dolph0291
Mar 30, 01:29 PM
I think he used iTunes as an example because it is something that Mac users would be familliar with as opposed to some other application that you would look at and say "WTF is that?"
Anyway, an .exe in Windows is refered to as an "application". A "program" is a collection of files that includes one or more .exe and possibly other files. This has been the case since Windows XP (possibly earlier).
An .exe is an executable, not an application. Some people may have called them applications, but not MS. Never. Until now.
Anyway, an .exe in Windows is refered to as an "application". A "program" is a collection of files that includes one or more .exe and possibly other files. This has been the case since Windows XP (possibly earlier).
An .exe is an executable, not an application. Some people may have called them applications, but not MS. Never. Until now.
rmhop81
Apr 22, 08:26 AM
I pity the children of the future when I think back to how I am my friends used to swap Video's, CD's and Computer games with each other, as we only had enough Birthday/Christmas money to afford to buy so much, so we had great fun and enjoyment swapping what we had between friends.
In the same way my elderly mother goes to her weekly meeting and they all bring books they have read in, so others can read their books when they have finished with them. Not everyone can afford to buy new every time.
you are focusing too much on the physical items. maybe bc i like to live simple/minimal....but nowadays too many people want so many physical possessions. to me, less is more.....
In the same way my elderly mother goes to her weekly meeting and they all bring books they have read in, so others can read their books when they have finished with them. Not everyone can afford to buy new every time.
you are focusing too much on the physical items. maybe bc i like to live simple/minimal....but nowadays too many people want so many physical possessions. to me, less is more.....
Donz0r
Sep 13, 09:21 PM
This is how I've always pictured the iPhone. Candybar style Slider phones are a hit right now, as well as Music playing phones, most of which suck when it comes to playing music.
Apple needs to tap into this current market and release that thing before the holidays. All of the other concepts were way off, so un apple like. This is an apple phone. basically, an ipod with a small slide out keypad.
Apple's consumer market is growing and more people fit into it than the professional market. The demographic which wants smartphones (for the most part) don't want an apple smart phone. Now that's not to say that an apple smart phone can't be successful, its just in comparison to a consumer targeted cell phone.
Most cell phone buyers buy basic consumer cell phones. This is the perfect media player cell phone hybrid. It seems as if I'll be switching to cingular soon seeing as it will undoubtedly come out in cingular.
Apple needs to tap into this current market and release that thing before the holidays. All of the other concepts were way off, so un apple like. This is an apple phone. basically, an ipod with a small slide out keypad.
Apple's consumer market is growing and more people fit into it than the professional market. The demographic which wants smartphones (for the most part) don't want an apple smart phone. Now that's not to say that an apple smart phone can't be successful, its just in comparison to a consumer targeted cell phone.
Most cell phone buyers buy basic consumer cell phones. This is the perfect media player cell phone hybrid. It seems as if I'll be switching to cingular soon seeing as it will undoubtedly come out in cingular.
awr
Apr 4, 12:52 PM
sorry but if i'm a mall security guard and i got 3 thugs poppin off at me - i'm doing headshots all day.
some of you bleeding hearts want to be all noble - try having any mindset other than "survive" when low-lifes with nothing to lose are pointing guns at you.
some of you bleeding hearts want to be all noble - try having any mindset other than "survive" when low-lifes with nothing to lose are pointing guns at you.
mcmadhatter
Sep 12, 02:11 PM
I hope Apple releases an iPod software update so those of us who already own 5th generation iPods can take advantage of all these new features.
so do I, because I bought a game thinking it would work with my 5th generation ipod and it doesn't :(
so do I, because I bought a game thinking it would work with my 5th generation ipod and it doesn't :(
Dr.Gargoyle
Sep 10, 08:49 AM
Software will also have to keep up and unless your software becomes massively multithreaded and what you're doing can actually be multi threaded there's no real advantage to multi-core CPUs
I am quite sure that the software writers will take full advantage of the current hardware.
Isnt it normally so, that apps push the evolution of the hardware?
I am quite sure that the software writers will take full advantage of the current hardware.
Isnt it normally so, that apps push the evolution of the hardware?
Stella
Apr 4, 12:12 PM
The suspect was killed? Good.
Western society is far too soft on crime.
I feel sorry for the security guard for what he has been through / will go through.. but not the suspect.
American Tax payers money has been saved for the suspect's jail time, who will probably re-offend again after he gets out.
Western society is far too soft on crime.
I feel sorry for the security guard for what he has been through / will go through.. but not the suspect.
American Tax payers money has been saved for the suspect's jail time, who will probably re-offend again after he gets out.
spcopsmac21
Apr 19, 06:58 AM
Samsung is starting to be less and less innovative, they really are setting down at the drawing board , scratching their heads trying to come up with a design and then....." bing!!! their iphone mail alert just popped off and there is their next cell design!!
zhemgang
Sep 14, 10:02 AM
The Apple laptops are a staple machine for Mac using pro photographers so this would be a perfect event to announce an upgrade along with a new version of Aperture. It would look rather odd to have new C2D iMacs and MacPros without an upgraded MBP.
vitaboy
Aug 24, 04:34 PM
First, $100 million is load of money for anyone. Time was, not so long ago, that reporting a $100 million quarterly profit was a big deal for Apple. The iPod doesn't "make" $6 billion a year for Apple. That's just revenue. Profits are a faction of that revenue.
This might be a valid point, except that the $100 million payout isn't being charged against profits. Instead, it is being recorded as an asset and ammortized over many years, meaning it will have very minimal impact to the bottom line.
Second, Creative doesn't "give up" anything but a license to Apple for technology Apple was using before for nothing. No matter how you cut it, the license fee come right out of Apple's bottom line.
I believe this is incorrect. Just because Apple is paying the fee doesn't mean it comes directly out of Apple's profits. As stated above, the licensing fee will be ammortized over several years and thus the impact to the bottom line will be nil.
Secondly, the fee is conditional. If Creative manages to secure other licensing deals, they pay Apple back some of that $100 million. Perhaps all, if the other fees are substantial. That sounds more like a "loan" to me.
If this can be called a "win" for Apple, it's in their getting this issue squared away relatively quickly, so it doesn't overhang the next generation of iPod releases. The long-term impacts of allowing the suit to drag on could have been considerable, just as it was for RIM. Especially if in the end, they lost.
No disagreement with this. The only thing is that NTP never agreed to pay RIM back part of its licensing fee if it was successful in securing new licensees. And NTP didn't decide to become a maker of Blackberry add-on devices.
By officially becoming a member of the "Made for iPod" program, Creative is basically unofficially pre-announcing that it is exiting the player business (contrary to official denial, which are necessary in order for it to sell of remaining inventory). Zen's lost huge marketshare against Sandisk, of all companies, and there's no way Zen will hold on to what little marketshare it has with Zune entering the scene. Not to mention that "Zen" and "Zune" are phonetically similar, which all but guarantees the situation will be hopeless for the Zen line of players.
Creative realized it makes more sense to extract licensing fees from Microsoft for Zune than try to compete directly as it had against the iPod.
With that exit strategy tucked under its belt, it's now free to focus on creating great iPod accessories, which will require far less R&D than music players, and will actually be profitable.
Apple "lost" all right. Here's a summary from The Motley Fool
Apple Gets Creative (http://www.fool.com/News/mft/2006/mft06082410.htm)
What's more, Apple is allowed to recoup costs if others agree to license Creative's patent. Will there be other deals? It's a good bet Creative will try to secure some; the $100 million the firm is getting from Apple will juice per-share earnings by $0.85 in the current quarter.
Plus, there are plenty of targets, with the biggest and most obvious being Microsoft (Nasdaq: MSFT). Its planned Zune player is expected out before the holiday season. Creative could get ahold of a beta version of the device and, if there's evidence of a patent violation, file suit and petition for an injunction.
Apple would love nothing better, of course. But even if Mr. Softy and other i-wannabes avoid the courts, they're unlikely to avoid the extra time and expense of working around Creative's patent. That, too, is a win for the Mac maker. Well done, Steve.
This is what would be called Pyrrhic victory for Creative. Sure, it looks like they won the battle, but only at such a cost that it ends up being a defeat in the long term.
This might be a valid point, except that the $100 million payout isn't being charged against profits. Instead, it is being recorded as an asset and ammortized over many years, meaning it will have very minimal impact to the bottom line.
Second, Creative doesn't "give up" anything but a license to Apple for technology Apple was using before for nothing. No matter how you cut it, the license fee come right out of Apple's bottom line.
I believe this is incorrect. Just because Apple is paying the fee doesn't mean it comes directly out of Apple's profits. As stated above, the licensing fee will be ammortized over several years and thus the impact to the bottom line will be nil.
Secondly, the fee is conditional. If Creative manages to secure other licensing deals, they pay Apple back some of that $100 million. Perhaps all, if the other fees are substantial. That sounds more like a "loan" to me.
If this can be called a "win" for Apple, it's in their getting this issue squared away relatively quickly, so it doesn't overhang the next generation of iPod releases. The long-term impacts of allowing the suit to drag on could have been considerable, just as it was for RIM. Especially if in the end, they lost.
No disagreement with this. The only thing is that NTP never agreed to pay RIM back part of its licensing fee if it was successful in securing new licensees. And NTP didn't decide to become a maker of Blackberry add-on devices.
By officially becoming a member of the "Made for iPod" program, Creative is basically unofficially pre-announcing that it is exiting the player business (contrary to official denial, which are necessary in order for it to sell of remaining inventory). Zen's lost huge marketshare against Sandisk, of all companies, and there's no way Zen will hold on to what little marketshare it has with Zune entering the scene. Not to mention that "Zen" and "Zune" are phonetically similar, which all but guarantees the situation will be hopeless for the Zen line of players.
Creative realized it makes more sense to extract licensing fees from Microsoft for Zune than try to compete directly as it had against the iPod.
With that exit strategy tucked under its belt, it's now free to focus on creating great iPod accessories, which will require far less R&D than music players, and will actually be profitable.
Apple "lost" all right. Here's a summary from The Motley Fool
Apple Gets Creative (http://www.fool.com/News/mft/2006/mft06082410.htm)
What's more, Apple is allowed to recoup costs if others agree to license Creative's patent. Will there be other deals? It's a good bet Creative will try to secure some; the $100 million the firm is getting from Apple will juice per-share earnings by $0.85 in the current quarter.
Plus, there are plenty of targets, with the biggest and most obvious being Microsoft (Nasdaq: MSFT). Its planned Zune player is expected out before the holiday season. Creative could get ahold of a beta version of the device and, if there's evidence of a patent violation, file suit and petition for an injunction.
Apple would love nothing better, of course. But even if Mr. Softy and other i-wannabes avoid the courts, they're unlikely to avoid the extra time and expense of working around Creative's patent. That, too, is a win for the Mac maker. Well done, Steve.
This is what would be called Pyrrhic victory for Creative. Sure, it looks like they won the battle, but only at such a cost that it ends up being a defeat in the long term.
macquariumguy
Mar 23, 04:18 PM
Don't do it Apple!
peharri
Sep 18, 07:52 AM
I'm sure I late getting into the argument, and that fanboyism depending on what network youre own will not change, but I really think GSM does have better voice quality than any other network.
(Before I begin, quick terminology comment: I'm going to avoid "CDMA" and use the term "IS-95" instead - I try to avoid using terms like "CDMA" and "TDMA" because it generally confuses people. Many think the next version of GSM, UMTS, is actually IS95, because it incorporates a CDMA air interface called W-CDMA, for instance. Others think GSM is the same thing as the D-AMPS/IS-136 system used by (the various phone companies that became) Cingular until they started moving to GSM because both have a "TDMA" air interface and IS-136 is usually called "TDMA".) In practice, UMTS and IS95 have almost nothing in common, UMTS is a revision of GSM, and GSM has almost nothing in common with IS-136. )
There's no way to compare the two. Both IS-95 and GSM implement a variety of different codecs that are provided differently by different operators. In the area I live, Cingular (GSM) tries to force many phones to use something called AMR-HR, which has "acceptable" voice quality when you have good reception, and drops to barely incomprehensable with any deterioration in signal strength. T-Mobile (GSM) clearly doesn't, and I can talk and listen to someone with both of us sounding like we're on a landline with one bar of signal. On the same phone.
Likewise, Verizon (IS-95) uses some awful bitrate codec for its network where I live (I believe they're heavily oversubscribed here) where pretty much everyone sounds like they're dying from some serious lung problem, and Sprint PCS (IS-95 too) doesn't and generally the call quality, at medium to good reception, seems pretty much ok. Sub-landline, but not seriously so.
With the variety of voice codecs the operators use, you can't really make a fair judgement merely on the basis of network technology. Either the operator's cheap, or it isn't. IS-95 was chosen by many networks on the basis that it's spectrum efficient (ie it's cheap), but on the other hand Sprint PCS was always content with call drops when I used it to handle network overloading rather than seriously compromising on call quality. Cingular's move to GSM has caused problems in that it's using a significantly less spectrum efficient technology than the technology it replaced, so Cingular's had to, in many places, hopefully temporarily, use the crappy half-rate codecs to boost capacity until it can get more towers online.
I wouldn't use voice quality as a way to judge the technologies.
(Before I begin, quick terminology comment: I'm going to avoid "CDMA" and use the term "IS-95" instead - I try to avoid using terms like "CDMA" and "TDMA" because it generally confuses people. Many think the next version of GSM, UMTS, is actually IS95, because it incorporates a CDMA air interface called W-CDMA, for instance. Others think GSM is the same thing as the D-AMPS/IS-136 system used by (the various phone companies that became) Cingular until they started moving to GSM because both have a "TDMA" air interface and IS-136 is usually called "TDMA".) In practice, UMTS and IS95 have almost nothing in common, UMTS is a revision of GSM, and GSM has almost nothing in common with IS-136. )
There's no way to compare the two. Both IS-95 and GSM implement a variety of different codecs that are provided differently by different operators. In the area I live, Cingular (GSM) tries to force many phones to use something called AMR-HR, which has "acceptable" voice quality when you have good reception, and drops to barely incomprehensable with any deterioration in signal strength. T-Mobile (GSM) clearly doesn't, and I can talk and listen to someone with both of us sounding like we're on a landline with one bar of signal. On the same phone.
Likewise, Verizon (IS-95) uses some awful bitrate codec for its network where I live (I believe they're heavily oversubscribed here) where pretty much everyone sounds like they're dying from some serious lung problem, and Sprint PCS (IS-95 too) doesn't and generally the call quality, at medium to good reception, seems pretty much ok. Sub-landline, but not seriously so.
With the variety of voice codecs the operators use, you can't really make a fair judgement merely on the basis of network technology. Either the operator's cheap, or it isn't. IS-95 was chosen by many networks on the basis that it's spectrum efficient (ie it's cheap), but on the other hand Sprint PCS was always content with call drops when I used it to handle network overloading rather than seriously compromising on call quality. Cingular's move to GSM has caused problems in that it's using a significantly less spectrum efficient technology than the technology it replaced, so Cingular's had to, in many places, hopefully temporarily, use the crappy half-rate codecs to boost capacity until it can get more towers online.
I wouldn't use voice quality as a way to judge the technologies.
PlaceofDis
Nov 13, 04:07 PM
Because they are NO LONGER USING THE API! They give the rights to use the API to call and display the image. It doesn't give them the right to take that image and use it for something else outside of the context it was meant to be used.
they are using the OS X API in the context it was meant to be used in. as far as i can tell these images aren't loaded into the iPhone application itself and are rather transmitted over-the-air as the application is being used, thus they are being called by the OS while the application is being run and are merely being displayed through the iPhone application, its like saying you can't see any apple trademark icons through a VPN client.
they are using the OS X API in the context it was meant to be used in. as far as i can tell these images aren't loaded into the iPhone application itself and are rather transmitted over-the-air as the application is being used, thus they are being called by the OS while the application is being run and are merely being displayed through the iPhone application, its like saying you can't see any apple trademark icons through a VPN client.
halhiker
Sep 5, 01:31 AM
I don't really get the point of wireless video unless you can somehow incorporate a pause feature into it. What am I going to do with the video if I have to answer the door or phone or go to the can or get a snack? Do I have to go to my computer and reset the video and hope that when it streams to the TV or whatever it's at the right spot? For me it would be much easier to just move the movie to my iPod, put the iPod in a dock with a remote and watch it that way. Unless maybe the new airport device has it's own remote! Now that might be interesting. :D
Hal
Hal
TonySwartz
Oct 12, 04:35 PM
http://img189.imageshack.us/img189/5216/indexfallingnanos20061012fz5.th.png (http://img189.imageshack.us/my.php?image=indexfallingnanos20061012fz5.png)
nehunte
Nov 14, 07:45 AM
I think this thread has moved too far into the law and needs to move back into the 'common sense' arena. Rogue was using images supplied to him by MAC OSX. Strangely enough, Apple denied the app. Whatever, that's fine. BUT IT TOOK THREE AND A HALF MONTHS TO SORT THE SITUATION OUT!!!!
That's the problem. It takes forever to straighten out crap with them. This is why the Facebook developer is done with Apple. He would see a bug in his app, and it would take Apple two weeks or more to approve the bug fix while everybody is experiencing the bug problems. It's completely asinine. Apple clearly had no idea how popular the App Store was going to be and still doesn't have the proper resources to handle it. Sure, the App Store has over 100,000 apps. How many of those are quality apps? Hard to tell, but I can tell you it's filled with a bunch of worthless apps that shouldn't be on there in the first place.
With the recent news around the App Store, I'm afraid you're going to start seeing a lot less quality apps and far more stupid worthless apps hit since all the good developers are leaving. It just blows my mind that Apple is having this kind of mentality while Android is starting to pick up steam. I guess I'll just have to see where this situation stands when my contract runs up. Hopefully Apple pulls their head our of their rear by then.
That's the problem. It takes forever to straighten out crap with them. This is why the Facebook developer is done with Apple. He would see a bug in his app, and it would take Apple two weeks or more to approve the bug fix while everybody is experiencing the bug problems. It's completely asinine. Apple clearly had no idea how popular the App Store was going to be and still doesn't have the proper resources to handle it. Sure, the App Store has over 100,000 apps. How many of those are quality apps? Hard to tell, but I can tell you it's filled with a bunch of worthless apps that shouldn't be on there in the first place.
With the recent news around the App Store, I'm afraid you're going to start seeing a lot less quality apps and far more stupid worthless apps hit since all the good developers are leaving. It just blows my mind that Apple is having this kind of mentality while Android is starting to pick up steam. I guess I'll just have to see where this situation stands when my contract runs up. Hopefully Apple pulls their head our of their rear by then.
Rootus
Apr 15, 08:51 AM
USB 3 will likely become more popular. I hope that doesn't happen. I'd rather have PCI-E speeds than USB speeds.
Perhaps TB will go differently than FW did. Apple has a more significant market share now than they did when FW was introduced. Plus, they're being smart by letting Intel take the lead in promoting TB.
What will make or break TB is peripheral support, and real world performance. Can USB3 keep up with a current SSD, even? If performance is notably degraded with USB3 and the ports both exist on the computer, and the peripherals are the same cost ... TB should do fine.
Personally I'd like to see USB stop at v2. Keep it for a while like we did PS/2 ports for keyboards & mice, but let's roll out modern technology when we can. USB3 hasn't gotten much of a foothold in the two years since it was released, so let's ditch it while we can and go with something much better.
Perhaps TB will go differently than FW did. Apple has a more significant market share now than they did when FW was introduced. Plus, they're being smart by letting Intel take the lead in promoting TB.
What will make or break TB is peripheral support, and real world performance. Can USB3 keep up with a current SSD, even? If performance is notably degraded with USB3 and the ports both exist on the computer, and the peripherals are the same cost ... TB should do fine.
Personally I'd like to see USB stop at v2. Keep it for a while like we did PS/2 ports for keyboards & mice, but let's roll out modern technology when we can. USB3 hasn't gotten much of a foothold in the two years since it was released, so let's ditch it while we can and go with something much better.
philipcolett
Sep 10, 04:19 PM
Does anyone know where this will be live updated? macrumors, appleinsider? thanks
Peace
Sep 4, 04:09 PM
Read on and be wowed:
http://www.appleinsider.com/article.php?id=2016
Unfortunately that seemingly inadvertent leak was recanted today by the radio host
http://www.yourmaclife.com
http://www.appleinsider.com/article.php?id=2016
Unfortunately that seemingly inadvertent leak was recanted today by the radio host
http://www.yourmaclife.com
0815
Apr 20, 01:58 PM
You're not getting it. You are looking at a sunny-sky situation where nothing bad ever happens. Let's look at it from my perspective, a real-world perspective: my Macbook, which was used to sync my iPhone and my wife's iPhone, was stolen last fall. So who has all of this supposedly "safe" data now? Whoever has that Macbook. Probably nothing will ever happen, but now I have that little thing in the back of my mind thinking, "Hmm, if that guy happens to read about this and happens to still have it, he could theoretically track our normal daily movements." In other words, he'd know our daily routine - you know, most people have a routine and stick to it and don't think a second thing about it. Conceivably, he could come back and strike again because he has a good feel of when we're not there. I'd say the likelihood of this happening is extremely low. But it could happen because of this. (And we know the Macbook was used for a long, long time because of Zumocast - had it on our iPhones and her computer and saw him logged in all the time, starting a couple days after he stole it. Was actually able to recover some family videos that way, actually.)
That's what you don't get. People shouldn't even have to worry about this. That kind of data shouldn't be available, period. PERIOD. And don't tell me to encrypt my iPhone backups, that's water under the bridge. Why doesn't iTunes encrypt them automatically, hmm? There's no need for any of this.
Finally some sensible example where this might cause a problem .... time for the 'remote erase' feature for MacBooks.
That's what you don't get. People shouldn't even have to worry about this. That kind of data shouldn't be available, period. PERIOD. And don't tell me to encrypt my iPhone backups, that's water under the bridge. Why doesn't iTunes encrypt them automatically, hmm? There's no need for any of this.
Finally some sensible example where this might cause a problem .... time for the 'remote erase' feature for MacBooks.
JZ Wire
Sep 10, 02:13 AM
I was credit card in hand when these were released, but I stopped myself. I'd like to wait a bit and see the 64 bit boost (if there is any), and Leopard in general.
I feel like these are speed demons, but I can't take advantage of a lot of it due to my heavy use of CS2 and the in-between feeling of Apple's apps/OS right now.
The second Leopard is out, I'm on the 24" iMac train.
Yea, I know what you mean. Apple needs to get on the ball with that already. They have been shipping dual core machines for a while yet OS X cant truly take advantage of it. Since intel will be using more cores as time goes by it only makes sense for OS X and it's apps to be able to harness the full power of all the cores/processors. I really really hope thats what they have planned for Leopard. Maybe its one of the " Super Secret Features" ??? :rolleyes:
I feel like these are speed demons, but I can't take advantage of a lot of it due to my heavy use of CS2 and the in-between feeling of Apple's apps/OS right now.
The second Leopard is out, I'm on the 24" iMac train.
Yea, I know what you mean. Apple needs to get on the ball with that already. They have been shipping dual core machines for a while yet OS X cant truly take advantage of it. Since intel will be using more cores as time goes by it only makes sense for OS X and it's apps to be able to harness the full power of all the cores/processors. I really really hope thats what they have planned for Leopard. Maybe its one of the " Super Secret Features" ??? :rolleyes:
aswitcher
Sep 14, 07:23 AM
Cross the 8GB black iPod nano with a decent phone, add bluetooth earphones, and maybe even put in GPS, and we have a winner.
Lukeyy19
Apr 4, 12:31 PM
i honestly can't understand people who say there was no need to kill him, he was armed and shot at the security guard.
A criminal shoots at a security guard who is just doing his job of protecting the public? and a Security Guard shoots at a criminal who is shooting at him, endangering the public and stealing, and somehow the Security Guard is the bad guy here?
this criminal had no respect or regard for anyone but himself, he was a CRIMINAL, that was his choice to make, if he'd of made a better choice, he'd still be alive.
If the Security Guard had of made a different choice he may not still be alive.
it's just like the whole Raoul Moat thing here in the UK, he killed I don't know how many people, injured others, shot a Police Officer in the face with a shotgun, and people still said it was wrong to kill him, SERIOUSLY!
I say well done to the Security Guard, i just hope he is commentated for doing the right thing, and lives the rest of his life peacefully.
A criminal shoots at a security guard who is just doing his job of protecting the public? and a Security Guard shoots at a criminal who is shooting at him, endangering the public and stealing, and somehow the Security Guard is the bad guy here?
this criminal had no respect or regard for anyone but himself, he was a CRIMINAL, that was his choice to make, if he'd of made a better choice, he'd still be alive.
If the Security Guard had of made a different choice he may not still be alive.
it's just like the whole Raoul Moat thing here in the UK, he killed I don't know how many people, injured others, shot a Police Officer in the face with a shotgun, and people still said it was wrong to kill him, SERIOUSLY!
I say well done to the Security Guard, i just hope he is commentated for doing the right thing, and lives the rest of his life peacefully.
EagerDragon
Sep 10, 08:47 AM
Is the 24" as quiet as the MacPro? Have you been able to compare to the 20"?
The store is noisy, so it is hard to say. To me neither was making a sound.
The store is noisy, so it is hard to say. To me neither was making a sound.
