Yellowstone2012
Apr 22, 05:48 PM
There is no way it could be that thin.
iPad 2 is thinner than the iPhone 4...
Uhh no. Rounded off edges are a big no-no.
iPad 2 has rounded off edges.
iPad 2 is thinner than the iPhone 4...
Uhh no. Rounded off edges are a big no-no.
iPad 2 has rounded off edges.
Nielsenius
Apr 16, 10:20 AM
Indeed.
My only issue with Lion DP2 and the subsequent update is the animations (I sound like a broken record between this and iOS 4.3).
Everything else is relatively solid thus far.
I agree completely. Launchpad folder animations look like crap right now. Safari previous/next animations are also a bit buggy for me. I assume that these issues will be fixed fairly soon, though.
My only issue with Lion DP2 and the subsequent update is the animations (I sound like a broken record between this and iOS 4.3).
Everything else is relatively solid thus far.
I agree completely. Launchpad folder animations look like crap right now. Safari previous/next animations are also a bit buggy for me. I assume that these issues will be fixed fairly soon, though.
lmalave
Oct 19, 07:50 AM
Dell is losing out in all directions, but HP? They just became the #1 worldwide PC manufacturer again after increasing sales 6%. Dell meanwhile lost 6% last quarter.
I know a loss of 6% and a gain of 6% aren't the same numbers unless you start at a common baseline, but it doesn't take a genius to work out where most of Dell's lost sales went.
HP is doing very well with its Pavilion multimedia laptops. Both of my roommates have one. HP is aiming for the consumer and a big retail presence in stores like Best Buy so they are actually more direct competitors to Apple now than Dell is.
Dell's problem is their business model has always been based on 2 things: 1) customization, and 2) low price. Everyone does customization now, and the problem is that if you are competing in price there is *always* someone that will beat you in price down the road. If you think Dell is going downhill now, wait until Taiwanese and Chinese manufacturers really start putting pressure. Since Apple's business model is based on innovation, it is actually much more likely to still be in a strong position 10 or 20 years down the road than dell is...
I know a loss of 6% and a gain of 6% aren't the same numbers unless you start at a common baseline, but it doesn't take a genius to work out where most of Dell's lost sales went.
HP is doing very well with its Pavilion multimedia laptops. Both of my roommates have one. HP is aiming for the consumer and a big retail presence in stores like Best Buy so they are actually more direct competitors to Apple now than Dell is.
Dell's problem is their business model has always been based on 2 things: 1) customization, and 2) low price. Everyone does customization now, and the problem is that if you are competing in price there is *always* someone that will beat you in price down the road. If you think Dell is going downhill now, wait until Taiwanese and Chinese manufacturers really start putting pressure. Since Apple's business model is based on innovation, it is actually much more likely to still be in a strong position 10 or 20 years down the road than dell is...
carlgo
Oct 1, 08:51 AM
It's interesting how cell service works. Here's a simplistic summary:
Only a certain number of users can use a tower at any given time. There is only a certain range of frequencies that can be used. All towers use these same frequencies. This means that each tower must not overlap the others in terms of coverage area and frequenceis. To ensure this, companies actually use different frequency ranges on adjacent towers. Further limiting how many users can use each tower.
The solution to this is to create smaller cell sites that cover a smaller area (and therefore will have fewer users at any given time). The problem with this is that each new cell site requires a new tower. With all the opposition to new tower construction it can take months or years to get approval to build one.
With the massive growth in cell usage companies are having to create smaller and smaller cell sites. Because of the way the system works putting up one new tower requires the reconfiguration of all the adjacent towers. Their signal area must be changed, their frequencies must be changed and it all must be integrated together.
When you get a dropped call, it's usually because you are moving into another cell site (serviced by a new tower). Your call must be handed off to the new tower. If this new tower is at capacity or overloaded, failures happen.
This is why it sucks for very high density areas.
Luckily in Minneapolis we have very good AT&T coverage. I get very fast 3G speeds and <1% dropped calls everywhere I go. Thank you urban sprawl for spreading everyone out.. When I was in NYC I noticed by data speeds were much slower. I didn't make enough calls to have any problems with that though.
Nice explanation. It seems that the whole idea of cell towers is unworkable. You think it is bad in the cities? Even semi-rural areas have no coverage at all.
There has to be an entirely new technology for this, or the use of satellites or aircraft instead of silly towers. C'mon Apple, solve this problem.
Only a certain number of users can use a tower at any given time. There is only a certain range of frequencies that can be used. All towers use these same frequencies. This means that each tower must not overlap the others in terms of coverage area and frequenceis. To ensure this, companies actually use different frequency ranges on adjacent towers. Further limiting how many users can use each tower.
The solution to this is to create smaller cell sites that cover a smaller area (and therefore will have fewer users at any given time). The problem with this is that each new cell site requires a new tower. With all the opposition to new tower construction it can take months or years to get approval to build one.
With the massive growth in cell usage companies are having to create smaller and smaller cell sites. Because of the way the system works putting up one new tower requires the reconfiguration of all the adjacent towers. Their signal area must be changed, their frequencies must be changed and it all must be integrated together.
When you get a dropped call, it's usually because you are moving into another cell site (serviced by a new tower). Your call must be handed off to the new tower. If this new tower is at capacity or overloaded, failures happen.
This is why it sucks for very high density areas.
Luckily in Minneapolis we have very good AT&T coverage. I get very fast 3G speeds and <1% dropped calls everywhere I go. Thank you urban sprawl for spreading everyone out.. When I was in NYC I noticed by data speeds were much slower. I didn't make enough calls to have any problems with that though.
Nice explanation. It seems that the whole idea of cell towers is unworkable. You think it is bad in the cities? Even semi-rural areas have no coverage at all.
There has to be an entirely new technology for this, or the use of satellites or aircraft instead of silly towers. C'mon Apple, solve this problem.
simX
Oct 18, 06:22 PM
Yes, thank you. At least someone else out there is emotionally distanced enough from the iPod and the Apple entertainment sector to be a bit objective.
Innovation: just what happened to Apple's innovative spirit when it comes to computers? The latest Mac Pro was fitted into the existing (and way oversized) G5 case. The MacBook was disappointing in that - proportionally - Apple did not shrink it at all or make it lighter than its predecessor (a design which had been in existence for about four years). There are more things, but I really don't want to sound like a troll here...
Apple needs to come out with new computer models that are unlike anything else out there. What about a tiny, thin ultraportable? What about a smaller tower, so those of us that want a pro computer don't have to invest in an oversized monster (which is larger than any PCs in the market that I am aware of). Aren't computers supposed to get SMALLER as the technology advances? Why is Apple obsessed with making the iPod smaller and smaller, but does not care as much about its laptops and desktops?
The answer: profit, or course. The iPod is Apple's cash cow. And this, my friends, is what I mean when I say that Apple needs to be partitioning off a little of its innovative energy that it is putting into its entertainment sector and bring it back to the computer line.
Understood now?
OK, now fire away :)
*sigh* How many times do we have to refute your assertions with facts before you stop repeating them?
To wit, the iPod is not Apple's "cash cow". By definition, if there is something that gains more revenue/profit than the iPod, then the iPod cannot be the cash cow. 58% of Apple's revenue still came from sales of Macs. Gross margins for both Macs and iPods has always been similar (hovering a bit below 30%), so the Mac also generates the majority of the profit for Apple.
As for Apple's innovative spirit lacking when it comes to the Macs, let's just point out that it Apple updated the iPod in October 2005 to the 5th generation, and we JUST got the 5.5th generation last month. Apple took a year to add slightly brighter screens, better battery life (only for video), and games. The nano just gained the anodized aluminum exterior -- wow, Apple's reaching back to the past for it's innovation now! And the shuffle got slimmed down and consolidated into one product. All this doesn't sound exactly like innovation to me. (Of course, Apple doesn't really need to innovate, since they're already selling iPods by the boatload.)
In contrast, Apple brought all of its Macs over to the Intel processor. The Mac Pro was dramatically higher value, what with double-wide graphics card slot, dual optical drives, 4 internal hard drive bays, etc., etc. All Macs (except for the Mac Pro) now have Front Row and a remote, which is a great feature. Built-in iSights have also migrated across the entire product line. The MacBook and MacBook Pro now have MagSafe -- a great innovation. Boot Camp is now supported on all new Macs. The Xserve has new features like lights-out management, redundant power supplies, etc. And we've seen some great things coming for Leopard, what with Time Machine and Spaces and iChat Theater and Core Animation and iCal Server, etc., etc., etc.
It seems to me that Apple is innovating more on the Macintosh side of things than they are with the iPod. What are they going to add next on the iPod -- wireless? *gasp*, so innovative!
Seriously, can we stop with this myth already? It's the same thing with all of Apple's "woes" with quality control (which was busted by the recent consumer reports articles where Apple has actually brought DOWN the number of new computers needing repair in their first year). It's something that's repeated ad nauseum by a few vocal people, when it's really not a problem at all. Same here: everybody gawks and writes about the iPod precisely because more people can afford it and more people can use it with whatever computer they have. So, obviously, you will hear more about the iPod.
Let's see if repeating myself again has any effect: the iPod is not Apple's cash cow!
Understood now?
OK, now fire away :rolleyes:
Innovation: just what happened to Apple's innovative spirit when it comes to computers? The latest Mac Pro was fitted into the existing (and way oversized) G5 case. The MacBook was disappointing in that - proportionally - Apple did not shrink it at all or make it lighter than its predecessor (a design which had been in existence for about four years). There are more things, but I really don't want to sound like a troll here...
Apple needs to come out with new computer models that are unlike anything else out there. What about a tiny, thin ultraportable? What about a smaller tower, so those of us that want a pro computer don't have to invest in an oversized monster (which is larger than any PCs in the market that I am aware of). Aren't computers supposed to get SMALLER as the technology advances? Why is Apple obsessed with making the iPod smaller and smaller, but does not care as much about its laptops and desktops?
The answer: profit, or course. The iPod is Apple's cash cow. And this, my friends, is what I mean when I say that Apple needs to be partitioning off a little of its innovative energy that it is putting into its entertainment sector and bring it back to the computer line.
Understood now?
OK, now fire away :)
*sigh* How many times do we have to refute your assertions with facts before you stop repeating them?
To wit, the iPod is not Apple's "cash cow". By definition, if there is something that gains more revenue/profit than the iPod, then the iPod cannot be the cash cow. 58% of Apple's revenue still came from sales of Macs. Gross margins for both Macs and iPods has always been similar (hovering a bit below 30%), so the Mac also generates the majority of the profit for Apple.
As for Apple's innovative spirit lacking when it comes to the Macs, let's just point out that it Apple updated the iPod in October 2005 to the 5th generation, and we JUST got the 5.5th generation last month. Apple took a year to add slightly brighter screens, better battery life (only for video), and games. The nano just gained the anodized aluminum exterior -- wow, Apple's reaching back to the past for it's innovation now! And the shuffle got slimmed down and consolidated into one product. All this doesn't sound exactly like innovation to me. (Of course, Apple doesn't really need to innovate, since they're already selling iPods by the boatload.)
In contrast, Apple brought all of its Macs over to the Intel processor. The Mac Pro was dramatically higher value, what with double-wide graphics card slot, dual optical drives, 4 internal hard drive bays, etc., etc. All Macs (except for the Mac Pro) now have Front Row and a remote, which is a great feature. Built-in iSights have also migrated across the entire product line. The MacBook and MacBook Pro now have MagSafe -- a great innovation. Boot Camp is now supported on all new Macs. The Xserve has new features like lights-out management, redundant power supplies, etc. And we've seen some great things coming for Leopard, what with Time Machine and Spaces and iChat Theater and Core Animation and iCal Server, etc., etc., etc.
It seems to me that Apple is innovating more on the Macintosh side of things than they are with the iPod. What are they going to add next on the iPod -- wireless? *gasp*, so innovative!
Seriously, can we stop with this myth already? It's the same thing with all of Apple's "woes" with quality control (which was busted by the recent consumer reports articles where Apple has actually brought DOWN the number of new computers needing repair in their first year). It's something that's repeated ad nauseum by a few vocal people, when it's really not a problem at all. Same here: everybody gawks and writes about the iPod precisely because more people can afford it and more people can use it with whatever computer they have. So, obviously, you will hear more about the iPod.
Let's see if repeating myself again has any effect: the iPod is not Apple's cash cow!
Understood now?
OK, now fire away :rolleyes:
iJohnHenry
Feb 28, 06:51 PM
Not sure if the crew gets anything above union wage.
You mean like eating and shelter?
The man is a megalomaniacal prick.
Too smart for his own good.
You mean like eating and shelter?
The man is a megalomaniacal prick.
Too smart for his own good.
povman
Jul 11, 06:12 PM
Heh... Knowing XBox, the device will probably be twice as big as the 1st gen ipods and require a separate (not bundled) control unit to access all functionality.
Beaverman3001
Apr 17, 08:34 PM
Like millions of other Mac owners, I don't play any games on my Mac and haven't for years. With iOS devices and consoles being so much cheaper, it just doesn't make any sense to me to pimp-up my Mac for gaming.
You aren't the only person Apple sells computers to either. To a lot of people being able to at least play some games on the go is a selling point that must be met for a travel device.
You aren't the only person Apple sells computers to either. To a lot of people being able to at least play some games on the go is a selling point that must be met for a travel device.
ArchaicRevival
Apr 22, 12:04 PM
Yet another reason to go with Android.
MR should have this next to their sticky topics: "Trolls need not reply."
MR should have this next to their sticky topics: "Trolls need not reply."
arn
Jun 6, 07:57 AM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 3_1_3 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/528.18 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0 Mobile/7E18 Safari/528.16)
15 minutes?
45 Seconds is all it took to get the facts...
Google search: "android market return policy"
First result: http://www.google.com/mobile/android/market-policies.html
For those too lazy to click...
"Returns: You have 24 hours from the time of purchase (not download) to return any applications purchased from Android Market for a full refund of any applicable fees."
Summary: 24 Hours, not 15 minutes.
This is such a great feature that would perhaps stimulate fair pricing and quality paid apps
Problem with this feature is it kills viability fo many non casual games. Pretty much most story/campaign games can be solved in that time period.
arn
15 minutes?
45 Seconds is all it took to get the facts...
Google search: "android market return policy"
First result: http://www.google.com/mobile/android/market-policies.html
For those too lazy to click...
"Returns: You have 24 hours from the time of purchase (not download) to return any applications purchased from Android Market for a full refund of any applicable fees."
Summary: 24 Hours, not 15 minutes.
This is such a great feature that would perhaps stimulate fair pricing and quality paid apps
Problem with this feature is it kills viability fo many non casual games. Pretty much most story/campaign games can be solved in that time period.
arn
AlligatorBloodz
Apr 13, 07:56 PM
I agree this is a silly idea. Who in the world would want the Apple TV integrated into a TV? What happens when an updated Apple TV is released the next year? Toss out the TV and buy another? Most people going in and buying a new large screen HDTV are planning to keep it a lot longer then the peripherals attached to it. If some new device comes out, no problem, just plug it into your TV. The other thing is that the TV market is very a very mature and saturated market with some big well known brands behind it.
I suppose they could make the content device separate like the current Apple TV which can be attached with an HDMI cable. If they do that what is the point of an Apple branded TV which would likely be built by another company like Samsung, LG or Sharp? Styling and a logo with a higher price? Nonsense.
Everything would be streamed. Why would you need to update it beyond it breaking or needing a bigger size.
I suppose they could make the content device separate like the current Apple TV which can be attached with an HDMI cable. If they do that what is the point of an Apple branded TV which would likely be built by another company like Samsung, LG or Sharp? Styling and a logo with a higher price? Nonsense.
Everything would be streamed. Why would you need to update it beyond it breaking or needing a bigger size.
LostTitan
Mar 17, 10:42 AM
Heard Brea had only 9 iPads today. Anyone confirm? Over 100+ waiting in line. Crazy.
southernpaws
Apr 23, 04:25 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_2 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8H7 Safari/6533.18.5)
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_2 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8H7 Safari/6533.18.5)
Seriously? An apple rumors forum is no place fo a shareholder? That's absurd.
"As you can see 260K people bought HTC Thunderbolt since Verizon started selling them (about a month). This translates to about 3 million phones annually. Clearly the demand is there. Also, you keep forgetting that other phones have swappable batteries."
If you want to play numbers, the iPhone on Verizon (same carrier as thunderbolt) sold 2.2 million in two months, compared to a quarter million in one month for tbolt. Saying that equals 3million annually 1) makes it compete better with the iPhone over two months on a single carrier and 2) assumes that the numbers remain constant. Being that people are figuring out that the battery life is dreadful (and you forget that the majority of the market doesn't want to swap batteries like it's 1999) and that android phones have a short cycle of being the hottest new thing, I don't think there's a basis to assume consistent sales in line with their opening month. Numbers can say anything when there's no common sense behind it.
Correction: 260000 HTC Thunderbolts in 2 weeks.
http://i.zdnet.com/blogs/vz042111a.png
My point remains unchanged, but thanks for the clarification
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_2 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8H7 Safari/6533.18.5)
Seriously? An apple rumors forum is no place fo a shareholder? That's absurd.
"As you can see 260K people bought HTC Thunderbolt since Verizon started selling them (about a month). This translates to about 3 million phones annually. Clearly the demand is there. Also, you keep forgetting that other phones have swappable batteries."
If you want to play numbers, the iPhone on Verizon (same carrier as thunderbolt) sold 2.2 million in two months, compared to a quarter million in one month for tbolt. Saying that equals 3million annually 1) makes it compete better with the iPhone over two months on a single carrier and 2) assumes that the numbers remain constant. Being that people are figuring out that the battery life is dreadful (and you forget that the majority of the market doesn't want to swap batteries like it's 1999) and that android phones have a short cycle of being the hottest new thing, I don't think there's a basis to assume consistent sales in line with their opening month. Numbers can say anything when there's no common sense behind it.
Correction: 260000 HTC Thunderbolts in 2 weeks.
http://i.zdnet.com/blogs/vz042111a.png
My point remains unchanged, but thanks for the clarification
txmatt
Apr 19, 02:04 PM
But my point is that even if we get a 40% boost in our CPU, it is near useless.
For example, lets say you have 100/100 in a test. Having a theoretical 40% boost will give you a 140/100. I mean, thats cool. Overkill. That is currently the CPU we have. We have enough to accomplish our tasks, and any more would be an overkill in the things we need our computer to process.
On the other hand, on the GPU side, you have a 80/100 (which is what the NVIDIA 320m is) and we see a 30% performance drop, that will result to a 42.5/100. At lower levels, difference between a 80/100 and 42.5/100 is the difference between a pass and a fail.
Of course, having a better CPU might be fulfilling to you and might give you the sense that you are the "latest in tech," but seriously, it is not about the CPU any more, it is about SSDs, ergonomics, GPU, and ultimately, Software.
I had to finally register to comment on the hypocrisy in this and many other threads like it. Because some people want frame rates for gaming on an MBA, then your needs for GPU performance are valid, and others who don't game but could use CPU performance have invalid needs? Rubbish.
A perfect example is the above. So the C2D rates as a 100/100 for CPU performance and thus any improvement is useless? Really?! Nice to see that you framed the argument such that any improvement you don't see as needed is useless.
On Sunday I combined 6 or 8 short 720p video clips into a 7 minute video for YouTube with a simple title screen and transitions. It took the C2D ~40 minutes to process the video and save in a new format. So you're really going to argue that there is nothing to be gained from a significant bump in processor speed?
For me and many other potential MBA purchasers, a CPU bump from the media processing abilities of the Core i processors would be welcome, and GPU performance over and above the ability to play real-time HD video is useless. We shouldn't be saddled with an out-of-date processor or forced to subsidize "unnecessary" frame rate performance just to appease game-players. And that perspective is as valid as yours.
For example, lets say you have 100/100 in a test. Having a theoretical 40% boost will give you a 140/100. I mean, thats cool. Overkill. That is currently the CPU we have. We have enough to accomplish our tasks, and any more would be an overkill in the things we need our computer to process.
On the other hand, on the GPU side, you have a 80/100 (which is what the NVIDIA 320m is) and we see a 30% performance drop, that will result to a 42.5/100. At lower levels, difference between a 80/100 and 42.5/100 is the difference between a pass and a fail.
Of course, having a better CPU might be fulfilling to you and might give you the sense that you are the "latest in tech," but seriously, it is not about the CPU any more, it is about SSDs, ergonomics, GPU, and ultimately, Software.
I had to finally register to comment on the hypocrisy in this and many other threads like it. Because some people want frame rates for gaming on an MBA, then your needs for GPU performance are valid, and others who don't game but could use CPU performance have invalid needs? Rubbish.
A perfect example is the above. So the C2D rates as a 100/100 for CPU performance and thus any improvement is useless? Really?! Nice to see that you framed the argument such that any improvement you don't see as needed is useless.
On Sunday I combined 6 or 8 short 720p video clips into a 7 minute video for YouTube with a simple title screen and transitions. It took the C2D ~40 minutes to process the video and save in a new format. So you're really going to argue that there is nothing to be gained from a significant bump in processor speed?
For me and many other potential MBA purchasers, a CPU bump from the media processing abilities of the Core i processors would be welcome, and GPU performance over and above the ability to play real-time HD video is useless. We shouldn't be saddled with an out-of-date processor or forced to subsidize "unnecessary" frame rate performance just to appease game-players. And that perspective is as valid as yours.
JackSYi
Oct 24, 08:13 AM
Anyone know if the hard drives are user replaceable?
gumbyhw
Mar 31, 12:15 PM
Some of us avoid animal products for ethical reasons (no leather shoes or belts, vegetarian diet etc). Can we disable the "leather" chrome?:eek:
ethana
Jun 7, 12:21 AM
Your sarcasm is inappropriate. This poster has a right to her/his opinion. There are plenty of folks that think that kids are a bad idea, especially in their case. I'm proud of the fact I don't have kids: I'd beat them just like Joan Crawford did in Mommy Dearest. :mad:
Another person who would beat their kids but won't have any! YES! One less idiot to not worry about in this world for very much longer.
Another person who would beat their kids but won't have any! YES! One less idiot to not worry about in this world for very much longer.
Eldiablojoe
Apr 26, 02:32 PM
Ok, well- I want my vote to count for something so I'm changing it To Plutonius.
Sorry- HTML skills lagging lol
Sorry- HTML skills lagging lol
snebes
Apr 15, 02:44 PM
With the update notice officially stating When Lion ships this summer What are the chances the iMac refresh will happen at the same time? or will it be in the Fall instead?
Stay positive!! iMacs should get an update soon with a free Lion upgrade. At least I hope.
I think iMac overhaul is in the fall right after the back to school deals are over......
Basically all systems besides MBA and MBP are overdue for an update. iMac and Mac Pro especially.
Stay positive!! iMacs should get an update soon with a free Lion upgrade. At least I hope.
I think iMac overhaul is in the fall right after the back to school deals are over......
Basically all systems besides MBA and MBP are overdue for an update. iMac and Mac Pro especially.
WeegieMac
Apr 14, 03:52 PM
Seriously. People should go pick up another phone (Android) or a BB and then come back to cry about how laggy their phone is. No matter what apple does will make those people happy.
I'd rather take sandpaper to my arse than use an Android phone.
There, get the point? I didn't say I wanted another phone, I just don't want the OS experience I'm using to degrading, but then look what Apple done to the iPhone 3G.
I'd rather take sandpaper to my arse than use an Android phone.
There, get the point? I didn't say I wanted another phone, I just don't want the OS experience I'm using to degrading, but then look what Apple done to the iPhone 3G.
mark28
Apr 15, 08:13 AM
3rd party apps crash, all of the them :mad: The standard Apple apps still work.
Terrible update. :mad:
Terrible update. :mad:
macrumormonger
Apr 9, 03:13 AM
http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5029/5601830981_e99a6b6cb8_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/dailymatador/5601830981/in/set-72157626333628501)
Camera Canon EOS REBEL T2i
Exposure 0.001 sec (1/1600)
Aperture f/3.5
Focal Length 35 mm
ISO Speed 100
Camera Canon EOS REBEL T2i
Exposure 0.001 sec (1/1600)
Aperture f/3.5
Focal Length 35 mm
ISO Speed 100
commander.data
May 3, 08:48 AM
Not sure if anyone noticed this but while trying to price one, I noticed that the 21" model can't be maxed to 16gb as their page says.... :mad:
That was the case for the previous 21.5" too. The smaller enclosure can only fit 2 DIMM slots while the larger 27" can fit 4 DIMM slots.
That was the case for the previous 21.5" too. The smaller enclosure can only fit 2 DIMM slots while the larger 27" can fit 4 DIMM slots.
iPhisch
Apr 13, 01:55 PM
man how much would this thing cost? the 27" display is already 1000 bucks, and this would have to be at lease 42" for people to put it in their living rooms.
