
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/11/24/maxell_holo_storage/
"Late 2006"
http://www.pcpro.co.uk/news/80850/holographic-discs-set-for-retail-next-year.html
2006...
http://www.techtree.com/techtree/jsp/article.jsp?article_id=69424&cat_id=581
2006...
http://www.layersmagazine.com/beta/article/holographic-discs-set-for-retail-next-year.html
2006...
http://news.softpedia.com/news/Optware-Announces-200GB-Holographic-Discs-for-2006-10859.shtml
2006 - for 200 gbs
http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1558,1785630,00.asp
2006...
http://www.computerworld.com/hardwaretopics/storage/story/0,10801,95446,00.html
2006... though this was written (2004) so...
http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/articleshow/1311642.cms
2006...
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1759,1821012,00.asp
2006..
From Wikipedia (your source) - "160 times the capacity of single-layer Blu-ray Discs, and about 8 times the capacity of standard computer hard drives with space that accounts for year 2006 standards. Optware is expected to release a 200 GB disc in early June of and Maxell in September 2006 with a capacity of 300 GB and transfer rate of 20 MB/sec [3] [4].
gkarris
Nov 27, 09:04 PM
IMAGINED?
Let's look at the facts.
20" Apple $699 - Dell $399
23" Apple $999 - Dell $799 (24")
30" Apple $1999 - Dell $1499
Those are real numbers. Dell has brighter specs, more connection options, and with the 23" they have a 24" that's still $200 cheaper.
What imaginary planet are you on? $300, $200, and $500 difference in price respectively. That's real money. And it pressures people into considering a Dell. (Bad Apple!) All you are really getting for those extra hundres of dollars is a display that looks nice with your mini, MBP, or MP.
You claim that Apple's monitors are selling well, but you have no facts to back that up. Apple doesn't post their sales numbers for products like this so you're just making it up. Those sales numbers could suck a$$ and you wouldn't know. And I believe they do suck, but Apple won't tell you that, it sucks because they want them to suck. Keep reading.
I believe Apple does this to encourage people to buy iMacs. If your willing to pony up $2400 or more on a Mac Pro then maybe an extra $500 doesn't bother you for the two 30" displays your going to use, and if all you can afford is mini Apple doesn't seem to mind you buying that Dell monitor. By pricing the monitors several hundred more than they are really worth, you are now in the iMac price range. I bet if you could see and add up the numbers, buying a mini and an over priced cinema display gives Apple the same profit margin as an iMac. Apple doesn't have a mid range tower. Again, because they want to sell you an iMac. By keeping their product line simple they reduce costs; making one widget as apposed to five different widgets is cheaper. But that limits choice.
I have an iMac, but I really don't want one. I want a mid-range tower and an external monitor. I'm not alone either. Apple's monitor price is a "choice incentive". It may help their bottom line, but it limits my choice. And since I hate Windows I'm forced into Apple's program. This is really what people are complaining about here. They want a mini and 20" cinema for under $1000, and I want a 23" and tower for under $2000, not a 24" iMac!
So, back to a 17" cinema. Why would Apple do this? I don't think they will. A 17" iMac is only $899. That's where they make their money, oh, and people like me willing to pay premium because we value esthetics.
Didn't you read this post and the article attached?
"but, that's not worth the extra dollars for me"
Ding-Ding-Ding! You answered all of your above complaints and whining about Apple's prices. You aren't the target audience for their displays.
(note: I would suggest you see my comp specs and gear below before reading my post further)
Perhaps it is an oversight of Apples that they sell both consumer and pro-sumer computers, and yet only offer a pro-sumer monitor. However considering that 2 of the 3 consumer computers by Apple have built in monitors, and the 3rd is meant to be used with exisiting mouse, keyboard and monitor, it may not be such a big deal.
Also, if you want cheaper, there exists cheaper. It's not as if Apple is robbing you of much needed options in montior selection by not offering a cheap monitor. Any monitor made today will work with your Mac. The only thing they are robbing you of is their design.
Now don't anyone bring up the "Apple is bad because of what I can get from Dell" topic again until you read this very carefully (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=252327)
.
In summery though, Apple uses a different, far more advanced color accurate panel for their monitors. This allows them certification that they pay for. They also pay someone with a design background to make the casing, and don't have the EE's do it like at some companies :rolleyes:
Now, back on topic :)
I was in the "Apple needs to make a 17" monitor" crowd for a long time. Than I bought a cheap 20" wide display, and I love it. I suppose with Photography and a few games here and there, there is a reason I'm inclined to now say I wouldn't use a smaller screen. But unless Apple wants to sell a consumer display (which they don't currently do), to be used with the Mac Mini, I really don't see much of a reason for Apple to do it. A pro-sumer 17" display is useless and pointless IMHO. If you have a 3 grand G5 doing professional graphics/video work, you aren't going to buy a pro-sumer 17" monitor for $400 :rolleyes:
That said, if Apple had offered a consumer level 20" wide monitor at a similar price point to Dells, I'd have bought it hands down.
It's clearly known that Apple monitors are pro quality and Dell ones are cheap consumer quality, hence the price difference...
Let's look at the facts.
20" Apple $699 - Dell $399
23" Apple $999 - Dell $799 (24")
30" Apple $1999 - Dell $1499
Those are real numbers. Dell has brighter specs, more connection options, and with the 23" they have a 24" that's still $200 cheaper.
What imaginary planet are you on? $300, $200, and $500 difference in price respectively. That's real money. And it pressures people into considering a Dell. (Bad Apple!) All you are really getting for those extra hundres of dollars is a display that looks nice with your mini, MBP, or MP.
You claim that Apple's monitors are selling well, but you have no facts to back that up. Apple doesn't post their sales numbers for products like this so you're just making it up. Those sales numbers could suck a$$ and you wouldn't know. And I believe they do suck, but Apple won't tell you that, it sucks because they want them to suck. Keep reading.
I believe Apple does this to encourage people to buy iMacs. If your willing to pony up $2400 or more on a Mac Pro then maybe an extra $500 doesn't bother you for the two 30" displays your going to use, and if all you can afford is mini Apple doesn't seem to mind you buying that Dell monitor. By pricing the monitors several hundred more than they are really worth, you are now in the iMac price range. I bet if you could see and add up the numbers, buying a mini and an over priced cinema display gives Apple the same profit margin as an iMac. Apple doesn't have a mid range tower. Again, because they want to sell you an iMac. By keeping their product line simple they reduce costs; making one widget as apposed to five different widgets is cheaper. But that limits choice.
I have an iMac, but I really don't want one. I want a mid-range tower and an external monitor. I'm not alone either. Apple's monitor price is a "choice incentive". It may help their bottom line, but it limits my choice. And since I hate Windows I'm forced into Apple's program. This is really what people are complaining about here. They want a mini and 20" cinema for under $1000, and I want a 23" and tower for under $2000, not a 24" iMac!
So, back to a 17" cinema. Why would Apple do this? I don't think they will. A 17" iMac is only $899. That's where they make their money, oh, and people like me willing to pay premium because we value esthetics.
Didn't you read this post and the article attached?
"but, that's not worth the extra dollars for me"
Ding-Ding-Ding! You answered all of your above complaints and whining about Apple's prices. You aren't the target audience for their displays.
(note: I would suggest you see my comp specs and gear below before reading my post further)
Perhaps it is an oversight of Apples that they sell both consumer and pro-sumer computers, and yet only offer a pro-sumer monitor. However considering that 2 of the 3 consumer computers by Apple have built in monitors, and the 3rd is meant to be used with exisiting mouse, keyboard and monitor, it may not be such a big deal.
Also, if you want cheaper, there exists cheaper. It's not as if Apple is robbing you of much needed options in montior selection by not offering a cheap monitor. Any monitor made today will work with your Mac. The only thing they are robbing you of is their design.
Now don't anyone bring up the "Apple is bad because of what I can get from Dell" topic again until you read this very carefully (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=252327)
.
In summery though, Apple uses a different, far more advanced color accurate panel for their monitors. This allows them certification that they pay for. They also pay someone with a design background to make the casing, and don't have the EE's do it like at some companies :rolleyes:
Now, back on topic :)
I was in the "Apple needs to make a 17" monitor" crowd for a long time. Than I bought a cheap 20" wide display, and I love it. I suppose with Photography and a few games here and there, there is a reason I'm inclined to now say I wouldn't use a smaller screen. But unless Apple wants to sell a consumer display (which they don't currently do), to be used with the Mac Mini, I really don't see much of a reason for Apple to do it. A pro-sumer 17" display is useless and pointless IMHO. If you have a 3 grand G5 doing professional graphics/video work, you aren't going to buy a pro-sumer 17" monitor for $400 :rolleyes:
That said, if Apple had offered a consumer level 20" wide monitor at a similar price point to Dells, I'd have bought it hands down.
It's clearly known that Apple monitors are pro quality and Dell ones are cheap consumer quality, hence the price difference...
Mobster Sauce
Apr 2, 07:08 PM
Nicely done.
drewyboy
May 2, 04:47 PM
No, Microsoft have not got it right. There should be not need for a specific tool to uninstall applications. applications should be self-contained and be deletable with the press of a button�
Amen my brother!!! Preach it!
Amen my brother!!! Preach it!
LumbermanSVO
Apr 12, 09:02 PM
I drive a non-syncronised 10-speed stick with a hellacious clutch pedal 6-days a week, or about 105k miles a year. Even the worst backing situations, where I'm feathering the clutch a LOT, aren't enough to get my leg tired anymore. The clutch pedals in most cars feels like stepping on a rotten plumb to me now.
With enough time you can learn to float the gears(clutchless shifting) with any manual transmission, yes, even the synchronized ones. Once you learn it you'll find that it takes less force to get it in gear than when you use the clutch. Most of my missed shifts in the big truck or the car are from my hand slipping off the lever from having too loose of a grip on.
Even after all the time in the big truck I still prefer my personal vehicles to have a manual. I did just buy a car with an auto though, but at $825 you can't be too picky about what trans it has. :D
With enough time you can learn to float the gears(clutchless shifting) with any manual transmission, yes, even the synchronized ones. Once you learn it you'll find that it takes less force to get it in gear than when you use the clutch. Most of my missed shifts in the big truck or the car are from my hand slipping off the lever from having too loose of a grip on.
Even after all the time in the big truck I still prefer my personal vehicles to have a manual. I did just buy a car with an auto though, but at $825 you can't be too picky about what trans it has. :D
macidiot
Jul 19, 04:15 PM
Wait till next quarter when the MacPro line-up comes out and new iPods etc..
justin bieber and selena gomez
Justin Bieber amp; Selena Gomez
evilgEEk
Sep 8, 08:01 PM
Number of posts in this thread seem to indicate that this update has been underwhelming
Well, the update certainly wasn't jaw-dropping, it was just a normal product cycle update. So in comparison to the new CPU's in the iMac, oh, and the whole 24" screen business, the mini update kind of pales in comparison.
That said, I did buy one today from CompUSA! :D I was very surprised that they had them in already, they even got some of the new low end iMacs yesterday, no 24 inchers yet.
So now my office will be pleasantly furnished with a new Mac mini, wireless keyboard and Mighty Mouse. Everyone else in the building runs Windows (although a few have ACD's), but it shouldn't be too difficult to convert them once they see my little powerhouse of a mini. My boss was already blown away when I showed it to him, he called in three other people to look at it.
Fish in a barrel, my friends. ;)
Well, the update certainly wasn't jaw-dropping, it was just a normal product cycle update. So in comparison to the new CPU's in the iMac, oh, and the whole 24" screen business, the mini update kind of pales in comparison.
That said, I did buy one today from CompUSA! :D I was very surprised that they had them in already, they even got some of the new low end iMacs yesterday, no 24 inchers yet.
So now my office will be pleasantly furnished with a new Mac mini, wireless keyboard and Mighty Mouse. Everyone else in the building runs Windows (although a few have ACD's), but it shouldn't be too difficult to convert them once they see my little powerhouse of a mini. My boss was already blown away when I showed it to him, he called in three other people to look at it.
Fish in a barrel, my friends. ;)
AidenShaw
Nov 15, 11:59 AM
well, OSX whooped xp for multicore usage then
On pyMol, yes.
If you look at the full article, XP bested OSX on several other programs.
Pretty much even, overall.
They don't report software versions or other useful details (like how many FB-DIMMs in the systems), so any of the "wins" and "losses" could easily be differences in software versions (is pyMol OSX exactly the same version, compiled with the same optimizations on the same compiler?) or other details.
For example, what if pyMol on OSx86 is optimized for Core and later chips, and the XP version is optimized for Pentium III systems (and doesn't take advantage of Pentium 4 and Core 2 improvements)? If that's that case, is not fair to say OSX is faster than XP - although it's clearly reasonable to state that OSX is a faster choice for pyMol.
On pyMol, yes.
If you look at the full article, XP bested OSX on several other programs.
Pretty much even, overall.
They don't report software versions or other useful details (like how many FB-DIMMs in the systems), so any of the "wins" and "losses" could easily be differences in software versions (is pyMol OSX exactly the same version, compiled with the same optimizations on the same compiler?) or other details.
For example, what if pyMol on OSx86 is optimized for Core and later chips, and the XP version is optimized for Pentium III systems (and doesn't take advantage of Pentium 4 and Core 2 improvements)? If that's that case, is not fair to say OSX is faster than XP - although it's clearly reasonable to state that OSX is a faster choice for pyMol.
MaxMike
Nov 27, 12:17 PM
Thanks to Black Friday, I ended up with...
-LG Blu-Ray Player
-HDMI Switch
-The Hangover on Blu-Ray
-Grown Ups on Blu-Ray
-HDMI Cable
-Need for Speed Hot Pursuit
-A hard drive cover for my HP tablet I got for free
-LG Blu-Ray Player
-HDMI Switch
-The Hangover on Blu-Ray
-Grown Ups on Blu-Ray
-HDMI Cable
-Need for Speed Hot Pursuit
-A hard drive cover for my HP tablet I got for free
benjs
Apr 12, 10:05 PM
Well i'll tell you this FCP 5 (floating around in places i won't mention) is around 1.5 GB so If it is on the App store It will be 1 BIG download for me.
(3 Mbps cable line here)
The App Store should really harness the power of torrent technology for files like this.
(3 Mbps cable line here)
The App Store should really harness the power of torrent technology for files like this.
jxyama
Mar 19, 11:11 AM
You take the low end model, subtract the cost for the monitor and you have a computer that is sitting in the $500.00 - $600.00 range. Many people already have monitors and if not, you can find a decent one for relatively low cost.
since CRT monitors cost next to nothing these days, eMac price can't be lowered that much even if it was headless. that will just eat into the profits. and why give the money for the monitor to other companies?
apparently, apple's marketing dept. has concluded that the sale of AIO units with bigger margin turns more profit than that can be expected from increased sale of headless units with smaller margin. and as long as apple's profitable, there's no reason to argue that their strategy is wrong...
eMac and iMac are for people who want to take home a box, open it up, plug in the power and start using them. they are NOT meant for people who want the absolute cheapest computers. right now, apple is not interested in making that kind of "cheapest" computers... nor has they ever been. the only time that happened was when they allowed clones and that certainly went nowhere because Macs were suddenly a commodity and apple took a major hit as "premium" hardware company.
mind you, apple could change their mind and offer such a headless machine in the future, if their dept. sees that the computer market is changing. so while you may well be 100% correct in principle, apple hasn't had to or is yet to find a reason to offer such a headless.
since CRT monitors cost next to nothing these days, eMac price can't be lowered that much even if it was headless. that will just eat into the profits. and why give the money for the monitor to other companies?
apparently, apple's marketing dept. has concluded that the sale of AIO units with bigger margin turns more profit than that can be expected from increased sale of headless units with smaller margin. and as long as apple's profitable, there's no reason to argue that their strategy is wrong...
eMac and iMac are for people who want to take home a box, open it up, plug in the power and start using them. they are NOT meant for people who want the absolute cheapest computers. right now, apple is not interested in making that kind of "cheapest" computers... nor has they ever been. the only time that happened was when they allowed clones and that certainly went nowhere because Macs were suddenly a commodity and apple took a major hit as "premium" hardware company.
mind you, apple could change their mind and offer such a headless machine in the future, if their dept. sees that the computer market is changing. so while you may well be 100% correct in principle, apple hasn't had to or is yet to find a reason to offer such a headless.
RebootD
Apr 12, 09:04 PM
Ugh wish there was a live feed.. I'm following @fcpsupermeet but it's just text
Angrisano
Sep 6, 07:40 PM
I'm a bit disappointed by this latest update as well. I'm still waiting for a headless Mac that will support my 19 inch dual monitors for under $2K. I recently built a nice Shuttle mini PC (not much bigger than the mini) with a P4 3ghz processor, 2gb ram, 250gb hard drive, 256mb graphics card and Litescribe DVD burner all for under $500.
Now I don't expect to pay so little for so much when buying a Mac. In fact I'm willing to pay double for the same specs. The trouble is, right now in Apple's line up you simply can't do it. Where is our mid-range expandable tower? I don't need all the power of the quad Xeon and my pocketbook doesn't need to pay that price.
I just want a decent middle of the road, expandable Mac for around $1K. I can build two really nice PCs for this price. Why can't I get one Mac?
Now I don't expect to pay so little for so much when buying a Mac. In fact I'm willing to pay double for the same specs. The trouble is, right now in Apple's line up you simply can't do it. Where is our mid-range expandable tower? I don't need all the power of the quad Xeon and my pocketbook doesn't need to pay that price.
I just want a decent middle of the road, expandable Mac for around $1K. I can build two really nice PCs for this price. Why can't I get one Mac?
