spicyapple
Nov 8, 08:05 AM
So... do these c2d mbs run cooler? The old cd mbs ran hot under Parallels.
But does the 1GB use one memory slot or two?Knowing Apple, most likely both slots are taken up. It's typical Apple.
But does the 1GB use one memory slot or two?Knowing Apple, most likely both slots are taken up. It's typical Apple.
bdj21ya
Nov 27, 03:33 PM
Good for Apple...bad for consumers.
People with a Zune or any other player for that matter won't be able to download Beetles songs legally.
Yeah they will. iTunes works on any Windows or Mac system. They can listen to it on their computer, burn a CD, or even rip that CD back into a format that any player can play, with a minimal quality loss. Besides, anything that discourages consumers from buying a Zune is probably good for consumers :) .
People with a Zune or any other player for that matter won't be able to download Beetles songs legally.
Yeah they will. iTunes works on any Windows or Mac system. They can listen to it on their computer, burn a CD, or even rip that CD back into a format that any player can play, with a minimal quality loss. Besides, anything that discourages consumers from buying a Zune is probably good for consumers :) .
wxmike
Mar 22, 01:28 PM
Un-real. This guy got ahead of all those online orders that are shipping on April 25, and ahead of all those long lines ????
msandersen
Jul 22, 10:28 PM
eInk sounds interesting for B&W eBook readers and the like, less so if you want a Video iPod as well, at least at this stage.
http://www.eink.com/products/matrix/High_Res.html
http://www.eink.com/products/matrix/High_Res.html
Shagrat
Oct 27, 12:43 AM
Hmmmn, my Keyboard just turned pink....AGGGHH!
LarryC
Apr 2, 12:37 PM
Adobe flash... HA!
The wizards at Apple can't even make a mobile device that will run that load of crap. I hope that crap-ware never makes it into any IOS based products.
Doesn't most of the internet use flash?
The wizards at Apple can't even make a mobile device that will run that load of crap. I hope that crap-ware never makes it into any IOS based products.
Doesn't most of the internet use flash?
ripfrankwhite
Sep 12, 02:22 PM
I get iTunes error when I try to open iTunes 7 after installation. Don't know what to do.
kavika411
Apr 28, 12:39 PM
I appreciate all of your nice comments. But again, aside from power loss, my family and I are fine.
Let's keep an eye out for CorvusCamenarum, though. I'm genuinely concerned about anyone who was logged into macrumors (in other words, sitting at their computer) in Tuscaloosa at 5:00 yesterday and not in a basement or shelter.
Let's keep an eye out for CorvusCamenarum, though. I'm genuinely concerned about anyone who was logged into macrumors (in other words, sitting at their computer) in Tuscaloosa at 5:00 yesterday and not in a basement or shelter.
Dustman
May 5, 03:09 PM
iPad 3 - iPad 3D
I could really see that, with the iPhone 3G (it was actually the 3rd phone) and had 3G.
3G was the 2nd. 3GS was the third.
This would be absolutely awesome! As long as its implimented well and that it has a virtual 3D slider to adjust how much it's all popping up at you.
I could really see that, with the iPhone 3G (it was actually the 3rd phone) and had 3G.
3G was the 2nd. 3GS was the third.
This would be absolutely awesome! As long as its implimented well and that it has a virtual 3D slider to adjust how much it's all popping up at you.
R.Perez
Mar 10, 07:40 PM
I reduced military spending to $90B and increased Vets' aftercare, too. Major gain came from removing the cap on SS contributions completely.
Yeah did that too. I had a huge surplus before I started increasing spending on infrastructure, education, social programs and alternative energy. Priorities, priorities.
Yeah did that too. I had a huge surplus before I started increasing spending on infrastructure, education, social programs and alternative energy. Priorities, priorities.
ZoomZoomZoom
Sep 6, 08:31 AM
Anyone knows how the GeForce 7600 GT compares to the Radeon X1X00 series?
Similar to the X1800 GT?
Must be better/faster than the X1600....
On par with x1800, about twice as fast as x1600.
Similar to the X1800 GT?
Must be better/faster than the X1600....
On par with x1800, about twice as fast as x1600.
twoodcc
Sep 6, 09:22 AM
well apple finally came thru and released something......finally
gnasher729
Apr 14, 05:42 PM
That $1199 iMac has lots of other wonderful features including a screen, but if you think it is anywhere close to the performance of a i7-2600 based PC (that go for $750 from HP/Dell) then you are delusional. To get something from Apple with an equivalent processor you are looking at a $2199 iMac or a $2499 Mac Pro. Doesn't matter that in the long term the Mac could be a better value, some people can't justify that huge price difference or paying additional for features they don't need or want or cannot afford to.
Again Macs are a premium product and because of that Apple will hit a ceiling of those who can afford or justify buying their products.
I'll not take being called "delusional" to be an insult, I'll take it as involuntary humor on your side. Someone made up a wonderful term "specturbators". That's the people the $750 PC appeals to. Reality is that the iMac will get the job done, with plenty of speed, beautiful, and reliable, much better than the $750 PC. For jobs that it can't get done, sorry mate, there is a reason why each processor in the Mac Pro alone costs a lot more than the whole $750 PC.
So that's how Dell has been staying a float by selling you a 15" model every year. :p
That's why Dell sells three times as many PCs. Because people have to buy three PCs instead of one Mac :-) (But actually, they only sell slightly more than twice as many in the USA anymore. So there are actually more Mac buyers than Dell buyers).
Again Macs are a premium product and because of that Apple will hit a ceiling of those who can afford or justify buying their products.
I'll not take being called "delusional" to be an insult, I'll take it as involuntary humor on your side. Someone made up a wonderful term "specturbators". That's the people the $750 PC appeals to. Reality is that the iMac will get the job done, with plenty of speed, beautiful, and reliable, much better than the $750 PC. For jobs that it can't get done, sorry mate, there is a reason why each processor in the Mac Pro alone costs a lot more than the whole $750 PC.
So that's how Dell has been staying a float by selling you a 15" model every year. :p
That's why Dell sells three times as many PCs. Because people have to buy three PCs instead of one Mac :-) (But actually, they only sell slightly more than twice as many in the USA anymore. So there are actually more Mac buyers than Dell buyers).
nsjoker
Sep 12, 04:32 PM
I sooo regret installing itunes 7 now. And you can't even revert back to the old one. With the amount of music I have, it's freaking time consuming having to scroll down to find the artist I wanna listen to since the Artist's name is repeated for each album, so there's thousands and thousands of things to scroll through.
And now its impossible to choose to listen to, for example, only Clapton and Hendrix. Before I could just command+click each artist or even album and there, instant quick playlist. Now I have to create an actual playlist, and probably remember to delete it or else I'll end up with tons of lists.
All in all, this is visually nice upgrade but the usability is down the pan drastically. Its virtually unusable and VERY time consuming.
APPLE BRING BACK COLUMN VIEW PLEASE!!
... it's right there on the bottom right
And now its impossible to choose to listen to, for example, only Clapton and Hendrix. Before I could just command+click each artist or even album and there, instant quick playlist. Now I have to create an actual playlist, and probably remember to delete it or else I'll end up with tons of lists.
All in all, this is visually nice upgrade but the usability is down the pan drastically. Its virtually unusable and VERY time consuming.
APPLE BRING BACK COLUMN VIEW PLEASE!!
... it's right there on the bottom right
whooleytoo
Oct 15, 07:40 PM
In this era of WTDs (wax-tramsitted diseases), there will be no sharing of my earbuds!
Perhaps future headphones will have 3 buds: left, right and public? :p
Or (and here's a radical idea) why not put a small speaker on the player itself?
Perhaps future headphones will have 3 buds: left, right and public? :p
Or (and here's a radical idea) why not put a small speaker on the player itself?
jwa276
Sep 6, 09:58 AM
UGH why haven't they updated the MBP's yet?? Apple has totally dropped the ball on this year's college students for sure (at least those looking for apple laptops). My girlfriend is required to buy a MacBook Pro for interior design, and I keep telling her to wait because Merom has got to be right around the corner.
What about the laptops???? MBP's haven't been updated once and iMacs have been getting all the love. Count it!
What about the laptops???? MBP's haven't been updated once and iMacs have been getting all the love. Count it!
matthemercyless
Mar 11, 03:19 PM
After many beautiful years together, the time has finally come to part ways with my PowerBook. I've put her through some tough times, especially during university and now the power lead is cracked, the screen latch it broken so she doesn't go to sleep, the graphics card is fried so there are weird lines and artifacts on the screen, the palm rest looks like I took an angle grinder to it and its not attached to the case properly, the 3rd party battery is rubbish the button doesn't click properly.
I've been saving up like crazy for a new MBP with planned after sales upgrades etc, and I'm going crazy here!
Just UPDATE PUUURRRRRLLEEEEAAAASSSSEEE!:(
I've been saving up like crazy for a new MBP with planned after sales upgrades etc, and I'm going crazy here!
Just UPDATE PUUURRRRRLLEEEEAAAASSSSEEE!:(
mscriv
Apr 11, 11:57 AM
I object to the notion that good deeds I do are due to vanity, pride etc.
No, sorry, you cannot have that one. "Altruistic" does not coincide with "vanity and self glorification". In my filthy heathen state of unsaved gracelessness, I still do things for which my only reward is a smile. And even when I do have an ulterior motive ("you can return the favor at your leisure, to me or to someone else"), how does that detract from my having done well and good by someone else?
I find this statement utterly appalling. Do those who sacrifice themselves for others do so from selfish motives?
I agree. There is so much wrong with the original statement in addition to your point. I consider "goodness" to get your spot in heaven the ultimate in selfishness. Also, what about gods other than Jesus, are the good things performed in their name just as "selfless"?
Ok, good questions and thoughts. Let me explain/expound upon my statement. The bolded part below seems to be what is drawing the most reaction.
An accurate understanding of original sin does not mean that man is completely "evil" in the sense that we are incapable of doing works that would be considered "good" or altruistic. The human spirit is capable of many good things, but without an accurate understanding of who God is and our relationship to him these good works become nothing but acts of vanity and self glorification that serve only to advance pride and promote self-reliance.
I am not speaking about conscious motivation within an individuals actions/behavior, although that could be true as we all know people do at times act out of selfish and prideful intentions.
I'm talking about a theological understanding of man's state before God. For those that do not believe in a higher power or absolute truth, man, in and of himself, is the highest order of existence/being/evolution, etc. etc.. Thus, any and all accomplishments of man ("good works") are then viewed as self evident truths to this proposition. Man's capacity for altruism, self sacrifice, and compassion are seen as proof of his independence from God. "See what we can accomplish on our own... we don't need God." In this manner all of man's action is an act of self glorification and self reliance.
I'm in a "helping profession" and work daily with people who seek to support and serve others. Many do this out of the "goodness of their own heart" and genuinely do not seek any form of return for their efforts. On a human level these actions are noble and sacrificial and I applaud them. However, on a spiritual level, I must recognize that scripture teaches us that our "good deeds" are worthless if our heart is not right with God.
Please understand, this doesn't mean that the positive results of these actions are meaningless. For example, giving food to the homeless is a sacrificial act that does help people in need, but it will in no way earn you "points" with God. The Bible does not teach a theology of works. It's not about what you do, it's about your relationship with Christ.
Again, as I always say, this is ultimately an issue of faith and I completely understand that it can be hard to comprehend for some. And it is a subtle nuance to understand the difference between doing something because you adhere to a set of principles (right vs. wrong) and doing it because it is an outflow of your relationship with God.
It's like I told someone recently in a conversation we were having. I don't stay true to my wife because being unfaithful to her would be the morally wrong thing to do. I could care less about the moral principle of marital faithfulness. My motivation for staying true to my wife is that I have an intimate loving relationship with her and I would never want to hurt her or damage that relationship in any way.
Which takes us into rougher territory. If works are relatively insignificant in the scheme of salvation, your absolute moral code starts to crumble and fall in on itself. For, why should a believer bother to follow it if the saviour is always near at hand to forgive and redeem?
You may not realize it Sydde, but what you are saying is still along the lines of a works based relationship with God and that is not what the Bible teaches. It's not about a revolving door of "messing up" and and then asking for forgiveness. Christ death paid the price in full for all sin (past, present, and future). What matters is the condition of your heart before him and the intimacy of your relationship with him. Within that context are you seeking your own way including your own selfish desires or are you seeking to be the servant leader he wants you to be. The examples you gave in your post were all of people being selfishly motivated for their own gain.
In light of the examples of history (perhaps including those in the bible itself), how can you say that religion has made anyone a better person than they would have been? To me, it looks like religion has made the world a worse place than it might have been without it.
I'd think you would agree that people like Mother Theresa were able to successfully live out their faith with the goal of bringing glory to God while serving others. She's just the first example that pops into my head, but there are countless others. Again, it's not about "religion" making us "better people", that's a selfish manner of thinking. My relationship with God is not about me, it's about him.
"Many people mistake our work for our vocation. Our vocation is the love of Jesus."
"There is always the danger that we may just do the work for the sake of the work. This is where the respect and the love and the devotion come in - that we do it to God, to Christ, and that's why we try to do it as beautifully as possible."
~ Mother Theresa
Every time I hear about how we are naturally selfish and corrupt, I hear the utterer trying to apologize for their own faults by expanding them upon all others. As a counselor, you should be familiar with the mechanism called "projection".
I'm very familiar with projection. I can assure you that is not what's happening here. I'm merely presenting what God has communicated to us through the Bible. Could it be that your skepticism and cynicism is a projection of something within you? Why don't you come over he and lie on this couch and tell me about your mother... ;)
Yet, again, the absolutes get bent. When believers run up against a moral wall that divides them from their goals, they seek the counsel of a cleric. The cleric typically sympathizes with the believer's plight and very often finds a way to interpret the scripture to turn the question to the believer's favor. So you have your absolutes, but they are also flexible. What good then are they, that they can be molded to suit your needs? How is this better than situational ethics (logic, reason and compromise), other than to employ scholars in the service of the almighty?
Well, first of all, "clerics" are not required for us to interpret scripture or have a relationship with God. When Christ was crucified he tore the temple veil representing that his sacrifice has made the way for man to have a direct relationship with God, no human intermediary is required. As far as prooftexting or manipulating scripture for your own personal motives due to a presenting dilemma, well, I'm sure you already know my answer to this based on my previous comments. Scripture stands alone as authoritative regardless of how I "feel" about it or what I "want" it to say. If I'm seeking to find an "exception" in scripture to justify my own position then my heart is not in the right place.
I have had more than a third of a century (from teenage years) to develop my philosophy and unbeliefs, and you are obviously quite steadfast in yours, so yes, there can be little doubt of the mexican stand-off. Does it trouble you? As hoary and mulish as I may be, I still find merit in these discussions, because they draw things out into the light that I had not bothered to look at. You do teach me things, though they are almost certainly not the things you intend. I hope you in some way also benefit, it would be a shame to think this only leads you to despair.
Fret not my friend. I think there is extreme merit in these discussions and I appreciate the respectful way in which many of us here are able to engage each other on such topics.
As far as me being troubled or in "despair" the answer to your question is both yes and no. I do seek to consistently and genuinely live out my faith and thus I do wish to see other's come into relationship with Christ (you know that whole "go ye therefore" thing in the Bible). However, do I judge others and base my entire relationship with them on evangelistic purposes? No. One of the greatest gifts God has given us is free will, in fact, without free will everything we are talking about falls apart. I respect, just as God has designed it to be, that people have the freedom and the ability to reject him and live their life as they see fit. I love, value, relate to, and learn from others regardless of their spiritual beliefs. It would be foolish of me to limit my relationships with people solely on their spirituality or lack thereof. My goal is to accept people as they are, treat them with dignity and respect, and seek out how I might serve or support them in the context of our relationship.
Besides, if I do happen to get down about it, I know a pretty good therapist. ;)
Sorry for the long post, but I wanted to address the questions/comments that had been made. :)
No, sorry, you cannot have that one. "Altruistic" does not coincide with "vanity and self glorification". In my filthy heathen state of unsaved gracelessness, I still do things for which my only reward is a smile. And even when I do have an ulterior motive ("you can return the favor at your leisure, to me or to someone else"), how does that detract from my having done well and good by someone else?
I find this statement utterly appalling. Do those who sacrifice themselves for others do so from selfish motives?
I agree. There is so much wrong with the original statement in addition to your point. I consider "goodness" to get your spot in heaven the ultimate in selfishness. Also, what about gods other than Jesus, are the good things performed in their name just as "selfless"?
Ok, good questions and thoughts. Let me explain/expound upon my statement. The bolded part below seems to be what is drawing the most reaction.
An accurate understanding of original sin does not mean that man is completely "evil" in the sense that we are incapable of doing works that would be considered "good" or altruistic. The human spirit is capable of many good things, but without an accurate understanding of who God is and our relationship to him these good works become nothing but acts of vanity and self glorification that serve only to advance pride and promote self-reliance.
I am not speaking about conscious motivation within an individuals actions/behavior, although that could be true as we all know people do at times act out of selfish and prideful intentions.
I'm talking about a theological understanding of man's state before God. For those that do not believe in a higher power or absolute truth, man, in and of himself, is the highest order of existence/being/evolution, etc. etc.. Thus, any and all accomplishments of man ("good works") are then viewed as self evident truths to this proposition. Man's capacity for altruism, self sacrifice, and compassion are seen as proof of his independence from God. "See what we can accomplish on our own... we don't need God." In this manner all of man's action is an act of self glorification and self reliance.
I'm in a "helping profession" and work daily with people who seek to support and serve others. Many do this out of the "goodness of their own heart" and genuinely do not seek any form of return for their efforts. On a human level these actions are noble and sacrificial and I applaud them. However, on a spiritual level, I must recognize that scripture teaches us that our "good deeds" are worthless if our heart is not right with God.
Please understand, this doesn't mean that the positive results of these actions are meaningless. For example, giving food to the homeless is a sacrificial act that does help people in need, but it will in no way earn you "points" with God. The Bible does not teach a theology of works. It's not about what you do, it's about your relationship with Christ.
Again, as I always say, this is ultimately an issue of faith and I completely understand that it can be hard to comprehend for some. And it is a subtle nuance to understand the difference between doing something because you adhere to a set of principles (right vs. wrong) and doing it because it is an outflow of your relationship with God.
It's like I told someone recently in a conversation we were having. I don't stay true to my wife because being unfaithful to her would be the morally wrong thing to do. I could care less about the moral principle of marital faithfulness. My motivation for staying true to my wife is that I have an intimate loving relationship with her and I would never want to hurt her or damage that relationship in any way.
Which takes us into rougher territory. If works are relatively insignificant in the scheme of salvation, your absolute moral code starts to crumble and fall in on itself. For, why should a believer bother to follow it if the saviour is always near at hand to forgive and redeem?
You may not realize it Sydde, but what you are saying is still along the lines of a works based relationship with God and that is not what the Bible teaches. It's not about a revolving door of "messing up" and and then asking for forgiveness. Christ death paid the price in full for all sin (past, present, and future). What matters is the condition of your heart before him and the intimacy of your relationship with him. Within that context are you seeking your own way including your own selfish desires or are you seeking to be the servant leader he wants you to be. The examples you gave in your post were all of people being selfishly motivated for their own gain.
In light of the examples of history (perhaps including those in the bible itself), how can you say that religion has made anyone a better person than they would have been? To me, it looks like religion has made the world a worse place than it might have been without it.
I'd think you would agree that people like Mother Theresa were able to successfully live out their faith with the goal of bringing glory to God while serving others. She's just the first example that pops into my head, but there are countless others. Again, it's not about "religion" making us "better people", that's a selfish manner of thinking. My relationship with God is not about me, it's about him.
"Many people mistake our work for our vocation. Our vocation is the love of Jesus."
"There is always the danger that we may just do the work for the sake of the work. This is where the respect and the love and the devotion come in - that we do it to God, to Christ, and that's why we try to do it as beautifully as possible."
~ Mother Theresa
Every time I hear about how we are naturally selfish and corrupt, I hear the utterer trying to apologize for their own faults by expanding them upon all others. As a counselor, you should be familiar with the mechanism called "projection".
I'm very familiar with projection. I can assure you that is not what's happening here. I'm merely presenting what God has communicated to us through the Bible. Could it be that your skepticism and cynicism is a projection of something within you? Why don't you come over he and lie on this couch and tell me about your mother... ;)
Yet, again, the absolutes get bent. When believers run up against a moral wall that divides them from their goals, they seek the counsel of a cleric. The cleric typically sympathizes with the believer's plight and very often finds a way to interpret the scripture to turn the question to the believer's favor. So you have your absolutes, but they are also flexible. What good then are they, that they can be molded to suit your needs? How is this better than situational ethics (logic, reason and compromise), other than to employ scholars in the service of the almighty?
Well, first of all, "clerics" are not required for us to interpret scripture or have a relationship with God. When Christ was crucified he tore the temple veil representing that his sacrifice has made the way for man to have a direct relationship with God, no human intermediary is required. As far as prooftexting or manipulating scripture for your own personal motives due to a presenting dilemma, well, I'm sure you already know my answer to this based on my previous comments. Scripture stands alone as authoritative regardless of how I "feel" about it or what I "want" it to say. If I'm seeking to find an "exception" in scripture to justify my own position then my heart is not in the right place.
I have had more than a third of a century (from teenage years) to develop my philosophy and unbeliefs, and you are obviously quite steadfast in yours, so yes, there can be little doubt of the mexican stand-off. Does it trouble you? As hoary and mulish as I may be, I still find merit in these discussions, because they draw things out into the light that I had not bothered to look at. You do teach me things, though they are almost certainly not the things you intend. I hope you in some way also benefit, it would be a shame to think this only leads you to despair.
Fret not my friend. I think there is extreme merit in these discussions and I appreciate the respectful way in which many of us here are able to engage each other on such topics.
As far as me being troubled or in "despair" the answer to your question is both yes and no. I do seek to consistently and genuinely live out my faith and thus I do wish to see other's come into relationship with Christ (you know that whole "go ye therefore" thing in the Bible). However, do I judge others and base my entire relationship with them on evangelistic purposes? No. One of the greatest gifts God has given us is free will, in fact, without free will everything we are talking about falls apart. I respect, just as God has designed it to be, that people have the freedom and the ability to reject him and live their life as they see fit. I love, value, relate to, and learn from others regardless of their spiritual beliefs. It would be foolish of me to limit my relationships with people solely on their spirituality or lack thereof. My goal is to accept people as they are, treat them with dignity and respect, and seek out how I might serve or support them in the context of our relationship.
Besides, if I do happen to get down about it, I know a pretty good therapist. ;)
Sorry for the long post, but I wanted to address the questions/comments that had been made. :)
macgeek18
Apr 4, 03:35 PM
When you're married, it's a partnership, and it's no longer a case of "your money" and "her money", but a case of "OUR" money. Once responsibilities are out the way, then personal purchases can be looked at, but unless you're in a job where you have a LOT of disposable income far in excess of what's required to pay the mortgage and many bills, then yes it's only right you make sure you have the money to go out and buy a gadget which, most of the time, only you will use.
I'm fortunate that my wife enjoys using technology, but I still wouldn't go out on payday and just buy a new gadget without at least letting her know I was doing it, and if I spend money on something, it's only fair she does the same ... which means for whatever you spend, you need to double it and again it's only after looking at bills and responsibilities that you can do so.
Good post man. :) You obviously have your priorities straight.
I'm fortunate that my wife enjoys using technology, but I still wouldn't go out on payday and just buy a new gadget without at least letting her know I was doing it, and if I spend money on something, it's only fair she does the same ... which means for whatever you spend, you need to double it and again it's only after looking at bills and responsibilities that you can do so.
Good post man. :) You obviously have your priorities straight.
DMann
Nov 6, 10:50 PM
http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com)
Continuing the ever-present hum of Core 2 Duo MacBook rumors, AppleInsider reports that the much-anticipated upgrade may come this week (http://www.appleinsider.com/article.php?id=2207).
Some readers will recall that last week was filled with similar but less-certain claims. A page 2 report by MacRumors (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/10/20061031195123.shtml) had pieced a few, apparently coincidental reports together that suggested an update may have been in the works by late last week. Even after that did not pan out, a European reseller claimed (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/11/20061102134456.shtml) that Core 2 Duo Macbooks would be arriving for sale on November 13th. This claim is largely regarded as a spotlight grab, and there is no evidence that the reseller has any inside information.
The newest information published by AppleInsider reveals 3 Apple product numbers. The product numbers are in sequence, which is common for products in the same family, and suggests that the numbers will be used as the replacement numbers for Apple's 3 MacBook models. The new products are reportedly en-route to the U.S. this week.
AppleInsider has previously claimed that development of the models had been finished (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/09/20060919000003.shtml) and was set for release before the beginning of the holiday shopping season at the end of November.
Wouldn't it be great if a graphics card appeared in these updates...?
Continuing the ever-present hum of Core 2 Duo MacBook rumors, AppleInsider reports that the much-anticipated upgrade may come this week (http://www.appleinsider.com/article.php?id=2207).
Some readers will recall that last week was filled with similar but less-certain claims. A page 2 report by MacRumors (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/10/20061031195123.shtml) had pieced a few, apparently coincidental reports together that suggested an update may have been in the works by late last week. Even after that did not pan out, a European reseller claimed (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/11/20061102134456.shtml) that Core 2 Duo Macbooks would be arriving for sale on November 13th. This claim is largely regarded as a spotlight grab, and there is no evidence that the reseller has any inside information.
The newest information published by AppleInsider reveals 3 Apple product numbers. The product numbers are in sequence, which is common for products in the same family, and suggests that the numbers will be used as the replacement numbers for Apple's 3 MacBook models. The new products are reportedly en-route to the U.S. this week.
AppleInsider has previously claimed that development of the models had been finished (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/09/20060919000003.shtml) and was set for release before the beginning of the holiday shopping season at the end of November.
Wouldn't it be great if a graphics card appeared in these updates...?
Pallish
Sep 4, 07:58 AM
When new products are released, the existing promotional deals don't always apply to them.
Let's hope this isn't case.. Anyway, here in Sweden the back to school-offer lasts until October 7th so if it shouldn't apply then I can just place a new order :p
Let's hope this isn't case.. Anyway, here in Sweden the back to school-offer lasts until October 7th so if it shouldn't apply then I can just place a new order :p
thisisahughes
Apr 17, 05:37 AM
I'm fine with Best Buy... but Radio Shack & Toys "R" Us, not so much.
BMJT
Oct 16, 06:55 AM
Sure but it's tiny and i think i drew it out of portion as that bed i drew looks giant!
Chester drawers! Brilliant
Chester drawers! Brilliant
trapperjohn117
Oct 26, 06:32 PM
ok im going in! hopefully my blackbook will emerge unscathed.
Tidak ada komentar:
Posting Komentar