whooleytoo
Jul 25, 05:52 AM
Feel free to take my word on this, and if you feel the need to confirm, remember that it's probably rude in most places to lick someone else's iPod without asking nicely first.
It's also likely to lead to a Douglas Adams-esque end-of-the-world pandemic scenario! Euuuh!
It's also likely to lead to a Douglas Adams-esque end-of-the-world pandemic scenario! Euuuh!
dr_lha
Oct 18, 05:04 PM
Wow, amazing how emotional people always get whenever I make a statement that could sound slightly anti-iPod... I know you love your iPod and all (I am very fond of mine myself), but over the last few years Apple has been focusing a dispropotional amount of energy into their cute little gadget which has massively boosted their profits. For those of us that don't salivate over all things iPod, I think this is too bad.
That is all.
Apple revamped their entire line of computers this year, a massive change over to a new CPU architecture and sales have increased accordingly. What more do you want from them exactly?
Personally I think your vision is very skewed. The iPod line up has languished this year in comparison to the computer line up.
That is all.
Apple revamped their entire line of computers this year, a massive change over to a new CPU architecture and sales have increased accordingly. What more do you want from them exactly?
Personally I think your vision is very skewed. The iPod line up has languished this year in comparison to the computer line up.
ajohnson253
Apr 14, 12:23 AM
I wonder if anyone has been waiting on getting a iPhone 4 because white hasn't been released yet. Well 10 months later here you go.
Jako7286
Apr 28, 04:07 PM
Just says -
Depth: 0.37 inch (9.3 mm)...lies, available in white and black....
...oh well
I honestly think "0.37 inch" is probably accurate enough for both white and black, as they are probably both within 0.365-0.375 inches. 0.01 inches = 0.25 mm, which is more like what it looks like the difference is in the pic to me...
Depth: 0.37 inch (9.3 mm)...lies, available in white and black....
...oh well
I honestly think "0.37 inch" is probably accurate enough for both white and black, as they are probably both within 0.365-0.375 inches. 0.01 inches = 0.25 mm, which is more like what it looks like the difference is in the pic to me...
SchneiderMan
Sep 16, 07:34 PM
No chicken? lol
rhett7660
Dec 30, 01:13 PM
Creative positioning + bed with a good bit of "give", e.g. Memory Foam = enjoyment without that "crushing" feeling. This has served me well, and that's the best way I can explain it without going into TMI territory.
This is a great post!!! And good lord, 30K calorie supper! UGHGHG... Well at least she has goals and is planning on getting to those goals even if it kills her!
This is a great post!!! And good lord, 30K calorie supper! UGHGHG... Well at least she has goals and is planning on getting to those goals even if it kills her!
zildjansg
Sep 14, 09:24 AM
got this "tank" just a while ago
http://www.cnphotos.net/news/news/images/tokina_af_28-80mm_f2_8_at-x_pro-len2.jpg
:D
http://www.cnphotos.net/news/news/images/tokina_af_28-80mm_f2_8_at-x_pro-len2.jpg
:D
bruinsrme
Apr 22, 05:23 AM
This settles it:
Image (http://www.emptyhouse.net/fileshuttle/samsungphone_21e9.jpg)
yes I agree the hands in both those pictures look extremely similar.
I am going to have to side with Samsung on this; apple stole their hand.
As far as the phones go? the looks are similar but still different looking.
Image (http://www.emptyhouse.net/fileshuttle/samsungphone_21e9.jpg)
yes I agree the hands in both those pictures look extremely similar.
I am going to have to side with Samsung on this; apple stole their hand.
As far as the phones go? the looks are similar but still different looking.
kevin.rivers
Jul 28, 10:14 AM
Wooooow, we're straying off topic.
Back to the topic...
Don't you guys think that the iPod being overtaken is about as likely as Apple overtaking HP, Dell, and Gateway?
I just don't see it happening, Apple has a really high following when it comes to mp3 players and when people have had an iPod, they upgrade to a new iPod, not a Zune.
There is no incentive to go to a Zune. Same DRM, same features. The people who hate the iPod and buy Creative aren't switching to Zune. They don't want to be locked into DRM. So unless microsoft really does something innovative it is just another player in a sea of non-iPods.
EDIT: I mean same DRM in the sense that the download are locked by DRM, not exactly the same type.
Back to the topic...
Don't you guys think that the iPod being overtaken is about as likely as Apple overtaking HP, Dell, and Gateway?
I just don't see it happening, Apple has a really high following when it comes to mp3 players and when people have had an iPod, they upgrade to a new iPod, not a Zune.
There is no incentive to go to a Zune. Same DRM, same features. The people who hate the iPod and buy Creative aren't switching to Zune. They don't want to be locked into DRM. So unless microsoft really does something innovative it is just another player in a sea of non-iPods.
EDIT: I mean same DRM in the sense that the download are locked by DRM, not exactly the same type.
maclaptop
Apr 22, 06:51 PM
That whopping 3.7" screen would add too much weight and bulk. The maximum should not exceed 3.55".
NickZac
Jan 1, 10:44 AM
I would argue that accepting a lifestyle that has a much higher likelihood of illness or death doesn't necessarily mean mental illness. What about adventure seekers? Is climbing Everest a sign of mental illness? The likelihood of dying is high, and honestly, some would say that you have to be crazy to do it, but people still praise the behavior, and don't label the person with a mental illness.
Guys, it really is possible that she just LOVES food. I've met people like that. They are great chefs and are very over weight because they love food. Not because they have some kind of mental deficiency.
Humans function on a reward system. You may climb Everest because of the personal accomplishment or the rush. Eating to the degree of excess that lady has is far more than a love of food. There is no potential gain and she knows she is hurting herself, but does not care. She is pursuing a goal that conflicts with 'logical reasoning'. If you look at people who are class III obese, you will see a few things. First, depression and suicide rates are ridiculously high. Two, almost all want to lose weight. Three, there are often underlying conditions.
Obesity needs to be treated as a mental illness as well as physical illness/condition. Much of losing weight and keeping it off is psychological. The self-rated quality of life of obese children are literally worse than terminal cancer patients. Not everyone who is obese has a mental illness, but when people get to extreme obesity, there is almost always an existing condition or one has developed from a negative self-image.
Guys, it really is possible that she just LOVES food. I've met people like that. They are great chefs and are very over weight because they love food. Not because they have some kind of mental deficiency.
Humans function on a reward system. You may climb Everest because of the personal accomplishment or the rush. Eating to the degree of excess that lady has is far more than a love of food. There is no potential gain and she knows she is hurting herself, but does not care. She is pursuing a goal that conflicts with 'logical reasoning'. If you look at people who are class III obese, you will see a few things. First, depression and suicide rates are ridiculously high. Two, almost all want to lose weight. Three, there are often underlying conditions.
Obesity needs to be treated as a mental illness as well as physical illness/condition. Much of losing weight and keeping it off is psychological. The self-rated quality of life of obese children are literally worse than terminal cancer patients. Not everyone who is obese has a mental illness, but when people get to extreme obesity, there is almost always an existing condition or one has developed from a negative self-image.
AidenShaw
Mar 29, 11:30 PM
That is all it is for most people. I barely know what WWDC is, I just know I usually end up watching a keynote online from it.
Back in the day, Apple participated in user conferences called MacWorld. There was an winter one in San Francisco, and a summer/late summer one on the east coast. There also was a late spring developer conference in San Francisco - but that was mostly irrelevant if you weren't an Apple OSX developer.
Life was good.
But, the turtle-necked overlord got into a hissy-fit with the company that was organizing the conferences.
The summer MacWorld was cancelled for petty reasons. Soon after, Apple withdrew from the winter conference as well.
So, today, the only venue that Apple has control over is the late spring developer conference - which they've co-opted to trumpet whatever the PR department needs at the time.
Back in the day, Apple participated in user conferences called MacWorld. There was an winter one in San Francisco, and a summer/late summer one on the east coast. There also was a late spring developer conference in San Francisco - but that was mostly irrelevant if you weren't an Apple OSX developer.
Life was good.
But, the turtle-necked overlord got into a hissy-fit with the company that was organizing the conferences.
The summer MacWorld was cancelled for petty reasons. Soon after, Apple withdrew from the winter conference as well.
So, today, the only venue that Apple has control over is the late spring developer conference - which they've co-opted to trumpet whatever the PR department needs at the time.
iSee
Apr 26, 12:09 PM
Of course they are.
This kind of thing has to be paid for somehow. Common options:
1. Pay subscription
2. Ad supported
3. Loss-leader to help sell something profitable.
This rumor is suggesting that Apple is going with a combination of 1 and 3.
This kind of thing has to be paid for somehow. Common options:
1. Pay subscription
2. Ad supported
3. Loss-leader to help sell something profitable.
This rumor is suggesting that Apple is going with a combination of 1 and 3.
bigrobb
Jan 30, 03:05 PM
did some more shopping on amazon got a western digital scorpio blue 500gb drive for my macbook pro its on sale now for 53.99 on amazon
Kingston 8gb ram kit for macbook pro
mstand
Kingston 8gb ram kit for macbook pro
mstand
dethmaShine
May 1, 05:55 AM
http://aroundthesphere.files.wordpress.com/2010/04/popcorn.jpg
benjayman2
Nov 24, 06:57 PM
TUCH Satchel. I have the iPhone 4 case he makes and it's amazing.
If you ever get it please do a review.
If you ever get it please do a review.
rxse7en
Jul 24, 04:19 PM
Good deal.
Here's to still hoping for an answer to us trackball users. A nice BT-enabled MacBall�, or would that be iBall�, would be nice.
B
Here's to still hoping for an answer to us trackball users. A nice BT-enabled MacBall�, or would that be iBall�, would be nice.
B
FloatingBones
Nov 23, 12:46 AM
That's not why I called him a Communist. I call him a Communist because he acts like a 1-person dictator.
He's the CEO of a company: accountable to the Board of Directors and the stockholders of the publicly-traded company. There's no comparison between that and a communist dictator. Goofy.
Anyone who can provide a rational reason why these two things are comparable, please chime in.
Flash for iOS is no more of a security risk than it is for OSX in general or any other plugin from PDF readers to Javascript.
That's a terrible argument for having bundled Adobe products on iOS.
Adobe products are a large risk on Mac OS X. It's unbelievable to me that Adobe Reader is a vector for zero day bugs (http://www.grc.com/sn/sn-273.txt). I really don't know how you do that: it's a PDF reader! The bugs have been around in Adobe Reader for years and Adobe still hasn't fixed them.
If you only view PDF files, you shouldn't even have Adobe Reader installed on your OS X computer. Apple Preview is better, faster, and far less bug-prone.
Steve Jobs "reason" for not including Flash is supposedly mostly about performance not security risks.
It's about both the performance and the security risks.
It's also about the identity-leaking through Flash cookies. Perhaps you missed that security discussion: more than half of the top 100 websites are now using Flash cookies to track users and store information about them (http://www.grc.com/sn/sn-209.txt). Flash cookies do not honor the cookie privacy settings of the browser; many users don't even know that Flash maintains its own set of cookies.
It's about the quirky UI interactions with Flash. Scrolling works differently when the mouse is over a Flash region. Certain keyboard shortcuts cease to work. Text that is displayed in a flash window is not searchable with the browser's text-finding feature. My Mac doesn't behave like a Mac inside of a Flash window.
Then why are they allowing Flash in regular OSX?
Software is much more tightly-controlled on iOS devices. There is a file system firewall between every app. Third-party apps must be submitted to Apple before they can be distributed, and Apple has the capability to remotely disable any third party app that begins to exhibit a malware-like behavior in the field.
Some of those controls are about advances in OS development since Mac OS X. Some have to do with the nature of the device: handhelds are more appliances than laptops.
One other reason to ban Flash on iOS: Flash apps can be packaged as iOS apps. This should be safe because of the way that iOS apps are firewalled from each other and the kill switch that Apple can use if an app is found to be rogue.
There are fundamental differences between iOS devices and laptops/desktops. Also, Apple no longer ships Adobe Flash on their newest computers. (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1034486) I'm guessing that Apple will ship Flash on no computers starting with the release of OS X 10.7 next year.
By your logic that would mean that Microsoft must be the most incompetent company out there.
I don't believe you read that headline carefully: Security experts believe that Adobe is going to surpass Microsoft as the #1 target for security attacks (http://www.grc.com/sn/sn-231.htm).
On the contrary, it indicates they are POPULAR.
No reason to shout.
Perhaps it indicates they have some fundamental problems in their software engineering. Did you read the podcast transcript about the latest Adobe bug? Adobe Reader has the same zero-day glitch as Flash. How does a PDF viewer get executable bugs like this?
How often does Apple update their security? I guess they're clueless too by your account. You won't admit that, however because you have an emotional investment in Apple.
Apple updates their software when updates are needed.
The point is that quarterly updates are far too infrequent. Did you read the transcript of the Security Now! podcast? Given the continuing number of Adobe zero-day bugs, Gibson asks:
"[Adobe:] how is that quarterly update cycle going for you?" (http://www.grc.com/sn/sn-273.txt)
That is not what I said or what I proposed.
You proposed that Apple include Flash with iOS Safari and that users could turn it on. How you can possibly ensure that not a single iOS user will not lose anything the next time there's a zero day Adobe bug (http://www.grc.com/sn/sn-273.txt). You can't.
happy mothers day poems. funny
He's the CEO of a company: accountable to the Board of Directors and the stockholders of the publicly-traded company. There's no comparison between that and a communist dictator. Goofy.
Anyone who can provide a rational reason why these two things are comparable, please chime in.
Flash for iOS is no more of a security risk than it is for OSX in general or any other plugin from PDF readers to Javascript.
That's a terrible argument for having bundled Adobe products on iOS.
Adobe products are a large risk on Mac OS X. It's unbelievable to me that Adobe Reader is a vector for zero day bugs (http://www.grc.com/sn/sn-273.txt). I really don't know how you do that: it's a PDF reader! The bugs have been around in Adobe Reader for years and Adobe still hasn't fixed them.
If you only view PDF files, you shouldn't even have Adobe Reader installed on your OS X computer. Apple Preview is better, faster, and far less bug-prone.
Steve Jobs "reason" for not including Flash is supposedly mostly about performance not security risks.
It's about both the performance and the security risks.
It's also about the identity-leaking through Flash cookies. Perhaps you missed that security discussion: more than half of the top 100 websites are now using Flash cookies to track users and store information about them (http://www.grc.com/sn/sn-209.txt). Flash cookies do not honor the cookie privacy settings of the browser; many users don't even know that Flash maintains its own set of cookies.
It's about the quirky UI interactions with Flash. Scrolling works differently when the mouse is over a Flash region. Certain keyboard shortcuts cease to work. Text that is displayed in a flash window is not searchable with the browser's text-finding feature. My Mac doesn't behave like a Mac inside of a Flash window.
Then why are they allowing Flash in regular OSX?
Software is much more tightly-controlled on iOS devices. There is a file system firewall between every app. Third-party apps must be submitted to Apple before they can be distributed, and Apple has the capability to remotely disable any third party app that begins to exhibit a malware-like behavior in the field.
Some of those controls are about advances in OS development since Mac OS X. Some have to do with the nature of the device: handhelds are more appliances than laptops.
One other reason to ban Flash on iOS: Flash apps can be packaged as iOS apps. This should be safe because of the way that iOS apps are firewalled from each other and the kill switch that Apple can use if an app is found to be rogue.
There are fundamental differences between iOS devices and laptops/desktops. Also, Apple no longer ships Adobe Flash on their newest computers. (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1034486) I'm guessing that Apple will ship Flash on no computers starting with the release of OS X 10.7 next year.
By your logic that would mean that Microsoft must be the most incompetent company out there.
I don't believe you read that headline carefully: Security experts believe that Adobe is going to surpass Microsoft as the #1 target for security attacks (http://www.grc.com/sn/sn-231.htm).
On the contrary, it indicates they are POPULAR.
No reason to shout.
Perhaps it indicates they have some fundamental problems in their software engineering. Did you read the podcast transcript about the latest Adobe bug? Adobe Reader has the same zero-day glitch as Flash. How does a PDF viewer get executable bugs like this?
How often does Apple update their security? I guess they're clueless too by your account. You won't admit that, however because you have an emotional investment in Apple.
Apple updates their software when updates are needed.
The point is that quarterly updates are far too infrequent. Did you read the transcript of the Security Now! podcast? Given the continuing number of Adobe zero-day bugs, Gibson asks:
"[Adobe:] how is that quarterly update cycle going for you?" (http://www.grc.com/sn/sn-273.txt)
That is not what I said or what I proposed.
You proposed that Apple include Flash with iOS Safari and that users could turn it on. How you can possibly ensure that not a single iOS user will not lose anything the next time there's a zero day Adobe bug (http://www.grc.com/sn/sn-273.txt). You can't.
Northgrove
Apr 14, 03:02 AM
Steve got his way in the end. :D
But I find these news a bit odd. Or rather... This decision. That date would put it so close to the iPhone 5 that I wonder how much it'll be worth the effort. But maybe the iPhone 5 cases will be so similar that most of the manufacturing process will simply be reused in that revision. In that case, Apple can just as well introduce it for the iPhone 4. :)
Hehe. That would be true if the general public read technology news... Most people have no idea about the iPhone 5. And there will be queues for the white iPhone 4 when it does come out because people love that kinda stuff!
Haha, yeah that could also be an evil explanation. :D
But I find these news a bit odd. Or rather... This decision. That date would put it so close to the iPhone 5 that I wonder how much it'll be worth the effort. But maybe the iPhone 5 cases will be so similar that most of the manufacturing process will simply be reused in that revision. In that case, Apple can just as well introduce it for the iPhone 4. :)
Hehe. That would be true if the general public read technology news... Most people have no idea about the iPhone 5. And there will be queues for the white iPhone 4 when it does come out because people love that kinda stuff!
Haha, yeah that could also be an evil explanation. :D
arn
Jun 6, 07:57 AM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 3_1_3 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/528.18 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0 Mobile/7E18 Safari/528.16)
15 minutes?
45 Seconds is all it took to get the facts...
Google search: "android market return policy"
First result: http://www.google.com/mobile/android/market-policies.html
For those too lazy to click...
"Returns: You have 24 hours from the time of purchase (not download) to return any applications purchased from Android Market for a full refund of any applicable fees."
Summary: 24 Hours, not 15 minutes.
This is such a great feature that would perhaps stimulate fair pricing and quality paid apps
Problem with this feature is it kills viability fo many non casual games. Pretty much most story/campaign games can be solved in that time period.
arn
15 minutes?
45 Seconds is all it took to get the facts...
Google search: "android market return policy"
First result: http://www.google.com/mobile/android/market-policies.html
For those too lazy to click...
"Returns: You have 24 hours from the time of purchase (not download) to return any applications purchased from Android Market for a full refund of any applicable fees."
Summary: 24 Hours, not 15 minutes.
This is such a great feature that would perhaps stimulate fair pricing and quality paid apps
Problem with this feature is it kills viability fo many non casual games. Pretty much most story/campaign games can be solved in that time period.
arn
rayz
Aug 1, 12:20 AM
He was talking about seeing blue screens. So it doesn't matter how many people would register it as a crash....they still wouldn't see a blue screen. That was the point he was trying to make.
Yep. I got that; I was saying that the reason you don't see it is not because they've hidden it; it's because XP is actually a lot more stable. Crashes these days are pretty rare, and are usually caused by attempts to access strange areas of memory, or driver problems. I have an XP box running a couple of web containers, and a few app servers; aside from a driver hiccup, never had a crash or secret reboot (and I would know, because I would still need to log back in when I got back from the water cooler).
Also, just as a side note...it took them three years to create the version you're talking about. I'm not stating this for argument—it's only here as additional info.
... and it took Apple just as long to create a stable version of OSX; the only real difference was that MS didn't charge for the interim versions. Again, just additional info.
Yep. I got that; I was saying that the reason you don't see it is not because they've hidden it; it's because XP is actually a lot more stable. Crashes these days are pretty rare, and are usually caused by attempts to access strange areas of memory, or driver problems. I have an XP box running a couple of web containers, and a few app servers; aside from a driver hiccup, never had a crash or secret reboot (and I would know, because I would still need to log back in when I got back from the water cooler).
Also, just as a side note...it took them three years to create the version you're talking about. I'm not stating this for argument—it's only here as additional info.
... and it took Apple just as long to create a stable version of OSX; the only real difference was that MS didn't charge for the interim versions. Again, just additional info.
lmalave
Oct 19, 08:09 AM
Heh heh...yeah me too. Maybe that's what The Steve (tm) was referring to when he said that '07 was going to be one of the most exciting years for Apple yet.
Or it could just be a new colour range for the iPod nanos.
I don't think Apple will come out with a "consumer" tower for the foreseeable future. I think Apple's strategy is to make "consumer" products like the Mini which are made to look more like consumer electronic devices (e.g. look like a stereo or DVD players). A tower just does not fit that category. Apple makes the Mac Pro for professionals that will actually put in a specialized video or audio card for their *professional* work. And yes, a consumer like a gamer might want that expandability just so they can get the latest and greatest gaming video card, but Apple is *not* going to aim for that category anytime soon because: 1) it's a small fraction of the market compared to the overall consumer market, and 2) the PC owns the gaming market. And why would Apple want to go for the PC gaming market anyway? A disproportionate amount of gamers just build "white box" computers so they can optimize everything to their liking for the lowest cost, and that's *definitely* not Apple's market.
Or it could just be a new colour range for the iPod nanos.
I don't think Apple will come out with a "consumer" tower for the foreseeable future. I think Apple's strategy is to make "consumer" products like the Mini which are made to look more like consumer electronic devices (e.g. look like a stereo or DVD players). A tower just does not fit that category. Apple makes the Mac Pro for professionals that will actually put in a specialized video or audio card for their *professional* work. And yes, a consumer like a gamer might want that expandability just so they can get the latest and greatest gaming video card, but Apple is *not* going to aim for that category anytime soon because: 1) it's a small fraction of the market compared to the overall consumer market, and 2) the PC owns the gaming market. And why would Apple want to go for the PC gaming market anyway? A disproportionate amount of gamers just build "white box" computers so they can optimize everything to their liking for the lowest cost, and that's *definitely* not Apple's market.
samcolak
Apr 22, 12:05 PM
Stop it please, you're hurting me... OpenStep is a specification of which GNUStep is a GPL licensed implementation released by the GNU project. Foundation and Cocoa are the NeXTSTEP acquired implementations that Apple is using.
OpenSTEP is not licensed under a GNU project license at all...
POSIX is not a kernel. It's a standard programming interface that UNIX systems used to make sure that one program written for a UNIX system would compile another as long as the standard was followed.
Minix, while being a POSIX compliant OS, was a complete implementation done by Andrew Tannenbaum for a book he was writing.
Your grasp of all of this history is quite muddied. Seriously, who are you trying to convince here ? You've gotten about every fact wrong about this whole thing. The plain fact remains, I was right all along, your correction was quite wrong when you said :
You completely misunderstood my post when I said Bash was part of the GNU project. Bash has always been GNU, always will be. The GPL is very much "GNU licensing".
Enjoy easter yourself and use the days off to work on your grasp of the whole UNIX and open source histories.
From GNU.org (http://www.gnu.org/) :
Again, the Foundation is called the FSF, from their site, FSF.org (http://www.fsf.org/) :
Stop getting it wrong, we're on the Internet, the sites are there to correct you.
Lastly - yes you are correct re POSIX - my bad.
OpenSTEP is not licensed under a GNU project license at all...
POSIX is not a kernel. It's a standard programming interface that UNIX systems used to make sure that one program written for a UNIX system would compile another as long as the standard was followed.
Minix, while being a POSIX compliant OS, was a complete implementation done by Andrew Tannenbaum for a book he was writing.
Your grasp of all of this history is quite muddied. Seriously, who are you trying to convince here ? You've gotten about every fact wrong about this whole thing. The plain fact remains, I was right all along, your correction was quite wrong when you said :
You completely misunderstood my post when I said Bash was part of the GNU project. Bash has always been GNU, always will be. The GPL is very much "GNU licensing".
Enjoy easter yourself and use the days off to work on your grasp of the whole UNIX and open source histories.
From GNU.org (http://www.gnu.org/) :
Again, the Foundation is called the FSF, from their site, FSF.org (http://www.fsf.org/) :
Stop getting it wrong, we're on the Internet, the sites are there to correct you.
Lastly - yes you are correct re POSIX - my bad.
QCassidy352
May 3, 08:15 AM
Apple continues their model to suck most money out of their customers.
Example:
-Can't buy base 21.5'' with 6770M or 6970M.
-Can't buy base 27'' with 6970M.
Why does it always have to be that if you want a good graphics card, you must go for the top model, and thereby paying so much more than if you could just customize the base model with it?
Already know the answer, but let your defending excuses come.
Example:
-Can't buy base 21.5'' with 6770M or 6970M.
-Can't buy base 27'' with 6970M.
Why does it always have to be that if you want a good graphics card, you must go for the top model, and thereby paying so much more than if you could just customize the base model with it?
Already know the answer, but let your defending excuses come.
No comments:
Post a Comment