nefan65
Apr 25, 02:08 PM
They're suing...doesn't mean it'll go to court. They may find there's not enough grounds for suit, and deny...
azentropy
Apr 5, 05:31 PM
Not again..
NAB is for broadcast professionals - its doubtful there will be computer releases here.
Probably not at NAB, but many of the lines are due or overdue and they have made plenty of releases around NAB before (pretty much every year they have released something).
4/2010 - Macbook Pro
4/2008 - iMacs
4/2007 - Mac Pros
4/2006 - Macbook Pro
4/2005 - Power Macs
4/2004 - iBooks/iMacs
4/2003 - iBooks
NAB is for broadcast professionals - its doubtful there will be computer releases here.
Probably not at NAB, but many of the lines are due or overdue and they have made plenty of releases around NAB before (pretty much every year they have released something).
4/2010 - Macbook Pro
4/2008 - iMacs
4/2007 - Mac Pros
4/2006 - Macbook Pro
4/2005 - Power Macs
4/2004 - iBooks/iMacs
4/2003 - iBooks
mdntcallr
Nov 28, 06:27 PM
it's ridiculous for Universal to even be thinking this. NONE of the money would get to artists or anything like that. it would just go to the company.
also. i dont pirate music.
alot of itunes people don't. we are the people actually paying for it. so screw that.
also. i dont pirate music.
alot of itunes people don't. we are the people actually paying for it. so screw that.
BaldiMac
Mar 22, 03:38 PM
The iPad two does have some shortcomings, few of which are worth going to to here. However, the OS of these devices IS crucial and we are beginning to see iOS creaking slightly. In terms of looks and notifications, for me, Apple is lagging. I like how the Playbook looks and potentially, should operate. Will I make a snap judgement? No. I'll try the damn thing first before making a judgement.
Why are you comparing the Playbook that is coming out this summer to iOS 4? Chances are it will be competing with iOS 5. If you want to be fair and all.
Why are you comparing the Playbook that is coming out this summer to iOS 4? Chances are it will be competing with iOS 5. If you want to be fair and all.
dornoforpyros
Jul 14, 02:57 PM
eh I'm willing to bet they stick with the g5 type case, I mean the macbook is the only "new" case we've seen with the intel transition.
AppleJustWorks
Aug 26, 09:56 AM
California, it's replies like this that pisses switchers off, even seasones mac users get upset with these replies. What the hell is Rev A?. What idiot argument is this?. That's it ok for apple to make a ****ed-up product cause it's the first version?. What?.. apple just started making computers that they don't know how to make quality products until they already made the first version?. Apple should be horrified at your suggestion. Imagine if no one bought Rev A (whatever the **** that means) machines from Apple. APPLE WOULD GO BROKE!!. There's always Rev A machines when it comes to computers dude. The next mac pro upgrade will use a new processor, faster, new video, more ram, newer harddrive and becomes rev A cause THEY ARE THE FIRST APPLE PRODUCTS TO USE THE NEW UPGRADED PROCESSOR, NEW HARDDIVE, ETC. Really, stop with this nonsense. You are like the 10th idiotic apple fan I have read using this dumb argument.
Right on. I made the same argument to someone on a different forum, and it's just amazing how fanboy mac users concoct these elaborate theories of why apple screwing up is acceptable.
The point is, by simple logic, yes, the following revisions of a product tend to be more reliable because they've had time to address issues, but no, that doesn't mean (anyone) shouldn't buy a machine purely because of it's revision number. If that was the case, then Apple would be out of business. Period.
Right on. I made the same argument to someone on a different forum, and it's just amazing how fanboy mac users concoct these elaborate theories of why apple screwing up is acceptable.
The point is, by simple logic, yes, the following revisions of a product tend to be more reliable because they've had time to address issues, but no, that doesn't mean (anyone) shouldn't buy a machine purely because of it's revision number. If that was the case, then Apple would be out of business. Period.
vincenz
Apr 27, 07:58 AM
A "bug" right? ;)
patseguin
Aug 7, 08:21 AM
Will Leopard be available for download by ADC members as soon as it is given out at WWDC?
Blue Velvet
Mar 23, 06:11 AM
Libya is more like Bosnia than Iraq. A moment of force has the potential to change the scope of the conflict, hopefully for the positive, in a way that a full-blown invasion would merely complicate. That's the central part that fivepoint, who is merely interested in making another partisan screed, is ignoring.
Well exactly. Far easier to tag together some buzzwords, maybe pull something from FoxNews than it is to think critically about the issue. This inane comparison between coalition numbers was also picked up by Steve M.:
Fox Nation huffily declares that "Bush Had 2 Times More Coalition Partners in Iraq Than Obama Has in Libya." Bush's thirty-nation list, of course, included such global powers as Azerbaijan, Estonia, Latvia, and Uzbekistan, and didn't include the likes of, y'know, Germany and France.
But if we're going to play games like this, in the run-up to the war, how many coalition partners did Bush attract per week? The Libyan uprising started just about a month ago and Obama's coalition is fifteen nations. When do you date the start of the "Iraq crisis" the Bushies manufactured? The Axis of Evil speech, fourteen months before the war began? The Battle of Tora Bora, a month before that? The first administration meetings on Iraq regime change, mere days after Bush's inauguration, and more than two years before the Iraq War started? By that standard, Bush barely acquired one coalition partner a month! Obama obtained more than three partners a week!
I'm reminded of the 2000 electoral maps that measured Bush's vote by geography, as if winning a county with more jackrabbits than people was the equivalent of winning a county full of apartment buildings.
http://nomoremister.blogspot.com/2011/03/well-if-were-going-to-be-ridiculous.html
Meanwhile, Juan Cole lays out ten reasons why this is not like Iraq:
Here are the differences between George W. Bush�s invasion of Iraq in 2003 and the current United Nations action in Libya:
1. The action in Libya was authorized by the United Nations Security Council. That in Iraq was not. By the UN Charter, military action after 1945 should either come as self-defense or with UNSC authorization. Most countries in the world are signatories to the charter and bound by its provisions.
2. The Libyan people had risen up and thrown off the Qaddafi regime, with some 80-90 percent of the country having gone out of his hands before he started having tank commanders fire shells into peaceful crowds. It was this vast majority of the Libyan people that demanded the UN no-fly zone. In 2002-3 there was no similar popular movement against Saddam Hussein.
3. There was an ongoing massacre of civilians, and the threat of more such massacres in Benghazi, by the Qaddafi regime, which precipitated the UNSC resolution. Although the Saddam Hussein regime had massacred people in the 1980s and early 1990s, nothing was going on in 2002-2003 that would have required international intervention.
4. The Arab League urged the UNSC to take action against the Qaddafi regime, and in many ways precipitated Resolution 1973. The Arab League met in 2002 and expressed opposition to a war on Iraq. (Reports of Arab League backtracking on Sunday were incorrect, based on a remark of outgoing Secretary-General Amr Moussa that criticized the taking out of anti-aircraft batteries. The Arab League reaffirmed Sunday and Moussa agreed Monday that the No-Fly Zone is what it wants).
5. None of the United Nations allies envisages landing troops on the ground, nor does the UNSC authorize it. Iraq was invaded by land forces.
6. No false allegations were made against the Qaddafi regime, of being in league with al-Qaeda or of having a nuclear weapons program. The charge is massacre of peaceful civilian demonstrators and an actual promise to commit more such massacres.
7. The United States did not take the lead role in urging a no-fly zone, and was dragged into this action by its Arab and European allies. President Obama pledges that the US role, mainly disabling anti-aircraft batteries and bombing runways, will last �days, not months� before being turned over to other United Nations allies.
8. There is no sectarian or ethnic dimension to the Libyan conflict, whereas the US Pentagon conspired with Shiite and Kurdish parties to overthrow the Sunni-dominated Baathist regime in Iraq, setting the stage for a prolonged and bitter civil war.
9. The US has not rewarded countries such as Norway for entering the conflict as UN allies, but rather a genuine sense of outrage at the brutal crimes against humanity being committed by Qaddafi and his forces impelled the formation of this coalition. The Bush administration�s �coalition of the willing� in contrast was often brought on board by what were essentially bribes.
10. Iraq in 2002-3 no longer posed a credible threat to its neighbors. A resurgent Qaddafi in Libya with petroleum billions at his disposal would likely attempt to undermine the democratic experiments in Tunisia and Egypt, blighting the lives of millions.
http://www.juancole.com/2011/03/top-ten-ways-that-libya-2011-is-not-iraq-2003.html
Well exactly. Far easier to tag together some buzzwords, maybe pull something from FoxNews than it is to think critically about the issue. This inane comparison between coalition numbers was also picked up by Steve M.:
Fox Nation huffily declares that "Bush Had 2 Times More Coalition Partners in Iraq Than Obama Has in Libya." Bush's thirty-nation list, of course, included such global powers as Azerbaijan, Estonia, Latvia, and Uzbekistan, and didn't include the likes of, y'know, Germany and France.
But if we're going to play games like this, in the run-up to the war, how many coalition partners did Bush attract per week? The Libyan uprising started just about a month ago and Obama's coalition is fifteen nations. When do you date the start of the "Iraq crisis" the Bushies manufactured? The Axis of Evil speech, fourteen months before the war began? The Battle of Tora Bora, a month before that? The first administration meetings on Iraq regime change, mere days after Bush's inauguration, and more than two years before the Iraq War started? By that standard, Bush barely acquired one coalition partner a month! Obama obtained more than three partners a week!
I'm reminded of the 2000 electoral maps that measured Bush's vote by geography, as if winning a county with more jackrabbits than people was the equivalent of winning a county full of apartment buildings.
http://nomoremister.blogspot.com/2011/03/well-if-were-going-to-be-ridiculous.html
Meanwhile, Juan Cole lays out ten reasons why this is not like Iraq:
Here are the differences between George W. Bush�s invasion of Iraq in 2003 and the current United Nations action in Libya:
1. The action in Libya was authorized by the United Nations Security Council. That in Iraq was not. By the UN Charter, military action after 1945 should either come as self-defense or with UNSC authorization. Most countries in the world are signatories to the charter and bound by its provisions.
2. The Libyan people had risen up and thrown off the Qaddafi regime, with some 80-90 percent of the country having gone out of his hands before he started having tank commanders fire shells into peaceful crowds. It was this vast majority of the Libyan people that demanded the UN no-fly zone. In 2002-3 there was no similar popular movement against Saddam Hussein.
3. There was an ongoing massacre of civilians, and the threat of more such massacres in Benghazi, by the Qaddafi regime, which precipitated the UNSC resolution. Although the Saddam Hussein regime had massacred people in the 1980s and early 1990s, nothing was going on in 2002-2003 that would have required international intervention.
4. The Arab League urged the UNSC to take action against the Qaddafi regime, and in many ways precipitated Resolution 1973. The Arab League met in 2002 and expressed opposition to a war on Iraq. (Reports of Arab League backtracking on Sunday were incorrect, based on a remark of outgoing Secretary-General Amr Moussa that criticized the taking out of anti-aircraft batteries. The Arab League reaffirmed Sunday and Moussa agreed Monday that the No-Fly Zone is what it wants).
5. None of the United Nations allies envisages landing troops on the ground, nor does the UNSC authorize it. Iraq was invaded by land forces.
6. No false allegations were made against the Qaddafi regime, of being in league with al-Qaeda or of having a nuclear weapons program. The charge is massacre of peaceful civilian demonstrators and an actual promise to commit more such massacres.
7. The United States did not take the lead role in urging a no-fly zone, and was dragged into this action by its Arab and European allies. President Obama pledges that the US role, mainly disabling anti-aircraft batteries and bombing runways, will last �days, not months� before being turned over to other United Nations allies.
8. There is no sectarian or ethnic dimension to the Libyan conflict, whereas the US Pentagon conspired with Shiite and Kurdish parties to overthrow the Sunni-dominated Baathist regime in Iraq, setting the stage for a prolonged and bitter civil war.
9. The US has not rewarded countries such as Norway for entering the conflict as UN allies, but rather a genuine sense of outrage at the brutal crimes against humanity being committed by Qaddafi and his forces impelled the formation of this coalition. The Bush administration�s �coalition of the willing� in contrast was often brought on board by what were essentially bribes.
10. Iraq in 2002-3 no longer posed a credible threat to its neighbors. A resurgent Qaddafi in Libya with petroleum billions at his disposal would likely attempt to undermine the democratic experiments in Tunisia and Egypt, blighting the lives of millions.
http://www.juancole.com/2011/03/top-ten-ways-that-libya-2011-is-not-iraq-2003.html
ValSalva
Apr 6, 11:10 AM
I still don't think this means new MacBook Airs in June. Can anyone really see Apple releasing new hardware before Lion is released?
Silentwave
Aug 20, 12:54 AM
That's okay. No worries. I just get a little defensive when I spend $5000 on a new system, and then see you posting about how it'll be better with Clovertown. But that's my problem I guess. :rolleyes:
Anyway, it's all cool.
but it might not! First the programs have to be made to use all 8 cores, then you have to combat the slower FSB and RAM (533 FBD instead of 667)
Tigerton is a totally different story of course ;) :D
Anyway, it's all cool.
but it might not! First the programs have to be made to use all 8 cores, then you have to combat the slower FSB and RAM (533 FBD instead of 667)
Tigerton is a totally different story of course ;) :D
joeboy_45101
Nov 28, 09:25 PM
It doesn't cost the consumer any more, why wouldn't you want the people who actually make the music you are listening to get compensated?
This debate is stale. People want something for nothing.
Wow! Where did you ever learn that from the MYASS School of ********! Hey here's an idea, since most of the music these companies produce is mastered and remastered on Mac workstations then why shouldn't Apple be able to come back and get some extra dough off of that. I mean you wouldn't want these record labels making something for nothing, now would you?
This debate is stale. People want something for nothing.
Wow! Where did you ever learn that from the MYASS School of ********! Hey here's an idea, since most of the music these companies produce is mastered and remastered on Mac workstations then why shouldn't Apple be able to come back and get some extra dough off of that. I mean you wouldn't want these record labels making something for nothing, now would you?
afrowq
Apr 6, 09:53 AM
Impossible.
Apple's no longer supposed to care about their Pro software.
This will never happen.
A lot of pros have already left Mac, but I have been holding out. However, this is the last straw. If the new FCP disappoints I will be jumping ship, buying a high-end PC and switching to Avid or Premiere. I just can't stand the frustrations anymore of watching every consumer itoy get upgraded, and then the Pro stuff getting shafted.
The time is now. The new FCP had better have something equivalent to Mercury Playback, optimization for RED footage, different HD codecs, real-time playback, 64 bit, multi-core usage, etc. If it's a dumbed-down consumer product I will be absolutely livid.
Apple's no longer supposed to care about their Pro software.
This will never happen.
A lot of pros have already left Mac, but I have been holding out. However, this is the last straw. If the new FCP disappoints I will be jumping ship, buying a high-end PC and switching to Avid or Premiere. I just can't stand the frustrations anymore of watching every consumer itoy get upgraded, and then the Pro stuff getting shafted.
The time is now. The new FCP had better have something equivalent to Mercury Playback, optimization for RED footage, different HD codecs, real-time playback, 64 bit, multi-core usage, etc. If it's a dumbed-down consumer product I will be absolutely livid.
azzurri000
Sep 18, 11:30 PM
I went ahead and bought my MacBook Pro because I can't do my schoolwork without a laptop. So, I'm really not paying much attention these days about future announcements :)
Is that irony?
I'm also a student, and I don't think I could wait any longer than a month for these long-overdue MacBook Pros to ship... so a possible late November arrival is worrying to say the least.
Is that irony?
I'm also a student, and I don't think I could wait any longer than a month for these long-overdue MacBook Pros to ship... so a possible late November arrival is worrying to say the least.
emotion
Jul 20, 08:11 AM
WOW! Octo cores:eek:
We just need most software to support that efficiently now.
We just need most software to support that efficiently now.
VanNess
Aug 5, 05:59 PM
Im glad we will be getting a bit of closure on monday, while I love the rumors its been getting a bit to much, im actively avoiding all mac related sites... I dont want to be the boy that spoilt his own Xmas! :D
Here, let me show you the art and science of rumoring (http://www.misterbg.org/AppleProductCycle/), Apple-style.
Here, let me show you the art and science of rumoring (http://www.misterbg.org/AppleProductCycle/), Apple-style.
digitalbiker
Aug 7, 08:17 PM
Give me a fracking break. Intel has NOTHING to do with this. NOTHING.
Well I wouldn't say "Nothing" as obviously it required a lot of programmer time to move the OS to Intel, create the new XCode compiler, create & debug rosetta, re-write all of the iLife, and Pro-Apps offered by Apple, etc. etc.
But it didn't have anything to do with stifling innovation. I think Apple is just running out of innovative ideas. It happens companies go through dry spells.
Really, I haven't seen much innovation out of Apple since the move from OS 9 to OS X. That was a major leap. Automator actually has a lot of potential but so far I think it is being under used. As far as the GUI is concerned, I think there are a lot of things that could be revamped to improve that area.
By the way has anybody tried Quiksilver for OS X. It is spectacular. I recently downloaded it, freeware, and have been loving this addition to the OS. Not only does it replace launchbar, spotlight, and others but has a nice verb feature that lets you quickly do all sorts of things and have access to OS X services under the hood.
Well I wouldn't say "Nothing" as obviously it required a lot of programmer time to move the OS to Intel, create the new XCode compiler, create & debug rosetta, re-write all of the iLife, and Pro-Apps offered by Apple, etc. etc.
But it didn't have anything to do with stifling innovation. I think Apple is just running out of innovative ideas. It happens companies go through dry spells.
Really, I haven't seen much innovation out of Apple since the move from OS 9 to OS X. That was a major leap. Automator actually has a lot of potential but so far I think it is being under used. As far as the GUI is concerned, I think there are a lot of things that could be revamped to improve that area.
By the way has anybody tried Quiksilver for OS X. It is spectacular. I recently downloaded it, freeware, and have been loving this addition to the OS. Not only does it replace launchbar, spotlight, and others but has a nice verb feature that lets you quickly do all sorts of things and have access to OS X services under the hood.
dakwar
Mar 22, 02:40 PM
Display playbook = 7"
Display iPad = 9.7"
That's not half the size.
And before calling out irony, "your maths" has an 's' at the end. Thanks for playing.
Dude go back to school. And pay particular attention to learn about diagonal lengths and surface areas of rectangles.
Display iPad = 9.7"
That's not half the size.
And before calling out irony, "your maths" has an 's' at the end. Thanks for playing.
Dude go back to school. And pay particular attention to learn about diagonal lengths and surface areas of rectangles.
twoodcc
Aug 7, 12:56 PM
i am looking forward to this game. i will be getting the US version though. i haven't pre-ordered or anything, but i still might
JS77
Mar 26, 08:23 AM
I'm really not looking forward to Lion at all. It just seems like a huge step backwards for those of us that use our computers as real computers and not toys. I have an ipad, an iphone and several macs, but they each have specific uses. I don't want my desktop machine to be anything like my ipad, one is for doing real work and doing my daily stuff on, the iOS gadgets are for fun games and browsing mostly.
I LOATH the whole idea of merging OSX and iOS, they shouldn't even be related. I hate how they are ruining expose, I really don't want my stuff groups by app, I want to see every window like it is now. I have no use for "full screen" apps, why would I waste all my screen real estate only showing one thing at a time? I hate the idea of getting programs through the app store on the Mac, I refuse to do that. I hate all the gesture crap going on, sure it's fine for laptop users, but it's of no use to me on my mac pro.
I think all this is just a dumbing down of what is an amazing OS. I don't use my mac with dual displays anything like I'd use an iPad, so why put that crap in there? I just don't like the direction they are taking OSX in general, and I doubt I will upgrade from snow leopard. To me this is very sad news, the day OSX and iOS merge is the day the mac dies.
110% with you buddy.
I LOATH the whole idea of merging OSX and iOS, they shouldn't even be related. I hate how they are ruining expose, I really don't want my stuff groups by app, I want to see every window like it is now. I have no use for "full screen" apps, why would I waste all my screen real estate only showing one thing at a time? I hate the idea of getting programs through the app store on the Mac, I refuse to do that. I hate all the gesture crap going on, sure it's fine for laptop users, but it's of no use to me on my mac pro.
I think all this is just a dumbing down of what is an amazing OS. I don't use my mac with dual displays anything like I'd use an iPad, so why put that crap in there? I just don't like the direction they are taking OSX in general, and I doubt I will upgrade from snow leopard. To me this is very sad news, the day OSX and iOS merge is the day the mac dies.
110% with you buddy.
Peace
Jul 27, 10:10 AM
Very, very true. You usually only get half the things you expect... the real gem is when you get something you didn't expect.
Like the 30th Anniversary Mac ;)
Like the 30th Anniversary Mac ;)
Multimedia
Jul 21, 04:37 PM
Oh, so that's why you want Handbrake fourfold, I was going to ask wether you had 4 optical drives.I have way more than 4 optical dirves. But multiple DVD/CD duplication is not my thing. Moreover, running a bunch of copies of Toast to burn DVDs or CDs is not processor intensive at all and does not recquire more than one core.
Ja Di ksw
Aug 25, 05:15 PM
I would just like to say that every time I have dealth with Apple's help (blue line on screen, crack on trackpad, melted power brick cord, ordering, etc), they have been superb. Very professional, very helpful, and very quick. Does this add much to the discussion? No, but too often we only hear the bad, so I wanted to put in some good as well.
Georgie
Aug 26, 02:55 PM
Dude. You bought Rev. A machines. I've bought -- EIGHTEEN Macs over the past two years and -- nope NO problems. Granted, they are all PowerPc Macs. Just bought the final Rev. PowerPC 12" Powerbook G4 last week. I'm pleased as punch.
Sorry about your luck but you bought Rev. A machines. The only Rev A machine I ever bought from Apple was the Titanium (tibook) 400mhz G4 Powerbook in August of 2001. Three years later, almost to the day the warranty ended, Apple replaced almost the whole machine under Applecare. That was about my only trouble with Apple, and the problem with the machine was that I was really scared and all thumbs when it came to putting in a stick of memory -- broke the holders and they sent a whole new logic board. That machine is still going strong, with a DayStar CPU upgrade, in a friend's office, and it's got years left in her.
Three of my friends still are on 1998 and 1999 iMacs, going strong with new harddrives only. Two of my other friends are on 2001 and 2000 year iMacs -- one with the same hard drive. Two friends are on 2001/2000 iBooks, going strong. My sister and two other friends are on year 2002 iMacs. All kicking butt. Personally, I prefer my year 2002 667mhz VGA Titanium Powerbook (on it right now) to my other machines and will be upgrading the CPU to 1.2ghz in a few months at Daystar. All to say that Apple makes kickbutt machines. Sorry about your luck. Oh, and again, forgot to mention that since i've been on Apple since 1989, I never had a virus. I bought NOrton Anti Virus out of ignorance once inthe 90's and once in but promptly took it off the puters, unnecessary.
If I were you, I'd have started off with the top of the line G5 2.1ghz 20" iMac (with iSight) and a 14" 1.42ghz iBook. You understand, these are the top of the line of the great PowerPC line of Apple products. It's like buying a 1989 560SL Mercedes (last year) or a 1968 Mustang convertible. I'd ask Apple for a trade 'em in for your rev a machines at least until Rev C Mactels.
Ohhh, Rev A!
I guess I wasn't watching carefully or listening intently when they explained that part in the commercials. Did anyone else hear Mac-dude explain that I would be buying a "Rev A" product and should expect it to fail within three months? Maybe that's what he was saying in Japanese with Camera-chick.
This "Rev A" excuse doesn't hold water. See, had I known that I might not have bought a Mac at all. And if it's true I should expect my $2000 to buy a broken toaster then I also expect Apple to replace it, not make up excuses. As far as that goes, they should pay me to QC their products.
Sorry about your luck but you bought Rev. A machines. The only Rev A machine I ever bought from Apple was the Titanium (tibook) 400mhz G4 Powerbook in August of 2001. Three years later, almost to the day the warranty ended, Apple replaced almost the whole machine under Applecare. That was about my only trouble with Apple, and the problem with the machine was that I was really scared and all thumbs when it came to putting in a stick of memory -- broke the holders and they sent a whole new logic board. That machine is still going strong, with a DayStar CPU upgrade, in a friend's office, and it's got years left in her.
Three of my friends still are on 1998 and 1999 iMacs, going strong with new harddrives only. Two of my other friends are on 2001 and 2000 year iMacs -- one with the same hard drive. Two friends are on 2001/2000 iBooks, going strong. My sister and two other friends are on year 2002 iMacs. All kicking butt. Personally, I prefer my year 2002 667mhz VGA Titanium Powerbook (on it right now) to my other machines and will be upgrading the CPU to 1.2ghz in a few months at Daystar. All to say that Apple makes kickbutt machines. Sorry about your luck. Oh, and again, forgot to mention that since i've been on Apple since 1989, I never had a virus. I bought NOrton Anti Virus out of ignorance once inthe 90's and once in but promptly took it off the puters, unnecessary.
If I were you, I'd have started off with the top of the line G5 2.1ghz 20" iMac (with iSight) and a 14" 1.42ghz iBook. You understand, these are the top of the line of the great PowerPC line of Apple products. It's like buying a 1989 560SL Mercedes (last year) or a 1968 Mustang convertible. I'd ask Apple for a trade 'em in for your rev a machines at least until Rev C Mactels.
Ohhh, Rev A!
I guess I wasn't watching carefully or listening intently when they explained that part in the commercials. Did anyone else hear Mac-dude explain that I would be buying a "Rev A" product and should expect it to fail within three months? Maybe that's what he was saying in Japanese with Camera-chick.
This "Rev A" excuse doesn't hold water. See, had I known that I might not have bought a Mac at all. And if it's true I should expect my $2000 to buy a broken toaster then I also expect Apple to replace it, not make up excuses. As far as that goes, they should pay me to QC their products.
Комментариев нет:
Отправить комментарий