~Shard~
Aug 28, 12:12 PM
Yeah, we all knew this was coming. It will be interesting to see how quickly Apple responds to its competition and follows suit. Hopefully very soon, I'm eager to see what exactly Apple does, i.e. only updates the MBPs, updates the whole MacBook line, updates the Mini as well... :cool:
Oh, and how about some Conroe iMacs? ;) :D
Oh, and how about some Conroe iMacs? ;) :D
DrDomVonDoom
Apr 22, 02:58 AM
I hate this cloud crap. All just an excuse to take away the consumers control of what they buy or use.
We need a boycott.
No one is forcing anyone to use cloud computing at all, you can do whatever you want with your mp3's I don't see your logic.
We need a boycott.
No one is forcing anyone to use cloud computing at all, you can do whatever you want with your mp3's I don't see your logic.
cadillac1234
Apr 22, 11:46 AM
Every time I get ready to pull the trigger on the 11' something holds me back :D
I don't really need one but I sure want one
I don't really need one but I sure want one
Infinity
Jul 14, 10:37 AM
Does anyone think we should be hitting 4ghz about now?
I mean weve been stuck on 2.x for ages. Whats the deal? A 4ghz quad would be frickin awesome. :confused:
Would you rather a Pentium D @ 4Ghz or, Core 2 Extreme @ 2.93Ghz or even Core 2 Duo 2.4Ghz?
Granted, the Pentium D example was a little bad and although its been hammered a billion times already, let me just say, Gigaherz is only a part of the equation when it comes to speed of modern CPU's.
According to Anadtech, Conroe blows eveything else out of the water in regards to sheer performance. Give me a Core 2 Architecture anyday.
I mean weve been stuck on 2.x for ages. Whats the deal? A 4ghz quad would be frickin awesome. :confused:
Would you rather a Pentium D @ 4Ghz or, Core 2 Extreme @ 2.93Ghz or even Core 2 Duo 2.4Ghz?
Granted, the Pentium D example was a little bad and although its been hammered a billion times already, let me just say, Gigaherz is only a part of the equation when it comes to speed of modern CPU's.
According to Anadtech, Conroe blows eveything else out of the water in regards to sheer performance. Give me a Core 2 Architecture anyday.
Benjy91
Apr 25, 01:36 PM
Hilarious to all those people who jumped on the THUNDERBOLT bandwagon. No thunderbolt devices yet and they have the hideous old case design.
:rolleyes:
Yes because they forked out all that money for ONLY the Thunderbolt port for higher transfer speeds.
Not for a faster, better high-end machine. :rolleyes:
:rolleyes:
Yes because they forked out all that money for ONLY the Thunderbolt port for higher transfer speeds.
Not for a faster, better high-end machine. :rolleyes:
chrmjenkins
Apr 14, 11:48 AM
Now that it's part of the platform Apple has no excuse for not including it. However, it wouldn't surprise me to see a MBP with this platform that still only has 2.0 connectors.
LaMerVipere
Sep 12, 05:00 PM
Okay, so it appears that owners of 5th generation iPods (before the latest release) who update their iPod software to version 1.2 get a few cool features that come pre-loaded out of the box on the latest 5th generation iPods, but not all.
We get:
• Gapless playback
• Ability to adjust backlight brightness (I'm particularly excited about this, I've been wanting it for ages, I bet it increases battery battery life immensely with the brightness turned way down)
• When rapidly scrolling through ARTISTS we get overlayed alphabet letters which correspond to where we are on our list
• Ability to play games bought from iTunes
We don't get:
• New search function
** Video playback details yet to be determined
We get:
• Gapless playback
• Ability to adjust backlight brightness (I'm particularly excited about this, I've been wanting it for ages, I bet it increases battery battery life immensely with the brightness turned way down)
• When rapidly scrolling through ARTISTS we get overlayed alphabet letters which correspond to where we are on our list
• Ability to play games bought from iTunes
We don't get:
• New search function
** Video playback details yet to be determined
MattyMac
Aug 28, 12:30 PM
September and October are usually greeeeeeeaaaaaaaatttt months for apple!:D !:D !:D
macsmurf
Apr 11, 04:20 AM
Want an un-encrypted copy of that iTMS rental movie? Stream it to an airplay-ripper you've downloaded off the 'net, and it'll be re-compressed in non-DRM form for you to play back whenever you wish.
Can't you just do this anyway with some other kind of ripper?
Can't you just do this anyway with some other kind of ripper?
nitynate
Sep 12, 02:41 PM
Dear Apple,
YOU SUCK!
Love,
Nathan
PS- I will still buy your stuff.
YOU SUCK!
Love,
Nathan
PS- I will still buy your stuff.
dazzer21
Sep 5, 06:47 AM
So what sort of picture and sound quality can we expect from these movie downloads (wireless or otherwise)? Also, as a download, just how big are these files going to be? I wouldn't want to be on the other side of a "your hard disk is now full" prompt 10Mb from the end of a 2Gb download (that's an extreme example - I hope!)
whooleytoo
Mar 30, 11:28 AM
I don't claim to know a thing about trademark law, but looking at this simply I find it difficult to understand how the term "Windows" can become a trademark but "App Store" cannot.
(I feel dirty defending Microsoft, but...)
Microsoft aren't selling windows called Windows, they're selling an OS called Windows. It is a generic phrase, but it's not a generic phrase for the object it describes. App Store is (to me at least!) a generic phrase for an application store.
(I feel dirty defending Microsoft, but...)
Microsoft aren't selling windows called Windows, they're selling an OS called Windows. It is a generic phrase, but it's not a generic phrase for the object it describes. App Store is (to me at least!) a generic phrase for an application store.
wpwj40e
Sep 12, 05:36 PM
Kinda bummed. I really, really wanted a wide screen.....And since my 5g ipod ended up with my son - was in the market for one.
What to do...buy the 5.5G or hold off a little longer - maybe there will be a wide screen yet this year....
I do like most of the new features and even games. Was not impressed with the rest of the announcmeent.
What to do...buy the 5.5G or hold off a little longer - maybe there will be a wide screen yet this year....
I do like most of the new features and even games. Was not impressed with the rest of the announcmeent.
jiggie2g
Jul 14, 02:41 PM
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2648&p=1
Compare Core Duo vs. AMD. At least until someone does a Core Duo vs. Core 2 Duo benchmark.
AMD 64 , Core 1 , G5 all perform similar , Core 2 on the other hand is a different beast with a 20% boost clock per clock. so a good measure of performance would be to take a clock seed number then add 20% to get the equalivilancy performance. For the 2MB C2D's we can lower figure this to say
14%. Based on what i see on Anandtech.
Example :
Core 2 Duo E6300 @ 1.86ghz + 14% = 2.12ghz G5/X2/CD
Core 2 Duo E6600 @2.4ghz + 20% = 2.88ghz G5/X2/CD
Core 2 Extreme X6800 @ 2.93ghz + 20% = 3.51ghz G5/X2/CD
Now u see why Steve wet his pants when he saw these chips over a year ago. Then Decided to switch , He knew if he had not. Apple's platform would be dead in the water.
Compare Core Duo vs. AMD. At least until someone does a Core Duo vs. Core 2 Duo benchmark.
AMD 64 , Core 1 , G5 all perform similar , Core 2 on the other hand is a different beast with a 20% boost clock per clock. so a good measure of performance would be to take a clock seed number then add 20% to get the equalivilancy performance. For the 2MB C2D's we can lower figure this to say
14%. Based on what i see on Anandtech.
Example :
Core 2 Duo E6300 @ 1.86ghz + 14% = 2.12ghz G5/X2/CD
Core 2 Duo E6600 @2.4ghz + 20% = 2.88ghz G5/X2/CD
Core 2 Extreme X6800 @ 2.93ghz + 20% = 3.51ghz G5/X2/CD
Now u see why Steve wet his pants when he saw these chips over a year ago. Then Decided to switch , He knew if he had not. Apple's platform would be dead in the water.
MacinDoc
Aug 24, 11:20 AM
Creative joins the "Made for iPod" program and pays Apple a percentage of the revenue for iPod-only products? Doesn't sound like the kind of terms a confident victor would be making. Sounds more like a company trying to kick up a new revenue source in light of the fact that Zune is about to eat up its music player business.
The most interesting part is when Zune launches, and how long it will take Creative to sue Microsoft. Apple just turned a 90-lb weakling into a hired assassin!
These are probably the 2 most important points in all of this. Creative has NOT licensed this technology to other MP3 player manufacturers, and purchasing a license will be prohibitive for many manufacturers. And with Creative joining the Made for iPod program, it will likely soon learn that there is more money in making iPod accessories than in making iPod competitors.
All in all, this settlement will discourage iPod competitors.
The most interesting part is when Zune launches, and how long it will take Creative to sue Microsoft. Apple just turned a 90-lb weakling into a hired assassin!
These are probably the 2 most important points in all of this. Creative has NOT licensed this technology to other MP3 player manufacturers, and purchasing a license will be prohibitive for many manufacturers. And with Creative joining the Made for iPod program, it will likely soon learn that there is more money in making iPod accessories than in making iPod competitors.
All in all, this settlement will discourage iPod competitors.
urbanlung
Mar 30, 12:45 PM
back here in the UK Hoover were able to trade mark Hoover as their name despite the fact that hoover is the generic term for a vacuum cleaner!
Multimedia
Sep 12, 06:31 PM
just encoded 5 secs of video using the quicktime default export for ipod... now the default is 640 x 480 that plays too.Please explain exactly how from where you did that. I am still trying with handbrake and EyeTV. The EyeTV2 export is supposed to be connected to the QuickTime but the iPod default is not H.264 640x480 in the EyetV2 Export windows.
samiwas
Apr 18, 12:50 AM
why would I want to pay someone $17 an hour to a job a monkey is almost qualified to do? Sounds like an opportunity to hire less people, or jack my prices up. A job is worth simply what a job is worth. Period. If I'm trying to offer services at competitive prices, and someone is willing to bag groceries for $3 an hour, then they should be ALLOWED to. Rather than me just choose to hire nobody and using automated checkouts.
Yeah man, one of my biggest incentives to put my money on the line and open a small business is that I have the opportunity to pay someone to not work for a year.
So, needless to say, you don't support any type of workers' rights, correct? Basically, if someone wants to work, they better damn well be willing to work for the lowest possible dollar in your opinion. I mean, let's not worry about things like being able to pay rents or insurance, or even for transportation to and from work. Screw them, they are under your watch now.
And what YOU think a job is worth is not what everyone thinks a job is worth. I think most people are vastly underpaid for the work they do. And others, like entertainers, sports players, corporate CEOs, and types like that, are VASTLY overpaid. I don't know what world you might live in that acting in a movie or playing a few 3-hour games a year or driving in circles is actually WORTH $20 million or even much more.
So let's flip this the other way. Should an employer be able to change compensation at will? Let's say you have 10 employees working at $30 a day scooping scum out of sewers (in your fantasy $3 an hour type world). You want to get more work done, so you decide to require all workers to now work for 18 hours a day, 7 days a week without any extra compensation or be fired. Should that also be allowed? You know, free will and free market and all? Those pansies who wont accept such a deal can just go find something else?
And as for your maternity leave thing...it's just one part of having some sort of benefit that makes you have happy, productive workers. Now, I know that you believe that all workers should just be productive and follow orders and meet the goals without any sort of recognition or reward other than a measly paycheck, but how about as an employer you put a little up there, too, and treat your workers as fellow human beings with a few benefits, and not the punching bags that you seem to think they are.
For example...the company I work for has been cutting every possible "thank you" that we used to get. Full nights out at steak restaurants with open bar and all expenses paid, as a thank you for the weeks of hard work doing installs, have turned into "We'll take you to a Fridays and buy the first round" even though they are still doing very well. As every benefit has gone away, our desire to go that extra mile has gone with them. This past work period, the client took us out for numerous barbecues, group outings at local pubs, visits to local attractions, etc. Guess what? We went all out to return the love.
What happens then? More people find jobs, and prices go down. $3 dollars suddenly buys you a subway sandwich. # of consumers goes up bc more people are employed, which brings in more revenue, causes more hiring etc.
Also, people who do want to make $10 bucks an hour are forced to either be productive or learn something useful, which is good for everyone, plus that $10 is worth more now bc of deflation. Deflation would also drive interest rates on loans down bc the money you pay back is worth more.
All ideology. It's a nice thought, but it would never happen. With wages that low, these people wouldn't be able to afford anything. Your $3 an hour wage, working 40 hours a week would net less than $500 a month BEFORE any taxes. And with so many people making so little, they wouldn't be paying tax anyway probably, so all the various tax issues would not be solved.
And if you REALLY think that cost of everything across the board would fall drastically solely because of smaller wages on low-level jobs, you are delusional. Do you think transportation costs would drop drastically, rent would drop drastically, land costs would drop drastically, corporate wages would drop drastically? Just paying low-level workers less would solve all the country's problems? Really?
Best case scenario, taxes are low at this point, and the government isn't a handout machine, so people feel the need to donate to an EFFICIENT charity. Rather than to the government, which is the most inefficient entity on the planet.
Taxes are now the lowest they have almost EVER been, so those clearly aren't the problem. And with people making pretty much no money, I don't think it would solve your handout woes. And there is no private charity out there that has the reach and availability of the government, whether you like to believe that or not.
Overall result: More buying power, lower unemployment, more substantial and efficient charity, more innovation.
So using this chart...
http://consumerist.com/images/resources/2007/04/changeinceopaygraph.jpg
...answer this please: if taxes are the lowest they've been almost ever, worker pay hasn't increased much at all in 15-20 years, then why are corporate profits way up, and CEO pay ridiculously increased over the same period??
It would seem to me that it isn't taxes and worker pay that have caused the problem. It's putting the money in the wrong place. Instead of paying the CEO $20 million a year, you could pay him/her $18 million a year, and hire 66 new employees at $30,000 a year. The CEO would never notice that difference (no, they wouldn't), and 66 new people could afford to live comfortably, eat, and BUY STUFF IN THE ECONOMY.
How about instead of trying to cut standard wages down to unlivable numbers, we cut down ludicrous wages to just ridiculous wages. THAT is where our problem is. The majority of the money is going to owners, shareholders, and profits and not to workers. The workers are not the problem here....greed is the problem.
sydde: What is this supposed to show? That US corporations are more profitable? Is that a good thing? For whom?
bassfinger: Stock owners in these companies. Which are made up of middle class citizens
Oh my god...this is the most laughable statement of all....
http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html
http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/images/wealth/Figure_2a.gif
The bottom 90% owns 2% of financial securities, 19% of stock and mutual funds, and 21% of trusts. The top 10% (ie VERY LITTLE of the the middle class) owns the vast majority of it. The middle class benefits very little from massive profits of business in this sense. Give up that notion.
Face it...your ideas are crap.
Yeah man, one of my biggest incentives to put my money on the line and open a small business is that I have the opportunity to pay someone to not work for a year.
So, needless to say, you don't support any type of workers' rights, correct? Basically, if someone wants to work, they better damn well be willing to work for the lowest possible dollar in your opinion. I mean, let's not worry about things like being able to pay rents or insurance, or even for transportation to and from work. Screw them, they are under your watch now.
And what YOU think a job is worth is not what everyone thinks a job is worth. I think most people are vastly underpaid for the work they do. And others, like entertainers, sports players, corporate CEOs, and types like that, are VASTLY overpaid. I don't know what world you might live in that acting in a movie or playing a few 3-hour games a year or driving in circles is actually WORTH $20 million or even much more.
So let's flip this the other way. Should an employer be able to change compensation at will? Let's say you have 10 employees working at $30 a day scooping scum out of sewers (in your fantasy $3 an hour type world). You want to get more work done, so you decide to require all workers to now work for 18 hours a day, 7 days a week without any extra compensation or be fired. Should that also be allowed? You know, free will and free market and all? Those pansies who wont accept such a deal can just go find something else?
And as for your maternity leave thing...it's just one part of having some sort of benefit that makes you have happy, productive workers. Now, I know that you believe that all workers should just be productive and follow orders and meet the goals without any sort of recognition or reward other than a measly paycheck, but how about as an employer you put a little up there, too, and treat your workers as fellow human beings with a few benefits, and not the punching bags that you seem to think they are.
For example...the company I work for has been cutting every possible "thank you" that we used to get. Full nights out at steak restaurants with open bar and all expenses paid, as a thank you for the weeks of hard work doing installs, have turned into "We'll take you to a Fridays and buy the first round" even though they are still doing very well. As every benefit has gone away, our desire to go that extra mile has gone with them. This past work period, the client took us out for numerous barbecues, group outings at local pubs, visits to local attractions, etc. Guess what? We went all out to return the love.
What happens then? More people find jobs, and prices go down. $3 dollars suddenly buys you a subway sandwich. # of consumers goes up bc more people are employed, which brings in more revenue, causes more hiring etc.
Also, people who do want to make $10 bucks an hour are forced to either be productive or learn something useful, which is good for everyone, plus that $10 is worth more now bc of deflation. Deflation would also drive interest rates on loans down bc the money you pay back is worth more.
All ideology. It's a nice thought, but it would never happen. With wages that low, these people wouldn't be able to afford anything. Your $3 an hour wage, working 40 hours a week would net less than $500 a month BEFORE any taxes. And with so many people making so little, they wouldn't be paying tax anyway probably, so all the various tax issues would not be solved.
And if you REALLY think that cost of everything across the board would fall drastically solely because of smaller wages on low-level jobs, you are delusional. Do you think transportation costs would drop drastically, rent would drop drastically, land costs would drop drastically, corporate wages would drop drastically? Just paying low-level workers less would solve all the country's problems? Really?
Best case scenario, taxes are low at this point, and the government isn't a handout machine, so people feel the need to donate to an EFFICIENT charity. Rather than to the government, which is the most inefficient entity on the planet.
Taxes are now the lowest they have almost EVER been, so those clearly aren't the problem. And with people making pretty much no money, I don't think it would solve your handout woes. And there is no private charity out there that has the reach and availability of the government, whether you like to believe that or not.
Overall result: More buying power, lower unemployment, more substantial and efficient charity, more innovation.
So using this chart...
http://consumerist.com/images/resources/2007/04/changeinceopaygraph.jpg
...answer this please: if taxes are the lowest they've been almost ever, worker pay hasn't increased much at all in 15-20 years, then why are corporate profits way up, and CEO pay ridiculously increased over the same period??
It would seem to me that it isn't taxes and worker pay that have caused the problem. It's putting the money in the wrong place. Instead of paying the CEO $20 million a year, you could pay him/her $18 million a year, and hire 66 new employees at $30,000 a year. The CEO would never notice that difference (no, they wouldn't), and 66 new people could afford to live comfortably, eat, and BUY STUFF IN THE ECONOMY.
How about instead of trying to cut standard wages down to unlivable numbers, we cut down ludicrous wages to just ridiculous wages. THAT is where our problem is. The majority of the money is going to owners, shareholders, and profits and not to workers. The workers are not the problem here....greed is the problem.
sydde: What is this supposed to show? That US corporations are more profitable? Is that a good thing? For whom?
bassfinger: Stock owners in these companies. Which are made up of middle class citizens
Oh my god...this is the most laughable statement of all....
http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html
http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/images/wealth/Figure_2a.gif
The bottom 90% owns 2% of financial securities, 19% of stock and mutual funds, and 21% of trusts. The top 10% (ie VERY LITTLE of the the middle class) owns the vast majority of it. The middle class benefits very little from massive profits of business in this sense. Give up that notion.
Face it...your ideas are crap.
Saladin
Sep 14, 09:59 PM
2. Apple's announcement a few days ago about the new iTunes store: (to quote Page 1) "TV shows will now be sold at 640x480 px h264. While the updated 5G iPods announced today will be able to play the new format, there has not been any indication from Apple of yet that the new shows will be playable on older 5G iPods. Apple's official knowledge-base article still states that h264-encoded movies must be 320 x 240 at 30 fps."
That's false information. I already downloaded Sacred Planet (640*480 h.264) from the iTunes Movie Store and loaded it onto my newly updated 5G iPod. The movie works perfectly. Since that would have been the strongest point in your argument for a multiple use device, I would now say your conclusion lacks weight. I'm not saying that they won't release one soon, just use better proofs to support your conclusion next time.
That's false information. I already downloaded Sacred Planet (640*480 h.264) from the iTunes Movie Store and loaded it onto my newly updated 5G iPod. The movie works perfectly. Since that would have been the strongest point in your argument for a multiple use device, I would now say your conclusion lacks weight. I'm not saying that they won't release one soon, just use better proofs to support your conclusion next time.
lowonthe456
Mar 22, 02:24 PM
I wanted to get a 15" MBP, but more and more they look like bags of hurt :(
Maybe imac is the way to go
Maybe imac is the way to go
Forever
Sep 26, 07:53 AM
I hope you will be able to by it 'sim free' in the uk, im not buying it if it an O2 exclusive and this will make me sad
BWhaler
Sep 14, 02:37 AM
This product cannot come soon enough.
Every single phone on the market stinks.
My wife buster her phone today, and called me for a recommendation. All she wants as a Mom is a phone with a long battery life and great reception.
She left the Cingular store with a crappy phone with a million features she will never use.
Every single phone on the market stinks.
My wife buster her phone today, and called me for a recommendation. All she wants as a Mom is a phone with a long battery life and great reception.
She left the Cingular store with a crappy phone with a million features she will never use.
cozmot
Mar 21, 02:16 PM
The point is that MisterMe said nothing that your response would have fit. You can infer all you want, but it's very clear that MisterMe was talking about the market share myth, and was not inferring that Macs are immune to malware.
No, I just took the first example you posted and saw that it didn't prove your point at all.
That's quite true.
Using your STD example, I have zero need for protection if my wife and I are exclusive with each other, as we are. Likewise, protection isn't currently necessary for a Mac if the user exercises reasonable care and caution. If you want to run AV on your Mac, it's perfectly within your right. It's just not needed for protection.
You alone have the power to stop reading or posting in this thread.
It's not turning a mountain into a mole hill to stand by accurate, factual statements when they're challenged. It's not a "status-quo"; it's the current reality in the Mac computing world. No one is saying that it couldn't change in the future. It just hasn't yet.
You have no idea what attitude "most Mac users" have, unless you've interviewed the many millions of them. If I exercise the reasonable care that I've already described, it can't happen to me, in the current computing environment. If that situation ever changes, such as the introduction of a true Mac virus into the wild, any antivirus app I may have installed today will provide no protection from that event.
It's called "profit motive", which any successful company has.
Again, a personal opinion. Like millions of others, I find their hardware options perfectly acceptable and I don't have a problem with their pricing. If that weren't true, I and millions of others simply wouldn't buy from them.
No one is suggesting that you shouldn't be careful. In fact, that's exactly what we've been saying: if you're careful, you don't need antivirus software to protect your Mac from malware.
I think GGJstudios answered MagnusVonMagnum's contentions, misrepresentations and straw-man arguments perfectly. And Magnus, I hope that you're truly sick of this thread, because I am too with your belaboring the same points, putting words in peoples' mouths and contributing nothing to this thread. Really, enough already! Quit reading and posting here, and get well soon.
No, I just took the first example you posted and saw that it didn't prove your point at all.
That's quite true.
Using your STD example, I have zero need for protection if my wife and I are exclusive with each other, as we are. Likewise, protection isn't currently necessary for a Mac if the user exercises reasonable care and caution. If you want to run AV on your Mac, it's perfectly within your right. It's just not needed for protection.
You alone have the power to stop reading or posting in this thread.
It's not turning a mountain into a mole hill to stand by accurate, factual statements when they're challenged. It's not a "status-quo"; it's the current reality in the Mac computing world. No one is saying that it couldn't change in the future. It just hasn't yet.
You have no idea what attitude "most Mac users" have, unless you've interviewed the many millions of them. If I exercise the reasonable care that I've already described, it can't happen to me, in the current computing environment. If that situation ever changes, such as the introduction of a true Mac virus into the wild, any antivirus app I may have installed today will provide no protection from that event.
It's called "profit motive", which any successful company has.
Again, a personal opinion. Like millions of others, I find their hardware options perfectly acceptable and I don't have a problem with their pricing. If that weren't true, I and millions of others simply wouldn't buy from them.
No one is suggesting that you shouldn't be careful. In fact, that's exactly what we've been saying: if you're careful, you don't need antivirus software to protect your Mac from malware.
I think GGJstudios answered MagnusVonMagnum's contentions, misrepresentations and straw-man arguments perfectly. And Magnus, I hope that you're truly sick of this thread, because I am too with your belaboring the same points, putting words in peoples' mouths and contributing nothing to this thread. Really, enough already! Quit reading and posting here, and get well soon.
MattyMac
Sep 15, 06:43 PM
I'll be very tempted if it has;
3MP
All the display info in the latest iPods
BT
4-8 GB
Full iLife intergration (iSync, iTunes, iPhoto, iCal, Address book (with pictures), Mail)
Earphones (Pref BT and acts as hands free)
Desire
3G?
iChat with BT for Audio?
Widgets?
WiFi
IR remote feature
Light / Flash
Wow...that would be ideal! Mucho $$ too.
3MP
All the display info in the latest iPods
BT
4-8 GB
Full iLife intergration (iSync, iTunes, iPhoto, iCal, Address book (with pictures), Mail)
Earphones (Pref BT and acts as hands free)
Desire
3G?
iChat with BT for Audio?
Widgets?
WiFi
IR remote feature
Light / Flash
Wow...that would be ideal! Mucho $$ too.
0 comments:
Post a Comment