bousozoku
Nov 23, 02:48 PM
Oh yah, there was one. It was a CD player that was soooo bad hardy a soul bought it and it's barely remembered. I think it happened while Steve was at Next abd the idjuts were in control of of Apple. It may have set a record for a short lifespan, not counting Microsoft's vaporware that was never spawned.
Someone who worked across the aisle from me had a PowerCD connected to his Mac and it was really nice, but it was way too expensive. Then again, you could say that about any of the equipment at the time. It's become much better but the value is often not apparent to the majority of the people.
Someone who worked across the aisle from me had a PowerCD connected to his Mac and it was really nice, but it was way too expensive. Then again, you could say that about any of the equipment at the time. It's become much better but the value is often not apparent to the majority of the people.
steadysignal
Apr 25, 10:25 AM
Steve Jobs is a dick because I hate Apple. Android is open and I love open. I can open it. I can wigets. I can overclock the **** out of it. Apple is Closed. Hypocrites and Evil.
And I'm 12. :rolleyes:
hate is hate, at any age.
And I'm 12. :rolleyes:
hate is hate, at any age.
cybrscot
Apr 6, 02:38 AM
Interesting indeed!
lilo777
Apr 18, 04:40 PM
So, are we talking about these patents?
Inventors: Zadesky; Stephen Paul; (Portola Valley, CA) ; Lynch; Stephen Brian; (Alamo, CA)
Correspondence Address:
The sweet Chicago Rose is back
LOVE AND ROSES
i love u rose | Flickr - Photo Sharing!
I love u baby
red rose love
A Rose 2 Say i Love u..karanlt;3
i love u baby quotes. dayne33
Wholesale Rose 18 Head I Love U Micro- Flowers/Plants
Silver Rose You are really
love u mum xox
happened but i love u and
I#39;m Rose Smith, 17. I love to
i love u rose | Flickr - Photo Sharing!
Red Rose Wedding Love Elegant
Smoking pictures I love and
Reacent Post
Inventors: Zadesky; Stephen Paul; (Portola Valley, CA) ; Lynch; Stephen Brian; (Alamo, CA)
Correspondence Address:
Eidorian
Aug 4, 11:39 AM
How many people plan to dump their Core Duo Macs for Core 2 Duo Macs?I sold my iMac G5 back in June. :rolleyes:
octoberdeath
Sep 11, 01:00 AM
i hope they crank out some flippin amazing stuff that just screams buy me! i need a new phone here shortly for i hate sprint and will be switching to another provider and would love a bad a cell phone from apple. and i'd also like to be able to stream HD video to my telli in the living room wirelessly and other cool stuff too. bring on the media event!
bigjohn
Aug 4, 12:58 AM
Who voted negative????? You want it slower, eh? Give the man a G3! No, a 601!
he can have one my old 68k's
he can have one my old 68k's
bhtooefr
Apr 30, 10:56 PM
OK, so a few things about this that I'm seeing...
3200x2000 background: A bit odd choice of resolution, but I think they're making a 16:10 resolution that they'll crop to 16:9 for the machine with an actually 3200px wide display.
But, that does indicate a few things.
3200x1800 makes sense if you're pixel quadrupling a 1600x900 display, which is what a 15.6" 16:9 MBP at current pixel densities would be. But, it DOESN'T make sense for pixel quadrupling the 17" MBP, or any of the desktop displays.
If the 15.6" or 15.4" MBP gets this, and the 17" doesn't... that means that (and this is pure conjecture here) the 17" isn't long for the world. How well do they sell, anyway?
As for display technology supporting a pixel-quadrupled iMac, we've had the technology for a pixel-quadrupled 21.5" iMac since 2001. The IBM T221, a 3840x2400 22.2" monitor, is the same density as that theoretical display. It was $18,000 when it came out, and by the time IBM pulled the plug on IDTech, a Viewsonic-branded version of the T221, the VP2290b, was in the $4000 ballpark in 2005. So, had the T221 followed a curve influenced more by technology improvements than by the market getting saturated with unusable monitors, we'd be seeing these panels in the $2000 range nowadays, as a standalone monitor, I think.
Now, to look at all the machines that Apple has. Keep in mind that I think that only pro hardware will get this, and Apple likes to stick to around 100-110 PPI for desktops, and 110-130 PPI for laptops.
I'll go ahead and speculate on theoretical 16:9 variants of existing models, too.
MacBook Air 11.6": Currently 1366x768, 135 ppi, retina at 25.4" - would be 2732x1536, 270 ppi, retina at 12.7"
MacBook Air 13.3": Currently 1440x900, 128 ppi, retina at 26.9" - would be 2880x1800, 255 ppi, retina at 13.5"
MacBook and MacBook Pro 13.3": Currently 1280x800, 113 ppi, retina at 30.3" - would be 2560x1600, 227 ppi, retina at 15.1"
MacBook Pro 15.4" low-res: Currently 1440x900, 110 ppi, retina at 31.2" - would be 2880x1800, 221 ppi, retina at 15.6"
MacBook Pro 15.4" high-res: Currently 1680x1050, 129 ppi, retina at 26.7" - would be 3360x2100, 257 ppi, retina at 13.4"
MacBook Pro 17.0": Currently 1920x1200, 133 ppi, retina at 25.8" - would be 3840x2400, 266 ppi, retina at 12.9"
iMac 21.5": Currently 1920x1080, 102 ppi, retina at 33.6" - would be 3840x2160, 205 ppi, retina at 16.8"
iMac/Cinema Display 27": Currently 2560x1440, 109 ppi, retina at 31.6" - would be 5120x2880, 218 ppi, retina at 15.8"
Theoretical 13.3" 16:9 low-res: 1366x768, 118 ppi, retina at 29.2" - would be 2732x1536, 236 ppi, retina at 14.6"
Theoretical 13.3" 16:9 high-res: 1600x900, 138 ppi, retina at 24.9" - would be 3200x1800, 276 ppi, retina at 12.4"
Theoretical 15.6" 16:9: 1600x900, 118 ppi, retina at 29.2" - would be 3200x1800, 235 ppi, retina at 14.6"
Theoretical 17.1" 16:9: 1920x1080, 129 ppi, retina at 26.7" - would be 3840x2160, 258 ppi, retina at 13.3"
Hrm. I am noticing a problem here for getting consistent resolutions when getting 16:9 into the mix... and, interestingly, Apple stayed on 16:10 for the 13.3" MBA. So, I wonder if this could even be a red herring of some kind? Because 3200x2000 doesn't really match up with any expected 16:10 resolution...
(Current lineup can do 255-270 ppi, which is fairly tight, ignoring the 13.3" MB(P) and the low-res 15.4" MBP, but going to 16:9, either desktop area would shrink for many users (and even then, the 11.6" and 17.1" wouldn't fit in well), or there would be a wide variance in ppi.)
Another thing to consider is the $3.9 billion that Apple pumped into LCD makers... possibly to secure a supply of retina panels?
(In case you can't tell, I'm SERIOUS about my high ppi displays. Looking at a IDTech IAQX10N, a 2048x1536 15.0" 171 ppi IPS display right now, and I'm stuck on a 5 year old machine because of it. Whoever makes something roughly equivalent or better gets my business, unless they're Sony.)
3200x2000 background: A bit odd choice of resolution, but I think they're making a 16:10 resolution that they'll crop to 16:9 for the machine with an actually 3200px wide display.
But, that does indicate a few things.
3200x1800 makes sense if you're pixel quadrupling a 1600x900 display, which is what a 15.6" 16:9 MBP at current pixel densities would be. But, it DOESN'T make sense for pixel quadrupling the 17" MBP, or any of the desktop displays.
If the 15.6" or 15.4" MBP gets this, and the 17" doesn't... that means that (and this is pure conjecture here) the 17" isn't long for the world. How well do they sell, anyway?
As for display technology supporting a pixel-quadrupled iMac, we've had the technology for a pixel-quadrupled 21.5" iMac since 2001. The IBM T221, a 3840x2400 22.2" monitor, is the same density as that theoretical display. It was $18,000 when it came out, and by the time IBM pulled the plug on IDTech, a Viewsonic-branded version of the T221, the VP2290b, was in the $4000 ballpark in 2005. So, had the T221 followed a curve influenced more by technology improvements than by the market getting saturated with unusable monitors, we'd be seeing these panels in the $2000 range nowadays, as a standalone monitor, I think.
Now, to look at all the machines that Apple has. Keep in mind that I think that only pro hardware will get this, and Apple likes to stick to around 100-110 PPI for desktops, and 110-130 PPI for laptops.
I'll go ahead and speculate on theoretical 16:9 variants of existing models, too.
MacBook Air 11.6": Currently 1366x768, 135 ppi, retina at 25.4" - would be 2732x1536, 270 ppi, retina at 12.7"
MacBook Air 13.3": Currently 1440x900, 128 ppi, retina at 26.9" - would be 2880x1800, 255 ppi, retina at 13.5"
MacBook and MacBook Pro 13.3": Currently 1280x800, 113 ppi, retina at 30.3" - would be 2560x1600, 227 ppi, retina at 15.1"
MacBook Pro 15.4" low-res: Currently 1440x900, 110 ppi, retina at 31.2" - would be 2880x1800, 221 ppi, retina at 15.6"
MacBook Pro 15.4" high-res: Currently 1680x1050, 129 ppi, retina at 26.7" - would be 3360x2100, 257 ppi, retina at 13.4"
MacBook Pro 17.0": Currently 1920x1200, 133 ppi, retina at 25.8" - would be 3840x2400, 266 ppi, retina at 12.9"
iMac 21.5": Currently 1920x1080, 102 ppi, retina at 33.6" - would be 3840x2160, 205 ppi, retina at 16.8"
iMac/Cinema Display 27": Currently 2560x1440, 109 ppi, retina at 31.6" - would be 5120x2880, 218 ppi, retina at 15.8"
Theoretical 13.3" 16:9 low-res: 1366x768, 118 ppi, retina at 29.2" - would be 2732x1536, 236 ppi, retina at 14.6"
Theoretical 13.3" 16:9 high-res: 1600x900, 138 ppi, retina at 24.9" - would be 3200x1800, 276 ppi, retina at 12.4"
Theoretical 15.6" 16:9: 1600x900, 118 ppi, retina at 29.2" - would be 3200x1800, 235 ppi, retina at 14.6"
Theoretical 17.1" 16:9: 1920x1080, 129 ppi, retina at 26.7" - would be 3840x2160, 258 ppi, retina at 13.3"
Hrm. I am noticing a problem here for getting consistent resolutions when getting 16:9 into the mix... and, interestingly, Apple stayed on 16:10 for the 13.3" MBA. So, I wonder if this could even be a red herring of some kind? Because 3200x2000 doesn't really match up with any expected 16:10 resolution...
(Current lineup can do 255-270 ppi, which is fairly tight, ignoring the 13.3" MB(P) and the low-res 15.4" MBP, but going to 16:9, either desktop area would shrink for many users (and even then, the 11.6" and 17.1" wouldn't fit in well), or there would be a wide variance in ppi.)
Another thing to consider is the $3.9 billion that Apple pumped into LCD makers... possibly to secure a supply of retina panels?
(In case you can't tell, I'm SERIOUS about my high ppi displays. Looking at a IDTech IAQX10N, a 2048x1536 15.0" 171 ppi IPS display right now, and I'm stuck on a 5 year old machine because of it. Whoever makes something roughly equivalent or better gets my business, unless they're Sony.)
svenas1
Jul 22, 06:13 AM
I don't think we'll see these at WWDC unless there are other substantial changes. Going from a Yonah to a Merom chip may be great news, but it's hardly something Steve can crow about on stage. "Here's the new macbook pro... it looks and functions exactly like the old one, but 20% faster. Um, yeah. You already know all about the macbook pro, so there's really nothing else for me to say, is there?"
Trust SJ to be able to say something amazing about that !! That's why he is CEO... he can make the smallest thing look like it's the coolest thing on earth. RDF at full swing...!
Trust SJ to be able to say something amazing about that !! That's why he is CEO... he can make the smallest thing look like it's the coolest thing on earth. RDF at full swing...!
bursty
Aug 7, 03:04 PM
I don't understand why people are complaining about the Bluetooth and wireless not being included. These are not portables, they won't move, and in many cases professionals don't care if the keyboard is wired or want it wired for some specific reason. Wireless internet is for portable computers folks, not a big hunk of aluminum that will sit on the floor or desk permanently. Wired is also still faster than wireless...if you are in a networked office environment that can make a massive difference.
My house is not wired for ethernet. Which means, I would have to snake a wire through 3 floors, drill holes in the ceiling, etc etc. Its sooo much easier just to have airport. I have 3meg internet service and I cannot tell a difference between wired and wifi. My wireless will hit ~10mb/s transfer if I'm moving a large file from one computer to another. Obviously, that 10mb/s is faster then my 3meg internet service. My internet service is the bottleneck, not the wireless. Therefore....no difference in speed.
Second, I have BT keyboard, mouse, and phone. I use BT all the time. Sure, I can just order the option. However, that means I cant just run to my local apple store and pick up a Mac Pro. Its absolute crap that a ~$600 Macmini has these options standard, and yet Apples $4000 top of the line machine doesnt. Unacceptable.
My house is not wired for ethernet. Which means, I would have to snake a wire through 3 floors, drill holes in the ceiling, etc etc. Its sooo much easier just to have airport. I have 3meg internet service and I cannot tell a difference between wired and wifi. My wireless will hit ~10mb/s transfer if I'm moving a large file from one computer to another. Obviously, that 10mb/s is faster then my 3meg internet service. My internet service is the bottleneck, not the wireless. Therefore....no difference in speed.
Second, I have BT keyboard, mouse, and phone. I use BT all the time. Sure, I can just order the option. However, that means I cant just run to my local apple store and pick up a Mac Pro. Its absolute crap that a ~$600 Macmini has these options standard, and yet Apples $4000 top of the line machine doesnt. Unacceptable.
JackAxe
Apr 23, 10:44 PM
Doesn't OS X already support displays up to 2560x1600? Afaik that was the resolution of Apple's own (now discontinued) 30" display and the resolution of most, if not all, 30" displays available at the moment. 3200x2000 is nothing but the next rung on the ladder. This is just Apple future-proofing their OS a bit. If they release anything in the short term it will most likely be a big-ass iMac or a bigger Apple Display, NOT a laptop running that resolution. Just saying...
Yep. My Apple 30", which I bought in 2005 is 2560 x 1600. Oh, and my MacBook Pro 17", which runs at 1900 x 1200 can drive it as a secondary display. So could my older 17".
Here's something most people don't know. IBM created a 200 PPI display back in 2000. Veiwsonic later released it as their VP2290b, which ran at 3200 x 2400. I recall when it came out, that it was over $6k. It required 2 DVI cables to drive it, since at that time, Dual-DVI ports were not available.
Yep. My Apple 30", which I bought in 2005 is 2560 x 1600. Oh, and my MacBook Pro 17", which runs at 1900 x 1200 can drive it as a secondary display. So could my older 17".
Here's something most people don't know. IBM created a 200 PPI display back in 2000. Veiwsonic later released it as their VP2290b, which ran at 3200 x 2400. I recall when it came out, that it was over $6k. It required 2 DVI cables to drive it, since at that time, Dual-DVI ports were not available.
toddybody
Apr 7, 01:11 PM
People keep saying this like if they say it enough it will make it true.
The iPad and iPad 2 were designed, created, released and supported with ZERO Competition.
Apple creates products and experiences for their customers. I know it is hard to believe that everyone is just not as lazy as they need to be, and only do something if someone else pushes them but it is possible.
What people don't seem to realize is APPLE is the COMPETITION that pushes the others, not the other way around. Apple destroyed the MP3 player market made with sucky products. They destroyed the smartphone market made with sucky products, they created the tablet market. They don't need competition, but all these other companies need Apple to steamroll them I guess.
Sorry, I think youre inferring that Im in agreement with the idea that Apple purposefully stuck it to other panel customers...Im not. Im saying that whatever the reasons are, its not a good thing for other tablet manufactures. Stay well!
The iPad and iPad 2 were designed, created, released and supported with ZERO Competition.
Apple creates products and experiences for their customers. I know it is hard to believe that everyone is just not as lazy as they need to be, and only do something if someone else pushes them but it is possible.
What people don't seem to realize is APPLE is the COMPETITION that pushes the others, not the other way around. Apple destroyed the MP3 player market made with sucky products. They destroyed the smartphone market made with sucky products, they created the tablet market. They don't need competition, but all these other companies need Apple to steamroll them I guess.
Sorry, I think youre inferring that Im in agreement with the idea that Apple purposefully stuck it to other panel customers...Im not. Im saying that whatever the reasons are, its not a good thing for other tablet manufactures. Stay well!
Erwin-Br
Apr 21, 04:33 PM
It's not going to happen. If Apple was still interested in offering a rack mountable system they would have redesigned the X-Serve instead of the Mac Pro.
Where is the logic in dropping a perfectly fine rack-mountable system, because apparently it wasn't sold enough, and then convert the Mac Pro workstation to... a rack-mountable system?! They could've dropped the Mac Pro and rebrand X-Serve to Mac Pro instead. Same result.
Where is the logic in dropping a perfectly fine rack-mountable system, because apparently it wasn't sold enough, and then convert the Mac Pro workstation to... a rack-mountable system?! They could've dropped the Mac Pro and rebrand X-Serve to Mac Pro instead. Same result.
aswitcher
Sep 11, 12:53 AM
Dial-up. ...
And I'm in the 10th largest city in the country. My parents, who live in a little country town a long way from anywhere get quite decent broadband speeds. Go figure...:confused:
Common mate, the Gong isn't a city ;)
I get ~8000kbps so Movie downloads works for me - if the price and quality and DRM are right.
And I'm in the 10th largest city in the country. My parents, who live in a little country town a long way from anywhere get quite decent broadband speeds. Go figure...:confused:
Common mate, the Gong isn't a city ;)
I get ~8000kbps so Movie downloads works for me - if the price and quality and DRM are right.
JoeG4
Apr 21, 10:18 PM
1080p is such a low resolution -_- BAH! You stink.
WTF is wrong with lots of expandability? If I can shove 4 drives in my machine instead of having 4 externals.. heck yea!
WTF is wrong with lots of expandability? If I can shove 4 drives in my machine instead of having 4 externals.. heck yea!
paradox00
May 4, 03:16 PM
Here's my problem with this distribution method for an OS:
I have 4 Macs in my house. Previously, I'd buy a Family License DVD and go from machine to machine installing it.
If I have to DL it from the App Store, I've got to download it 4 times! I don't care about paying for multiple licenses... I do care about blowing out my internet bandwidth downloading the same multi-gigabyte file 4 times. :mad:
There had better be a physical-media option!
From the article:
"Apple is said to presumably be planning to also release Mac OS X Lion on physical media to support users who are running older Mac OS X versions incompatible with the Mac App Store or who have slow Internet connections that would make downloading the large update unwieldy."
From the source article:
"While the Mac App Store will be the preferred method for installing Mac OS X 10.7 Lion, set for release this summer, it's logical to presume that Apple will also offer an optical disc for people who may not have broadband. At least person with knowledge of the situation claims that this will indeed be the case "for those with slower connections, or [for those who for whatever reason do] not want to download it.""
Furthermore, what if the app store download is just a dmg that allows you to burn it to a disk or copy it to a thumb drive? Wouldn't that alleviate your concerns too? Way too early to be getting bent out of shape over this.
I have 4 Macs in my house. Previously, I'd buy a Family License DVD and go from machine to machine installing it.
If I have to DL it from the App Store, I've got to download it 4 times! I don't care about paying for multiple licenses... I do care about blowing out my internet bandwidth downloading the same multi-gigabyte file 4 times. :mad:
There had better be a physical-media option!
From the article:
"Apple is said to presumably be planning to also release Mac OS X Lion on physical media to support users who are running older Mac OS X versions incompatible with the Mac App Store or who have slow Internet connections that would make downloading the large update unwieldy."
From the source article:
"While the Mac App Store will be the preferred method for installing Mac OS X 10.7 Lion, set for release this summer, it's logical to presume that Apple will also offer an optical disc for people who may not have broadband. At least person with knowledge of the situation claims that this will indeed be the case "for those with slower connections, or [for those who for whatever reason do] not want to download it.""
Furthermore, what if the app store download is just a dmg that allows you to burn it to a disk or copy it to a thumb drive? Wouldn't that alleviate your concerns too? Way too early to be getting bent out of shape over this.
OdduWon
Sep 15, 05:22 PM
single 3ghz woodcrest MBP's next tuesday? drool..........
maclaptop
Apr 20, 08:10 AM
I wonder how many of these they'll sale? If it's not due out until September, but everything still points to a summer release of the iPhone 6, which is supposed to be a redesign, then why not wait six more months? I'm due for a new phone this June and if the iPhone is delayed til September I will certainly wait six more months and get the redesigned one. I'm not crazy about this form factor anyway.
You and I are thinking alike.
Sobering stuff when Apple fails to impress.
Right or wrong the glass iphone will be forever associated with Antennagate.
I'm too much of an Apple enthusiast to keep an albatross like that.
Now I will celebrate a change of brand while Jobs and company hunts for answers. :)
You and I are thinking alike.
Sobering stuff when Apple fails to impress.
Right or wrong the glass iphone will be forever associated with Antennagate.
I'm too much of an Apple enthusiast to keep an albatross like that.
Now I will celebrate a change of brand while Jobs and company hunts for answers. :)
toddybody
Apr 25, 10:02 AM
Yes, Apple is not the first or last company to use emerging tech to track user information. That said, the information they do collect needs to be understood by the user...including the rational behind the collection. i.e., want to see your location on Google Maps? "Accept Location Services" for this instance...etc
things are far too muddy
things are far too muddy
digitalbiker
Aug 4, 07:26 PM
Shouldn't be much code - the Adobe apps are already cross platform so there shouldn't be many endian issues to sort out. It's just a matter of changing development environments to use XCode and re-testing.
Not simple, but not something that should take almost 2 years either.
How many times does it have to be repeated? Adobe came out immediately after the Intel transition was announced that they would have an Apple UB version released simultaneously with the release of CS3.
They didn't want to slow development of CS3 for the Mac. CS2 was just released and a UB version would have taken significant effort for a very small market share. Since the only benefit would be to intel mac users which didn't even exist at the time.
Soon, probably first quarter a UB version of CS3 will appear about the sametime that the mac intel user base reaches a relavent market size.
The company that really deserves criticism is intuit. They recently released quicken 2007 and it was not UB. They were releasing a new product and they chose to ignore intel Mac users. Makes you wonder if they are going to stay in the mac market at all. Maybe in the future they will just recommend running parallel and windows, to use quicken on an intel mac.
Not simple, but not something that should take almost 2 years either.
How many times does it have to be repeated? Adobe came out immediately after the Intel transition was announced that they would have an Apple UB version released simultaneously with the release of CS3.
They didn't want to slow development of CS3 for the Mac. CS2 was just released and a UB version would have taken significant effort for a very small market share. Since the only benefit would be to intel mac users which didn't even exist at the time.
Soon, probably first quarter a UB version of CS3 will appear about the sametime that the mac intel user base reaches a relavent market size.
The company that really deserves criticism is intuit. They recently released quicken 2007 and it was not UB. They were releasing a new product and they chose to ignore intel Mac users. Makes you wonder if they are going to stay in the mac market at all. Maybe in the future they will just recommend running parallel and windows, to use quicken on an intel mac.
QCassidy352
Sep 15, 08:18 PM
before the imac update I thought a new GPU was a given. Now I'm not sure. If this is nothing but a processor change, that's going to be one of the most disappointing updates in years.
scottgroovez
Apr 11, 02:52 AM
My vote ties it at 67 votes each! 2 was winning up until that point
You wouldn't do 2 x12 before the division if following the BODMAS rules.
You wouldn't do 2 x12 before the division if following the BODMAS rules.
Savor
Apr 1, 12:34 PM
The idea of 20 GB per year for $.99 or less for an album just can't be beat.
It is practically FREE for us when Amazon does their $2 music giftcard promo every year since some entire albums can cost less than $2. If you use Swagbucks, redeem $5 Amazon cards at 450 SB and the balance never expires like it does with the Amazon $2 promo.
Amazon + Swagbucks kick ass together! FREE music and cloud storage.
It is practically FREE for us when Amazon does their $2 music giftcard promo every year since some entire albums can cost less than $2. If you use Swagbucks, redeem $5 Amazon cards at 450 SB and the balance never expires like it does with the Amazon $2 promo.
Amazon + Swagbucks kick ass together! FREE music and cloud storage.
Ommid
Apr 25, 05:49 AM
Don't bet on it!
Apple is clearly a consumer based company now.. it could care less about the small niche of the mac pro. iMac? Yes, mac mini? Yes, the laptops? Yes, mac pro? NO.
Bit harsh :P
Apple is clearly a consumer based company now.. it could care less about the small niche of the mac pro. iMac? Yes, mac mini? Yes, the laptops? Yes, mac pro? NO.
Bit harsh :P
0 comments:
Post a Comment