xPismo
Jul 21, 05:24 PM
If Intel really can start shipping merom by early August...WWDC would be a perfectly fine place to introduce new MacBook Pros. But I doubt they'll be ready that early.
Personally, I think its about time we have a major case revision. The aluminum PowerBooks have been out for almost three years (september '03 I believe). Don't get me wrong; current design is great: its functional and elegant, but change has to come eventually...
True, but I like my Alu book look - I'd have no problem with a intel powered version. Although marketing being marketing, I'd like to see something new fresh, and awesome too.
BTW ebuc, your sig is nearly exactly what I'm planning on having. Looking at a cube 450 for a home server, and I already have a 20gb iPod. Cubes, insanely great.
Personally, I think its about time we have a major case revision. The aluminum PowerBooks have been out for almost three years (september '03 I believe). Don't get me wrong; current design is great: its functional and elegant, but change has to come eventually...
True, but I like my Alu book look - I'd have no problem with a intel powered version. Although marketing being marketing, I'd like to see something new fresh, and awesome too.
BTW ebuc, your sig is nearly exactly what I'm planning on having. Looking at a cube 450 for a home server, and I already have a 20gb iPod. Cubes, insanely great.
ikir
May 8, 12:48 AM
+1
My MobileMe email account didn't work all the time during my trial period, thankfully. Sometimes, I'd send an email from my MobileMe account and it wouldn't arrive at my receiving email account for like a day an a half.
Just too many bugs to justify the $99 price tag. :confused:
Never happened here, of course it could it is an email. Keep in mind that your receiving accounts could be the problem,
My MobileMe email account didn't work all the time during my trial period, thankfully. Sometimes, I'd send an email from my MobileMe account and it wouldn't arrive at my receiving email account for like a day an a half.
Just too many bugs to justify the $99 price tag. :confused:
Never happened here, of course it could it is an email. Keep in mind that your receiving accounts could be the problem,
toddybody
Apr 25, 09:00 AM
I'm not impressed if this is where the iMac display is potentially going , the current GPUs can barely drive the resolutions they have now in anything other than simple desktop apps . , can you imagine what video card you would need to drive a game (say portal 2 which has low to modest requirements) at 30fps + on a screen with 3200 or higher resloution ? Well whatever that GPU is , apple will ship with the one released 2 years ago and half the RAM it shipped with on the PC .
I love the mac OS , I love the mac design , I hate the "last years tech with a shiney shell" we seem to have to put up with , super high res screens and faster I/O ports are all well and good , but put a decent GPU in now the mac is becoming a contender as a home gaming platform .
Think I ranted a bit then , sorry :rolleyes:
Nightarchaon, youre my hero. All the conjecture about future hi res displays aside...the current iMac is almost crippled with its current GPU options. At 2560x1440...it should have something equivalent to an HD 6950/GTX 570. Given that those cards would blow past any thermal limits Apple has set...iMac owners are in a bit of a graphical quandary. It's an utterly gorgeous machine, superb display, great CPU, decent RAM, sufficient HDD options. But those graphics? :eek: SP cores and clock rates aside...it should have 2GB of VRAM(frame buffer) at that res.
I love the mac OS , I love the mac design , I hate the "last years tech with a shiney shell" we seem to have to put up with , super high res screens and faster I/O ports are all well and good , but put a decent GPU in now the mac is becoming a contender as a home gaming platform .
Think I ranted a bit then , sorry :rolleyes:
Nightarchaon, youre my hero. All the conjecture about future hi res displays aside...the current iMac is almost crippled with its current GPU options. At 2560x1440...it should have something equivalent to an HD 6950/GTX 570. Given that those cards would blow past any thermal limits Apple has set...iMac owners are in a bit of a graphical quandary. It's an utterly gorgeous machine, superb display, great CPU, decent RAM, sufficient HDD options. But those graphics? :eek: SP cores and clock rates aside...it should have 2GB of VRAM(frame buffer) at that res.
Full of Win
Mar 30, 05:42 PM
So I guess that Gold Master rumor was wrong.
rmwebs
Apr 21, 03:52 PM
Unless they can do it at a very low cost, I cant see them doing it at all. The rackmount market for the mac was minuscule with pretty much just specialist research and university/college networks using them. It would probably cost a lot in R&D to redesign the Pro, when it doesn't really need it. Its a functional design which is in keeping with the rest of the range.
As a Pro user, I'd LOVE to see new updates, but they should really be advances that you would expect from the Pro range:
- Better support for graphics cards
- Advancements to processor usage (4x CPU's for example)
- RAID card support
- Thunderbolt
- Fiber
you get the point.
Generally there is little NEED to use Macs in a server environment as its pretty much always possible to do it with Linux, and some cases Windows. I'm not denying that it has its uses, but the size of this market has made it impractical.
As a Pro user, I'd LOVE to see new updates, but they should really be advances that you would expect from the Pro range:
- Better support for graphics cards
- Advancements to processor usage (4x CPU's for example)
- RAID card support
- Thunderbolt
- Fiber
you get the point.
Generally there is little NEED to use Macs in a server environment as its pretty much always possible to do it with Linux, and some cases Windows. I'm not denying that it has its uses, but the size of this market has made it impractical.
chowmein
May 6, 12:21 AM
switching to ARM means no more boot camp :mad:
ten-oak-druid
Apr 20, 08:30 AM
Believe it or not about 1/2 of iPhone 4 owners believe they have a 4g phone.
And half of the android users believe they have an iphone.
And half of the android users believe they have an iphone.
marvel2
Nov 12, 10:01 PM
After hearing that they will delay shipping of the TomTom kit until December 2nd, I decided to give my local MacStore a call (not Apple Store). It was only $99.95 with no sales tax in Oregon. $10 more than Bottom Line Technologies, but I have the TomTom kit in my hands right now :)
bhtooefr
Apr 30, 10:56 PM
OK, so a few things about this that I'm seeing...
3200x2000 background: A bit odd choice of resolution, but I think they're making a 16:10 resolution that they'll crop to 16:9 for the machine with an actually 3200px wide display.
But, that does indicate a few things.
3200x1800 makes sense if you're pixel quadrupling a 1600x900 display, which is what a 15.6" 16:9 MBP at current pixel densities would be. But, it DOESN'T make sense for pixel quadrupling the 17" MBP, or any of the desktop displays.
If the 15.6" or 15.4" MBP gets this, and the 17" doesn't... that means that (and this is pure conjecture here) the 17" isn't long for the world. How well do they sell, anyway?
As for display technology supporting a pixel-quadrupled iMac, we've had the technology for a pixel-quadrupled 21.5" iMac since 2001. The IBM T221, a 3840x2400 22.2" monitor, is the same density as that theoretical display. It was $18,000 when it came out, and by the time IBM pulled the plug on IDTech, a Viewsonic-branded version of the T221, the VP2290b, was in the $4000 ballpark in 2005. So, had the T221 followed a curve influenced more by technology improvements than by the market getting saturated with unusable monitors, we'd be seeing these panels in the $2000 range nowadays, as a standalone monitor, I think.
Now, to look at all the machines that Apple has. Keep in mind that I think that only pro hardware will get this, and Apple likes to stick to around 100-110 PPI for desktops, and 110-130 PPI for laptops.
I'll go ahead and speculate on theoretical 16:9 variants of existing models, too.
MacBook Air 11.6": Currently 1366x768, 135 ppi, retina at 25.4" - would be 2732x1536, 270 ppi, retina at 12.7"
MacBook Air 13.3": Currently 1440x900, 128 ppi, retina at 26.9" - would be 2880x1800, 255 ppi, retina at 13.5"
MacBook and MacBook Pro 13.3": Currently 1280x800, 113 ppi, retina at 30.3" - would be 2560x1600, 227 ppi, retina at 15.1"
MacBook Pro 15.4" low-res: Currently 1440x900, 110 ppi, retina at 31.2" - would be 2880x1800, 221 ppi, retina at 15.6"
MacBook Pro 15.4" high-res: Currently 1680x1050, 129 ppi, retina at 26.7" - would be 3360x2100, 257 ppi, retina at 13.4"
MacBook Pro 17.0": Currently 1920x1200, 133 ppi, retina at 25.8" - would be 3840x2400, 266 ppi, retina at 12.9"
iMac 21.5": Currently 1920x1080, 102 ppi, retina at 33.6" - would be 3840x2160, 205 ppi, retina at 16.8"
iMac/Cinema Display 27": Currently 2560x1440, 109 ppi, retina at 31.6" - would be 5120x2880, 218 ppi, retina at 15.8"
Theoretical 13.3" 16:9 low-res: 1366x768, 118 ppi, retina at 29.2" - would be 2732x1536, 236 ppi, retina at 14.6"
Theoretical 13.3" 16:9 high-res: 1600x900, 138 ppi, retina at 24.9" - would be 3200x1800, 276 ppi, retina at 12.4"
Theoretical 15.6" 16:9: 1600x900, 118 ppi, retina at 29.2" - would be 3200x1800, 235 ppi, retina at 14.6"
Theoretical 17.1" 16:9: 1920x1080, 129 ppi, retina at 26.7" - would be 3840x2160, 258 ppi, retina at 13.3"
Hrm. I am noticing a problem here for getting consistent resolutions when getting 16:9 into the mix... and, interestingly, Apple stayed on 16:10 for the 13.3" MBA. So, I wonder if this could even be a red herring of some kind? Because 3200x2000 doesn't really match up with any expected 16:10 resolution...
(Current lineup can do 255-270 ppi, which is fairly tight, ignoring the 13.3" MB(P) and the low-res 15.4" MBP, but going to 16:9, either desktop area would shrink for many users (and even then, the 11.6" and 17.1" wouldn't fit in well), or there would be a wide variance in ppi.)
Another thing to consider is the $3.9 billion that Apple pumped into LCD makers... possibly to secure a supply of retina panels?
(In case you can't tell, I'm SERIOUS about my high ppi displays. Looking at a IDTech IAQX10N, a 2048x1536 15.0" 171 ppi IPS display right now, and I'm stuck on a 5 year old machine because of it. Whoever makes something roughly equivalent or better gets my business, unless they're Sony.)
3200x2000 background: A bit odd choice of resolution, but I think they're making a 16:10 resolution that they'll crop to 16:9 for the machine with an actually 3200px wide display.
But, that does indicate a few things.
3200x1800 makes sense if you're pixel quadrupling a 1600x900 display, which is what a 15.6" 16:9 MBP at current pixel densities would be. But, it DOESN'T make sense for pixel quadrupling the 17" MBP, or any of the desktop displays.
If the 15.6" or 15.4" MBP gets this, and the 17" doesn't... that means that (and this is pure conjecture here) the 17" isn't long for the world. How well do they sell, anyway?
As for display technology supporting a pixel-quadrupled iMac, we've had the technology for a pixel-quadrupled 21.5" iMac since 2001. The IBM T221, a 3840x2400 22.2" monitor, is the same density as that theoretical display. It was $18,000 when it came out, and by the time IBM pulled the plug on IDTech, a Viewsonic-branded version of the T221, the VP2290b, was in the $4000 ballpark in 2005. So, had the T221 followed a curve influenced more by technology improvements than by the market getting saturated with unusable monitors, we'd be seeing these panels in the $2000 range nowadays, as a standalone monitor, I think.
Now, to look at all the machines that Apple has. Keep in mind that I think that only pro hardware will get this, and Apple likes to stick to around 100-110 PPI for desktops, and 110-130 PPI for laptops.
I'll go ahead and speculate on theoretical 16:9 variants of existing models, too.
MacBook Air 11.6": Currently 1366x768, 135 ppi, retina at 25.4" - would be 2732x1536, 270 ppi, retina at 12.7"
MacBook Air 13.3": Currently 1440x900, 128 ppi, retina at 26.9" - would be 2880x1800, 255 ppi, retina at 13.5"
MacBook and MacBook Pro 13.3": Currently 1280x800, 113 ppi, retina at 30.3" - would be 2560x1600, 227 ppi, retina at 15.1"
MacBook Pro 15.4" low-res: Currently 1440x900, 110 ppi, retina at 31.2" - would be 2880x1800, 221 ppi, retina at 15.6"
MacBook Pro 15.4" high-res: Currently 1680x1050, 129 ppi, retina at 26.7" - would be 3360x2100, 257 ppi, retina at 13.4"
MacBook Pro 17.0": Currently 1920x1200, 133 ppi, retina at 25.8" - would be 3840x2400, 266 ppi, retina at 12.9"
iMac 21.5": Currently 1920x1080, 102 ppi, retina at 33.6" - would be 3840x2160, 205 ppi, retina at 16.8"
iMac/Cinema Display 27": Currently 2560x1440, 109 ppi, retina at 31.6" - would be 5120x2880, 218 ppi, retina at 15.8"
Theoretical 13.3" 16:9 low-res: 1366x768, 118 ppi, retina at 29.2" - would be 2732x1536, 236 ppi, retina at 14.6"
Theoretical 13.3" 16:9 high-res: 1600x900, 138 ppi, retina at 24.9" - would be 3200x1800, 276 ppi, retina at 12.4"
Theoretical 15.6" 16:9: 1600x900, 118 ppi, retina at 29.2" - would be 3200x1800, 235 ppi, retina at 14.6"
Theoretical 17.1" 16:9: 1920x1080, 129 ppi, retina at 26.7" - would be 3840x2160, 258 ppi, retina at 13.3"
Hrm. I am noticing a problem here for getting consistent resolutions when getting 16:9 into the mix... and, interestingly, Apple stayed on 16:10 for the 13.3" MBA. So, I wonder if this could even be a red herring of some kind? Because 3200x2000 doesn't really match up with any expected 16:10 resolution...
(Current lineup can do 255-270 ppi, which is fairly tight, ignoring the 13.3" MB(P) and the low-res 15.4" MBP, but going to 16:9, either desktop area would shrink for many users (and even then, the 11.6" and 17.1" wouldn't fit in well), or there would be a wide variance in ppi.)
Another thing to consider is the $3.9 billion that Apple pumped into LCD makers... possibly to secure a supply of retina panels?
(In case you can't tell, I'm SERIOUS about my high ppi displays. Looking at a IDTech IAQX10N, a 2048x1536 15.0" 171 ppi IPS display right now, and I'm stuck on a 5 year old machine because of it. Whoever makes something roughly equivalent or better gets my business, unless they're Sony.)
URFloorMatt
Mar 27, 04:17 PM
These are just RUMORS! They will do at least some. Most likely, NFC, antenna fix, and IOS upgrade.I know. I'm just pointing out how the rumor flow on Apple products this year has been extremely negative (in the sense that speculated features are not coming/have been delayed).
Ed Andrews
Nov 7, 03:06 PM
1-the most useful function of av software for me is the ability to identify corrupt files [an unintended effect]
when the program scans a disk it attempts to open every file.
if a file has a bad resource or data fork it throws up an error
gives you a chance to find a good copy
works on archives too, but not disk images
i find this very useful, but have never seen it mentioned in any of these endless anti-av flame threads
2-i have a large collection of ancient mac software
these programs did get viruses [even on oem diskettes!]
virusbarrier helped me find and correct several infected files
[although it mistakenly identified an early system file as a virus! fortunately i had a backup!]
virusbarrier plays well with my g4 mac. reasonably fast, low processor use, and ok to keep installed. [very stingy with updates though]
norton works well and has generous updates, but even having it installed on my machine causes serious problems [even when it's turned off!]. and it eats process cycles for breakfast, lunch and dinner.
clam av is free, and has identified some pc files as infected, but it never caught the ancient virii that vb found. it runs a LOT slower than vb on my mac.
most interesting to me is the fact that all 3 programs give different results!
for me, virus scanning is a once in a great while thing, and of the 3 above virusbarrier is best.
what puzzles me is that i have a bunch of small pc files from the net which i am convinced are malware [exact same files with wildly different names]. none of the above agree with me.
i will give sophos a try and see what happens.
they really push a lot of fud on their site tho
when the program scans a disk it attempts to open every file.
if a file has a bad resource or data fork it throws up an error
gives you a chance to find a good copy
works on archives too, but not disk images
i find this very useful, but have never seen it mentioned in any of these endless anti-av flame threads
2-i have a large collection of ancient mac software
these programs did get viruses [even on oem diskettes!]
virusbarrier helped me find and correct several infected files
[although it mistakenly identified an early system file as a virus! fortunately i had a backup!]
virusbarrier plays well with my g4 mac. reasonably fast, low processor use, and ok to keep installed. [very stingy with updates though]
norton works well and has generous updates, but even having it installed on my machine causes serious problems [even when it's turned off!]. and it eats process cycles for breakfast, lunch and dinner.
clam av is free, and has identified some pc files as infected, but it never caught the ancient virii that vb found. it runs a LOT slower than vb on my mac.
most interesting to me is the fact that all 3 programs give different results!
for me, virus scanning is a once in a great while thing, and of the 3 above virusbarrier is best.
what puzzles me is that i have a bunch of small pc files from the net which i am convinced are malware [exact same files with wildly different names]. none of the above agree with me.
i will give sophos a try and see what happens.
they really push a lot of fud on their site tho
Multimedia
Aug 7, 06:54 PM
this may be a dumb ? but . . .
as far as the empty drive bay, i already have a pionner 109 superdrive i bought for my old powermac g4. would that be compatible?Latest Pioneer DVR-111 is only $35.
as far as the empty drive bay, i already have a pionner 109 superdrive i bought for my old powermac g4. would that be compatible?Latest Pioneer DVR-111 is only $35.
hobo.hopkins
Apr 26, 02:20 PM
This argument is getting old now. As usual, iFans are in denial.
While his specific point might be an old one, it does hold some validity. New Android phones can be had at prices and with deals that undercut the relative expensive nature of the iPhone. That's not to talk down Android whatsoever, only to say that Apple is perhaps not taking full advantage of that smartphone segment (save for the old 3Gs at relatively low prices). Android is and has been successful in large part because it is more prevalent at all price points, and is available on more carriers.
While his specific point might be an old one, it does hold some validity. New Android phones can be had at prices and with deals that undercut the relative expensive nature of the iPhone. That's not to talk down Android whatsoever, only to say that Apple is perhaps not taking full advantage of that smartphone segment (save for the old 3Gs at relatively low prices). Android is and has been successful in large part because it is more prevalent at all price points, and is available on more carriers.
msb3079
Apr 20, 11:21 AM
Really? So we just disregard the ACTUAL start and end times of seasons now? June 21 to Sept 21 is summer.
Calendar wise it is... but most people don't view the middle of September as "summer". Meteorological summer is over by then, and that's MUCH more important, IMO.
Calendar wise it is... but most people don't view the middle of September as "summer". Meteorological summer is over by then, and that's MUCH more important, IMO.
chrono1081
Apr 25, 10:31 AM
No, he's saying Apple does not track your location. There has been no evidence that any of the location information leaves your phone/computer. Whether that file should exist or not is another debate.
+1 the people crying about this are just plain ignorant and have NO idea how much stuff records their location. If they are so worried they need to get rid of their car GPS too. Its tracking info is MUCH more accurate and it stores it in the device. Oh and if your camera has geotagging don't forget that too!
Plus what people don't understand is that this information has to be obtained from having the device and knowing how to get the file and read it. If your phone never gets stolen you have nothing to worry about. If your phone gets stolen guess what, you also have nothing to worry about. Theives are going to wipe it anyway so they don't get caught.
+1 the people crying about this are just plain ignorant and have NO idea how much stuff records their location. If they are so worried they need to get rid of their car GPS too. Its tracking info is MUCH more accurate and it stores it in the device. Oh and if your camera has geotagging don't forget that too!
Plus what people don't understand is that this information has to be obtained from having the device and knowing how to get the file and read it. If your phone never gets stolen you have nothing to worry about. If your phone gets stolen guess what, you also have nothing to worry about. Theives are going to wipe it anyway so they don't get caught.
Cboss
May 2, 07:55 PM
According to this article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metrication_in_the_United_States#20th_century), the metric system was supposed to be almost fully implemented in the US by 2000, but because of a lack of enough public and government support through the 70s-90s the program essentially got shut down.
As an engineering student, I hope we will switch soon. The metric system makes so much more sense and is far easier to learn. Even for more common measurements (How many teaspoons/tablespoons in a cup again? Yards in a mile?), SI is a far superior system.
I think the biggest obstacle right now is the older generations who have grown up with imperial units and don't want to learn a new system. It should at least be taught equally in schools so a future switch won't cause as much resistance.
As an engineering student, I hope we will switch soon. The metric system makes so much more sense and is far easier to learn. Even for more common measurements (How many teaspoons/tablespoons in a cup again? Yards in a mile?), SI is a far superior system.
I think the biggest obstacle right now is the older generations who have grown up with imperial units and don't want to learn a new system. It should at least be taught equally in schools so a future switch won't cause as much resistance.
TypeGray
Apr 24, 06:16 AM
HiDPI?
DPI = Dots per inch
PPI = Pixels per inch.
DPI is an acronym that mainly applies to the printing industry. No, your brand-shiny new ACD (seems more like BC-ACD) does not display dots. Pixels are, in fact, squares (rectangles, if you really wanna nitpick).
HiPPI is what it should be.
Is this going be another typeface/font mass misunderstanding turned commonplace?
THERE ARE NO DOTS ON YOUR SCREEN! ONLY PIXELS!
Freakin' idiots. What would your mothers say?
DPI = Dots per inch
PPI = Pixels per inch.
DPI is an acronym that mainly applies to the printing industry. No, your brand-shiny new ACD (seems more like BC-ACD) does not display dots. Pixels are, in fact, squares (rectangles, if you really wanna nitpick).
HiPPI is what it should be.
Is this going be another typeface/font mass misunderstanding turned commonplace?
THERE ARE NO DOTS ON YOUR SCREEN! ONLY PIXELS!
Freakin' idiots. What would your mothers say?
jholzner
Jul 21, 04:20 PM
iPods? Just no. They will come out in September, or else the September 17th due date for a free Nano would be dumb.
Well, I guess Apple was pretty dumb last year when they annouced the Nano while the iPod mini promo was still going strong. The promo didn't change and the mini was only availabe to edu customers so they could finish up the promo.
September 7, 2005
Apple Introduces iPod nano
"Back to School Promo. College students — buy a qualifying Mac before September 25, and get a free iPod mini"
Well, I guess Apple was pretty dumb last year when they annouced the Nano while the iPod mini promo was still going strong. The promo didn't change and the mini was only availabe to edu customers so they could finish up the promo.
September 7, 2005
Apple Introduces iPod nano
"Back to School Promo. College students — buy a qualifying Mac before September 25, and get a free iPod mini"
jcampa
Aug 11, 04:22 PM
Dates!! I just want to know dates!! Not until september, please Apple, release the MBP with Merom processors this month!!
And make it available inmediatly, that same day!!
That's all I'm asking for, no more....
And make it available inmediatly, that same day!!
That's all I'm asking for, no more....
wclyffe
Nov 21, 07:46 AM
TalonFlyer..
Here is how I grade the Car Kit (1-10):
Mounting: 8
Rotation: 7
Articulation: 3
Hands-Free: 4 (Weak, speaker is facing away from you, VOX'ing problem)
GPS: 6 (Only very slightly better that the built in GPS)
Compatibility: 3 (Can't use iPod Touch)
Bluetooth: 2 (Phone will not pair until docked, can't pair with other devices)
Overall it's a $79.00 retail mount with a questionable hands-free, only a small incremental change in GPS accuracy and a useless bluetooth implementation. I'll give it a generous 5 out of 10 for now.
*************************************************************
Nice review, and thanks. It sounds like you might have gotten a unit that is sub par. The rotation and articulation of the car kit in many of the Youtube videos seems very tight, very solid with strong mounting. Did it just loosen up over that short time or did it start out not so great? Maybe send it back?
I thought I remember reading that the Handsfree Bluetooth is duplex so I'm also not sure where your issue comes from. That said, I may get that as a separate item on the visor of my car if its below quality. I have another car with a BluAnt unit in it and its terrific.
Also, there are now several places where you can order the car kit for much less money. I have an order into BTL for $87 which sounds like a more reasonable price for the unit. I'm sure it will continue to drop.
Thanks again!
Here is how I grade the Car Kit (1-10):
Mounting: 8
Rotation: 7
Articulation: 3
Hands-Free: 4 (Weak, speaker is facing away from you, VOX'ing problem)
GPS: 6 (Only very slightly better that the built in GPS)
Compatibility: 3 (Can't use iPod Touch)
Bluetooth: 2 (Phone will not pair until docked, can't pair with other devices)
Overall it's a $79.00 retail mount with a questionable hands-free, only a small incremental change in GPS accuracy and a useless bluetooth implementation. I'll give it a generous 5 out of 10 for now.
*************************************************************
Nice review, and thanks. It sounds like you might have gotten a unit that is sub par. The rotation and articulation of the car kit in many of the Youtube videos seems very tight, very solid with strong mounting. Did it just loosen up over that short time or did it start out not so great? Maybe send it back?
I thought I remember reading that the Handsfree Bluetooth is duplex so I'm also not sure where your issue comes from. That said, I may get that as a separate item on the visor of my car if its below quality. I have another car with a BluAnt unit in it and its terrific.
Also, there are now several places where you can order the car kit for much less money. I have an order into BTL for $87 which sounds like a more reasonable price for the unit. I'm sure it will continue to drop.
Thanks again!
firewood
May 6, 01:16 AM
While you're over here thinking "I can't do bootcamp with ARM" Apple is thinking "Bootcamp will be obsolite when we get done here" :apple:
Or Apple might be thinking that Bootcamp will work just fine on ARM when Windows 8 moves to ARM as well.
Or this rumor could just be a negotiating ploy to keep Intel from thinking of raising prices on Apple.
Or both.
Or Apple might be thinking that Bootcamp will work just fine on ARM when Windows 8 moves to ARM as well.
Or this rumor could just be a negotiating ploy to keep Intel from thinking of raising prices on Apple.
Or both.
28monkeys
Apr 23, 06:21 PM
Bogus story because Apple would never fit graphics cards capable of outputting at that res in the iMacs or laptops. Plus I don't think any single monitor can have that resolution that you can buy today?
Do you understand technology?
Do you understand technology?
ctachme
Sep 15, 04:24 PM
Sounds good. Hope it happens for those waiting for it.
I also hope the design is revamped i.e. magnetic latch etc.
Maybe an ACD update to boot?
Yeah, i'd be sad if they just dropped a new processor in there. I'd want a new video card at the very least, and maybe DL burners in the 15" would be nice.
I also hope the design is revamped i.e. magnetic latch etc.
Maybe an ACD update to boot?
Yeah, i'd be sad if they just dropped a new processor in there. I'd want a new video card at the very least, and maybe DL burners in the 15" would be nice.
macinnv
Apr 26, 04:20 PM
Plain and simple. This problem for Apple would go away over the course of 6 months if they were on all 4 US carriers.