wordoflife
Feb 27, 09:51 PM
Here at school it is my only computer, and I used it almost exclusively last year because I was on the move so much. So yeah I guess you could say I do a lot of typing on here haha. :)
lol, I just realized how stupid my previous comment sounded :o
lol, I just realized how stupid my previous comment sounded :o
longofest
Jul 13, 10:37 PM
So, how long till it comes to laptops? :D
And on top of that, its only going to be a viewer, right? I mean have they created any Blu-ray burners, yet?
I really don't want to buy a Macbook Pro until it has Merom, 802.11n, and blue-ray, cause I know those are all going to be standard in less than a year and I can't afford to have a crippled laptop for 3 yrs.
Hopefully it won't be too far, I've saved enough cash.
Really, the only company that is actually selling laptops with Bluray drives in them currently is Sony with their Viao. Pioneer has a desktop reader, but it is very expensive (around $1000 USD). BenQ has recently announced that in late August it will be shipping a Bluray burner for a bit above $1000, but not sure if its going to be availbable in the US. The prices are pretty fixed mainly because of Sony apparently. I couldn't really go into it in the story, but there is soooo much to this whole Bluray thing, its ridiculous.
The focal point of Bluray has really turned on Sony's Playstation 3. There are a lot of conspiracy theories (that supposedly have a lot of reason behind them) that Sony isn't letting the price of Bluray players go down until the Playstation 3 comes out.
Then you have the format war between HD DVD and Bluray. HD DVD has not only beaten Bluray to the market, but is beating them on price as well, although not as dramatically as once thought might happen.
I speculate that we could see a Bluray drive as a build to order option perhaps in the first revision of the Mac Pro, or perhaps as standard in the high-end model, but that very well could not happen until the first revision like the analyst said early next year.
And on top of that, its only going to be a viewer, right? I mean have they created any Blu-ray burners, yet?
I really don't want to buy a Macbook Pro until it has Merom, 802.11n, and blue-ray, cause I know those are all going to be standard in less than a year and I can't afford to have a crippled laptop for 3 yrs.
Hopefully it won't be too far, I've saved enough cash.
Really, the only company that is actually selling laptops with Bluray drives in them currently is Sony with their Viao. Pioneer has a desktop reader, but it is very expensive (around $1000 USD). BenQ has recently announced that in late August it will be shipping a Bluray burner for a bit above $1000, but not sure if its going to be availbable in the US. The prices are pretty fixed mainly because of Sony apparently. I couldn't really go into it in the story, but there is soooo much to this whole Bluray thing, its ridiculous.
The focal point of Bluray has really turned on Sony's Playstation 3. There are a lot of conspiracy theories (that supposedly have a lot of reason behind them) that Sony isn't letting the price of Bluray players go down until the Playstation 3 comes out.
Then you have the format war between HD DVD and Bluray. HD DVD has not only beaten Bluray to the market, but is beating them on price as well, although not as dramatically as once thought might happen.
I speculate that we could see a Bluray drive as a build to order option perhaps in the first revision of the Mac Pro, or perhaps as standard in the high-end model, but that very well could not happen until the first revision like the analyst said early next year.
jettredmont
Aug 16, 02:00 PM
We need flat data rates on mobiles in the UK. It will happen (esp. if they want people to embrace 3g that they spent all the money on), it's just when.
While it's nice to dream, when you are talking about a service (downloading music from your server to your device) that the vast majority of people are going to be using many hours in a day, I doubt you'll see that being "cheap" on the current setups any time soon. For one, there isn't that kind of capacity in the networks. For another, while it may be different in the UK, there are still many pockets of poor or nonexistent coverage. Finally, the cost of portable storage is decreasing significantly (by which I mean, several orders of magnitude) faster than the cost of network bandwidth.
Network capacity is where it all starts off. Why are ringtones so expensive? Well, for one, because people still buy them. But, offering $1 or $0.25 ringtones would yield a killing for both the record companies (getting $0.25 for 1/6th of a song? Seems about right relative to $1/song) and greatly expand the service in terms of total market size (ie, 1/3rd revenue per download, but much more than 3x increase in number of downloads). Why don't they do this? Because their networks, to a one, could not stand for this traffic to increase enough that the market would expand enough to make the change profitable. When you pay $3 for a ringtone download you are paying primarily to keep other people from doing the same. Sounds perverse, but that's the reality when you have a limited-availability resource, it is the foundation of supply vs demand.
Expanding on the second: I'd never, ever, buy something that I would want to use when driving, for instance, across the "boring states" of Nevada and south-eastern Oregon, that requires a constant connection to any type of service. Why? Because even cell phones are useless for about a three hour stretch of Highway 95 going up from Winnemucca. If cell phones aren't working now, how long will it be before some next-generation service comes in and "wires" the place up?
I might shoot myself without my iPod to listen to during that three hours of scrubgrass, migrating crickets, and mountains.
But, seriously, you guys are talking about a concept that would have garnered a lot of conversation fifteen years ago. The fact of the day is, though, that networking is not getting cheaper at a rate of doubling bandwidth per year, and small, portable hard drive storage (or non-hard drive Flash storage, even moreso) is. Wireless networking isn't winning on power consumption either (Flash storage wins there by a longshot as well).
Until people start having libraries that are infeasible to transport with them (which means, hard drive space can't keep up with library space, which certainly isn't the case today as library space isn't doubling per year either)and which can be trickle-downloaded to a low-profile wireless device in realtime, the idea here is dead. Sorry, that's just the facts.
While it's nice to dream, when you are talking about a service (downloading music from your server to your device) that the vast majority of people are going to be using many hours in a day, I doubt you'll see that being "cheap" on the current setups any time soon. For one, there isn't that kind of capacity in the networks. For another, while it may be different in the UK, there are still many pockets of poor or nonexistent coverage. Finally, the cost of portable storage is decreasing significantly (by which I mean, several orders of magnitude) faster than the cost of network bandwidth.
Network capacity is where it all starts off. Why are ringtones so expensive? Well, for one, because people still buy them. But, offering $1 or $0.25 ringtones would yield a killing for both the record companies (getting $0.25 for 1/6th of a song? Seems about right relative to $1/song) and greatly expand the service in terms of total market size (ie, 1/3rd revenue per download, but much more than 3x increase in number of downloads). Why don't they do this? Because their networks, to a one, could not stand for this traffic to increase enough that the market would expand enough to make the change profitable. When you pay $3 for a ringtone download you are paying primarily to keep other people from doing the same. Sounds perverse, but that's the reality when you have a limited-availability resource, it is the foundation of supply vs demand.
Expanding on the second: I'd never, ever, buy something that I would want to use when driving, for instance, across the "boring states" of Nevada and south-eastern Oregon, that requires a constant connection to any type of service. Why? Because even cell phones are useless for about a three hour stretch of Highway 95 going up from Winnemucca. If cell phones aren't working now, how long will it be before some next-generation service comes in and "wires" the place up?
I might shoot myself without my iPod to listen to during that three hours of scrubgrass, migrating crickets, and mountains.
But, seriously, you guys are talking about a concept that would have garnered a lot of conversation fifteen years ago. The fact of the day is, though, that networking is not getting cheaper at a rate of doubling bandwidth per year, and small, portable hard drive storage (or non-hard drive Flash storage, even moreso) is. Wireless networking isn't winning on power consumption either (Flash storage wins there by a longshot as well).
Until people start having libraries that are infeasible to transport with them (which means, hard drive space can't keep up with library space, which certainly isn't the case today as library space isn't doubling per year either)and which can be trickle-downloaded to a low-profile wireless device in realtime, the idea here is dead. Sorry, that's just the facts.
Mexbearpig
Nov 25, 02:37 PM
Our power went out so we went out to get something to eat. I got a vent double chocolate chip frappuccino with a blueberry scone.and now our power is back on!
FearNo1
Apr 22, 09:58 PM
How is this "common knowledge" when apple supposedly added this all seeing eye feature in 2010? And with al bore on apple's board, that is even more reason to be concerned...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-13145562
The men claim that the facility to record users' positions was added with the iOS4 software update, released in June 2010.
Really? This is common knowledge and is legal. All cell phones have this backdoor built in. Al Gore is on Apple's board. This became law in 2001.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-13145562
The men claim that the facility to record users' positions was added with the iOS4 software update, released in June 2010.
Really? This is common knowledge and is legal. All cell phones have this backdoor built in. Al Gore is on Apple's board. This became law in 2001.
nemaslov
Mar 23, 01:36 PM
To each his own. But come on. 497 days worth of music? That's almost a year and a half of listening to music 24 hours a day without listening to the same song twice. I think you'd have to replace the battery before then.
You still don't get it. It is having all your music with you. The choice to play anything you feel in the mood to hear , not that you play it all from start to finish.
You still don't get it. It is having all your music with you. The choice to play anything you feel in the mood to hear , not that you play it all from start to finish.
islanders
Dec 29, 08:21 AM
It looks like it�s going to play YouTube on your TV and be a HDMI/DVI/USB switch board.
A video processor or scaler would be nice.
If it doesn�t have HD there wont be much demand for iTunes download.
I wish they would team up with a high speed satellite internet provider and provide an iDish, but it looks like Apple is thinking small potatoes and thinks it�s going go luck out with another simple iPod device.
It is a good price point and a lot of people will want to watch YouTube on their tv, and a HDMI/DVI switch is about a $100 bucks.
A video processor or scaler would be nice.
If it doesn�t have HD there wont be much demand for iTunes download.
I wish they would team up with a high speed satellite internet provider and provide an iDish, but it looks like Apple is thinking small potatoes and thinks it�s going go luck out with another simple iPod device.
It is a good price point and a lot of people will want to watch YouTube on their tv, and a HDMI/DVI switch is about a $100 bucks.
Lord Blackadder
Mar 4, 02:27 PM
In many ways, it's shameful today that we think that 60 or even 70mpg is somehow remarkable for a family car. :(
It certainly could be significantly higher. Public taste, laziness on the part of manufacturers and other things have all conspired to keep the bar set low on fuel economy.
In the US, there's one key reason why small cars don't sell (above and beyond the reasons I already listed), and that is that popular wisdom holds that you will die in a small car when someone in a large SUV or truck hits you. It's a self-fulfilling prophesy as people buy big cars because they don't feel safe in small ones, with the result that they become part of the "problem". Ultimately it's down to selfishness. Apparently people would rather kill someone else in an accident than risk being killed themselves.
It's idiotic, but this "wisdom" will only be unlearned slowly. Smaller cars are much safer now then they once were - safer than trucks and SUVs.
By way of a postscript, it's worth pointing out that today's safety and environmental regulations make it more difficult to make a car frugal, small and light than it was when Alec Issigonis designed the Mini. Also, aluminum construction (in smaller production cars such as the A2) remains nearly as rare and expensive as it was in the 50s.
But not the brand image... that could perhaps be the biggest stumbling block of all, it certainly is in Europe anyway.
True, and that's a shame, because brand image often matters than a car's actual merits. If the new Jetta is a turd, people will still buy it because the VW badge has cachet here that GM does not, at least in the realm of small cars.
I'm not going to stand up too much for GM, I've never held a high opinion of most of their products, but I have reasonably read good reviews of the Cruze and I hope they bring the diesel here.
Have to say my preference is for saloons... occasionally an estate (particularly A4 & A6 allroads, also 159 Sportwagons, that sort of thing), hatches (the bigger ones anyway) & estates can/tend to be a little boomy in my experience. Saloons also often have better body rigidity too.
The sedan body is the default in the US. Hatches and wagons are much rarer and therefore more interesting. In Europe it's really the other way around. When you're talking about mid-size or larger cars, sedans do generally have better proportions in my opinion (with a few exceptions - I like 5-Series wagon, and the 1990s Subaru Legacy wagon). Hatches look good on small cars though. The Focus, for example, looked stupid as a sedan but great as a hatch.
I do agree with you about the noise though - my Forester's rear suspension is sometimes very audible in the cabin, especially with the seats down. A few years before I bought my Forester, I used to mock it as the ugliest thing on the road, but I've gotten used to it and while it's never going to be attractive it does have a certain pleasing purposefulness in its proportions. Even though a lesbian couple I know call it my lesbian wagon. :rolleyes::D
It certainly could be significantly higher. Public taste, laziness on the part of manufacturers and other things have all conspired to keep the bar set low on fuel economy.
In the US, there's one key reason why small cars don't sell (above and beyond the reasons I already listed), and that is that popular wisdom holds that you will die in a small car when someone in a large SUV or truck hits you. It's a self-fulfilling prophesy as people buy big cars because they don't feel safe in small ones, with the result that they become part of the "problem". Ultimately it's down to selfishness. Apparently people would rather kill someone else in an accident than risk being killed themselves.
It's idiotic, but this "wisdom" will only be unlearned slowly. Smaller cars are much safer now then they once were - safer than trucks and SUVs.
By way of a postscript, it's worth pointing out that today's safety and environmental regulations make it more difficult to make a car frugal, small and light than it was when Alec Issigonis designed the Mini. Also, aluminum construction (in smaller production cars such as the A2) remains nearly as rare and expensive as it was in the 50s.
But not the brand image... that could perhaps be the biggest stumbling block of all, it certainly is in Europe anyway.
True, and that's a shame, because brand image often matters than a car's actual merits. If the new Jetta is a turd, people will still buy it because the VW badge has cachet here that GM does not, at least in the realm of small cars.
I'm not going to stand up too much for GM, I've never held a high opinion of most of their products, but I have reasonably read good reviews of the Cruze and I hope they bring the diesel here.
Have to say my preference is for saloons... occasionally an estate (particularly A4 & A6 allroads, also 159 Sportwagons, that sort of thing), hatches (the bigger ones anyway) & estates can/tend to be a little boomy in my experience. Saloons also often have better body rigidity too.
The sedan body is the default in the US. Hatches and wagons are much rarer and therefore more interesting. In Europe it's really the other way around. When you're talking about mid-size or larger cars, sedans do generally have better proportions in my opinion (with a few exceptions - I like 5-Series wagon, and the 1990s Subaru Legacy wagon). Hatches look good on small cars though. The Focus, for example, looked stupid as a sedan but great as a hatch.
I do agree with you about the noise though - my Forester's rear suspension is sometimes very audible in the cabin, especially with the seats down. A few years before I bought my Forester, I used to mock it as the ugliest thing on the road, but I've gotten used to it and while it's never going to be attractive it does have a certain pleasing purposefulness in its proportions. Even though a lesbian couple I know call it my lesbian wagon. :rolleyes::D
slffl
Oct 23, 09:55 AM
As I am waiting for a revision to get a new macbook pro, i really hope when they do update them, it's a major overhaul with a bunch of new goodies. I'm not saying the current design is bad, but I've had my 17" PB for 3.5 years and I just need something new.
gkarris
Nov 28, 07:24 PM
zune people don't seem to agree what it is bad. they just deny the true. here what they are ridiculous.
http://www.zunescene.com/forums/index.php?topic=3784.0
I consider myself more a creative person, as I've been into photography since junior high in the seventies. The whole computer geekish stuff is more a passing interest, rather than a lifestyle (I really like sci-fi, but like a lot of other movies too).
When I use my old 12" iBook G3, or my 14" iBook G4 in public, I usually get - wow, cool.
When I use my Dell from work, or my Compaq laptop, people look at me as nerdy (they come up and ask if I could help them connect to the network).
I'm tempted to go onto the above Zune website and hold a contest to see who has the best post as far as Zune being better than an iPod....
Then, gift the winner "White and Nerdy" video from Wierd Al...
Oh wait, Zune Marketplace doesn't do music videos, and the Zune won't play iTunes Store music videos either...
http://www.zunescene.com/forums/index.php?topic=3784.0
I consider myself more a creative person, as I've been into photography since junior high in the seventies. The whole computer geekish stuff is more a passing interest, rather than a lifestyle (I really like sci-fi, but like a lot of other movies too).
When I use my old 12" iBook G3, or my 14" iBook G4 in public, I usually get - wow, cool.
When I use my Dell from work, or my Compaq laptop, people look at me as nerdy (they come up and ask if I could help them connect to the network).
I'm tempted to go onto the above Zune website and hold a contest to see who has the best post as far as Zune being better than an iPod....
Then, gift the winner "White and Nerdy" video from Wierd Al...
Oh wait, Zune Marketplace doesn't do music videos, and the Zune won't play iTunes Store music videos either...
generik
Oct 14, 07:03 PM
Since I'm home for the evening and didn't see your post until now, I can't give you any specific side-by-side tests, but I can give you a rough estimate of the speeds.
Overall, the Dual G5 is faster, not by a landslide by any means, but it is faster. Of course the G5 has 1.5 gigs of RAM vs. the mini's 512K, and the G5 has a 1Ghz BUS speed vs. the 667Mhz of the mini. If I were to slap in 2 gigs of RAM in to the mini then I'm sure I would see a little more performance, but I think the G5 would still be faster.
But the mini is still very zippy, no beachballs or waiting on Apps, very fast and clean for average use. Now if I were to do some Photoshop or, say, FCP comparisons, I'm sure the G5 would clean up in those areas.
I'm really happy with the purchase though, it's perfect for what I need it to do.
Oh, I installed Windows XP via BootCamp and after having to burn an illegal copy of my legal disc (the retail disc was bad) I got it running with no problems. I must say, this mini is the fastest Windows machine I've ever had.
Ok, that is not being very fair to the mini... at all.
I have a Mini and did my own ram upgrades on it, the before and after results are very significantly different. The Mini is horrible at 512, and at 1GB it starts picking up, at 2GB it is actually pretty damned good.
Perhaps you should strip 1GB of ram off the PM and redo the comparison, also bus speeds can't be quantified the way you did... the PPC actually needs more bandwidth due to the risc architecture.
You talk about the price but I look at it this way. shore it might not be that great for the price and the difference between the hign end mini and the low end imac is not worth the hign end mini price but the point of the mini is to get people off the windows crap.I was going to switch back when the first intel mini came out but wanted something bettter for the price I ended up getting another windows one but now that the low end mini has due core and more ram I'm looking at selling my pc and getting a mac.I have been a fan of apple and the mac for many years and can see that it is not there hardware that sells the systems but there OS. I feel vista is doomed to fail and apple will be there to pick up the pieces when leopard comes out. I think Macworld 07 will be the best yet and will put windows and the pc on the down fall for good.Apple will be king in 2007 and we need to stop complaining and know apple will keep on putting the goods out.
Not really, the cheapest iMac is $999 which is $200 more than the top end Mini, and even at that price the Mini wins out with a DVD-writer and the remote. At the expense of those you get a faster processor (probably not huge improvement) and a 17" screen. Displays are pretty cheap nowadays so if you need a DVD writer you have to shell out extra to get the next higher up iMac model.
Overall, the Dual G5 is faster, not by a landslide by any means, but it is faster. Of course the G5 has 1.5 gigs of RAM vs. the mini's 512K, and the G5 has a 1Ghz BUS speed vs. the 667Mhz of the mini. If I were to slap in 2 gigs of RAM in to the mini then I'm sure I would see a little more performance, but I think the G5 would still be faster.
But the mini is still very zippy, no beachballs or waiting on Apps, very fast and clean for average use. Now if I were to do some Photoshop or, say, FCP comparisons, I'm sure the G5 would clean up in those areas.
I'm really happy with the purchase though, it's perfect for what I need it to do.
Oh, I installed Windows XP via BootCamp and after having to burn an illegal copy of my legal disc (the retail disc was bad) I got it running with no problems. I must say, this mini is the fastest Windows machine I've ever had.
Ok, that is not being very fair to the mini... at all.
I have a Mini and did my own ram upgrades on it, the before and after results are very significantly different. The Mini is horrible at 512, and at 1GB it starts picking up, at 2GB it is actually pretty damned good.
Perhaps you should strip 1GB of ram off the PM and redo the comparison, also bus speeds can't be quantified the way you did... the PPC actually needs more bandwidth due to the risc architecture.
You talk about the price but I look at it this way. shore it might not be that great for the price and the difference between the hign end mini and the low end imac is not worth the hign end mini price but the point of the mini is to get people off the windows crap.I was going to switch back when the first intel mini came out but wanted something bettter for the price I ended up getting another windows one but now that the low end mini has due core and more ram I'm looking at selling my pc and getting a mac.I have been a fan of apple and the mac for many years and can see that it is not there hardware that sells the systems but there OS. I feel vista is doomed to fail and apple will be there to pick up the pieces when leopard comes out. I think Macworld 07 will be the best yet and will put windows and the pc on the down fall for good.Apple will be king in 2007 and we need to stop complaining and know apple will keep on putting the goods out.
Not really, the cheapest iMac is $999 which is $200 more than the top end Mini, and even at that price the Mini wins out with a DVD-writer and the remote. At the expense of those you get a faster processor (probably not huge improvement) and a 17" screen. Displays are pretty cheap nowadays so if you need a DVD writer you have to shell out extra to get the next higher up iMac model.
twoodcc
May 8, 11:03 PM
Thanks, I hope this will be my best month yet, we shall see...
you and me both. i've got this month and most of next month before i'm going to have an outage
you and me both. i've got this month and most of next month before i'm going to have an outage
fr4c
Nov 23, 11:22 PM
Psht. I can get that up here for free.
No need to rub it in.
Sent from the neighbors down south.
;)
No need to rub it in.
Sent from the neighbors down south.
;)
regandarcy
Apr 19, 12:20 PM
Honestly with the new Quad Core MBP lineup it makes much more sense to get a monitor and add it to your notebook than to get an iMac. (Unless you really need 16GB of ram vs 8GB).
I can see one day only having the Mac Pro for those of use that need one (video editing, digital creation etc) and the high-powered MBP for those who don't want a tower.
The current apple cinema displays don't have a thunderbolt port. And actually I think the macbooks have more to fear from the ipads than the iMacs do from the macbooks. Also, there used to be a time not long ago, that artists ALWAYS went for the Mac pros over an iMac.....but that is not the case anymore. I know filmmakers, photographers, graphic artists and the like who've chosen the maxed out iMac instead of a Mac pro.
I can see one day only having the Mac Pro for those of use that need one (video editing, digital creation etc) and the high-powered MBP for those who don't want a tower.
The current apple cinema displays don't have a thunderbolt port. And actually I think the macbooks have more to fear from the ipads than the iMacs do from the macbooks. Also, there used to be a time not long ago, that artists ALWAYS went for the Mac pros over an iMac.....but that is not the case anymore. I know filmmakers, photographers, graphic artists and the like who've chosen the maxed out iMac instead of a Mac pro.
syklee26
Sep 1, 01:37 PM
wouldn't swapping a conroe chip in be an option? just go to Fry's and buy the chip then.
WilliamG
Sep 14, 02:20 PM
Does Consumer Reports stop recommending automobile purchases? Because you know if there is an issue with a car, the manufacturer will issue a recall. If you are affected, you have to take it into a dealer where it will be fixed. The onus is on the owner of the car, for crying out loud! The auto manufacturers should go house to house providing the fix for free to all cars, whether their owners report a problem or not!
Wait, you mean Consumer Reports does not hold the auto manufacturers to the same artificial standard they hold Apple to? How amazing...
Well, if a car made phone calls and was... you know... a phone, that would be different.
I think Consumer Reports are dead on in not recommending the iPhone 4. And take that from someone who loves his iPhone 4.
Wait, you mean Consumer Reports does not hold the auto manufacturers to the same artificial standard they hold Apple to? How amazing...
Well, if a car made phone calls and was... you know... a phone, that would be different.
I think Consumer Reports are dead on in not recommending the iPhone 4. And take that from someone who loves his iPhone 4.
ghostlyorb
Mar 25, 04:49 PM
I might actually buy that adaptor now....
acslater017
Aug 6, 11:04 PM
you know everyone's going mac nuts when it says "update: photo of cloth covered banners".... :)
jgould
Feb 21, 06:44 AM
Not concerned with the impending refresh? Or do you plan to return and rebuy post-refresh?
Having picked up a 13" MBP yesterday, I won't take this one back unless there is something that I need in it. Overall I'm not normally someone that worries about the contents of a refresh.
Having picked up a 13" MBP yesterday, I won't take this one back unless there is something that I need in it. Overall I'm not normally someone that worries about the contents of a refresh.
DouchGod
Nov 24, 02:53 AM
Building myself a new computer:
Asus Crosshair IV Formula AMD 890FX (Socket AM3) DDR3 Motherboard
http://www.alphacity.co.nz/images/electronics/Crosshair-IV-Formula.jpg
Sapphire ATI Radeon HD 6850 1024MB GDDR5 PCI-Express Graphics Card
http://images.bizrate.com/resize?sq=300&uid=2261268837
AMD Phenom II X6 Six Core 1055T 2.80GHz
http://static.letsbuyit.com/filer/images/uk/products/original/201/7/amd-phenom-ii-x6-1055t-six-core-processor-2-80-ghz-9mb-cache-socket-am3-125w-45-nm-3-year-war-20107372.jpeg
G.Skill RipJaw 8GB (2x4GB) DDR3 PC3-10666C9 1333MHz Dual Channel Kit
http://p.gzhls.at/466065.jpg
Microsoft Windows 7 Professional 64-Bit - OEM
http://www.gttkc.com/shop/images/7professional.jpeg
NZXT Phantom Enthusiast Full Tower Case - Black
http://www.thebitbag.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/phantom_black_blue_LED2.jpg
2* Samsung SpinPoint F3 1TB SATA-II 32MB Cache - OEM
http://www.awd-it.co.uk/ProdImages/3438_Samsung_Spinpoint_F1_HD753LJ_750GB_SATA_II_32MB_Cache_-_OEM_xl.jpg
Currently sat waiting for it to be delivered.....
Asus Crosshair IV Formula AMD 890FX (Socket AM3) DDR3 Motherboard
http://www.alphacity.co.nz/images/electronics/Crosshair-IV-Formula.jpg
Sapphire ATI Radeon HD 6850 1024MB GDDR5 PCI-Express Graphics Card
http://images.bizrate.com/resize?sq=300&uid=2261268837
AMD Phenom II X6 Six Core 1055T 2.80GHz
http://static.letsbuyit.com/filer/images/uk/products/original/201/7/amd-phenom-ii-x6-1055t-six-core-processor-2-80-ghz-9mb-cache-socket-am3-125w-45-nm-3-year-war-20107372.jpeg
G.Skill RipJaw 8GB (2x4GB) DDR3 PC3-10666C9 1333MHz Dual Channel Kit
http://p.gzhls.at/466065.jpg
Microsoft Windows 7 Professional 64-Bit - OEM
http://www.gttkc.com/shop/images/7professional.jpeg
NZXT Phantom Enthusiast Full Tower Case - Black
http://www.thebitbag.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/phantom_black_blue_LED2.jpg
2* Samsung SpinPoint F3 1TB SATA-II 32MB Cache - OEM
http://www.awd-it.co.uk/ProdImages/3438_Samsung_Spinpoint_F1_HD753LJ_750GB_SATA_II_32MB_Cache_-_OEM_xl.jpg
Currently sat waiting for it to be delivered.....
MrTed
Nov 16, 01:58 PM
I'm thinking about my future 8 core Macpro:
2 questions for you:
- Do you think the 8 core proc will produce a lot more heat than the current core duo 2 ? I'm asking because I need a very quiet computer ...
-As always: shall we expect this one in the Macpro before 2007 ?
thx !
2 questions for you:
- Do you think the 8 core proc will produce a lot more heat than the current core duo 2 ? I'm asking because I need a very quiet computer ...
-As always: shall we expect this one in the Macpro before 2007 ?
thx !
E.Lizardo
Mar 25, 07:48 PM
Good luck performing multi-touch and gestures with buttons and joysticks. :rolleyes:
Good luck watching two screens at the same time.
Good luck watching two screens at the same time.
BlizzardBomb
Aug 16, 07:52 AM
Digitimes... Page 1... What has happened to the world! :p
Mobster Sauce
Apr 2, 07:08 PM
Nicely done.
No comments:
Post a Comment