Sounds Good
Apr 10, 09:24 PM
Not that this really matters much, but just for the record:
I was one of the first to own the original iPhone and have an iPhone 4 now. I bought an iPhone 4 for my wife and an iPod Touch for my son. I got my mom an iPad and I'm about to buy one for myself. So I'm certainly not anti-Apple. I'm just not sure I see a clear advantage FOR ME to get a Mac computer over a Windows machine.
But, who knows... maybe some day.
I was one of the first to own the original iPhone and have an iPhone 4 now. I bought an iPhone 4 for my wife and an iPod Touch for my son. I got my mom an iPad and I'm about to buy one for myself. So I'm certainly not anti-Apple. I'm just not sure I see a clear advantage FOR ME to get a Mac computer over a Windows machine.
But, who knows... maybe some day.
paulvee
Oct 26, 10:59 AM
I'm actually pretty thrilled with my new Dual 3.0 Xeon. Should hold me in good stead for a couple of years of heavy video crunching and motion graphics, as well as photoshop once it goes native. In the meantime, I use my Dual G5 2.0 for that.
And when the Octos get updated in a year and a half, I can be the first to jump on that bandwagon.
And when the Octos get updated in a year and a half, I can be the first to jump on that bandwagon.
bedifferent
May 2, 04:59 PM
My head hurts� everyone needs a time out! Go to your corners! :p
Piggie
Apr 9, 07:15 PM
You raise an interesting point, but would holding an iPad with a gamepad around it really be that comfortable?
I can think of two reasons why it wouldn't be:
Device weight and the distance at which you'd have to hold it for it to be usable. iPad is 601g - holding that at arm's length or thereabouts while trying to concentrate on a game could be quite difficult, especially for younger users. It's almost three times the weight of a Nintendo DSi.
Sorry, perhaps you misunderstand what I mean.
I mean a separate hand held controller. Not connected to the iPad at all.
You have the iPad on a stand, angled up a bit like a monitor, or tilted up like the smart cover does, or laying on your knees, and you are holding the controller in your hands nowhere near the screen.
You can have your hands relaxed wherever you want them to be, and your iPad is your gaming screen.
Note: I'm not suggesting this for a mobile gaming experience when you are on the move. That's why I don't think there would any point really in this type of option on an iPhone or Touch as they are more "on the move" devices, you pull out your pocket and play for a few minutes.
The iPad is a more home device, a chill out on the sofa or on the bed ect device, and in these scenarios you would be able to prop up the screen with anything your like and get your controller out if you wished to.
Again, no-one would be forcing you, it would just be an option.
I can think of two reasons why it wouldn't be:
Device weight and the distance at which you'd have to hold it for it to be usable. iPad is 601g - holding that at arm's length or thereabouts while trying to concentrate on a game could be quite difficult, especially for younger users. It's almost three times the weight of a Nintendo DSi.
Sorry, perhaps you misunderstand what I mean.
I mean a separate hand held controller. Not connected to the iPad at all.
You have the iPad on a stand, angled up a bit like a monitor, or tilted up like the smart cover does, or laying on your knees, and you are holding the controller in your hands nowhere near the screen.
You can have your hands relaxed wherever you want them to be, and your iPad is your gaming screen.
Note: I'm not suggesting this for a mobile gaming experience when you are on the move. That's why I don't think there would any point really in this type of option on an iPhone or Touch as they are more "on the move" devices, you pull out your pocket and play for a few minutes.
The iPad is a more home device, a chill out on the sofa or on the bed ect device, and in these scenarios you would be able to prop up the screen with anything your like and get your controller out if you wished to.
Again, no-one would be forcing you, it would just be an option.
BettBee
Jun 7, 03:27 PM
They should also RUSH the micro cell to all markets immediately, and GIVE it to people! Seriously.. for the money we pay, they should GIVE the microcell away to anyone on AT&T who will take it. It will relieve pressure on their network and possibly save them from additional towers.
The device is cheap comparatively .. and we are the ones who are paying for the internet connection that it utilizes! For the nearly $6,000 I've given AT&T over the last 3 years (we have 3 iPhones on a plan) I think it's only fair they give us a service that at the very least they are trying to improve.
I would love it, and it would indeed be only fair for ATT to give the micro cell to folks who don't get decent service, but they are not concerned with fairness. Anyone who has had ATT for awhile knows that. All the [expletive deleted]s had to do was allow the service to suck where they could get away with it by stinting on towers and service, then offer the device everyone wants, but let it suck because of the terrible service. So now they come along with another bit of tech for us to pay them for, plus monthly baksheesh to make it work as it should. Brilliant effing strategy on ATT's part.
God I hate ATT.
The device is cheap comparatively .. and we are the ones who are paying for the internet connection that it utilizes! For the nearly $6,000 I've given AT&T over the last 3 years (we have 3 iPhones on a plan) I think it's only fair they give us a service that at the very least they are trying to improve.
I would love it, and it would indeed be only fair for ATT to give the micro cell to folks who don't get decent service, but they are not concerned with fairness. Anyone who has had ATT for awhile knows that. All the [expletive deleted]s had to do was allow the service to suck where they could get away with it by stinting on towers and service, then offer the device everyone wants, but let it suck because of the terrible service. So now they come along with another bit of tech for us to pay them for, plus monthly baksheesh to make it work as it should. Brilliant effing strategy on ATT's part.
God I hate ATT.
Backtothemac
Oct 10, 02:41 PM
Originally posted by benixau
maybe, anyway I tell my buddies that a mac works. It is great to have all that speed but here is a thought:
I have a PC that is really 5x as fast as a mac
I spend 5x as long setting it up as i do the mac
I am also 5x less productive on it then a mac as it keeps breaking
I may not be a great mathematician but 5x5 = 25. 25x less usable than a mac. Personal experience proves this.
Long Live King Mac!! Long Live King Mac!!
For the dark side to wonder at how easy I get my life done
There someone in this thread actually gets it. Sure the PC may be faster, SO FRIGGIN WHAT! I will never go back to a PC, and do not know a single Mac user that really would. Sure we bitch and moan, but the fact is that we know that we are on a much better platform!
maybe, anyway I tell my buddies that a mac works. It is great to have all that speed but here is a thought:
I have a PC that is really 5x as fast as a mac
I spend 5x as long setting it up as i do the mac
I am also 5x less productive on it then a mac as it keeps breaking
I may not be a great mathematician but 5x5 = 25. 25x less usable than a mac. Personal experience proves this.
Long Live King Mac!! Long Live King Mac!!
For the dark side to wonder at how easy I get my life done
There someone in this thread actually gets it. Sure the PC may be faster, SO FRIGGIN WHAT! I will never go back to a PC, and do not know a single Mac user that really would. Sure we bitch and moan, but the fact is that we know that we are on a much better platform!
skunk
Apr 24, 06:20 PM
The muslim extremists in my country always get supported by those who call themselves "moderate muslims". Probably because of some "solidarity" (blind obedience) code within the ummah. When they gang up together like that on controversial issues, it's very easy to see them all as extremists. That's how they strive to appear, even when they're not.That's the trouble with the Word of God�: it's just not negotiable. 7th century rules.
TheRealTVGuy
Mar 18, 01:56 AM
So if you're sticking at 4.1.0 and they aren't monitoring, then they should be monitoring 3.x even less, no?
All the more reason for me to stick with 3.1.3 on my 3G.
BL.
Wow... was multi-tasking supported that early, or did we not get that until 4.0. It's early here in Florida and I can't remember.
But hey, if its working for you... go with it!
All the more reason for me to stick with 3.1.3 on my 3G.
BL.
Wow... was multi-tasking supported that early, or did we not get that until 4.0. It's early here in Florida and I can't remember.
But hey, if its working for you... go with it!
iMikeT
Sep 12, 04:14 PM
A sneak peak of a rumored product from Apple?:eek:
Eso
Mar 18, 07:19 AM
Additional tethering charge on an unlimited data plan: justified.
Additional tethering charge on a limited data plan: not justified.
I don't care what contract you've signed, any court would agree.
Additional tethering charge on a limited data plan: not justified.
I don't care what contract you've signed, any court would agree.
Multimedia
Oct 21, 10:03 AM
lmao and just to add, DAMN that is alot of coresNot if you use applications that are Core Hogs. Compressing video with Toast uses up to 4 cores per instance. Compressing video with Handbrake uses up to 3 cores per instance. So, no, it's not a lot of cores at all and I will be buying a 16 core then a 32 core Mac Pro the day they ship as well. :eek:
skunk
Apr 23, 05:25 PM
I'm not cool enough to be an Atheist... :eek:Give it time.
bobr1952
May 2, 11:40 AM
I turned off automatically open safe files years ago in Tiger and have migrated that setting over since.
I too turned this feature off a long time ago--but still--this seems like a feature Apple needs to get rid of in Safari--not all that useful and potentially dangerous to unsuspecting users.
I too turned this feature off a long time ago--but still--this seems like a feature Apple needs to get rid of in Safari--not all that useful and potentially dangerous to unsuspecting users.
Aduntu
Apr 22, 11:55 PM
The whole point is that it is not a single "bang." You're trying to conflate how most people view their god with how people conceptualize science. They simply aren't the same.
It's easy to relate to a single term for everything when that one thing, according to your beliefs, is the answer to everything. It's nearly impossible to do that when the answers to your questions are varied and specific.
Only the scientifically illiterate relate "bang" to "origin of life."
No one is concluding that there was a single "bang," and I'm certainly not conflating anything. "Bang" is a metaphor, and no one is relating it to the "origin of life." You're trying inflate your own ego and place your "scientific literacy" on display here by arguing a point that no one is questioning.
It's easy to relate to a single term for everything when that one thing, according to your beliefs, is the answer to everything. It's nearly impossible to do that when the answers to your questions are varied and specific.
Only the scientifically illiterate relate "bang" to "origin of life."
No one is concluding that there was a single "bang," and I'm certainly not conflating anything. "Bang" is a metaphor, and no one is relating it to the "origin of life." You're trying inflate your own ego and place your "scientific literacy" on display here by arguing a point that no one is questioning.
chirpie
Apr 13, 11:40 AM
I'm not too familiar with the FC app, but I'm wondering if this FCSX is the newer version of the previous $999 application... Why'd they drop the price by ~$700?
That's not quite right.
The $999 application wasn't just an application, it was a suite of applications.
Motion, Compressor, Soundtrack Pro, DVD Studio Pro... all of these apps were part of that $999 umbrella.
That's why I'm surprised people are amazed by the price... it used to be this price when it was standalone a few years back.
That's not quite right.
The $999 application wasn't just an application, it was a suite of applications.
Motion, Compressor, Soundtrack Pro, DVD Studio Pro... all of these apps were part of that $999 umbrella.
That's why I'm surprised people are amazed by the price... it used to be this price when it was standalone a few years back.
KnightWRX
May 2, 09:05 AM
WOW! Malware that requires the user to do a Google search, then download, and install. For all of this, it asks for your credit card number.
How can we ever defend our computers against such a diabolical threat?!
Hum, download and install are automatic. Good thing I don't use Safari.
As I understand it, Safari will open the zip file since it's a "safe" download. But that doesn't mean it'll execute the code within that zip file, so how is this malware executing without user permission?
I haven't seen this malware first hand, but a zip file can be made with absolute paths, making "unzipping" the file put everything where it needs to be to start up automatically on next log in/reboot.
Who's the brainiac who made zip files "safe" ?
so much for the no malware on macs myth :D
funny how the apple fanboys are getting all defensive :rolleyes:
No viruses on the Mac. There's been malware for OS X for quite a while now.
How can we ever defend our computers against such a diabolical threat?!
Hum, download and install are automatic. Good thing I don't use Safari.
As I understand it, Safari will open the zip file since it's a "safe" download. But that doesn't mean it'll execute the code within that zip file, so how is this malware executing without user permission?
I haven't seen this malware first hand, but a zip file can be made with absolute paths, making "unzipping" the file put everything where it needs to be to start up automatically on next log in/reboot.
Who's the brainiac who made zip files "safe" ?
so much for the no malware on macs myth :D
funny how the apple fanboys are getting all defensive :rolleyes:
No viruses on the Mac. There's been malware for OS X for quite a while now.
NT1440
Mar 16, 01:39 PM
I'm glad you understand the nuclear is a good solution. You're a bit off base regarding drilling though...
First, the 10+ years argument is pointless. Think about it. If after 9/11 we would have started drilling, started seeking out more domestic energy, we'd be producing a ton more of it today (10 years later) and our prices would be less affected by unrest in the middle east today. We'd be more secure today. We'd have a less hawkish view of war in the midwest today. Something good taking a few years to develop is not a reason to not do it.
Second, the U.S. has HUGE untapped deposits of oil, coal, and especially natural gas. And as the facts prove, it's a VERY viable fuel source.
Third, we do in fact have the resources to provide for our own society. Expand nuclear, expand oil, expand coal, expand natural gas, expand biofuels, keep investing in promising new alternatives (private investment, not government) and we could get to energy independence in probably 10 years or less. The only reason we're not doing it is because of burdensome government regulations and the fact that other countries can produce it cheaply. As prices rise, one of those issues becomes moot... Also, for the record, just because we could do it, doesn't necessarily mean we should. The free market should determine this. IF we're willing to pay more for American fuel, then so be it. If not, we'll continue buying from others... but don't let the government manipulate the markets and destroy common sense capitalism.
First off, the past is the past on this topic. Drilling ten years ago may mean some slight impact on oil prices domestically now, but again, the infrastructure would just be finally settling into place. It's neither here nor there.
Yes this country does have massive amounts of resources...but that doesn't mean they make sense both environmentally and economically (not to mention that we simply could not meet domestic demand with what we have). Much of the natural gas is tough to get to, and we've seen the major issues techniques such as "fracking" lead to.
Our biggest untapped oil is what is called shale oil, and it is extremely energy intensive to make it even remotely usable, so thats a lost cause to begin with.
Also, I find it odd that you'd argue for more oil production here as a means to drive the price down. Oil is sold on the international market, which is what sets the cost for it. Unless you want to artificially exclude it from that market and keep and use it exclusively in the USA our oil production wouldn't effect the international prices as we have far less of it. If you are in favor of keeping and using it exclusively here on the other hand, well thats not much of a free market approach now is it.
Simply put, just because we have something on paper, doesn't mean that it is an economically, environmentally, or logistically viable.
First, the 10+ years argument is pointless. Think about it. If after 9/11 we would have started drilling, started seeking out more domestic energy, we'd be producing a ton more of it today (10 years later) and our prices would be less affected by unrest in the middle east today. We'd be more secure today. We'd have a less hawkish view of war in the midwest today. Something good taking a few years to develop is not a reason to not do it.
Second, the U.S. has HUGE untapped deposits of oil, coal, and especially natural gas. And as the facts prove, it's a VERY viable fuel source.
Third, we do in fact have the resources to provide for our own society. Expand nuclear, expand oil, expand coal, expand natural gas, expand biofuels, keep investing in promising new alternatives (private investment, not government) and we could get to energy independence in probably 10 years or less. The only reason we're not doing it is because of burdensome government regulations and the fact that other countries can produce it cheaply. As prices rise, one of those issues becomes moot... Also, for the record, just because we could do it, doesn't necessarily mean we should. The free market should determine this. IF we're willing to pay more for American fuel, then so be it. If not, we'll continue buying from others... but don't let the government manipulate the markets and destroy common sense capitalism.
First off, the past is the past on this topic. Drilling ten years ago may mean some slight impact on oil prices domestically now, but again, the infrastructure would just be finally settling into place. It's neither here nor there.
Yes this country does have massive amounts of resources...but that doesn't mean they make sense both environmentally and economically (not to mention that we simply could not meet domestic demand with what we have). Much of the natural gas is tough to get to, and we've seen the major issues techniques such as "fracking" lead to.
Our biggest untapped oil is what is called shale oil, and it is extremely energy intensive to make it even remotely usable, so thats a lost cause to begin with.
Also, I find it odd that you'd argue for more oil production here as a means to drive the price down. Oil is sold on the international market, which is what sets the cost for it. Unless you want to artificially exclude it from that market and keep and use it exclusively in the USA our oil production wouldn't effect the international prices as we have far less of it. If you are in favor of keeping and using it exclusively here on the other hand, well thats not much of a free market approach now is it.
Simply put, just because we have something on paper, doesn't mean that it is an economically, environmentally, or logistically viable.
dethmaShine
May 2, 10:12 AM
To the end user it makes no difference. It's fine if you know, but to a novice quickly correcting them on the difference between a virus, a trojan, or whatever else contributes approximately zero percent towards solving the problem.
I'd say a social engineering attack is worse than a virus, because social engineering attacks succeed far more often than viruses do. Glass is half full.
I have no idea how this is relevant to anything I've brought up. "I agree."
From one of your posts:
The vast majority of users don't differentiate between "virus", "trojan", "phishing e-mail", or any other terminology when they are actually referring to malware as "anything I don't want on my machine.
What I am trying to say that there needs to be awareness and if a person cannot differentiate, then its his/her problem.
I'd say a social engineering attack is worse than a virus, because social engineering attacks succeed far more often than viruses do. Glass is half full.
I have no idea how this is relevant to anything I've brought up. "I agree."
From one of your posts:
The vast majority of users don't differentiate between "virus", "trojan", "phishing e-mail", or any other terminology when they are actually referring to malware as "anything I don't want on my machine.
What I am trying to say that there needs to be awareness and if a person cannot differentiate, then its his/her problem.
Eidorian
Jul 12, 02:11 PM
If they can put that BURNING G5 into iMac, why not the Conroe?
Putting 65 W hot processor in iMac enclosure isn't that difficult.Someone posted the BURNING G5's (970FX) wattage. Does anyone remember it?
Edit: I'm getting 970FX wattages ranging from 25-47 watts.
Putting 65 W hot processor in iMac enclosure isn't that difficult.Someone posted the BURNING G5's (970FX) wattage. Does anyone remember it?
Edit: I'm getting 970FX wattages ranging from 25-47 watts.
takao
Mar 13, 04:40 PM
I wouldn't be so smug if I was you. Looks like Austria uses over 60% imported oil and gas for electricity manufacture (http://ec.europa.eu/energy/energy_policy/doc/factsheets/mix/mix_at_en.pdf)... that Persian Gulf political turmoil must be pretty exciting for you guys, yes? Probably costly too.
You're also reliant on those nice people in Russia to keep their natural gas pipelines open (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russia–Ukraine_gas_disputes), aren't you... being land-locked and all.
you know what actually is costly ? the US policies in regard to Iran: it actually prevented developing the south iranian gas fields for use for european earth gas users since the US embargoes any company doing business with iran in excess of 10 million dollar ... and because of the US preventing alternative sources we are depending on Russia which had been a consistent supplier for more than half a century
nice distraction from your own argument ... where is the terror and war in which austria is involved because of the lack of nuclear energy ?
i would rather claim that nuclear power plants, construction of such powerplants, nuclear fuel production etc. bring forward a lot more international conflict
You're also reliant on those nice people in Russia to keep their natural gas pipelines open (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russia–Ukraine_gas_disputes), aren't you... being land-locked and all.
you know what actually is costly ? the US policies in regard to Iran: it actually prevented developing the south iranian gas fields for use for european earth gas users since the US embargoes any company doing business with iran in excess of 10 million dollar ... and because of the US preventing alternative sources we are depending on Russia which had been a consistent supplier for more than half a century
nice distraction from your own argument ... where is the terror and war in which austria is involved because of the lack of nuclear energy ?
i would rather claim that nuclear power plants, construction of such powerplants, nuclear fuel production etc. bring forward a lot more international conflict
firestarter
Mar 13, 03:34 PM
That is not true at all,it's not a binary choice.As I've said before the most effective answer in the short term is to stop wasting energy unnecessarily.
Let me guess, that involves overturning governments and the acceptance of a pastoral lifestyle based on Anarcho-Marxism, right?
http://www.npc.org/Study_Topic_Papers/25-TTG-Nuclear-Power.pdf
That study (by the 'National Petroleum Council') is interesting. They suggest that increased nuclear use offsets coal use, as they're both 'base load' providers, with oil/gas topping off supply peaks. A few comments about it that I'd make:
- It's talking about a scenario with nuclear energy. I was arguing with a 'no nuclear' advocate. While the point the paper makes (that nuclear offsets coal) is an interesting one that may be valid, the reverse (that the removal of nuclear would not increase oil/gas use) assumption cannot be made.
- In the UK at least, gas power stations are being used for base load generation. (http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/26eb22d6-fe52-11de-9340-00144feab49a.html#axzz1GVurvRcH) This scenario isn't considered in the paper's 'coal offsetting' stance.
- The cost/benefit of oil/gas is not made, and the scenario of peak oil (http://www.businessinsider.com/wikileaks-peak-oil-is-real-2011-2)is not covered.
- No discussion about alternatives to oil/gas for peak provision takes place. Vehicle to grid (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vehicle-to-grid) (for example) is likely to be much more viable in 20 years time.
Let me guess, that involves overturning governments and the acceptance of a pastoral lifestyle based on Anarcho-Marxism, right?
http://www.npc.org/Study_Topic_Papers/25-TTG-Nuclear-Power.pdf
That study (by the 'National Petroleum Council') is interesting. They suggest that increased nuclear use offsets coal use, as they're both 'base load' providers, with oil/gas topping off supply peaks. A few comments about it that I'd make:
- It's talking about a scenario with nuclear energy. I was arguing with a 'no nuclear' advocate. While the point the paper makes (that nuclear offsets coal) is an interesting one that may be valid, the reverse (that the removal of nuclear would not increase oil/gas use) assumption cannot be made.
- In the UK at least, gas power stations are being used for base load generation. (http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/26eb22d6-fe52-11de-9340-00144feab49a.html#axzz1GVurvRcH) This scenario isn't considered in the paper's 'coal offsetting' stance.
- The cost/benefit of oil/gas is not made, and the scenario of peak oil (http://www.businessinsider.com/wikileaks-peak-oil-is-real-2011-2)is not covered.
- No discussion about alternatives to oil/gas for peak provision takes place. Vehicle to grid (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vehicle-to-grid) (for example) is likely to be much more viable in 20 years time.
firestarter
Mar 14, 06:51 PM
As someone already mentioned, mining uranium isn't "green". Dealing with radioactive waste isn't "green". Releasing heated water back into the environment isn't "green".
Fission itself may not produce greenhouse gases, but calling nuclear power "green" seems like quite a stretch.
(I have to correct my quote (http://www.ecolo.org/media/articles/articles.in.english/love-indep-24-05-04.htm)... he described Nuclear as the only Green solution, not the only green choice - but the meaning is equivalent)
To answer you citizenzen:
1/ Perhaps you should take your complaint up with James Lovelock. I'm quoting him - I don't recall calling Nuclear energy 'Green'.
2/ Your English comprehension could be better. Calling Nuclear 'The only Green Solution' (or Choice) is NOT calling it Green. The opinion piece merely points out that hydrocarbon burning is LESS Green. See the difference?
Fission itself may not produce greenhouse gases, but calling nuclear power "green" seems like quite a stretch.
(I have to correct my quote (http://www.ecolo.org/media/articles/articles.in.english/love-indep-24-05-04.htm)... he described Nuclear as the only Green solution, not the only green choice - but the meaning is equivalent)
To answer you citizenzen:
1/ Perhaps you should take your complaint up with James Lovelock. I'm quoting him - I don't recall calling Nuclear energy 'Green'.
2/ Your English comprehension could be better. Calling Nuclear 'The only Green Solution' (or Choice) is NOT calling it Green. The opinion piece merely points out that hydrocarbon burning is LESS Green. See the difference?
Evangelion
Jul 13, 08:55 AM
Fine - use the E6400 which is $224 in bulk or the E6600 which is $316 @ 2.6Ghz. The point is I would like an iMac without the LCD and all the other bells a whistles with a Graphics slot. If they can't do that for $1200 then Apple needs to pack up shop. Dell can do it for less than $1000 (Dual core 930 @ 3Ghz) so saying I'm willing to pay $200 in Apple tax is about as far as I'm willing to go.
930 is a netburst-CPU (P4) and those are absoluitely dirt-cheap these days, dual-core or not. Intel is basically donating them to OEM's these days. Not so with Conroe.
So Dell has a system with dirt-cheap CPU and that vaunted Dell-"designed" case for under $1000. And you are now expecting to get an Apple-system with kick-ass case and considerably more expensive CPU with just $200 extra?
That said, I would like to see a Apple minitower-system that uses the Conroe. It wont be as cheap as Dell, since whereas Dell might cut corners everywhere, Apple simply does not. Even their cheapest system (Mini for example) are very refined. Could you imagine an Apple-system that is made from cheap plastic (like this HP-system standing next to me)? I sure as hell can't.
930 is a netburst-CPU (P4) and those are absoluitely dirt-cheap these days, dual-core or not. Intel is basically donating them to OEM's these days. Not so with Conroe.
So Dell has a system with dirt-cheap CPU and that vaunted Dell-"designed" case for under $1000. And you are now expecting to get an Apple-system with kick-ass case and considerably more expensive CPU with just $200 extra?
That said, I would like to see a Apple minitower-system that uses the Conroe. It wont be as cheap as Dell, since whereas Dell might cut corners everywhere, Apple simply does not. Even their cheapest system (Mini for example) are very refined. Could you imagine an Apple-system that is made from cheap plastic (like this HP-system standing next to me)? I sure as hell can't.
rxse7en
Oct 13, 06:55 PM
Thank you very much for that tip and link. You saved me all but $11 in sales tax. So it was like getting the $1444 deal without tax. $1349 plus tax. I pulled the trigger this morning and hope to receive it next week.Looking forward to maximum desktop in one screen. Long story is I ordered the 24" about 6 weeks ago then realized I wanted the 30" when it went on sale for like $1600 + tax so canceled the next day. But Dell screwed up my credit for 6 weeks so I couldn't even order the 30 until today and you came up with the coupon just in the nick of time to save me even more than I expected to save - like another $250. Total bill came to only $1468.32. Amazing luck for me.
Glad I can help out. I've become addicted to Craigslist--where I bought my 2GHZ MBP with 2gb ram and 100gb HD for $1250, and FatWallet.com where I find just about everything else. Dealmac.com is good, but the members at Fatwallet are HARDCORE savers. Definitely worth checking out.
I went ahead and ordered a 24" LCD from Dell and it will be here Monday. If figure I can work with that and MBP until either the Mac Pros get a nice bump or Adobe releases CS3 UB.
Have a good weekend all.
B
Glad I can help out. I've become addicted to Craigslist--where I bought my 2GHZ MBP with 2gb ram and 100gb HD for $1250, and FatWallet.com where I find just about everything else. Dealmac.com is good, but the members at Fatwallet are HARDCORE savers. Definitely worth checking out.
I went ahead and ordered a 24" LCD from Dell and it will be here Monday. If figure I can work with that and MBP until either the Mac Pros get a nice bump or Adobe releases CS3 UB.
Have a good weekend all.
B
Post Title → thank you letter for interview opportunity
