Snowy_River
Nov 26, 03:10 PM
...Why would I want to waste my time learning shorthand (which makes the assumption that TPCs could handle various forms of shorthand) so I could do through writing what I can already do at 70+ WPM via typing. And with typing, it solves the whole problem of handwriting recognition, because there ISN'T ANY...
Just for the record, if you can type more than 70 WPM, then your typing speed is well into the top 10%. Average typing speed is around 35 WPM, and most people can write faster than they can type.
Just for the record, if you can type more than 70 WPM, then your typing speed is well into the top 10%. Average typing speed is around 35 WPM, and most people can write faster than they can type.
Bibulous
Sep 10, 11:04 PM
$3-4.99 rentals of brand new movies would be awesome. Otherwise, "meh"
I can't get to excited about this, it will take me 10 hours to download 2GB :eek:
I can't get to excited about this, it will take me 10 hours to download 2GB :eek:
Multimedia
Aug 3, 07:50 PM
I see that you misunderstood the context of the 2.33Ghz but you are still incorrect. You can buy a 2.33Ghz Yonah today, its called the T2700. I know there are not any T2700's in a MBP but Apple could have done so if they wanted.
Now, back to your 1.67X Battery life…
Straight from a "Merom vs. Yonah" AnandTech article (http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2808&p=15) released earlier today
OK Thank you. I was WRONG. INTEL Lied to us. Sorry. :confused: My first expectation is to see the isight in the MacBook Pros improved 1.3MP/2.0MP resolutions.
Mac Pro in some form or another.
but to see Multimedia & Teblah goto war after the keynote finishes?
... Priceless!;) :D :pI dont' think either one of us are feeling angry toward one another are we? I like Treblah. Why would anyone here think we want to fight? :confused:
Now, back to your 1.67X Battery life…
Straight from a "Merom vs. Yonah" AnandTech article (http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2808&p=15) released earlier today
OK Thank you. I was WRONG. INTEL Lied to us. Sorry. :confused: My first expectation is to see the isight in the MacBook Pros improved 1.3MP/2.0MP resolutions.
Mac Pro in some form or another.
but to see Multimedia & Teblah goto war after the keynote finishes?
... Priceless!;) :D :pI dont' think either one of us are feeling angry toward one another are we? I like Treblah. Why would anyone here think we want to fight? :confused:
reyrios
Apr 26, 04:17 PM
iOS needs to evolve. It is old and stale...
How terrible is the notification system? And it's been around for almost 4 years!
This is so true. Android might have its faults, but it seems years ahead of the iPhone in many areas. This is coming from an Apple fan, who at first didn't want to be rapped by AT&T's prices and bad service. So I waited 5 years until I tried an Android. I must say, is not perfect (just like the iPhone) but way more advanced. Notification, widgets, GPS, Google integration, wireless sync (to iTunes!!!!), setting profiles apps, numerous keyboards, tons of great web browsers, etc...
Apple had a great product (still is) but their go to market strategy failed. If they would have gone with 2 providers and then rolled it out to all within 3 yrs, Android would have been history.
How terrible is the notification system? And it's been around for almost 4 years!
This is so true. Android might have its faults, but it seems years ahead of the iPhone in many areas. This is coming from an Apple fan, who at first didn't want to be rapped by AT&T's prices and bad service. So I waited 5 years until I tried an Android. I must say, is not perfect (just like the iPhone) but way more advanced. Notification, widgets, GPS, Google integration, wireless sync (to iTunes!!!!), setting profiles apps, numerous keyboards, tons of great web browsers, etc...
Apple had a great product (still is) but their go to market strategy failed. If they would have gone with 2 providers and then rolled it out to all within 3 yrs, Android would have been history.
wangagat
Jul 21, 03:35 PM
Remind us about what? Please be a little less cryptic because some people are tired here :p
lol sorry... just saying that products dont necessarily have to wait the 6 month grace period before bein upgraded.
iMac was drastically upgraded from G5 to Core Duo after just 3 months.
Could be the same with the current line-up.
lol sorry... just saying that products dont necessarily have to wait the 6 month grace period before bein upgraded.
iMac was drastically upgraded from G5 to Core Duo after just 3 months.
Could be the same with the current line-up.
BlizzardBomb
Jul 23, 12:47 PM
Why not? Conroe will have availability by WWDC, IIRC, and Merom won't be far behind- they could announce a MBP with Merom, shipping in two weeks after WWDC.
MBP with Merom, iMac with Conroe, Mac Pros with either Conroe and a Woodcrest quad or all Woodcrest, MacBooks with Merom or Yonah w/price drop, and Mac Mini price drop back to $499.
Just because something is available doesn't mean it will be updated.
MBP with Merom, iMac with Conroe, Mac Pros with either Conroe and a Woodcrest quad or all Woodcrest, MacBooks with Merom or Yonah w/price drop, and Mac Mini price drop back to $499.
Just because something is available doesn't mean it will be updated.
appleguy123
May 3, 06:42 PM
No traps in the current room so we can leave without searching the current room.
There could be treasure here. Searching this room is guaranteed to be safe, as far as I can tell.
There could be treasure here. Searching this room is guaranteed to be safe, as far as I can tell.
war
Nov 22, 09:40 AM
I wish Apple would keep features at a minimum. My current phone has so many features that I don't use. I don't care if it can surf the internet nor do I care if it can take pictures. Could I just get a phone with a great address book that syncs really well with my mac? I just want an excellent way to keep control of my contacts, that's it. Any mobile phone companies out there listening? Stop putting features in that I don't care about.
Eduardo1971
Apr 18, 02:47 PM
Has Apple targeted other 'tablet' makers?
Wonder how long until they serve HP with a similar suit?
Wonder how long until they serve HP with a similar suit?
ravenvii
May 3, 12:31 PM
so is the turn of the villain simultaneous to the heroes (meaning he can communicate/implement his moves at any time) or do turns alternate (and if they do, do they in singles or in pairs)?
what's the point of having 'rounds'?
They alternate in pairs. A round is two hero turns then two villain turns. By meanwhile I meant the villain can converse with the GMs at any time. But his actions will be implemented once the heroes complete their two turns.
That's how we keep the villain and the heroes in sync, and keep score of the villain's points.
And before you ask again, in the context of the villain, turns = points. Okay? :p
is there a time-limit to the villain's decision before it defaults in no-action, 1 point accrued?
No time limit, the villain must explicitly state that he is taking inaction for the turn.
what's the point of having 'rounds'?
They alternate in pairs. A round is two hero turns then two villain turns. By meanwhile I meant the villain can converse with the GMs at any time. But his actions will be implemented once the heroes complete their two turns.
That's how we keep the villain and the heroes in sync, and keep score of the villain's points.
And before you ask again, in the context of the villain, turns = points. Okay? :p
is there a time-limit to the villain's decision before it defaults in no-action, 1 point accrued?
No time limit, the villain must explicitly state that he is taking inaction for the turn.
doctor-don
Apr 25, 10:56 AM
I like Steves sense of brevity.
Perhaps if people bothered to look up some info on what they were talking about before they went off half-cocked about the latest hyped paranoia...
News media will do practically anything to attract viewers / listeners / readers, even if the conclusions are incorrect.
Perhaps if people bothered to look up some info on what they were talking about before they went off half-cocked about the latest hyped paranoia...
News media will do practically anything to attract viewers / listeners / readers, even if the conclusions are incorrect.
Piggie
Apr 26, 04:11 PM
Apple could make a whole range of phones in different sizes, from different materials at different price points.
Apple could licence iOS to others to make phones running their OS thus opening up iTunes sales to an even larger audience.
I don't expect Apple will do either.
Only in the long term future will we be able to look back to now and know if Apple did the right thing, and grew to be one of the world leaders or died a slow and painful death.
Anyone got a crystal ball, or know Dr Who? ;)
Apple could licence iOS to others to make phones running their OS thus opening up iTunes sales to an even larger audience.
I don't expect Apple will do either.
Only in the long term future will we be able to look back to now and know if Apple did the right thing, and grew to be one of the world leaders or died a slow and painful death.
Anyone got a crystal ball, or know Dr Who? ;)
RalfTheDog
Apr 7, 12:47 PM
...I walk away to contemplate seppuku
That is over dramatic, cut it out.
That is over dramatic, cut it out.
danielwsmithee
Aug 4, 11:03 AM
How many people plan to dump their Core Duo Macs for Core 2 Duo Macs? I don't plan on dumping my 20" iMac Core Duo until some other new feature are added besides just a processor upgrade. Specifically I would like to see 802.11n, Firewire 800 and Possibly a TV Tuner (Elgato's products are pretty good already so I can live without that feature). What would make me jump immediately is a 23" iMac with 2.66 Ghz Conroe and a X1800 or X1900 Video card. Of course the thing would cost $2999.
Don't panic
May 4, 11:48 AM
BTW, DP serves at the discretion of the Wizard.
Tu B#39;Shevat Tissue Paper On
tissue paper flowers
waxed tissue paper
tissue paper flowers
Jape
Nov 30, 01:47 AM
I wonder if it will actually come this time
aswitcher
Aug 4, 07:43 AM
Wining Switchers should be Apple's goal now.
Agreed. So that means...
Leopard - seemless Windows intergration...
Target the multimedia computer market with those wanting their HDTVs and iPods to connect to their new Mac. Make the mac part of the furniture and easy to operate.
Geek switchers. Along with Leopard / Windows, they will want decent gaming punch which means a Mac Box with pro features like replacable graphics cards but still price competative. I see a low/min Mac Pro. Could be the same machine or a variation of the multimedia one. That way 2 birds one stone.
Keep innovating. New tech stuff early. 802.11n. iPhones. Touch screens (without touch) etc.
Agreed. So that means...
Leopard - seemless Windows intergration...
Target the multimedia computer market with those wanting their HDTVs and iPods to connect to their new Mac. Make the mac part of the furniture and easy to operate.
Geek switchers. Along with Leopard / Windows, they will want decent gaming punch which means a Mac Box with pro features like replacable graphics cards but still price competative. I see a low/min Mac Pro. Could be the same machine or a variation of the multimedia one. That way 2 birds one stone.
Keep innovating. New tech stuff early. 802.11n. iPhones. Touch screens (without touch) etc.
McGiord
Apr 11, 06:28 AM
I've entered enough equations online to know that this equation is almost always interpreted as:
280699
So you get paid for entering equations online? Or when you are studying you enter them online? Why you do that?
280699
So you get paid for entering equations online? Or when you are studying you enter them online? Why you do that?
iliketyla
Mar 29, 02:06 PM
Up to another 50% on what they already cost?
Well even though my argument was already refuted by the citizens of other continents on here, in a perfect world the products would cost more yes, but we'd also be making more money with employment here in the U.S.
Unfortunately we don't live in a perfect world, and the U.S. makes products that other countries have no interest in buying due to poor quality.
Well even though my argument was already refuted by the citizens of other continents on here, in a perfect world the products would cost more yes, but we'd also be making more money with employment here in the U.S.
Unfortunately we don't live in a perfect world, and the U.S. makes products that other countries have no interest in buying due to poor quality.
MikeTheC
Nov 25, 10:46 PM
All this talk about Palm needing to modernize their OS, or it is outdated, or needing to re-write is absolutely hilarious.
On a phone, I want to use its features quickly and easily. When I have to schedule an appointment, I want to enter that appointment as easily as possible. When I want to add something to my to-do list, I want to do it easily and quickly. And first and foremost, I want to be able to look up a contact and dial it as quickly as possible.
A phone is not a personal computer. I couldn't care less about multitasking, rewriting, "modern" OSes (whatever "modern" means). "Modern" features and look is just eye candy and/or toys. A mobile phone is a gadget of convenience, and it should be convenient to use. Even PalmOS 1.0 was convenient. It was just as easy to use its contact and calendar features as any so-called "modern" OS is today.
I would really like to know how "modernizing" the OS on my phone would help me look up contacts, dial contacts, enter to-do list entries, and entering calendar entries any better that I could today.
Again, I repeat: a phone is not a personal computer. There's no point in treating it as such.
The same point could largely be made about cars, but I don't think either of us would want to be driving a Model T or Model A Ford these days, would we?
The term "Modern" as applied to operating systems has little to do with the interface per se. It primarily concerns the underpinnings of the OS and how forward-looking and/or open-ended it is. Older operating systems, if you want to look at it in this way, were very geared to the hardware of their times, and every time you added a new hardware feature or some new kind of technology came out, you wound up making this big patchwork of an OS, in which you had either an out-dated or obsolete "core" around which was stuck, somewhat unglamorously, lots of crap to allow it to do stuff it wasn't really designed for. Then, you wound up having to write patches for the patches, etc., ad infinitum.
Apple tried to go the internal development route, but that didn't work because their departmental infrastructure was eating them from the inside out at the time and basically poisoned all of their new projects. They considered BeOS because it was an incredibly modern OS at the time that was very capable, unbelievably good at multitasking, memory protection, multimedia tasks, etc. However, that company was so shaky that when Apple decided not to go with them, they collapsed. One of the products which was introduced and sold and almost immediately recalled that used a version of BeOS was Sony's eVilla (you just have to love that name -- try pronouncing it out loud to get the full effect).
Ultimately, they went with NeXT's BSD- and Mach-Kernel-based NeXTStep (which after a bunch of time and effort and -- since lots of it is based on Open Source software, there were a healthy amount of community contributions to) and hence we now have Mac OS X.
I'll leave it to actual developers and/or coders here to better explain and refine (and/or correct) what I've said here, should you wish greater detail beyond what I am able to -- and therefore have -- provided above.
The whole point of going with a modern OS implemented for an imbedded market (i.e. "Mac OS X Mobile") is it gives you much more direct (and probably better implemented and/or better-grounded) access to modern technologies. Everything from basic I/O tasks that reside in the Kernel to audio processing to doing H.264 decoding to having access to IPv4 or IPv6, are all examples of things which a modern OS could do a better job of providing and/or backing.
From what I understand, PalmOS is something that was designed to first and foremost give you basic notepad and daily organizer functionality. When they wrote, as you say, PalmOS 1.0, they happened to implement a way for third parties to write software that could run on it. This has been both a benefit and a bane of PalmOS's existence. First off, they now have the same issues of backwards-compatibility and storage space and memory use/abuse that a regular computer OS has. I said it was both a benefit and a bane; but there's actually two parts to the "bane" side. The first I've already mentioned, but the second is the fact that since apps have been written which can do darn near any conceivable task, people keep wanting more and more and more. And this then goes back to the "patchwork" I described earlier in talking about "older" computer OSs.
Then people want multimedia, and color screens, and apps to take advantage of it, and they want Palm to incorporate DSPs so they can play music, and of course that brings along with it all of the extra patching to then allow for the existence of, and permit the use of, an on-board DSP. And now you want WiFi? Well, shoot, now we gotta have IPv4 as well, and support for TCP/IP, none of which was ever a part of the original concept of PalmOS.
And even if you don't want or need any of those features in your own PDA, I'm sorry but that's really just too bad. Go live in a cave if you like, but if you buy a new PDA, guess what: you're gonna get all that stuff.
And at some point, all of this stretches an "older" OS just a bit too far, or it becomes a bit absurd with all the hoops and turns and wiggling that PalmOne's coders have to go through, so then they say, "Aw **** it, let's just re-write the thing."
Apple comes to this without any of *that* sort of legacy. Doubtless there will be no Newton code on this thing anywhere, but what Apple's got is Mac OS X, which means they also have the power (albeit somewhat indirectly) of an Open Source OS -- Linux. And in case you weren't aware, there are already numerous "imbedded" implementations of Linux -- phones, PDAs, game systems, kiosks, etc. -- all of which are data points and collective experience opportunities which ALREADY EXIST that Apple can exploit.
So no, having a "modern" OS is not a bad thing. It's actually a supremely awesome thing. What you're concerned about is having something that is intuitive AND efficient AND appropriate to the world of telephone interfaces for the user interface on the device you'd go and buy yourself.
All I can say, based on past performance, is give Apple a chance.
Now, here's a larger picture thought to ponder...
If Apple goes to market with the iPhone, then this is going to open up (to some extent) the viability of a F/OSS community cell phone. And this is a really good thing as well because it represents a non-commercial, enthusiast entrance into what up until now has been a totally proprietary, locked-down OS-based product world. It has the potential to do to cell phones what Linux has inspired in Mac OS X.
On a phone, I want to use its features quickly and easily. When I have to schedule an appointment, I want to enter that appointment as easily as possible. When I want to add something to my to-do list, I want to do it easily and quickly. And first and foremost, I want to be able to look up a contact and dial it as quickly as possible.
A phone is not a personal computer. I couldn't care less about multitasking, rewriting, "modern" OSes (whatever "modern" means). "Modern" features and look is just eye candy and/or toys. A mobile phone is a gadget of convenience, and it should be convenient to use. Even PalmOS 1.0 was convenient. It was just as easy to use its contact and calendar features as any so-called "modern" OS is today.
I would really like to know how "modernizing" the OS on my phone would help me look up contacts, dial contacts, enter to-do list entries, and entering calendar entries any better that I could today.
Again, I repeat: a phone is not a personal computer. There's no point in treating it as such.
The same point could largely be made about cars, but I don't think either of us would want to be driving a Model T or Model A Ford these days, would we?
The term "Modern" as applied to operating systems has little to do with the interface per se. It primarily concerns the underpinnings of the OS and how forward-looking and/or open-ended it is. Older operating systems, if you want to look at it in this way, were very geared to the hardware of their times, and every time you added a new hardware feature or some new kind of technology came out, you wound up making this big patchwork of an OS, in which you had either an out-dated or obsolete "core" around which was stuck, somewhat unglamorously, lots of crap to allow it to do stuff it wasn't really designed for. Then, you wound up having to write patches for the patches, etc., ad infinitum.
Apple tried to go the internal development route, but that didn't work because their departmental infrastructure was eating them from the inside out at the time and basically poisoned all of their new projects. They considered BeOS because it was an incredibly modern OS at the time that was very capable, unbelievably good at multitasking, memory protection, multimedia tasks, etc. However, that company was so shaky that when Apple decided not to go with them, they collapsed. One of the products which was introduced and sold and almost immediately recalled that used a version of BeOS was Sony's eVilla (you just have to love that name -- try pronouncing it out loud to get the full effect).
Ultimately, they went with NeXT's BSD- and Mach-Kernel-based NeXTStep (which after a bunch of time and effort and -- since lots of it is based on Open Source software, there were a healthy amount of community contributions to) and hence we now have Mac OS X.
I'll leave it to actual developers and/or coders here to better explain and refine (and/or correct) what I've said here, should you wish greater detail beyond what I am able to -- and therefore have -- provided above.
The whole point of going with a modern OS implemented for an imbedded market (i.e. "Mac OS X Mobile") is it gives you much more direct (and probably better implemented and/or better-grounded) access to modern technologies. Everything from basic I/O tasks that reside in the Kernel to audio processing to doing H.264 decoding to having access to IPv4 or IPv6, are all examples of things which a modern OS could do a better job of providing and/or backing.
From what I understand, PalmOS is something that was designed to first and foremost give you basic notepad and daily organizer functionality. When they wrote, as you say, PalmOS 1.0, they happened to implement a way for third parties to write software that could run on it. This has been both a benefit and a bane of PalmOS's existence. First off, they now have the same issues of backwards-compatibility and storage space and memory use/abuse that a regular computer OS has. I said it was both a benefit and a bane; but there's actually two parts to the "bane" side. The first I've already mentioned, but the second is the fact that since apps have been written which can do darn near any conceivable task, people keep wanting more and more and more. And this then goes back to the "patchwork" I described earlier in talking about "older" computer OSs.
Then people want multimedia, and color screens, and apps to take advantage of it, and they want Palm to incorporate DSPs so they can play music, and of course that brings along with it all of the extra patching to then allow for the existence of, and permit the use of, an on-board DSP. And now you want WiFi? Well, shoot, now we gotta have IPv4 as well, and support for TCP/IP, none of which was ever a part of the original concept of PalmOS.
And even if you don't want or need any of those features in your own PDA, I'm sorry but that's really just too bad. Go live in a cave if you like, but if you buy a new PDA, guess what: you're gonna get all that stuff.
And at some point, all of this stretches an "older" OS just a bit too far, or it becomes a bit absurd with all the hoops and turns and wiggling that PalmOne's coders have to go through, so then they say, "Aw **** it, let's just re-write the thing."
Apple comes to this without any of *that* sort of legacy. Doubtless there will be no Newton code on this thing anywhere, but what Apple's got is Mac OS X, which means they also have the power (albeit somewhat indirectly) of an Open Source OS -- Linux. And in case you weren't aware, there are already numerous "imbedded" implementations of Linux -- phones, PDAs, game systems, kiosks, etc. -- all of which are data points and collective experience opportunities which ALREADY EXIST that Apple can exploit.
So no, having a "modern" OS is not a bad thing. It's actually a supremely awesome thing. What you're concerned about is having something that is intuitive AND efficient AND appropriate to the world of telephone interfaces for the user interface on the device you'd go and buy yourself.
All I can say, based on past performance, is give Apple a chance.
Now, here's a larger picture thought to ponder...
If Apple goes to market with the iPhone, then this is going to open up (to some extent) the viability of a F/OSS community cell phone. And this is a really good thing as well because it represents a non-commercial, enthusiast entrance into what up until now has been a totally proprietary, locked-down OS-based product world. It has the potential to do to cell phones what Linux has inspired in Mac OS X.
Sodner
Apr 7, 09:30 AM
Ha ha! Way to go Apple!!!! Kill the competition any way you can!!
Apple is doing everyone a favor saving them from the mistake of getting a RIM tablet.
Apple is doing everyone a favor saving them from the mistake of getting a RIM tablet.
Don't panic
Apr 11, 07:06 AM
are we still debating over this?
if we stay to basic math, it depends on how you read the / sign
if it only refers to the immediately following expression then you'd have
(48/2)*(9+3)=288
if it refers to everything following, then you'd have
48/[2*(9+3)]=2
it is poorly written (or more likely purposely ambiguously written), but in such cases the left-to-right rule should prevail, making it 288. on the other hand, square brackets are way cooler than round brackets, making 2 the cool answer.
if we move to postadvanced math however, it is clear that "/" separates two expressions: 48 and 2(9+3);
- as someone already mentioned above, absence of the operator implies multiplication, so 48=4*8. now, everyone knows that by the reciprocal inversity properties multiplication is the opposite of division, therefore 4 multiplied by 8 must be equal to 8 divided by 4, which is most obviously 2 (on the left part of the expression);
- now to the right part. this is easy. Ignoring the round bracket (which as mentioned are uncool), you have 2*9+3, which gives you a very straightforward 21;
- so now we have 2/21, which as demonstrated above is equal to 21*2, which is (i hope no one disagrees on this) 42.
so please now stop with your earthlingy bickering: the answer is always 42. :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:
if we stay to basic math, it depends on how you read the / sign
if it only refers to the immediately following expression then you'd have
(48/2)*(9+3)=288
if it refers to everything following, then you'd have
48/[2*(9+3)]=2
it is poorly written (or more likely purposely ambiguously written), but in such cases the left-to-right rule should prevail, making it 288. on the other hand, square brackets are way cooler than round brackets, making 2 the cool answer.
if we move to postadvanced math however, it is clear that "/" separates two expressions: 48 and 2(9+3);
- as someone already mentioned above, absence of the operator implies multiplication, so 48=4*8. now, everyone knows that by the reciprocal inversity properties multiplication is the opposite of division, therefore 4 multiplied by 8 must be equal to 8 divided by 4, which is most obviously 2 (on the left part of the expression);
- now to the right part. this is easy. Ignoring the round bracket (which as mentioned are uncool), you have 2*9+3, which gives you a very straightforward 21;
- so now we have 2/21, which as demonstrated above is equal to 21*2, which is (i hope no one disagrees on this) 42.
so please now stop with your earthlingy bickering: the answer is always 42. :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:
vand0576
Aug 11, 10:41 AM
so once these are released, what are the chances if my MBP was broken Apple Care would replace it with a new Core 2 Duo one?
Absolutely slim to none. When my 4G monochrome iPod broke down after both the releases to the iPod photo and iPoc 5G, I thought for sure I'd get an upgrade but it's not the case. I'm sure somehow they still have 4G ipods in stock. My guess is they hold them for two years after the last sale of the product, so that the applecare is meant to replace, not upgrade.
No chance your computer will be simply replaced. They would work on it, not upgrade it. Intel still makes the chips, and remember Apple has to buy them in lots of 1,000. They have plenty.
Absolutely slim to none. When my 4G monochrome iPod broke down after both the releases to the iPod photo and iPoc 5G, I thought for sure I'd get an upgrade but it's not the case. I'm sure somehow they still have 4G ipods in stock. My guess is they hold them for two years after the last sale of the product, so that the applecare is meant to replace, not upgrade.
No chance your computer will be simply replaced. They would work on it, not upgrade it. Intel still makes the chips, and remember Apple has to buy them in lots of 1,000. They have plenty.
macintel4me
Nov 22, 05:19 AM
HEY! who's he calling a "PC guy"??! :mad:
Exactly! Maybe I'm reading too much into this quote, but the "PC guy" remark makes me think that the "Palm guy" is already angry knowing he is about to get his clock cleaned. Time will tell. No doubt, however, that I'd rather put my money on Apple than Palm. Gheez.
Exactly! Maybe I'm reading too much into this quote, but the "PC guy" remark makes me think that the "Palm guy" is already angry knowing he is about to get his clock cleaned. Time will tell. No doubt, however, that I'd rather put my money on Apple than Palm. Gheez.