Gatesbasher
Mar 24, 01:48 PM
You're (very probably) right. My comments were aimed at those who were saying the Classic is overkill because who could ever "need" anything more than 128 or even 256 kbps AAC's or mp3's. (Nobody even mentioned 320, at which many of my fave songs are ripped.)....
I for one misunderstood you too. Thanks for the elucidation.
I know there's no hope for anyone willing to listen to 128,000 bps noise, or worse yet pay money for it. I don't know about 320k, but my feeling on the subject of compression is this:
I was one of the people convinced by the propaganda that led to the DVD Audio and SACD fiasco. I have since done a lot more reading and am convinced by the math that CDs are about as good as there is any reason for them to be, human hearing being what it is. (I always thought increasing the sampling rate was stupid.)
As far as Apple Lossless and other codecs of the same type�if they can compress video signals losslessly to 2% of their original size for DVDs, why should I doubt you can compress music to 40 or 50%? The thing about going below that is, maybe at first listen, the difference doesn't leap out at you�but maybe it would with extended exposure, and with better equipment than you're using right now. What you're assuming is that you're never going to have better equipment, and that "small" differences in quality are inconsequential.
My problem with that is that then you've been set up for the next decrease in quality, and the one after that, and the one after that. Eventually you're buying 128,000 bps tracks and making fun of "audiophiles" who can tell the difference, and then one of the true triumphs of 20th Century technology�really good audio reproduction�is lost.
Video that can't be told from the real thing is never going to happen in my lifetime, but with sound we were there�and then threw it away!
I for one misunderstood you too. Thanks for the elucidation.
I know there's no hope for anyone willing to listen to 128,000 bps noise, or worse yet pay money for it. I don't know about 320k, but my feeling on the subject of compression is this:
I was one of the people convinced by the propaganda that led to the DVD Audio and SACD fiasco. I have since done a lot more reading and am convinced by the math that CDs are about as good as there is any reason for them to be, human hearing being what it is. (I always thought increasing the sampling rate was stupid.)
As far as Apple Lossless and other codecs of the same type�if they can compress video signals losslessly to 2% of their original size for DVDs, why should I doubt you can compress music to 40 or 50%? The thing about going below that is, maybe at first listen, the difference doesn't leap out at you�but maybe it would with extended exposure, and with better equipment than you're using right now. What you're assuming is that you're never going to have better equipment, and that "small" differences in quality are inconsequential.
My problem with that is that then you've been set up for the next decrease in quality, and the one after that, and the one after that. Eventually you're buying 128,000 bps tracks and making fun of "audiophiles" who can tell the difference, and then one of the true triumphs of 20th Century technology�really good audio reproduction�is lost.
Video that can't be told from the real thing is never going to happen in my lifetime, but with sound we were there�and then threw it away!
brianus
Sep 1, 01:22 PM
these prices seem a lot more like what I was thinking. Wishful? maybe, but this would be aggressive pricing, not keeping the current 17" and 20" where they are and throwing the 23" way over their marks.
Yeah, this is what I was thinking too. It's not so much that they're growing the iMac line and reaching towards the Mac Pro; rather, 23" is the new 20" and 20" is the new 17". Just the natural progression of things. And 17" definitely needs to be relegated to Education Only (I could see them being sold to some businesses too, perhaps), lest it either cannibalize the Mac mini at its too-reduced price, or seem like way too little for the money.
Yeah, this is what I was thinking too. It's not so much that they're growing the iMac line and reaching towards the Mac Pro; rather, 23" is the new 20" and 20" is the new 17". Just the natural progression of things. And 17" definitely needs to be relegated to Education Only (I could see them being sold to some businesses too, perhaps), lest it either cannibalize the Mac mini at its too-reduced price, or seem like way too little for the money.
Deechh
Nov 26, 04:57 PM
nvm
SteveRichardson
Jul 19, 11:05 PM
Q: Will there be any surprises at WWDC?
A: [Laughter, then Openheimer:] Well, you will have to be redundant and be redundant.
A: [Laughter, then Openheimer:] Well, you will have to be redundant and be redundant.
copykris
Nov 25, 03:34 PM
New glasses. First time for me, astigmatism correction takes some getting used to, but I think they look good:
http://i56.tinypic.com/2vsf6ef.jpg
may i suggest a case for when you're out on the road
http://img203.imageshack.us/img203/4294/case0.png
http://i56.tinypic.com/2vsf6ef.jpg
may i suggest a case for when you're out on the road
http://img203.imageshack.us/img203/4294/case0.png
leomac08
Apr 11, 01:57 PM
I drive a 2011 Toyota Venza, but it has the manual option to upshift and downshift, with no clutch, which is fun :D
Although I do know how to drive stick, the logic is easy once you get the hand of it....
Driving stick in traffic especially in LA is horrible!! :eek:
Although I do know how to drive stick, the logic is easy once you get the hand of it....
Driving stick in traffic especially in LA is horrible!! :eek:
Piggie
Mar 24, 01:10 PM
Looks and sounds great from those numbers.
Is Apple going to finally address their one major weak spot in their desktop machines?
I just hope this is a honest list, and they cards will be the exact same performance as the PC cards of the same model numbers.
They are not going to be Mobile versions, or Underclocked versions, but the true and honest cards they are supposed to be.
Is Apple going to finally address their one major weak spot in their desktop machines?
I just hope this is a honest list, and they cards will be the exact same performance as the PC cards of the same model numbers.
They are not going to be Mobile versions, or Underclocked versions, but the true and honest cards they are supposed to be.
Sean7512
Aug 24, 05:50 PM
Core 2 Duo processors are drop-in replacements for existing Core Duo processors which power the Mac Mini, MacBook, iMac and MacBook Pro.
This article refers to the Mac Mini, not the iMac...
Just taking a guess that it also includes the iMac, well praying :o
This article refers to the Mac Mini, not the iMac...
Just taking a guess that it also includes the iMac, well praying :o
Tonepoet
Apr 21, 12:02 PM
It's not a terribly big concern for everybody I'll admit but for those it is a concern to, this is a sale killer for all of these little GPS enabled electronics. Their safety is worth waay more to them than some piddly little iToy or other GPS enabled microdevice. Even normal cell phones and credit cards allow for too much risk.
PBF
Apr 2, 01:39 PM
Is anyone able to video chat with other Yahoo users via iChat?
Mine's kept saying "video unavailable" on both ends since DP1. I thought DP2 would have this fixed by now. Bummer.
Mine's kept saying "video unavailable" on both ends since DP1. I thought DP2 would have this fixed by now. Bummer.
ericinboston
Apr 20, 02:38 PM
My Mom's iMac is on its last legs. I think I got it for her in early 2006 and its screen is having some streaking problems. Otherwise it still works, but a lot of the latest Apple software won't load on it. ...
I'd be pretty ticked if my 4+ year old, $1300+ personal computer was a)having screen problems and b)was basically on it's last leg.
Every single Wintel and Mac machines I buy last at least 5 years...a high percentage of them last until 10 but by then they are so old it's almost pointless (such as only having USB 1.1 ports or old screen resolutions or floppy drives or small storage space) even though they run just fine.
You might want to spend $200 and see if it's just a memory and/or general performance problem that you can fix yourself.
I'd be pretty ticked if my 4+ year old, $1300+ personal computer was a)having screen problems and b)was basically on it's last leg.
Every single Wintel and Mac machines I buy last at least 5 years...a high percentage of them last until 10 but by then they are so old it's almost pointless (such as only having USB 1.1 ports or old screen resolutions or floppy drives or small storage space) even though they run just fine.
You might want to spend $200 and see if it's just a memory and/or general performance problem that you can fix yourself.
Benny777
Apr 19, 12:32 PM
Yes!!! This will complement my recently purchased iPad 2 and MacBook Pro issued to me from work! I've got the cash, I've just been waiting for the Sandy Bridge/Thunderbolt update and hopefully a 24" version!
ZipZap
May 3, 04:40 AM
This concept might seem alien to a lot of MacRumours users, but being a 'switcher', the method of deleting any app on OS X currently seems very ad hoc. I've been a mac user now for about 4 years and yet the idea of having to delete an app by dragging it to the trash seems very... strange. You never know if you've deleted ALL of that program.
Microsoft have managed to get one thing right in Windows. A specific tool (Add/Remove Programs) to delete a program. That's something that I genuinely feel is lacking in OS X and this idea of clicking and holding in LaunchPad makes sense. It's imple enough: most users who own an iPhone will have no trouble in adopting this method. And what's more, it makes it instantly accessible to anyone who uses a mac. In addition, it goes a step further than Microsoft. It avoids making more novice users from having to delve in to a complex window of settings. A step in the right direction? I think so!
So personally, I think this is a very simple yet very effective change to make to OS X and should be a welcome sign of the things to come in Lion!
I think this is fair but let me bottom line it.
10 versions of Mac OS and no standard process for properly (and completely) removing apps?
and...If dragging to the trash can is effective why do so many cleaner applications exist?
Mac OS has some really cool features but also lack polish and refinement. This lack of refinement is based solely on apple's drive to not be like Windows.
The new iOS approach to removal does not seem effective as I doubt this is a complete uninstall...probably just an background move to the trashcan. How many times have you removed apps from your phone then reinstalled them to find you previous data intact?
Microsoft have managed to get one thing right in Windows. A specific tool (Add/Remove Programs) to delete a program. That's something that I genuinely feel is lacking in OS X and this idea of clicking and holding in LaunchPad makes sense. It's imple enough: most users who own an iPhone will have no trouble in adopting this method. And what's more, it makes it instantly accessible to anyone who uses a mac. In addition, it goes a step further than Microsoft. It avoids making more novice users from having to delve in to a complex window of settings. A step in the right direction? I think so!
So personally, I think this is a very simple yet very effective change to make to OS X and should be a welcome sign of the things to come in Lion!
I think this is fair but let me bottom line it.
10 versions of Mac OS and no standard process for properly (and completely) removing apps?
and...If dragging to the trash can is effective why do so many cleaner applications exist?
Mac OS has some really cool features but also lack polish and refinement. This lack of refinement is based solely on apple's drive to not be like Windows.
The new iOS approach to removal does not seem effective as I doubt this is a complete uninstall...probably just an background move to the trashcan. How many times have you removed apps from your phone then reinstalled them to find you previous data intact?
SeaFox
Dec 28, 02:23 AM
Here is your quote SeaFox.
You are an condescending individual and take my post out of context.
You can't please all of the people all of the time.
"I wouldn't hold my breath on the word processing and web surfing. WebTV showed surfing the internet on a TV sucked because trying to read normal-sized text from six feet away was hard, and bumping the text size up would goof up the page layout generally. Same reason word processing would be silly."
I stand by the statement. WebTV failed because at the time everyone had CRT TVs, which are much blurrier than a computer monitor. Even if you are using a new plasma screen set you have to account for how you use your device. One sits in front of their monitor by a couple feet. This makes 12 point text readable. Now, step back from this thread about six feet or so, however far you usually sit from your TV, and you'll see why. Even if you're viewing the screen at the real resolution of the HD set (1920x1080 for the real nice sets) you're still not going to be wanting to read long passages to text from your TV. Kinda like people don't like reading books in their entirety one screen at a time in Acrobat.
When you ask a home entertainment device to perform the functions of a regular computer you're adding all sorts of complexity and starting down a slippery slope. Let's say Apple added the ability to view Word files to the iTV. Someone would complain that they couldn't edit them. Same with iMovie files. Now you have to add that functionality. Then someone would say "well, what about image files? I can already watch my iPhoto library, why can't I do color and brightness/contrast correction?"
This is exactly the same thing that comes up about the iPod and the Apple Phone. Yeah, the iPod has no built-in FM tuner, no voice memo ability, no built in recording ability, built in FM transmitter for the car, ect. And adding these features would make the interface more complicated, when one of the things that makes the iPod such a hit is it's simplicity. Why do current music playing phones suck? Because the player functionality is hidden under a bunch of unintuitive menus, just like most of the other bells and whistles that may have influenced you to buy the phone to begin with. It's the current state of overly complicated interface design that gets people excited about Apple entering the cell phone market.
Edit: Also, one last point. If you put too much functionality into the iTV that is normally relegated to a regular Mac, then charge less for the iTV, you're going to eat into sales of the Mac Mini. Apple wouldn't do this, and this is the main reason I don't think you'll see the ability to open Word files or surf the Net with the iTV, that and it just sounds like a weird feature to have in a set top box.
If you've got your Mini hooked up to your TV and its working good for you I applaud you. The iTV is clearly not aiming for your type of consumer. I've read articles about setting up Minis as PVR's with HD sets, and invariably the indivdulal has some difficulty finding a monitor resolution and refresh rate the HD set will play along with at first, and actual use of the device is hobbled by needing a wireless keyboard or similar. Apple is aiming for the average TV watching consumer with the iTV, who I can tell you from personal experience are not nearly as smart.
You are an condescending individual and take my post out of context.
You can't please all of the people all of the time.
"I wouldn't hold my breath on the word processing and web surfing. WebTV showed surfing the internet on a TV sucked because trying to read normal-sized text from six feet away was hard, and bumping the text size up would goof up the page layout generally. Same reason word processing would be silly."
I stand by the statement. WebTV failed because at the time everyone had CRT TVs, which are much blurrier than a computer monitor. Even if you are using a new plasma screen set you have to account for how you use your device. One sits in front of their monitor by a couple feet. This makes 12 point text readable. Now, step back from this thread about six feet or so, however far you usually sit from your TV, and you'll see why. Even if you're viewing the screen at the real resolution of the HD set (1920x1080 for the real nice sets) you're still not going to be wanting to read long passages to text from your TV. Kinda like people don't like reading books in their entirety one screen at a time in Acrobat.
When you ask a home entertainment device to perform the functions of a regular computer you're adding all sorts of complexity and starting down a slippery slope. Let's say Apple added the ability to view Word files to the iTV. Someone would complain that they couldn't edit them. Same with iMovie files. Now you have to add that functionality. Then someone would say "well, what about image files? I can already watch my iPhoto library, why can't I do color and brightness/contrast correction?"
This is exactly the same thing that comes up about the iPod and the Apple Phone. Yeah, the iPod has no built-in FM tuner, no voice memo ability, no built in recording ability, built in FM transmitter for the car, ect. And adding these features would make the interface more complicated, when one of the things that makes the iPod such a hit is it's simplicity. Why do current music playing phones suck? Because the player functionality is hidden under a bunch of unintuitive menus, just like most of the other bells and whistles that may have influenced you to buy the phone to begin with. It's the current state of overly complicated interface design that gets people excited about Apple entering the cell phone market.
Edit: Also, one last point. If you put too much functionality into the iTV that is normally relegated to a regular Mac, then charge less for the iTV, you're going to eat into sales of the Mac Mini. Apple wouldn't do this, and this is the main reason I don't think you'll see the ability to open Word files or surf the Net with the iTV, that and it just sounds like a weird feature to have in a set top box.
If you've got your Mini hooked up to your TV and its working good for you I applaud you. The iTV is clearly not aiming for your type of consumer. I've read articles about setting up Minis as PVR's with HD sets, and invariably the indivdulal has some difficulty finding a monitor resolution and refresh rate the HD set will play along with at first, and actual use of the device is hobbled by needing a wireless keyboard or similar. Apple is aiming for the average TV watching consumer with the iTV, who I can tell you from personal experience are not nearly as smart.
Surely
Nov 25, 10:50 AM
Any Army surplus store will carry it.
Or, you can check the image url, see that it's an image from Amazon, search Amazon for "messenger bag", and it will be the first search result.
:D
Or, you can check the image url, see that it's an image from Amazon, search Amazon for "messenger bag", and it will be the first search result.
:D
yg17
Mar 22, 01:51 PM
You're right, I apologize for being incorrect on the pledge.
I have some shoe strings, a piece of gum and a ball of lint.
Maybe we're just confused how someone who claims to be a director of IT (and presumably takes some college to become) can fail so hard at basic history.
I'm not here to remember everything I learned, especially in a class I could have cared less about. If you asked me about "pythagorean theorem" I couldn't even answer that. Just because you are wrong on a piece of history doesn't mean your wrong on all other subjects (aside from math which I have stated that).[/QUOTE]
I may not know the pythagorean theorem either, but if I'm going to participate in a debate over the pythagorean theorem, I'm going to make damn sure I know it.
I have some shoe strings, a piece of gum and a ball of lint.
Maybe we're just confused how someone who claims to be a director of IT (and presumably takes some college to become) can fail so hard at basic history.
I'm not here to remember everything I learned, especially in a class I could have cared less about. If you asked me about "pythagorean theorem" I couldn't even answer that. Just because you are wrong on a piece of history doesn't mean your wrong on all other subjects (aside from math which I have stated that).[/QUOTE]
I may not know the pythagorean theorem either, but if I'm going to participate in a debate over the pythagorean theorem, I'm going to make damn sure I know it.
AppliedVisual
Nov 29, 09:03 PM
I think that 17" is great - they've got'em already with the iMac. Prices to need to drop with the market. They'll still be more as the monitors are of better quality. IMHO:
17" - $399
20" - $599
23" - $899
30" - $1899
I question the validity of a 17" stand-alone widescreen. Doesn't make sense, IMO. A 20" is already fairly compact and provides little more area and takes up no more room than a 17" 4:3 display.
As for pricing, I agree on some of what you posted -- the prices definitely need to go DOWN. What I don't agree with are the prices you posted -- even if Apple keeps a 20% premium over brands like Samsung, the prices should look more like:
17" - $269
20" - $349
24" - $629
30" - $1,699
...Like I said, those would be premium prices and are a good 10 to 20% higher than the going rate for good monitors with current panels (Samsung/Dell). Also with the next monitor revision, you can expect Apple to dump the 23" in favor of a 24" panel.
17" - $399
20" - $599
23" - $899
30" - $1899
I question the validity of a 17" stand-alone widescreen. Doesn't make sense, IMO. A 20" is already fairly compact and provides little more area and takes up no more room than a 17" 4:3 display.
As for pricing, I agree on some of what you posted -- the prices definitely need to go DOWN. What I don't agree with are the prices you posted -- even if Apple keeps a 20% premium over brands like Samsung, the prices should look more like:
17" - $269
20" - $349
24" - $629
30" - $1,699
...Like I said, those would be premium prices and are a good 10 to 20% higher than the going rate for good monitors with current panels (Samsung/Dell). Also with the next monitor revision, you can expect Apple to dump the 23" in favor of a 24" panel.
fswmacguy
Apr 3, 10:42 AM
Since the iPad does nothing useful this appeal to the wimpy "feelings" crowd is no surprise. Replace the iPad with a pair of pants and this could easily double as a Levi's commercial.
I don't think you understand how this works.
Ads like this create mystery, excitement, and ultimately pulls customers into Apple's retail chain out of pure interest.
I'd rather have ads like this than ads that shout specs in my face and exaggerate their knockoff plastic crap.
I don't think you understand how this works.
Ads like this create mystery, excitement, and ultimately pulls customers into Apple's retail chain out of pure interest.
I'd rather have ads like this than ads that shout specs in my face and exaggerate their knockoff plastic crap.
tychay
Nov 28, 09:10 PM
MS never made a smartphone, they make the windows mobile software that runs on others hardware. The xbox is ms hardware and software, just like the zune. It's a entertainment market, just like the xbox, windows mobile software isn't in the entertainment market. There are far more direct comparisons between zune and xbox than between windows mobile and zune. As for peeing on their partners, what's new, I think we all know they don't play nice, instead they play to win.
So. Microsoft’s mouse market share is so large that everyone is Logitech is peeing their pants? How about Microsoft’s total dominance of the Apple ][+ CPM card market?
Give me a break. Show me one area where Microsoft’s hardware has lead to a market share the size of iPod’s hold on MP3 players? I can’t think of a single one, can you?
But I can think of a lot of software plays: Windows, Office, Visual Studio, Project/Visio. I can think of some moderate successes: Windows CE in embedded space, Xbox 360. As well as a lot of failures: Tablet PC, Pocket PC, Windows Mobile, UPMC, Windows Media Center, Plays For Sure, Xbox.
See, unlike your narrow minded Microsoft fanboy-ism, I realize that the iPod dominance rests under three legs: iTunes, iTunes Music Store, and the iPod. Over the last five(!) years, Microsoft has used canon fodder to attack the latter two while it provided the first and the DRM for the second. Now the Zune is a direct attack, because two people at the top of Microsoft are jealous that after all these years QuickTime is still alive and well. They remember when they told Avi and Jobs to "knife the baby" and it’s really a thorn when they, the most profitable tech company in history, can’t back up that threat with action.
But until Microsoft wipes out Samsung and Creative, I think the burden of proof is on you. I pretty much destroyed your “Xbox is the shiznit” crap: it is, in no way, trending to dominate the market, and it won't even stop bleeding money until 2Q 2007. They’re just hoping Sony stumbles (which they are, but it looks like Nintendo is the primary recipient of Sony’s largess).
Do you think it is a coincidence that the partner that Microsoft tapped to launch the Zune (Toshiba) was the only major player with less that 2% of the market? And while we are on the topic. Why the hell is Microsoft introducing a hard drive player when the units that Apple is selling and having trouble stocking are flash-based?
[I made a tiny error. Xbox sold 1.6 million units its launch quarter. They sold .9 million units last quarter. I got those two quarters confused.]
So. Microsoft’s mouse market share is so large that everyone is Logitech is peeing their pants? How about Microsoft’s total dominance of the Apple ][+ CPM card market?
Give me a break. Show me one area where Microsoft’s hardware has lead to a market share the size of iPod’s hold on MP3 players? I can’t think of a single one, can you?
But I can think of a lot of software plays: Windows, Office, Visual Studio, Project/Visio. I can think of some moderate successes: Windows CE in embedded space, Xbox 360. As well as a lot of failures: Tablet PC, Pocket PC, Windows Mobile, UPMC, Windows Media Center, Plays For Sure, Xbox.
See, unlike your narrow minded Microsoft fanboy-ism, I realize that the iPod dominance rests under three legs: iTunes, iTunes Music Store, and the iPod. Over the last five(!) years, Microsoft has used canon fodder to attack the latter two while it provided the first and the DRM for the second. Now the Zune is a direct attack, because two people at the top of Microsoft are jealous that after all these years QuickTime is still alive and well. They remember when they told Avi and Jobs to "knife the baby" and it’s really a thorn when they, the most profitable tech company in history, can’t back up that threat with action.
But until Microsoft wipes out Samsung and Creative, I think the burden of proof is on you. I pretty much destroyed your “Xbox is the shiznit” crap: it is, in no way, trending to dominate the market, and it won't even stop bleeding money until 2Q 2007. They’re just hoping Sony stumbles (which they are, but it looks like Nintendo is the primary recipient of Sony’s largess).
Do you think it is a coincidence that the partner that Microsoft tapped to launch the Zune (Toshiba) was the only major player with less that 2% of the market? And while we are on the topic. Why the hell is Microsoft introducing a hard drive player when the units that Apple is selling and having trouble stocking are flash-based?
[I made a tiny error. Xbox sold 1.6 million units its launch quarter. They sold .9 million units last quarter. I got those two quarters confused.]
Donnacha
Nov 27, 04:14 PM
I'd just like to agree with those who have pointed out that the main thing Apple's monitor division should be worrying about is price, not new sizes - the Apple logo can bear a certain price premium but not that much, especially as they don't yet include Apple-specific goodness such as integrated isight etc.
In October, I considered a 23" ACD at �848 inc. VAT, delivery and 3yrs of Applecare cover.
Instead, I phoned Dell and got the 24" 2407WP for �549.08 inc. VAT, delivery and 4yrs next business day swap-out cover. For the Apple, I would have had to pay a premium of 55% and got 1yr less cover.
Now, as it happens, Dell were running a 25% off special on the 24% in October but these offers are in continual rotation; at the moment, if you ask, you can get:
The 30" 3007WFP for just under a grand inclusive and 4yrs cover, compared to �1,618 for the 30" Apple and 3yrs cover (a premium of 62% and 1yr less cover)
and
The 20" 2007WFP for �316 inc. and 4yrs cover, compared to �598 for the 20" Apple with 3yrs cover (a premium of 89% and 1yr less cover).
As for quality, I know monitors and the one I've got is top-notch - while it isn't Apple, the subtle styling is impressive and the stand's tilting and pivoting are the best I've ever seen. The consensus among reviewers seems to agree.
I'm not posting this to annoy Apple fans, I'm a huge fan myself and, yes, I would have paid a premium for that cute little apple logo but, frankly, it wouldn't have been worth that extra 55% - at Apple prices, I might never have made the jump to 24" but I'm glad I did, I'm even thinking about getting a second one.
With the move to Intel, Apple have done a great job of competing on PC pricing, why are they still in fantasyland when it comes to monitor pricing?
In October, I considered a 23" ACD at �848 inc. VAT, delivery and 3yrs of Applecare cover.
Instead, I phoned Dell and got the 24" 2407WP for �549.08 inc. VAT, delivery and 4yrs next business day swap-out cover. For the Apple, I would have had to pay a premium of 55% and got 1yr less cover.
Now, as it happens, Dell were running a 25% off special on the 24% in October but these offers are in continual rotation; at the moment, if you ask, you can get:
The 30" 3007WFP for just under a grand inclusive and 4yrs cover, compared to �1,618 for the 30" Apple and 3yrs cover (a premium of 62% and 1yr less cover)
and
The 20" 2007WFP for �316 inc. and 4yrs cover, compared to �598 for the 20" Apple with 3yrs cover (a premium of 89% and 1yr less cover).
As for quality, I know monitors and the one I've got is top-notch - while it isn't Apple, the subtle styling is impressive and the stand's tilting and pivoting are the best I've ever seen. The consensus among reviewers seems to agree.
I'm not posting this to annoy Apple fans, I'm a huge fan myself and, yes, I would have paid a premium for that cute little apple logo but, frankly, it wouldn't have been worth that extra 55% - at Apple prices, I might never have made the jump to 24" but I'm glad I did, I'm even thinking about getting a second one.
With the move to Intel, Apple have done a great job of competing on PC pricing, why are they still in fantasyland when it comes to monitor pricing?
kresh
Jul 19, 07:27 PM
Such short memories...
2001-Q1 would be when the "Dot.com Bubble" burst. The whole PC industry tanked, not just Apple. Motorola was also struggling to bring faster G4 processors to market, if I remember correctly.
Ah, those were the days.
A one page web-site, drooling capital venurists, a silly name like "BoxOfRox.com", and the day of your IPO your stock was $100 a share. Set for life I tell ya.
2001-Q1 would be when the "Dot.com Bubble" burst. The whole PC industry tanked, not just Apple. Motorola was also struggling to bring faster G4 processors to market, if I remember correctly.
Ah, those were the days.
A one page web-site, drooling capital venurists, a silly name like "BoxOfRox.com", and the day of your IPO your stock was $100 a share. Set for life I tell ya.
gr8whtd0pe
Jan 23, 12:25 AM
They make racing and sport seats
DUH. I knew it sounded familiar but I was thinking baby seats... I'm a tard lol.
http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5247/5249125771_40b962bf86_b.jpg
can anybody guess what year/model it is? :D
Uhh deff early 90's/late 80's... I'm going to go with accord?
DUH. I knew it sounded familiar but I was thinking baby seats... I'm a tard lol.
http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5247/5249125771_40b962bf86_b.jpg
can anybody guess what year/model it is? :D
Uhh deff early 90's/late 80's... I'm going to go with accord?
GeekOFComedy
Nov 24, 09:54 AM
http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41C0o2GAJGL._SS500_.jpg
Props if anyone knows who used that bag.
Props if anyone knows who used that bag.
vanzskater272
Aug 18, 06:22 PM
I wish they would make wireless ipods soon. But I just dont think that it's gonna happen.
No comments:
Post a Comment