Eidorian
Aug 28, 01:06 PM
O.K....
Alright...
Gotcha, Merom. Thanks guys. :)I wonder if some people read the guide I made at all. :confused:
Alright...
Gotcha, Merom. Thanks guys. :)I wonder if some people read the guide I made at all. :confused:
weg
Oct 28, 08:09 AM
It's about time Apple got rid of some of the rubbish materials in their machines, it's not that the campaigners are trying to brusie Apple but encourage them to be better than their competitors. I mean, Apple already has many advantages over Windows, so surely 'Green' can be one of them.
As long as Microsoft doesn't remove the power management from Vista there's no way how an operating system could be non-green...
As long as Microsoft doesn't remove the power management from Vista there's no way how an operating system could be non-green...
Prof.
Mar 23, 04:59 PM
And nothing could make me care as I remember the old saying "sticks and stones..." unlike our oversensitive posters. I am in no way in favor of irresponsible behavior or drunk driving, but making tasteless jokes is neither and harms nobody.
That's not the point, it's about having respect for those who are no longer with us.
That's not the point, it's about having respect for those who are no longer with us.
Machead III
Aug 29, 04:31 AM
I imagine Santa Rosa would be long gone by summer '08.
Chris Bangle
Aug 31, 02:01 PM
Apple did this same thing before.Streaming it to London..If I recall it was the Front Row type invitation broadcast from a theatre..
Anybody remember that ?
Yeh it was the 5generation launch, they streamed it to the BBC centre i think, Sky News and BBC had the ipod as news article that night.
Anybody remember that ?
Yeh it was the 5generation launch, they streamed it to the BBC centre i think, Sky News and BBC had the ipod as news article that night.
MagnusVonMagnum
Apr 16, 11:21 AM
God forbid you carry around an inch long adapter in your laptop bag. Is that too much for you?
You keep talking about a non-existent adapter that costs $10 and comparing mini-display port adapters that merely convert signal paths isn't even in the same realm as converting to an entirely different interface. In other words your 'adapter' prices are 100% BS and you know it.
LOL, are you kidding me bro? Do you think USB 3 peaks out at it's max 5 Gbps? YOU are the one dreaming if you believe that. Here's some more evidence for your FUD:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CCz_c_rDAXw
USB 3 would completely choke in that situation let alone in a simply hard drive speed comparison. Give me a break. Here's another example for you to look at for some REAL WORLD USB 3 speeds:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qrtwtSjzjZI
Don't tase me bro! :eek:
Seriously, you going to compare a demonstration with a professional mass storage array that isn't available to the public yet and which I said at the bottom of my last post is a perfect use for TB (i.e. with professional editing software) with the Lacie consumer grade 5200 RPM SLOW USB3 drive? Dude, you have to compare apples to apples. You're comparing a race car to a Chevette.... That neither proves nor disproves anything about the full capability of USB3. The ad on that box is marketing BS about the "interface" not the drive they're selling (which is a slow 5200 RPM SATA drive which all top out between 40-60MB/sec PERIOD, regardless whether they use SATA, USB3, Firewire 800 or Thunderbolt). Show me a 7200 RPM (or better yet a 10,000+ SCSI rated) drive connected to USB3 AND TB (or even FW800) and then compare their actual speeds. OR find an array that goes fast like the one Intel was using that also has USB3 on it and compare their actual speeds 1 to 1. Showing me Steak Diane on one plate and a hot dog on the other doesn't prove the cook who made the hot dog doesn't know how to cook. It simply proves he was given a hot dog to cook.
In reality with USB 3 you get about 480 Megabits as opposed to the promised 5 Gpbs meaning Thunderbolt will be even faster than two times.
In reality, you need an actual hard drive test that makes sense not comparing a Porsche to a lawn tractor.... :rolleyes:
So you are just ASSUMING that they will cost $250 more than USB 3 drives.
No more than you assuming you're going to get a $10 USB3 adapter. At least my assumption is based on Firewire statistics and early adoption rates. Yours is based on dreaming.
LOL, words can't describe how wrong you are. You think HDD speeds cap out at 480 Mbps? Maybe in your 'practical world' where you enjoy using inferior
I think the 5200 RPM 2.5" drive that came with my MBP capped out around 50MB/sec using a SATA II interface (or 450mbps). Does that prove my SATA chip set SUCKS? NO, IT DOES NOT. When I replaced it with a 7200 RPM Hitachi, it now caps out around 110MB/sec (or 880mbps, well above FW800's theoretical cap even). Even my PPC G4 gets 105MB/sec caps with its 1.5TB 7200 RPM Seagate Barracuda drives (and SATA does eat CPU as well; if I try to run two of them at the same time I still get a total of around 100MB/sec with the CPU pegged at 95-100%. The older PCI bus is also in the way. Thus it's not the SATA interface there that's the problem either, but you might think so if you make assumptions based only on one test number and no idea what's in the computer being used or any statistics about the CPU or Bus while its being used. Your YouTube videos comparisons are absurd in that regard. Cheap mass storage devices (like the Lacie) aren't made for performance. Show me TB making that same drive do over 100MB/sec. It won't happen.
Your 'practical world' when you were just talking about how no one will pay a premium for USB 3.
I never said any such thing. I said they won't pay a premium for Thunderbolt for every-day use. If you're just going to lie and change what I said, I won't bother replying anymore.
USB 3 won't be a premium over anything. It's going to be dirt cheap and a simple performance upgrade for everyone. It already is cheap for new computers and a pretty cheap add-on for existing ones; you cannot add TB to existing computers so there's another problem it has to contend with, especially trying to get a large user base in any reasonable length of time. The longer it takes to get a large installed user base, the longer the prices will stay high on any TB products. It's plainly obvious that TB is going to be a high-end niche product just like FW800, at least for the forseeable future. While Intel's demo is totally cool, it doesn't remotely represent the AVERAGE PC user in any shape or form. Most people aren't editing 4 simultaneous streams of 1080p video on a mega-buck professional high-speed drive array.
I have NO problem with TB technology or its usefulness in certain applications. I do contend that most people aren't going to give a crap about it one way or the other since their computers will not have it or need it for their everyday uses. More to the point, most computers (save maybe those from Apple) will have ALSO have USB3, allowing the user to make the best possible choices for their needs. USB3 will not fail or go away simply because it is a cheap upgrade to USB2 that is fully backwards compatible. Computers will have it just for that reason alone even if the user doesn't make good use of it.
IF TB ever achieves mass acceptance, it will be years into the future. It takes time to build a user base on a totally new technology. USB3 is a simple dump and replace and still works with everything USB2. TB works with NOTHING that already exists (save a few Mini-display port monitors and that's only because it carries Mini-display port video signals). The fact that Intel plans to do USB3 alongside TB on their next chipset shows even they understand that TB is going to be high-end/niche product for some time to come.
I have said in the past that IF Intel had used the USB3 style connector and essentially had USB compatibility + MORE bandwidth THEN they might start appearing on everything. But they chose instead to use a connector that is hardly on anything (but newer Macs) and that isn't much different than starting over with a totally new connector and no compatibility with anything (outside breakout boxes that are essentially PCI cards in a box). When it comes down to it, TB is basically the entire PCIe bus on a single external connector.
You keep talking about a non-existent adapter that costs $10 and comparing mini-display port adapters that merely convert signal paths isn't even in the same realm as converting to an entirely different interface. In other words your 'adapter' prices are 100% BS and you know it.
LOL, are you kidding me bro? Do you think USB 3 peaks out at it's max 5 Gbps? YOU are the one dreaming if you believe that. Here's some more evidence for your FUD:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CCz_c_rDAXw
USB 3 would completely choke in that situation let alone in a simply hard drive speed comparison. Give me a break. Here's another example for you to look at for some REAL WORLD USB 3 speeds:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qrtwtSjzjZI
Don't tase me bro! :eek:
Seriously, you going to compare a demonstration with a professional mass storage array that isn't available to the public yet and which I said at the bottom of my last post is a perfect use for TB (i.e. with professional editing software) with the Lacie consumer grade 5200 RPM SLOW USB3 drive? Dude, you have to compare apples to apples. You're comparing a race car to a Chevette.... That neither proves nor disproves anything about the full capability of USB3. The ad on that box is marketing BS about the "interface" not the drive they're selling (which is a slow 5200 RPM SATA drive which all top out between 40-60MB/sec PERIOD, regardless whether they use SATA, USB3, Firewire 800 or Thunderbolt). Show me a 7200 RPM (or better yet a 10,000+ SCSI rated) drive connected to USB3 AND TB (or even FW800) and then compare their actual speeds. OR find an array that goes fast like the one Intel was using that also has USB3 on it and compare their actual speeds 1 to 1. Showing me Steak Diane on one plate and a hot dog on the other doesn't prove the cook who made the hot dog doesn't know how to cook. It simply proves he was given a hot dog to cook.
In reality with USB 3 you get about 480 Megabits as opposed to the promised 5 Gpbs meaning Thunderbolt will be even faster than two times.
In reality, you need an actual hard drive test that makes sense not comparing a Porsche to a lawn tractor.... :rolleyes:
So you are just ASSUMING that they will cost $250 more than USB 3 drives.
No more than you assuming you're going to get a $10 USB3 adapter. At least my assumption is based on Firewire statistics and early adoption rates. Yours is based on dreaming.
LOL, words can't describe how wrong you are. You think HDD speeds cap out at 480 Mbps? Maybe in your 'practical world' where you enjoy using inferior
I think the 5200 RPM 2.5" drive that came with my MBP capped out around 50MB/sec using a SATA II interface (or 450mbps). Does that prove my SATA chip set SUCKS? NO, IT DOES NOT. When I replaced it with a 7200 RPM Hitachi, it now caps out around 110MB/sec (or 880mbps, well above FW800's theoretical cap even). Even my PPC G4 gets 105MB/sec caps with its 1.5TB 7200 RPM Seagate Barracuda drives (and SATA does eat CPU as well; if I try to run two of them at the same time I still get a total of around 100MB/sec with the CPU pegged at 95-100%. The older PCI bus is also in the way. Thus it's not the SATA interface there that's the problem either, but you might think so if you make assumptions based only on one test number and no idea what's in the computer being used or any statistics about the CPU or Bus while its being used. Your YouTube videos comparisons are absurd in that regard. Cheap mass storage devices (like the Lacie) aren't made for performance. Show me TB making that same drive do over 100MB/sec. It won't happen.
Your 'practical world' when you were just talking about how no one will pay a premium for USB 3.
I never said any such thing. I said they won't pay a premium for Thunderbolt for every-day use. If you're just going to lie and change what I said, I won't bother replying anymore.
USB 3 won't be a premium over anything. It's going to be dirt cheap and a simple performance upgrade for everyone. It already is cheap for new computers and a pretty cheap add-on for existing ones; you cannot add TB to existing computers so there's another problem it has to contend with, especially trying to get a large user base in any reasonable length of time. The longer it takes to get a large installed user base, the longer the prices will stay high on any TB products. It's plainly obvious that TB is going to be a high-end niche product just like FW800, at least for the forseeable future. While Intel's demo is totally cool, it doesn't remotely represent the AVERAGE PC user in any shape or form. Most people aren't editing 4 simultaneous streams of 1080p video on a mega-buck professional high-speed drive array.
I have NO problem with TB technology or its usefulness in certain applications. I do contend that most people aren't going to give a crap about it one way or the other since their computers will not have it or need it for their everyday uses. More to the point, most computers (save maybe those from Apple) will have ALSO have USB3, allowing the user to make the best possible choices for their needs. USB3 will not fail or go away simply because it is a cheap upgrade to USB2 that is fully backwards compatible. Computers will have it just for that reason alone even if the user doesn't make good use of it.
IF TB ever achieves mass acceptance, it will be years into the future. It takes time to build a user base on a totally new technology. USB3 is a simple dump and replace and still works with everything USB2. TB works with NOTHING that already exists (save a few Mini-display port monitors and that's only because it carries Mini-display port video signals). The fact that Intel plans to do USB3 alongside TB on their next chipset shows even they understand that TB is going to be high-end/niche product for some time to come.
I have said in the past that IF Intel had used the USB3 style connector and essentially had USB compatibility + MORE bandwidth THEN they might start appearing on everything. But they chose instead to use a connector that is hardly on anything (but newer Macs) and that isn't much different than starting over with a totally new connector and no compatibility with anything (outside breakout boxes that are essentially PCI cards in a box). When it comes down to it, TB is basically the entire PCIe bus on a single external connector.
Object-X
Sep 12, 03:52 PM
The real question is when will the true video ipod be released? Christmas?
I just watched the stream. Not before Christmas. Jobs made it pretty clear that these updates and new iPods are the holiday product line up.
I just watched the stream. Not before Christmas. Jobs made it pretty clear that these updates and new iPods are the holiday product line up.
zhenya
Apr 11, 10:14 AM
I agree with the guy who wants any iOS device to be the receiver of AirTunes music.
I hear all the comments about Home Sharing and Airfoil, but both are only partial solutions that work in specific cases. I, personally, nt my old iPod Touch to function as a battery powered airport express - with some battery powered speakers attached, I can stream music anywhere (including the garden, etc) at the same time - perfect for parties. I could do that with AirFoil, but that means when I want to stream from my iPad to my Apple TV or Airport Express speakers in the living room I need a different solution. Plus i'm not sure the Apple Remote app will allow me to switch AirFoil sources on and off, which means I have to go back to my Mac to change them, it's not properly integrated, so not a great solution. Acceptable, sure, but far from ideal.
With home sharing, your old iPod Touch already does this. It's just that you get to 'pull' the music from your library to your Touch, rather than pushing it from the computer to the Touch. Really, what more do you want?
In reality, this is a much better solution than acting as an Airport Express, which only allows you to play one music stream to any or all devices. With home sharing, different devices can listen to different music at the same time.
I hear all the comments about Home Sharing and Airfoil, but both are only partial solutions that work in specific cases. I, personally, nt my old iPod Touch to function as a battery powered airport express - with some battery powered speakers attached, I can stream music anywhere (including the garden, etc) at the same time - perfect for parties. I could do that with AirFoil, but that means when I want to stream from my iPad to my Apple TV or Airport Express speakers in the living room I need a different solution. Plus i'm not sure the Apple Remote app will allow me to switch AirFoil sources on and off, which means I have to go back to my Mac to change them, it's not properly integrated, so not a great solution. Acceptable, sure, but far from ideal.
With home sharing, your old iPod Touch already does this. It's just that you get to 'pull' the music from your library to your Touch, rather than pushing it from the computer to the Touch. Really, what more do you want?
In reality, this is a much better solution than acting as an Airport Express, which only allows you to play one music stream to any or all devices. With home sharing, different devices can listen to different music at the same time.
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.
SFStateStudent
Mar 30, 11:50 AM
I'm thinkin' Apple should have gone with "iApp Store" (u heard it here FIRST! Let me get a trademark/patent on that) b/c Microsoft is just a big ole' COPYCAT...lol :D
savar
Sep 12, 11:36 PM
Did the engravings get shorter? Now its 27 chars per line. I thought it used to be 30 something. I can't get the same engraving that I had on my last ipod (stolen).
rish
Sep 17, 03:59 PM
I don't really see this happening, if apple is going to take the risk of entering this competitive market, I see them doing it with a very innovative 'new' product.
Hi people. Take a quick look at this working prototye.
http://www.cameraphonefocus.co.uk/minor_brands/pilotfishsynaptics_onyx_button.php
I understand that Synaptics is a company Apple already has a working relationship with.
It kinda gets the juices flowing when you consider the possibilities. No more crap mobiles, I hope.
Regards
Hi people. Take a quick look at this working prototye.
http://www.cameraphonefocus.co.uk/minor_brands/pilotfishsynaptics_onyx_button.php
I understand that Synaptics is a company Apple already has a working relationship with.
It kinda gets the juices flowing when you consider the possibilities. No more crap mobiles, I hope.
Regards
Vegasman
Apr 28, 10:36 PM
They did. And boy, does it show! Part of the reason Apple has done so remarkably well for years now.
Part of the reason Apple has done so remarkably well for years now? Sure. However it is also mostly the reason Apple still only had 5% of that market.
Part of the reason Apple has done so remarkably well for years now? Sure. However it is also mostly the reason Apple still only had 5% of that market.
wnurse
Aug 23, 10:08 PM
So, in summary...
Apple pays Creative a one time fee of $100M to licence their patents.
Creative joins the 'Made for iPod' program making accessories for their competitor, Apple, who gets money for 'Made for iPod'.
Creative still HAS to defend it's patent against other competitors - that's the nature of patents - or licence it to them. If they do, Apple takes some of that money too. In a round-a-bout way, Apple is getting money back from it's competitors. Nice.
Creative have a much better case because Apple settled.
Creative still owns a valid patent. If Apple had won, there would be no patent so anyone could copy the Creative/Apple style interface.
Apple continues on as if nothing has happened. No long court case delaying sales. No injunctions to halt imports.
Explain to me why people think Apple lost here?
Creative knew it was about to get reamed by Microsoft's Zune which it's players aren't compatible with. They knew to get out of the market. Instead of legitimising Microsoft's offering, they've tied up with Apple. It might bug us that Apple have legitimised a bogus patent but it's otherwise very, very smart.
Interesting, I did not know so many apple fans were lawyers and patent experts. Some call the patent bogus, some claim apple really didn't infringe but felt like being santa claus to creative and some even claim that the lawsuit would have cost apple 100 million (like it would have cost creative 0. Why not slug it out and see how much creative have in the coffers to pay their lawyers?). You guys would all make excellent attorneys!!!.
I'll summarize.
1. Apple infringed on the patent
2. Apple paid license for use of the patent
3. Go watch TV.. show over folks.
Apple could blow a hundred million in legal expenses. It's less of an instance of throwing in the towel, and more of an instance of, "You know, the way idiot judges/juries hand out settlements these days, let's just give them a paltry sum, let them think they've won, and still destroy them in the MP3 market."
Actually, creative won, regardless of whether apple destroys them in the market or not. Man, even Steven (jobs) is not as pissed as you all are. I think he's lying comfortable in his bed right now, probably watching the news. Chill out. Companies infringe on other companies patents all the time. Companies settle all the time. This is not an abnormal event.
Apple pays Creative a one time fee of $100M to licence their patents.
Creative joins the 'Made for iPod' program making accessories for their competitor, Apple, who gets money for 'Made for iPod'.
Creative still HAS to defend it's patent against other competitors - that's the nature of patents - or licence it to them. If they do, Apple takes some of that money too. In a round-a-bout way, Apple is getting money back from it's competitors. Nice.
Creative have a much better case because Apple settled.
Creative still owns a valid patent. If Apple had won, there would be no patent so anyone could copy the Creative/Apple style interface.
Apple continues on as if nothing has happened. No long court case delaying sales. No injunctions to halt imports.
Explain to me why people think Apple lost here?
Creative knew it was about to get reamed by Microsoft's Zune which it's players aren't compatible with. They knew to get out of the market. Instead of legitimising Microsoft's offering, they've tied up with Apple. It might bug us that Apple have legitimised a bogus patent but it's otherwise very, very smart.
Interesting, I did not know so many apple fans were lawyers and patent experts. Some call the patent bogus, some claim apple really didn't infringe but felt like being santa claus to creative and some even claim that the lawsuit would have cost apple 100 million (like it would have cost creative 0. Why not slug it out and see how much creative have in the coffers to pay their lawyers?). You guys would all make excellent attorneys!!!.
I'll summarize.
1. Apple infringed on the patent
2. Apple paid license for use of the patent
3. Go watch TV.. show over folks.
Apple could blow a hundred million in legal expenses. It's less of an instance of throwing in the towel, and more of an instance of, "You know, the way idiot judges/juries hand out settlements these days, let's just give them a paltry sum, let them think they've won, and still destroy them in the MP3 market."
Actually, creative won, regardless of whether apple destroys them in the market or not. Man, even Steven (jobs) is not as pissed as you all are. I think he's lying comfortable in his bed right now, probably watching the news. Chill out. Companies infringe on other companies patents all the time. Companies settle all the time. This is not an abnormal event.
cube
Mar 30, 12:04 PM
I'm not sure why there is so much argument about the term "app". The trademark is for "App Store" not for "app". It would be like arguing that "Burger King" is not a valid trademark because "burger" is a generic term.
What about "Burger Store" ?
What about "Burger Store" ?
Small White Car
Apr 25, 01:24 PM
...and you think most people who buy a MBP won't swap out the drive for a 7200RPM drive or an SSD and max out their memory?
call of duty black ops
call of duty black ops map
Call of Duty: Black Ops
HiRez
Sep 19, 04:20 PM
Are iTS movies letterboxed? If so, then the quality of iTS movies is closer to 640x360.As I understand, yes, this is the case. They maintain the width at 640 and crop vertically for the aspect.
Adidas Addict
Apr 22, 12:03 PM
then why did apple cripple the 13" macbook pro's with ****** resolution then?
I'd take the 13" MBP screen over the 13 MBA screen every day of the week, much better quality in every way apart from the small resolution increase. The MBA screen is cheap and nasty (yes I owned both, sold the 2010 Air to buy the 2011 13 MBP)
I'd take the 13" MBP screen over the 13 MBA screen every day of the week, much better quality in every way apart from the small resolution increase. The MBA screen is cheap and nasty (yes I owned both, sold the 2010 Air to buy the 2011 13 MBP)
gleepskip
Apr 20, 09:59 AM
I'm a pretty serious Apple fanatic and I'm willing to scrap my family's iPhones because of this. I know the government can track me anyway by watching my movement across cell towers, but this is a huge affront to privacy.
If you tie this story to the recent news from Michigan that cops there are able to suck the data off of your phone at a traffic stop, then this is really frightening.
If you tie this story to the recent news from Michigan that cops there are able to suck the data off of your phone at a traffic stop, then this is really frightening.
cere
Apr 14, 01:17 PM
LOL, yet here you are claiming Thunderbolt is DOA. Hilarious.
Again, for those with reading difficulties, I made no such claim. I did agree with a post that implied it might be relegated to being considered Mac only. I'll still agree that might be what happens. I hope not, but I hoped FW would be successful too.
I am pretty sure a google search will find some adult-ed courses that might be helpful for you.
Again, for those with reading difficulties, I made no such claim. I did agree with a post that implied it might be relegated to being considered Mac only. I'll still agree that might be what happens. I hope not, but I hoped FW would be successful too.
I am pretty sure a google search will find some adult-ed courses that might be helpful for you.
dethmaShine
Apr 22, 04:54 AM
I have no idea how this would be useful. Buffer times, connection loss, no WiFi around, these are all problems that will prevent this from working.
What's wrong with storing music on hard drives locally?
Well, a 3G connection is more or less the same as wifi, although its quite unstable.
3G in the UK is quite good in my opinion. I'll wait for the networks to come up with unlimited plans as they have been a bitch all these times.
What's wrong with storing music on hard drives locally?
Well, a 3G connection is more or less the same as wifi, although its quite unstable.
3G in the UK is quite good in my opinion. I'll wait for the networks to come up with unlimited plans as they have been a bitch all these times.
emw
Aug 23, 04:45 PM
Maybe not, but why do I think Apple could have bought the entire company for that kind of dough?Ha! Probably crossed their minds.
Peace
Aug 31, 04:44 PM
Well if they do the announcement late on Monday 12 in Cupertino that will be Tuesday in Paris (time zone difference is +9) so will comply with the tradition LOL :rolleyes: :p :D
Sept. 12th is a Tuesday in Cupertino.
Sept. 12th is a Tuesday in Cupertino.
Skika
Apr 25, 01:22 PM
Its fine, but if you need it get it, if you dont then wait, at the end of the day this is a rumor.
I would if id need it, but my current Macbook can keep me going till the refresh.
I would if id need it, but my current Macbook can keep me going till the refresh.
0 comments:
Post a Comment