aristobrat
Oct 27, 05:31 PM
Isn't everyone assuming here that the root problem is a heatsink issue? Has Apple ever announced that it was?
Officially, no.
If you can believe this post (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?p=2891746#post2891746), then yes, it was announced to Apple's service providers. These pictures (http://www.flickr.com/photos/99055354@N00/271937310/in/photostream/) show the difference between designs of the two heatsinks.
Officially, no.
If you can believe this post (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?p=2891746#post2891746), then yes, it was announced to Apple's service providers. These pictures (http://www.flickr.com/photos/99055354@N00/271937310/in/photostream/) show the difference between designs of the two heatsinks.
mscriv
Apr 11, 11:57 AM
I object to the notion that good deeds I do are due to vanity, pride etc.
No, sorry, you cannot have that one. "Altruistic" does not coincide with "vanity and self glorification". In my filthy heathen state of unsaved gracelessness, I still do things for which my only reward is a smile. And even when I do have an ulterior motive ("you can return the favor at your leisure, to me or to someone else"), how does that detract from my having done well and good by someone else?
I find this statement utterly appalling. Do those who sacrifice themselves for others do so from selfish motives?
I agree. There is so much wrong with the original statement in addition to your point. I consider "goodness" to get your spot in heaven the ultimate in selfishness. Also, what about gods other than Jesus, are the good things performed in their name just as "selfless"?
Ok, good questions and thoughts. Let me explain/expound upon my statement. The bolded part below seems to be what is drawing the most reaction.
An accurate understanding of original sin does not mean that man is completely "evil" in the sense that we are incapable of doing works that would be considered "good" or altruistic. The human spirit is capable of many good things, but without an accurate understanding of who God is and our relationship to him these good works become nothing but acts of vanity and self glorification that serve only to advance pride and promote self-reliance.
I am not speaking about conscious motivation within an individuals actions/behavior, although that could be true as we all know people do at times act out of selfish and prideful intentions.
I'm talking about a theological understanding of man's state before God. For those that do not believe in a higher power or absolute truth, man, in and of himself, is the highest order of existence/being/evolution, etc. etc.. Thus, any and all accomplishments of man ("good works") are then viewed as self evident truths to this proposition. Man's capacity for altruism, self sacrifice, and compassion are seen as proof of his independence from God. "See what we can accomplish on our own... we don't need God." In this manner all of man's action is an act of self glorification and self reliance.
I'm in a "helping profession" and work daily with people who seek to support and serve others. Many do this out of the "goodness of their own heart" and genuinely do not seek any form of return for their efforts. On a human level these actions are noble and sacrificial and I applaud them. However, on a spiritual level, I must recognize that scripture teaches us that our "good deeds" are worthless if our heart is not right with God.
Please understand, this doesn't mean that the positive results of these actions are meaningless. For example, giving food to the homeless is a sacrificial act that does help people in need, but it will in no way earn you "points" with God. The Bible does not teach a theology of works. It's not about what you do, it's about your relationship with Christ.
Again, as I always say, this is ultimately an issue of faith and I completely understand that it can be hard to comprehend for some. And it is a subtle nuance to understand the difference between doing something because you adhere to a set of principles (right vs. wrong) and doing it because it is an outflow of your relationship with God.
It's like I told someone recently in a conversation we were having. I don't stay true to my wife because being unfaithful to her would be the morally wrong thing to do. I could care less about the moral principle of marital faithfulness. My motivation for staying true to my wife is that I have an intimate loving relationship with her and I would never want to hurt her or damage that relationship in any way.
Which takes us into rougher territory. If works are relatively insignificant in the scheme of salvation, your absolute moral code starts to crumble and fall in on itself. For, why should a believer bother to follow it if the saviour is always near at hand to forgive and redeem?
You may not realize it Sydde, but what you are saying is still along the lines of a works based relationship with God and that is not what the Bible teaches. It's not about a revolving door of "messing up" and and then asking for forgiveness. Christ death paid the price in full for all sin (past, present, and future). What matters is the condition of your heart before him and the intimacy of your relationship with him. Within that context are you seeking your own way including your own selfish desires or are you seeking to be the servant leader he wants you to be. The examples you gave in your post were all of people being selfishly motivated for their own gain.
In light of the examples of history (perhaps including those in the bible itself), how can you say that religion has made anyone a better person than they would have been? To me, it looks like religion has made the world a worse place than it might have been without it.
I'd think you would agree that people like Mother Theresa were able to successfully live out their faith with the goal of bringing glory to God while serving others. She's just the first example that pops into my head, but there are countless others. Again, it's not about "religion" making us "better people", that's a selfish manner of thinking. My relationship with God is not about me, it's about him.
"Many people mistake our work for our vocation. Our vocation is the love of Jesus."
"There is always the danger that we may just do the work for the sake of the work. This is where the respect and the love and the devotion come in - that we do it to God, to Christ, and that's why we try to do it as beautifully as possible."
~ Mother Theresa
Every time I hear about how we are naturally selfish and corrupt, I hear the utterer trying to apologize for their own faults by expanding them upon all others. As a counselor, you should be familiar with the mechanism called "projection".
I'm very familiar with projection. I can assure you that is not what's happening here. I'm merely presenting what God has communicated to us through the Bible. Could it be that your skepticism and cynicism is a projection of something within you? Why don't you come over he and lie on this couch and tell me about your mother... ;)
Yet, again, the absolutes get bent. When believers run up against a moral wall that divides them from their goals, they seek the counsel of a cleric. The cleric typically sympathizes with the believer's plight and very often finds a way to interpret the scripture to turn the question to the believer's favor. So you have your absolutes, but they are also flexible. What good then are they, that they can be molded to suit your needs? How is this better than situational ethics (logic, reason and compromise), other than to employ scholars in the service of the almighty?
Well, first of all, "clerics" are not required for us to interpret scripture or have a relationship with God. When Christ was crucified he tore the temple veil representing that his sacrifice has made the way for man to have a direct relationship with God, no human intermediary is required. As far as prooftexting or manipulating scripture for your own personal motives due to a presenting dilemma, well, I'm sure you already know my answer to this based on my previous comments. Scripture stands alone as authoritative regardless of how I "feel" about it or what I "want" it to say. If I'm seeking to find an "exception" in scripture to justify my own position then my heart is not in the right place.
I have had more than a third of a century (from teenage years) to develop my philosophy and unbeliefs, and you are obviously quite steadfast in yours, so yes, there can be little doubt of the mexican stand-off. Does it trouble you? As hoary and mulish as I may be, I still find merit in these discussions, because they draw things out into the light that I had not bothered to look at. You do teach me things, though they are almost certainly not the things you intend. I hope you in some way also benefit, it would be a shame to think this only leads you to despair.
Fret not my friend. I think there is extreme merit in these discussions and I appreciate the respectful way in which many of us here are able to engage each other on such topics.
As far as me being troubled or in "despair" the answer to your question is both yes and no. I do seek to consistently and genuinely live out my faith and thus I do wish to see other's come into relationship with Christ (you know that whole "go ye therefore" thing in the Bible). However, do I judge others and base my entire relationship with them on evangelistic purposes? No. One of the greatest gifts God has given us is free will, in fact, without free will everything we are talking about falls apart. I respect, just as God has designed it to be, that people have the freedom and the ability to reject him and live their life as they see fit. I love, value, relate to, and learn from others regardless of their spiritual beliefs. It would be foolish of me to limit my relationships with people solely on their spirituality or lack thereof. My goal is to accept people as they are, treat them with dignity and respect, and seek out how I might serve or support them in the context of our relationship.
Besides, if I do happen to get down about it, I know a pretty good therapist. ;)
Sorry for the long post, but I wanted to address the questions/comments that had been made. :)
No, sorry, you cannot have that one. "Altruistic" does not coincide with "vanity and self glorification". In my filthy heathen state of unsaved gracelessness, I still do things for which my only reward is a smile. And even when I do have an ulterior motive ("you can return the favor at your leisure, to me or to someone else"), how does that detract from my having done well and good by someone else?
I find this statement utterly appalling. Do those who sacrifice themselves for others do so from selfish motives?
I agree. There is so much wrong with the original statement in addition to your point. I consider "goodness" to get your spot in heaven the ultimate in selfishness. Also, what about gods other than Jesus, are the good things performed in their name just as "selfless"?
Ok, good questions and thoughts. Let me explain/expound upon my statement. The bolded part below seems to be what is drawing the most reaction.
An accurate understanding of original sin does not mean that man is completely "evil" in the sense that we are incapable of doing works that would be considered "good" or altruistic. The human spirit is capable of many good things, but without an accurate understanding of who God is and our relationship to him these good works become nothing but acts of vanity and self glorification that serve only to advance pride and promote self-reliance.
I am not speaking about conscious motivation within an individuals actions/behavior, although that could be true as we all know people do at times act out of selfish and prideful intentions.
I'm talking about a theological understanding of man's state before God. For those that do not believe in a higher power or absolute truth, man, in and of himself, is the highest order of existence/being/evolution, etc. etc.. Thus, any and all accomplishments of man ("good works") are then viewed as self evident truths to this proposition. Man's capacity for altruism, self sacrifice, and compassion are seen as proof of his independence from God. "See what we can accomplish on our own... we don't need God." In this manner all of man's action is an act of self glorification and self reliance.
I'm in a "helping profession" and work daily with people who seek to support and serve others. Many do this out of the "goodness of their own heart" and genuinely do not seek any form of return for their efforts. On a human level these actions are noble and sacrificial and I applaud them. However, on a spiritual level, I must recognize that scripture teaches us that our "good deeds" are worthless if our heart is not right with God.
Please understand, this doesn't mean that the positive results of these actions are meaningless. For example, giving food to the homeless is a sacrificial act that does help people in need, but it will in no way earn you "points" with God. The Bible does not teach a theology of works. It's not about what you do, it's about your relationship with Christ.
Again, as I always say, this is ultimately an issue of faith and I completely understand that it can be hard to comprehend for some. And it is a subtle nuance to understand the difference between doing something because you adhere to a set of principles (right vs. wrong) and doing it because it is an outflow of your relationship with God.
It's like I told someone recently in a conversation we were having. I don't stay true to my wife because being unfaithful to her would be the morally wrong thing to do. I could care less about the moral principle of marital faithfulness. My motivation for staying true to my wife is that I have an intimate loving relationship with her and I would never want to hurt her or damage that relationship in any way.
Which takes us into rougher territory. If works are relatively insignificant in the scheme of salvation, your absolute moral code starts to crumble and fall in on itself. For, why should a believer bother to follow it if the saviour is always near at hand to forgive and redeem?
You may not realize it Sydde, but what you are saying is still along the lines of a works based relationship with God and that is not what the Bible teaches. It's not about a revolving door of "messing up" and and then asking for forgiveness. Christ death paid the price in full for all sin (past, present, and future). What matters is the condition of your heart before him and the intimacy of your relationship with him. Within that context are you seeking your own way including your own selfish desires or are you seeking to be the servant leader he wants you to be. The examples you gave in your post were all of people being selfishly motivated for their own gain.
In light of the examples of history (perhaps including those in the bible itself), how can you say that religion has made anyone a better person than they would have been? To me, it looks like religion has made the world a worse place than it might have been without it.
I'd think you would agree that people like Mother Theresa were able to successfully live out their faith with the goal of bringing glory to God while serving others. She's just the first example that pops into my head, but there are countless others. Again, it's not about "religion" making us "better people", that's a selfish manner of thinking. My relationship with God is not about me, it's about him.
"Many people mistake our work for our vocation. Our vocation is the love of Jesus."
"There is always the danger that we may just do the work for the sake of the work. This is where the respect and the love and the devotion come in - that we do it to God, to Christ, and that's why we try to do it as beautifully as possible."
~ Mother Theresa
Every time I hear about how we are naturally selfish and corrupt, I hear the utterer trying to apologize for their own faults by expanding them upon all others. As a counselor, you should be familiar with the mechanism called "projection".
I'm very familiar with projection. I can assure you that is not what's happening here. I'm merely presenting what God has communicated to us through the Bible. Could it be that your skepticism and cynicism is a projection of something within you? Why don't you come over he and lie on this couch and tell me about your mother... ;)
Yet, again, the absolutes get bent. When believers run up against a moral wall that divides them from their goals, they seek the counsel of a cleric. The cleric typically sympathizes with the believer's plight and very often finds a way to interpret the scripture to turn the question to the believer's favor. So you have your absolutes, but they are also flexible. What good then are they, that they can be molded to suit your needs? How is this better than situational ethics (logic, reason and compromise), other than to employ scholars in the service of the almighty?
Well, first of all, "clerics" are not required for us to interpret scripture or have a relationship with God. When Christ was crucified he tore the temple veil representing that his sacrifice has made the way for man to have a direct relationship with God, no human intermediary is required. As far as prooftexting or manipulating scripture for your own personal motives due to a presenting dilemma, well, I'm sure you already know my answer to this based on my previous comments. Scripture stands alone as authoritative regardless of how I "feel" about it or what I "want" it to say. If I'm seeking to find an "exception" in scripture to justify my own position then my heart is not in the right place.
I have had more than a third of a century (from teenage years) to develop my philosophy and unbeliefs, and you are obviously quite steadfast in yours, so yes, there can be little doubt of the mexican stand-off. Does it trouble you? As hoary and mulish as I may be, I still find merit in these discussions, because they draw things out into the light that I had not bothered to look at. You do teach me things, though they are almost certainly not the things you intend. I hope you in some way also benefit, it would be a shame to think this only leads you to despair.
Fret not my friend. I think there is extreme merit in these discussions and I appreciate the respectful way in which many of us here are able to engage each other on such topics.
As far as me being troubled or in "despair" the answer to your question is both yes and no. I do seek to consistently and genuinely live out my faith and thus I do wish to see other's come into relationship with Christ (you know that whole "go ye therefore" thing in the Bible). However, do I judge others and base my entire relationship with them on evangelistic purposes? No. One of the greatest gifts God has given us is free will, in fact, without free will everything we are talking about falls apart. I respect, just as God has designed it to be, that people have the freedom and the ability to reject him and live their life as they see fit. I love, value, relate to, and learn from others regardless of their spiritual beliefs. It would be foolish of me to limit my relationships with people solely on their spirituality or lack thereof. My goal is to accept people as they are, treat them with dignity and respect, and seek out how I might serve or support them in the context of our relationship.
Besides, if I do happen to get down about it, I know a pretty good therapist. ;)
Sorry for the long post, but I wanted to address the questions/comments that had been made. :)
eva01
Aug 24, 03:42 PM
nice to know that the website says my battery doesn't qualify, even thou it does, and i have tried other battery serial numbers and they also say it doesn't qualify.
So i call and they say it can't be done right now.
This is great especially since i will either be in school or at work during all times that applecare is open
So i call and they say it can't be done right now.
This is great especially since i will either be in school or at work during all times that applecare is open
Treq
Nov 2, 07:47 PM
Ever since the iPhone came out Apple has been trying to get Adobe to write a more streamlined mobile flash player. one that:
1) won't crash and possibly make the phone reboot
2) won't drain the battery too much
3) won't tax the processor so much that it creates a heat problem
4) is secure enough to keep malicious code from running on your phone.
For whatever reason Adobe has been unable or unwilling to do this. So, Yes Apple has created restrictions, but very necessary ones. Anything less would be bad for the end user and for Apple's reputation.
1) won't crash and possibly make the phone reboot
2) won't drain the battery too much
3) won't tax the processor so much that it creates a heat problem
4) is secure enough to keep malicious code from running on your phone.
For whatever reason Adobe has been unable or unwilling to do this. So, Yes Apple has created restrictions, but very necessary ones. Anything less would be bad for the end user and for Apple's reputation.
hdsalinas
Sep 6, 09:50 AM
Most average Joe iMac consumers aren't even going to notice that the Core 2 Duo is in their machine, and even if they do, it's probably not going to make that much of a difference running Mail and Safari.
-Obnoxious waiting-for-the-mbp Guy
Neither would you in your MBP.
-Obnoxious waiting-for-the-mbp Guy
Neither would you in your MBP.
ChazUK
May 5, 09:39 AM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_3 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8J2 Safari/6533.18.5)
Small, incremental updates would be good. They are a godsend on Android.
Small, incremental updates would be good. They are a godsend on Android.
deputy_doofy
Nov 8, 09:21 AM
That option NEVER existed for MacBooks, only for MacBook Pros.
Agreed! Macbooks only had the option for glossy.
Agreed! Macbooks only had the option for glossy.
xraytech
Mar 25, 03:18 PM
Okay COMEX, that's your cue.
sunfast
Jan 11, 02:36 PM
Hover-Boards, finally.
I have dreamt of owning one ever since I saw BF2
Anyway, the excitement builds!
I have dreamt of owning one ever since I saw BF2
Anyway, the excitement builds!
bmorris
Apr 10, 07:54 PM
Only specific Radio Shack's are selling them, and fast.
Most of them can take your number and call you when they are placing more orders.
They will call you and ask for you to either come to the store now and pay or pay at the store when the iPad comes in. If you pay in advance they will ship the iPad to your door. It would take 2-3 days for delivery, faster than Apple's website.
Most of them can take your number and call you when they are placing more orders.
They will call you and ask for you to either come to the store now and pay or pay at the store when the iPad comes in. If you pay in advance they will ship the iPad to your door. It would take 2-3 days for delivery, faster than Apple's website.
Doctor Q
Nov 27, 02:49 PM
I love the idea. A yellow 80GB iPod with the full Beatles collection (or black with the yellow dial).An iPod in the shape of a yellow submarine!
Perhaps somebody with nothing better to do will mock one up.
Perhaps somebody with nothing better to do will mock one up.
Annerz
Mar 18, 08:55 PM
I hope they don't get rid of it.
Chef Medeski
Nov 8, 08:52 AM
I don't mind the GMA all that much. If you don't do gaming it is pleanty powerful enough. I gave up on gaming after giving up on WoW in favor of FF XII. It is pretty pathetic that Apple still even sells a computer with a combo drive tho.... that really should be standard even in the $1099 model these days.
Actually I like being a consumer with choices. I've only used my powerbook to burn DVDs maybe thrice. If I had to buy another computer. I'd probably go with a Combo drive since I'd have the powerbook to burn DVDs.
Plus why make everyone's computer more expensive when some people don't want it.
Actually I like being a consumer with choices. I've only used my powerbook to burn DVDs maybe thrice. If I had to buy another computer. I'd probably go with a Combo drive since I'd have the powerbook to burn DVDs.
Plus why make everyone's computer more expensive when some people don't want it.
morespce54
Nov 28, 01:51 PM
Just can't wait... :rolleyes: :D :D
scott911
Mar 18, 01:38 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_2_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8C148 Safari/6533.18.5)
I loved reading the old comments- I.e : I can't believe apple's showing some stupid toy on stage..
It would be neat to see if these oracles are that same people who said iPad was bound to fail as well!
I loved reading the old comments- I.e : I can't believe apple's showing some stupid toy on stage..
It would be neat to see if these oracles are that same people who said iPad was bound to fail as well!
AnuCerFen
May 5, 08:29 AM
First step 3D screens ... next step interactive holograms ;-)
grassland
Mar 2, 04:16 PM
making sure everything is good:)
benthewraith
Aug 2, 10:27 PM
Here (http://blog.washingtonpost.com/securityfix/2006/08/hijacking_a_macbook_in_60_seco.html).
I found it, though it was rather tricky. :S
This is shocking how? Who is going to use a third party usb key for wireless when the notebook has it built in? Meaning, yes, it can be done, but the circumstances are almost impossible. :rolleyes:
Even then, it's difficult to prove due to things such as Remote Desktop, etc.
I found it, though it was rather tricky. :S
This is shocking how? Who is going to use a third party usb key for wireless when the notebook has it built in? Meaning, yes, it can be done, but the circumstances are almost impossible. :rolleyes:
Even then, it's difficult to prove due to things such as Remote Desktop, etc.
hulugu
Aug 19, 12:32 AM
How come it is extremely imporbable and unlikely?
They presented there script against a mac because the mac strives on the claim that they are the safest pc out there.
They said in there interview they targeted the mac because they hate the commercials.
Explain how that makes there presentation poor.
Simply put, by presenting the hack with a MacBook they made it appear as though the MacBook had a fatal flaw that was inherent to the system and they were poor at presenting this flaw as a problem with a particular third-party wireless card.
The addition of their complaining about the commercial made they appear as though they had a vendetta and a bias which security researchers should avoid. The flaw should have been presented with a multitude of systems, including the Mac, to show how the flaw affected Windows and the Mac, and they should have been more clear about the addition of a third-party USB wireless device as well as their tweaking of OSX's settings.
They went for a flashy presentation and got fried by it.
They presented there script against a mac because the mac strives on the claim that they are the safest pc out there.
They said in there interview they targeted the mac because they hate the commercials.
Explain how that makes there presentation poor.
Simply put, by presenting the hack with a MacBook they made it appear as though the MacBook had a fatal flaw that was inherent to the system and they were poor at presenting this flaw as a problem with a particular third-party wireless card.
The addition of their complaining about the commercial made they appear as though they had a vendetta and a bias which security researchers should avoid. The flaw should have been presented with a multitude of systems, including the Mac, to show how the flaw affected Windows and the Mac, and they should have been more clear about the addition of a third-party USB wireless device as well as their tweaking of OSX's settings.
They went for a flashy presentation and got fried by it.
RTee
Dec 1, 12:05 AM
I don't know. The biggest seller in the UK, even now, is Sir Cliff Richard and he was knighted before Sir Paul McCartney.
So?
So?
Stridder44
Aug 3, 03:36 PM
They need to really shock people with this keynote, to restore our confidence after the disaster that was the last presentation.
??
??
kgforce
Sep 22, 04:13 PM
It seems that since Wal-Mart tends to service the very lowest income class in our culture and many of these folks tend to not have computers, and to the extent they do, tend to not have broadband either, it seems there is a degree of mutual exclusivity of markets.
Wow. That's an elitist statement. I think you need to travel around the country and see who really shops at Wal-Mart -- basically every socio-economic group. From poorest to the wealthiest. Even people with broadband!
I would be considered upper-middle class and my family shops there all the time. And we have friends that would be considered wealthy, perhaps even super-wealthy, and they shop there, too.
Wow. That's an elitist statement. I think you need to travel around the country and see who really shops at Wal-Mart -- basically every socio-economic group. From poorest to the wealthiest. Even people with broadband!
I would be considered upper-middle class and my family shops there all the time. And we have friends that would be considered wealthy, perhaps even super-wealthy, and they shop there, too.
Blue Fox
Nov 13, 05:06 AM
Here's how I look at it....
Developers are like customers. You have some customers who play by the rules and benefit the company and themselves. Then you have "those" customers who think the world owes them everything. They whine and bitch about anything and everything. They refuse to follow rules or regulations, whine when they don't get their own way, and will purposely try to manipulate and play the system to their advantage.
Eventually, the company notices and places strict guidelines, rules and restrictions to make sure "those" customers can no longer take advantage of the company. Meanwhile, the customers who do play by the rules now have to deal with the hassle of the same restrictions because "those" customers had to ruin it for everyone.
And anyone who has ever worked customer service knows exactly what I'm on about. That's the reason there is a billion lines of fine print for just about everything these days.
So instead of jumping on the whole "lets bash Apple because they're a successful corporation" bandwagon, how about blaming the people who take advantage of the system and break the rules which is what inevitably what got the rules put there in the first place.
Developers are like customers. You have some customers who play by the rules and benefit the company and themselves. Then you have "those" customers who think the world owes them everything. They whine and bitch about anything and everything. They refuse to follow rules or regulations, whine when they don't get their own way, and will purposely try to manipulate and play the system to their advantage.
Eventually, the company notices and places strict guidelines, rules and restrictions to make sure "those" customers can no longer take advantage of the company. Meanwhile, the customers who do play by the rules now have to deal with the hassle of the same restrictions because "those" customers had to ruin it for everyone.
And anyone who has ever worked customer service knows exactly what I'm on about. That's the reason there is a billion lines of fine print for just about everything these days.
So instead of jumping on the whole "lets bash Apple because they're a successful corporation" bandwagon, how about blaming the people who take advantage of the system and break the rules which is what inevitably what got the rules put there in the first place.
BenRoethig
Sep 6, 09:09 AM
Anyone knows how the GeForce 7600 GT compares to the Radeon X1X00 series?
Similar to the X1800 GT?
Must be better/faster than the X1600....
Much faster. Even the 7300GT is significantly better.
Anyway, of the two NEW edition to the lineup, the 17" GMA iMac is much more important to Apple's well being. Why? Volume. They're going to sell ten of them for every 24". The 24" is a silver bullet machine. It's really cool looking, but I don't see many plunking down $2000 on a family computer. It's not going to really appeal to professionals or prosumers either because of its feature set.
Similar to the X1800 GT?
Must be better/faster than the X1600....
Much faster. Even the 7300GT is significantly better.
Anyway, of the two NEW edition to the lineup, the 17" GMA iMac is much more important to Apple's well being. Why? Volume. They're going to sell ten of them for every 24". The 24" is a silver bullet machine. It's really cool looking, but I don't see many plunking down $2000 on a family computer. It's not going to really appeal to professionals or prosumers either because of its feature set.
No comments:
Post a Comment