Multimedia
Jul 17, 04:16 PM
That's horrible news for me. I Don't know how much longer I will be able to use my iMac for. But I don't want to order a MBP and 3 weeks later, a new one comes out.Alternative temporary plan is buy the refurb 1.83 GHz MacBook for $949 now then sell it for about the same when the 2.33 GHz Merom MacBook Pros ships. I would think any almost new MacBook will sell for the same price as refurb or worst case $50 less until the Merom MacBooks ship - which could be at the same time as the MBP but more likely by November. :)
cozmot
Mar 18, 12:00 AM
The Safari exploit launched a Mac OSX program. How is that NOT an "OS" issue? The exploit could have just as easily told the Mac to delete a directory on the hard drive, for instance. So it's not just Safari that's an issue but the fact that OSX would let Safari execute a program outside the browser.
I'd like to know where this idea that "many have tried" to create viruses and/or malware for OSX comes from. How do you know what people have done or tried? I'm not saying Unix is easy to exploit, but I know darn well it's not invulnerable. If they held an OS hacking event with a prize, I'm sure someone would prove my point for me.
And this idea that nothing can be done on the Mac until a virus or other malware exploit shows up on a news site is absurd. There are plenty of tools out there, for instance, to point out dangerous web sites that could be a threat to a computer. Most OSX users wouldn't bother to install one if one was offered to them because they believe themselves invulnerable. So why worry about visiting a malware site? Some exploits are potentially cross-platform (adobe flash, for example). Again, I say most OSX users are far too comfortable in a foolish belief that they are not in danger from anything out there.
Before I could even get to this, cwt1nospam and GGJstudios jumped on it. I'll add that a Safari exploit just can't take over an OS X system. It can do some minor things, but doesn't give admin or root access to the OS.
You nervous Windows users -- and you have every right to be -- are used to exploits commandeering your computers. It's your every day reality. For Mac users, it doesn't happen. Never has. But to characterize us as engaging in "foolish belief" that we're not in danger out there is a false argument.
Rather than go through the laborious repeat of my earlier post to you, please re-read it. Mac users don't deny the dangers. Unlike Windows users we're just not lulled into installing expensive, beastly software that drags our systems down that gives us a false sense of security that we're safe and protected. Most exploits come from unsafe computing, including the incomplete list I assembled above. Mac users don't take this dope, and have clearer minds about the proper steps to protect their systems.
I have multiple lines of defense built up against attackers using malware, viruses, worms, Trojan Horses and the like. It starts with the firewall in my wireless router, OpenDNS, safe practices and other methods I've learned from Mac and other forums.
I have never experienced a hack, a virus, a worm, a Trojan Horse or any other exploit in over 20 years because of this. And in the next 20 I will not either, because I'll keep learning and building up my defenses, without wasting a dollar on beastly software that gives me a false sense of security and relieves me of my responsibility for safe computing.
I'd like to know where this idea that "many have tried" to create viruses and/or malware for OSX comes from. How do you know what people have done or tried? I'm not saying Unix is easy to exploit, but I know darn well it's not invulnerable. If they held an OS hacking event with a prize, I'm sure someone would prove my point for me.
And this idea that nothing can be done on the Mac until a virus or other malware exploit shows up on a news site is absurd. There are plenty of tools out there, for instance, to point out dangerous web sites that could be a threat to a computer. Most OSX users wouldn't bother to install one if one was offered to them because they believe themselves invulnerable. So why worry about visiting a malware site? Some exploits are potentially cross-platform (adobe flash, for example). Again, I say most OSX users are far too comfortable in a foolish belief that they are not in danger from anything out there.
Before I could even get to this, cwt1nospam and GGJstudios jumped on it. I'll add that a Safari exploit just can't take over an OS X system. It can do some minor things, but doesn't give admin or root access to the OS.
You nervous Windows users -- and you have every right to be -- are used to exploits commandeering your computers. It's your every day reality. For Mac users, it doesn't happen. Never has. But to characterize us as engaging in "foolish belief" that we're not in danger out there is a false argument.
Rather than go through the laborious repeat of my earlier post to you, please re-read it. Mac users don't deny the dangers. Unlike Windows users we're just not lulled into installing expensive, beastly software that drags our systems down that gives us a false sense of security that we're safe and protected. Most exploits come from unsafe computing, including the incomplete list I assembled above. Mac users don't take this dope, and have clearer minds about the proper steps to protect their systems.
I have multiple lines of defense built up against attackers using malware, viruses, worms, Trojan Horses and the like. It starts with the firewall in my wireless router, OpenDNS, safe practices and other methods I've learned from Mac and other forums.
I have never experienced a hack, a virus, a worm, a Trojan Horse or any other exploit in over 20 years because of this. And in the next 20 I will not either, because I'll keep learning and building up my defenses, without wasting a dollar on beastly software that gives me a false sense of security and relieves me of my responsibility for safe computing.
Tanglewood
Sep 12, 02:35 PM
Well $349 is a lot better price than the $600 when the 60 gig iPod Photo came out two years ago.
Been wanting to up grade this just might give me a reason since I'm beginning to max out my 60 gig.
Been wanting to up grade this just might give me a reason since I'm beginning to max out my 60 gig.
tatonka
Mar 24, 09:01 AM
I don't get peoples fascination with thunderbolt. Besides that it is new, it is pretty much useless right now. I agree that it is a cool port once they come out with the suitable accessories .. but til then, I couldn't care less.
The one thing I would like to see is the thunderbolt mag safe adapter as basically a one plug docking station .. not sure that is ever going to see the daylight though.
T.
The one thing I would like to see is the thunderbolt mag safe adapter as basically a one plug docking station .. not sure that is ever going to see the daylight though.
T.
roadbloc
May 3, 10:15 AM
Does anything use Thunderbolt yet? Will anything ever?
ezekielrage_99
Aug 24, 01:23 AM
100 mil might be a lot, but I think apple got its moneys worth, the got Creative of their back, they got a new accessory vendor, and they get to hold the pattent against other companies. I personally hope that more creative stuff becomes available for the mac, everyone seems to hate them but they make very good speakers, and their sound cards are very popular in the PC world amongst the gamers and even a few pro audio people. With so many products apple shouldnt leave a opportunity overlooked. :D
Good points, I really thought Apple got off this pretty cheaply and if they wanted to settle so quickly it must be because Apple has a range of new iPod products being released very shortly.
Good points, I really thought Apple got off this pretty cheaply and if they wanted to settle so quickly it must be because Apple has a range of new iPod products being released very shortly.
BC2009
Mar 30, 11:30 AM
I don't claim to know a thing about trademark law, but looking at this simply I find it difficult to understand how the term "Windows" can become a trademark but "App Store" cannot.
Agreed.... Macs had windows long before PC's had "Windows". I think that if one can be a trademark then the other surely can. Personally, I think that if there were no such precedence, then neither should be allowed as a trademark. But terms like this have been allowed as trademarks for quite some time. Microsoft should just drop it -- what is their vested interest here anyway? There are a thousand things they can call their application store.
Agreed.... Macs had windows long before PC's had "Windows". I think that if one can be a trademark then the other surely can. Personally, I think that if there were no such precedence, then neither should be allowed as a trademark. But terms like this have been allowed as trademarks for quite some time. Microsoft should just drop it -- what is their vested interest here anyway? There are a thousand things they can call their application store.
MattInOz
Jan 2, 06:11 PM
Targeting is one thing. Successfully attacking is a completely different animal. They've been targeting OS X since it came out a decade ago. Successful attacks range from barely a blip on the radar to nonexistent, depending on how you define success. There's no reason to believe that attacks on IOS will be half as successful as the pitiful attacks on OS X.
Targeting isn't ever going to work if the users are aware of what an attack looks like. It's good that the system makes an attack as obvious as possible. Mac OS helps a lot in that regard but some users just never learn (blondes it's always the blondes who try and open attachments).
Not that anti virus helps after all it can't do anything unless they know of the attack as well. Having it installed just gives the user a reason to be complacent which is worse. It all comes down to training users.
Targeting isn't ever going to work if the users are aware of what an attack looks like. It's good that the system makes an attack as obvious as possible. Mac OS helps a lot in that regard but some users just never learn (blondes it's always the blondes who try and open attachments).
Not that anti virus helps after all it can't do anything unless they know of the attack as well. Having it installed just gives the user a reason to be complacent which is worse. It all comes down to training users.
.jpg "Wetwood symptoms on tree trunk")
heehee
Apr 25, 09:06 AM
I'm just wondering if anyone can help me reassure my mother that she'll get out of a parking ticket that we got tonight.
We were going out to dinner, and we parked in a handicap spot in downtown ann arbor (we were parallell parking). The sign wasn't clearly visible, so we didn't put up my grandmother's handicap sign in the windshield (she was with us). When we came back from dinner, my Mom found a nice $100 parking ticket on the windshield (her first in 24 years) because there was no handicap sign. So here's my question, she should get out of it if she goes down to the police station with my grandma and my grandma's handicap sign, right? She convinced that that won't work, but I think it will. Any opinions?
Thanks,
Don
Good luck with reporting my plates. I've done that to drunk drivers before, the 911 operator has told me "We're sorry sir, we cannot divert officers based on heresy." Also, see above: My uncle is the traffic court judge in the jurisdiction where I did this, good luck getting a ticket to stand.
EDIT: @mrsirs2009 - No I actually just felt like going fast.
-Don
Listen you're not going to beat me with legal antics. My mother is a senior partner at the largest law firm in Michigan. I've grown up in legal libraries and in courtrooms watching her. You're lie detector statement is total BS. Lie detectors are not admissible in a court of law; also a court can not compel someone to take a polygraph. My previous history would be easily disputed. There were no witnesses present (besides my mother) when I was highbeaming her and laying on my horn. There were however cars present when she brakechecked me. There was one car present when I brakechecked her, but not when I cut her off. The simple fact is that I plan these things out in order to reduce my legal exposure, and increase the other person's legal exposure, in case there were to be an accident/law suit.
Go ahead and call me twisted for giving people what they deserve. It amazes me how such little things tick people off.
-Don
I thought your mom is a senior partner at the largest law firm in Michigan and your uncle is the traffic court judge ? :D
We were going out to dinner, and we parked in a handicap spot in downtown ann arbor (we were parallell parking). The sign wasn't clearly visible, so we didn't put up my grandmother's handicap sign in the windshield (she was with us). When we came back from dinner, my Mom found a nice $100 parking ticket on the windshield (her first in 24 years) because there was no handicap sign. So here's my question, she should get out of it if she goes down to the police station with my grandma and my grandma's handicap sign, right? She convinced that that won't work, but I think it will. Any opinions?
Thanks,
Don
Good luck with reporting my plates. I've done that to drunk drivers before, the 911 operator has told me "We're sorry sir, we cannot divert officers based on heresy." Also, see above: My uncle is the traffic court judge in the jurisdiction where I did this, good luck getting a ticket to stand.
EDIT: @mrsirs2009 - No I actually just felt like going fast.
-Don
Listen you're not going to beat me with legal antics. My mother is a senior partner at the largest law firm in Michigan. I've grown up in legal libraries and in courtrooms watching her. You're lie detector statement is total BS. Lie detectors are not admissible in a court of law; also a court can not compel someone to take a polygraph. My previous history would be easily disputed. There were no witnesses present (besides my mother) when I was highbeaming her and laying on my horn. There were however cars present when she brakechecked me. There was one car present when I brakechecked her, but not when I cut her off. The simple fact is that I plan these things out in order to reduce my legal exposure, and increase the other person's legal exposure, in case there were to be an accident/law suit.
Go ahead and call me twisted for giving people what they deserve. It amazes me how such little things tick people off.
-Don
I thought your mom is a senior partner at the largest law firm in Michigan and your uncle is the traffic court judge ? :D
TheKrillr
Sep 5, 05:47 PM
NOW you're on to something.Let's expand on that ;)
Where is the video out from the airport going to go ? The TV of course!
Now..
Why not just make a Mini type box with 802.11n with DVI/HDMI/S-Video and Digital/Analog out ports.Connect that to the tv then stream from your computer or the movie store.While we're at it toss a hefty HD in the mini for recording.
It's much more convenient too.Just sit on the couch and surf Front Row for movies then buy it and send it to the tv.POW! one step..
Apple IS about ease of use..
Why is everyone obsessed with 802.11n? Unless apple can work magic, N is nowhere NEAR ready for primetime. 802.11g is fine. 54Mbps theoretical, at long range you still get around 11Mbps... and the TV content is only .75Mbps, and i'm estimating the movie content to max out around 3Mbps. Thats sitll plenty o' bandwidth.
Where is the video out from the airport going to go ? The TV of course!
Now..
Why not just make a Mini type box with 802.11n with DVI/HDMI/S-Video and Digital/Analog out ports.Connect that to the tv then stream from your computer or the movie store.While we're at it toss a hefty HD in the mini for recording.
It's much more convenient too.Just sit on the couch and surf Front Row for movies then buy it and send it to the tv.POW! one step..
Apple IS about ease of use..
Why is everyone obsessed with 802.11n? Unless apple can work magic, N is nowhere NEAR ready for primetime. 802.11g is fine. 54Mbps theoretical, at long range you still get around 11Mbps... and the TV content is only .75Mbps, and i'm estimating the movie content to max out around 3Mbps. Thats sitll plenty o' bandwidth.
mrzeve
Oct 12, 05:24 PM
Blah at Bonos new hair
Mundy
Sep 10, 11:41 AM
Clovertown will not be a workstation-class CPU, and I'm surprised that so many people are expecting to see it in the Mac Pro. Adopting Clovertown would be a big step backward for Apple, since Woodcrest uses dual, independent front-side busses, while Clovertown will use a single, shared FSB. Clovertown will be okay (and probably even excellent) for server applications, but most analysts aren't expecting it to be better than Woodcrest for the types of things most creative professionals do on the desktop.
Tigerton will be a bigger performance leap over Woodcrest than Clovertown. In truth, I don't expect Intel to release anything that will make a Mac Pro look remotely obsolete until their CPU line goes to a 45 nanometer process in the last half of 2007.
Quite simply, the way Intel is going about quad-core at this point in the game is both cautious and underwhelming. Once true quad core becomes a reality (and not simply two dual-core chips on a single peice of silicon, like Clovertown and Kentsfield), and the FSB is replaced by direct interconnects, then I'll upgrade from my Mac Pro. Otherwise, I expect the machine to remain capable and viable for the next three years or so.
Tigerton will be a bigger performance leap over Woodcrest than Clovertown. In truth, I don't expect Intel to release anything that will make a Mac Pro look remotely obsolete until their CPU line goes to a 45 nanometer process in the last half of 2007.
Quite simply, the way Intel is going about quad-core at this point in the game is both cautious and underwhelming. Once true quad core becomes a reality (and not simply two dual-core chips on a single peice of silicon, like Clovertown and Kentsfield), and the FSB is replaced by direct interconnects, then I'll upgrade from my Mac Pro. Otherwise, I expect the machine to remain capable and viable for the next three years or so.
adk
Apr 24, 11:52 PM
People who drive slowly in the passing lane are inconsiderate.
People who swerve in front of minivans carrying babies are dangerous.
Aren't you 16?
People who swerve in front of minivans carrying babies are dangerous.
Aren't you 16?
AidenShaw
Mar 23, 04:34 PM
I heard lame snide remarks like yours when USB first showed up. "Only Macs have it!"
In that case, you were only listening to the ignorant. USB ports were common on PC systems a year before the toxic plastic CRT Imacs shipped.
http://www.governmentauctions.org/uploaded_images/imacs-700084.jpg
(click to enlarge)
I upgraded a half dozen systems in early 1997 - yep, they had USB ports. I built a system with an Asus P2L97-S motherboard in fall '97. Yep, USB ports.
When "USB first showed up", only PCs had it.
But, no surprise, few devices were available at the start of 1998 and software support was erratic.
Have fun debugging Apple's ThunderPort support. If the new MBPs couldn't run normal programs without locking up and crashing - do you really think that after waiting months for your ThunderPort disk drive (no price listed, that's scary too) that it will "just work".
It probably will work most of the time after the second firmware update. You may have to wait for the "early 2012" MacBooks for it to always work.
In that case, you were only listening to the ignorant. USB ports were common on PC systems a year before the toxic plastic CRT Imacs shipped.
http://www.governmentauctions.org/uploaded_images/imacs-700084.jpg
(click to enlarge)
I upgraded a half dozen systems in early 1997 - yep, they had USB ports. I built a system with an Asus P2L97-S motherboard in fall '97. Yep, USB ports.
When "USB first showed up", only PCs had it.
But, no surprise, few devices were available at the start of 1998 and software support was erratic.
Have fun debugging Apple's ThunderPort support. If the new MBPs couldn't run normal programs without locking up and crashing - do you really think that after waiting months for your ThunderPort disk drive (no price listed, that's scary too) that it will "just work".
It probably will work most of the time after the second firmware update. You may have to wait for the "early 2012" MacBooks for it to always work.
e28
Oct 12, 01:01 PM
Umm... how does Penelope Cruz and "convertible" have anything to do with an iPod? Just because Bono, Kanye West, and "red" are together, I don't really see how that equals a new red iPod.
%2520DTD,%2520Version%25202_1_files/treenot.gif "How to Read Elm Tree Diagrams")
iStudentUK
Apr 11, 07:39 AM
Why not to imperial?
Because metric is better.
Be happy I stopped short of asking for SI units! It's a pleasant 292K outside today. :D
Because metric is better.
Be happy I stopped short of asking for SI units! It's a pleasant 292K outside today. :D
rmhop81
Apr 22, 08:30 AM
Problems:
--Dependence on an internet connection. Deal breaker right there. Subways? Forget it.
--Buffer times
--Connection instability/loss
--Already way overstrained data networks contributing to the above
--Battery life will suffer if it's wifi
--And if it's 3G, well there's another bill in the mail every month. A recurring bill in the form of data charges to listen to my music I already paid for? No thank you. No, no, no thank you.
Since when did every device in the house need a monthly bill to go with it? AT&T provides a pretty crappy service as it is to begin with, why shuffle any more money right into their pockets?
Dependence on an internet connection and a bill in the mail are enormous deal breakers.
To the people saying "Oh, well Apple isn't taking your hard drive away", no, they aren't, but this is the first step. In 20 years hard drives will be obsolete, as everything will be cloud based, and you'll be forced into the cloud whether you want to be or not.
This service is a completely stupid idea for anyone who has an iPod with a big enough hard drive to store their stuff. I can see the appeal for those with more than 160 GB of music, but other than those people, I see literally zero benefits to be had by this, and a slew of problems/frustrations to be gained.
ever heard of the pandora app??
--Dependence on an internet connection. Deal breaker right there. Subways? Forget it.
--Buffer times
--Connection instability/loss
--Already way overstrained data networks contributing to the above
--Battery life will suffer if it's wifi
--And if it's 3G, well there's another bill in the mail every month. A recurring bill in the form of data charges to listen to my music I already paid for? No thank you. No, no, no thank you.
Since when did every device in the house need a monthly bill to go with it? AT&T provides a pretty crappy service as it is to begin with, why shuffle any more money right into their pockets?
Dependence on an internet connection and a bill in the mail are enormous deal breakers.
To the people saying "Oh, well Apple isn't taking your hard drive away", no, they aren't, but this is the first step. In 20 years hard drives will be obsolete, as everything will be cloud based, and you'll be forced into the cloud whether you want to be or not.
This service is a completely stupid idea for anyone who has an iPod with a big enough hard drive to store their stuff. I can see the appeal for those with more than 160 GB of music, but other than those people, I see literally zero benefits to be had by this, and a slew of problems/frustrations to be gained.
ever heard of the pandora app??
MBPro825
Apr 10, 01:20 PM
Obviously McAfee has a vested interest is spewing "fear FUD" such as this. :rolleyes:
Interesting isn't it how McAfee could benefit from these "New security threats"
Interesting isn't it how McAfee could benefit from these "New security threats"
projectle
Sep 20, 03:44 PM
Right off the bat, I have two final generation Powerbook G4s (one is mine, one is my son's) so I figured that it would be a good side by side test for the new video formats.
I went to iTunes and grabbed a copy of Grosse Pointe Blank and popped the DVD version in for a side by side test.
I have to say that the quality on the iTunes version was very great. There are portions of the video where the quality definitely look better than the DVD version played back through the Apple DVD Player and portions that without a doubt look significantly worse.
When it comes to Title Sequences (Credits and some text overlays in the begining), the DVD wins hands down as the edges get a very choppy on the iTunes version.
When it comes to your normal scenes where people are talking and not much is going on, the iTunes version seems to have the edge (less pixelized backgrounds, appears to have greater detail around edges of fairly stationary objects, etc.).
When it comes to high action sequences, it really is a toss up between the two as neither really look that great (substantial bluring around moving objects).
For the parts of the show that matter, I would say that h264 (iTunes) scales better on larger high resolution screens than MPEG2 (DVD).
I plan on grabbing some stills and editing them together at the seams to see if there really is a noticable difference or if my eyes are playing tricks on me, but that will have to wait for a couple days.
I went to iTunes and grabbed a copy of Grosse Pointe Blank and popped the DVD version in for a side by side test.
I have to say that the quality on the iTunes version was very great. There are portions of the video where the quality definitely look better than the DVD version played back through the Apple DVD Player and portions that without a doubt look significantly worse.
When it comes to Title Sequences (Credits and some text overlays in the begining), the DVD wins hands down as the edges get a very choppy on the iTunes version.
When it comes to your normal scenes where people are talking and not much is going on, the iTunes version seems to have the edge (less pixelized backgrounds, appears to have greater detail around edges of fairly stationary objects, etc.).
When it comes to high action sequences, it really is a toss up between the two as neither really look that great (substantial bluring around moving objects).
For the parts of the show that matter, I would say that h264 (iTunes) scales better on larger high resolution screens than MPEG2 (DVD).
I plan on grabbing some stills and editing them together at the seams to see if there really is a noticable difference or if my eyes are playing tricks on me, but that will have to wait for a couple days.
rgirtler
Apr 22, 10:31 AM
That's my point. You don't have to. Most of the ereaders have the ability to swap books as loaners. This is all still very, very new to our society and I am sure that as we progress this is the way it will become.
Thank you, I was reading this forum losing my mind on some of the comments.
Thank you, I was reading this forum losing my mind on some of the comments.
4God
Aug 28, 02:39 PM
my cat has told me that there will be a 23" chin-less iMac with the new Core 2 Duo chips, 1gig std, wireless kbd and mouse std. Or he is just hungry - hard to tell just what he is saying but he has friends in high places (trees mostly)
still heres hoping he's spot on
Funny, my neighbor's cat told me that we will see a new 20" iMac
with Merom inside and upgraded graphics with Dual Link DVI output to support the 30" display....;)
still heres hoping he's spot on
Funny, my neighbor's cat told me that we will see a new 20" iMac
with Merom inside and upgraded graphics with Dual Link DVI output to support the 30" display....;)
Shenaniganz08
Mar 23, 07:12 PM
If you're sober enough to have presence of mind to check an app for a sobriety checkpoint, you're probably sober enough to drive.
umm no
umm no
FuNGi
Apr 25, 04:35 PM
No, I don't think people can spontaneously tell the difference between aluminium and (stainless) steel. I'm talking about people with no knowledge about metallurgy whatsoever. Believe me, they have no idea. They don't know what is lighter and what is more durable. If I told people that my macbook is made out of silver they would believe me.
And I don't doubt that Liquid Metal will offer new possibilities in matters of manufacturing, so that the macbook's body can be made thinner while keeping it's durability. But my point really is, that people here are expecting it to be some kind of magic material that will completely change the experience of using their macbook. They think it will be different from aluminium as aluminium is from plastic. It's just another kind of metal, almost indistinguishable from any other metal. I hope you understand what I mean.
Haha. Silver. Collector's edition?
I see what you're sayin' but I still think that liquid metal DOES offer new possibilities in manufacturing precisely because it is stronger. Apple will then sell this unique product (assuming they actually adopt it - which may be too expensive) to the consumer as an added, and magical, feature. People don't have to have 'metallurgic' knowledge to be wowed by good advertising and think it is going to change there user experience. I for one, think dropping my MBP with a liquid metal chasis would be a better experience than the Al ones which dent and deform quite easily. Maybe it could be an optional build for the high-end model. Say for an additional $300? Marketed to the demanding professional, etc.
And I don't doubt that Liquid Metal will offer new possibilities in matters of manufacturing, so that the macbook's body can be made thinner while keeping it's durability. But my point really is, that people here are expecting it to be some kind of magic material that will completely change the experience of using their macbook. They think it will be different from aluminium as aluminium is from plastic. It's just another kind of metal, almost indistinguishable from any other metal. I hope you understand what I mean.
Haha. Silver. Collector's edition?
I see what you're sayin' but I still think that liquid metal DOES offer new possibilities in manufacturing precisely because it is stronger. Apple will then sell this unique product (assuming they actually adopt it - which may be too expensive) to the consumer as an added, and magical, feature. People don't have to have 'metallurgic' knowledge to be wowed by good advertising and think it is going to change there user experience. I for one, think dropping my MBP with a liquid metal chasis would be a better experience than the Al ones which dent and deform quite easily. Maybe it could be an optional build for the high-end model. Say for an additional $300? Marketed to the demanding professional, etc.
Speedracer04
Sep 12, 02:22 PM
and what exactly is the gapless playback...I guess I missed that. Im a little disappointed by the conference...i mean the new iTV isnt even available until next year...blah
Hiç yorum yok:
Yorum Gönder