French iPod
Jan 26, 08:45 PM
http://img163.imageshack.us/img163/5308/sonyhtss37001.jpg (http://img163.imageshack.us/i/sonyhtss37001.jpg/)
i bought it on friday and man the sound is amazing=D!!! the only thing missing is that i have to buy a HDMI Switcher for my PS3:) so i can enjoy my blu-ray movies/concert on my 32" TV and it all fitted in my room hehe:P
i bought it on friday and man the sound is amazing=D!!! the only thing missing is that i have to buy a HDMI Switcher for my PS3:) so i can enjoy my blu-ray movies/concert on my 32" TV and it all fitted in my room hehe:P
.jpg "poemas en espanol cotos gratis")
ghost187
Apr 12, 09:51 AM
Apple releases products in predictable time frames. iPhone 5 will be released in June. An LTE Verizon iPhone 5 might take an extra month or two but I doubt it. Apple took it easy with the iPad 2 (low res cameras, 512ram instead of 1gb, and same res screen) because competition is so far behind. This is not the case with the iPhone. Quad Core Android devices will be coming in the Holiday season of THIS year. That would not fare well for the iPhone if it gets released on September.
Tones2
Apr 26, 02:05 PM
Uh no...
You need to follow the thread. The poster was using his 2 TB drive as his cloud using a 5$ software.
Yes.
My original point is though that, given that you ALREADY have all of your music (and probably videos) stores on your local hard drive of your computer, and have your computer connected to the internet, why the heck would you need APPLE to stream your music from the internet, when you can just buy StreamToMe or Audio Galaxy or 20 other apps that can do this for a $5 TOTAL incremental cost from what you already have. You can stream all of your music, including your already set up playlists, AND your video right from your figgin' hard drive. Why the heck do you need to pay APPLE anything?
The only benefit I can see it to not eat into your HOME data cap limits, which are usually pretty high anyway (I've NEVER had an issue, and I stream all of the time). But you'd have to upload your non-iTunes purchased songs to their servers anyway, which would offset that somewhat.
Tony
You need to follow the thread. The poster was using his 2 TB drive as his cloud using a 5$ software.
Yes.
My original point is though that, given that you ALREADY have all of your music (and probably videos) stores on your local hard drive of your computer, and have your computer connected to the internet, why the heck would you need APPLE to stream your music from the internet, when you can just buy StreamToMe or Audio Galaxy or 20 other apps that can do this for a $5 TOTAL incremental cost from what you already have. You can stream all of your music, including your already set up playlists, AND your video right from your figgin' hard drive. Why the heck do you need to pay APPLE anything?
The only benefit I can see it to not eat into your HOME data cap limits, which are usually pretty high anyway (I've NEVER had an issue, and I stream all of the time). But you'd have to upload your non-iTunes purchased songs to their servers anyway, which would offset that somewhat.
Tony
Bern
Jul 25, 01:50 AM
At last, I've been waiting for this since the Mighty Mouse was announced. I still don't understand why Apple didn't release a BT version in the first place. Maybe a WWDC announcement??
inkswamp
Jul 28, 05:19 PM
:/ i've yet to see a blue screen from xp.
I've seen the blue screen on XP. It's funny because I've been told by Windows users that it doesn't exist in XP, yet I witnessed it two weeks ago when a colleague of mine was trying to do something with Adobe Acrobat. The program just spazzed and the blue screen came up.
I've seen the blue screen on XP. It's funny because I've been told by Windows users that it doesn't exist in XP, yet I witnessed it two weeks ago when a colleague of mine was trying to do something with Adobe Acrobat. The program just spazzed and the blue screen came up.
Rowbear
Apr 9, 03:39 PM
A lovely day in Lincolnshire, C & C Welcome
http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5301/5603743528_9b6abcc6e0_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/52607317@N04/5603743528/)
Lovely composition of a surreal scene.
The only thing that bothers me are the 2 out of focus flowers lower right corner that pulls my eyes to them a bit. Very difficult to have everything in focus, so maybe cutting them if possible.
Regardless, its a shot I'd love to have in my portfolio.
http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5301/5603743528_9b6abcc6e0_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/52607317@N04/5603743528/)
Lovely composition of a surreal scene.
The only thing that bothers me are the 2 out of focus flowers lower right corner that pulls my eyes to them a bit. Very difficult to have everything in focus, so maybe cutting them if possible.
Regardless, its a shot I'd love to have in my portfolio.
Eriden
Mar 15, 01:08 AM
I'm going to try to go to Brea around 8:30. You think that is early enough?
Find out what time the Brea mall opens, and be there when they unlock the doors. I was there at 10am Monday to pick up a smart cover for my iPad 2, and the line of hopefuls was about 250 people long.
Find out what time the Brea mall opens, and be there when they unlock the doors. I was there at 10am Monday to pick up a smart cover for my iPad 2, and the line of hopefuls was about 250 people long.
Macinthetosh
Apr 22, 04:36 PM
Why? I loved my iPhone 4 (before I lost it) but my 3GS is far easier to hold.
I still prefer the iPhone4 design aesthetically, but the reason is the awesomeness of the exterior metallic antenna look, rather than the rectangular block shape. Although, a teardrop design would mean the loss of the external antenna, which would be disappointing from an aesthetic point of view, but something I could live with.
By "teardrop," I am referring to the tapered look from top to bottom when viewed from a side-profile. I like the rounded edges of the original iPhone and slight hump on the back of the 3G because those are symmetrical (they are also nicer to hold than the iPhone 4).
I still prefer the iPhone4 design aesthetically, but the reason is the awesomeness of the exterior metallic antenna look, rather than the rectangular block shape. Although, a teardrop design would mean the loss of the external antenna, which would be disappointing from an aesthetic point of view, but something I could live with.
By "teardrop," I am referring to the tapered look from top to bottom when viewed from a side-profile. I like the rounded edges of the original iPhone and slight hump on the back of the 3G because those are symmetrical (they are also nicer to hold than the iPhone 4).
AHDuke99
Nov 3, 08:50 PM
how do you use a physical partition with vmware? i'd love to se my bootcamp with VMware ..
systole
May 3, 08:13 AM
Anyone find it odd that the only 3.1Ghz Quad-Core i5 listed on intel's website is a Embedded Intel� Core™ i5-2400 Processor (6M Cache, 3.10 GHz) Unless they released the 27" with a brand new i5?
PghLondon
Apr 28, 12:06 PM
Question should be, why does it matter how many android devices there are? There is still a one to one relationship, one customer buys-one device. Its android smartphones vs Apple Smartphones.
No. No. No.
Comparing Android vs. iOS : fine
But why the arbitrary distinction of "phones". It's an OS that can be run on multiple devices. Do you compare Mac laptop share vs. Windows laptop share? (In any meaningful context, that is)?
No. No. No.
Comparing Android vs. iOS : fine
But why the arbitrary distinction of "phones". It's an OS that can be run on multiple devices. Do you compare Mac laptop share vs. Windows laptop share? (In any meaningful context, that is)?
Cheerwino
Apr 14, 07:44 AM
Guys, which one should I get?
I've been trying to score an iPad2 and now here comes the new ix.Mac.MarketingName, which sounds awesome! So between this and iPad2, ATV2, Air, MBP, iPhone, Mac Pro, Nano and iMac, what should I get?
Mostly I would use this for web surfing and light photo editing, but it also needs to dry laundry and serve as daily transportation for my 8 mile commute. But, I'm worried the new ix.Mac.MarketingName requires Z-rated tires, which are quite expensive. I'm also curious whether, with the right apps, the ix.Mac.MarketingName can serve as a prophylactic or if it's better to have a dedicated device for that.
So, whaddya think? What other ix.Mac.MarketingName rumors have you heard? :apple:
I've been trying to score an iPad2 and now here comes the new ix.Mac.MarketingName, which sounds awesome! So between this and iPad2, ATV2, Air, MBP, iPhone, Mac Pro, Nano and iMac, what should I get?
Mostly I would use this for web surfing and light photo editing, but it also needs to dry laundry and serve as daily transportation for my 8 mile commute. But, I'm worried the new ix.Mac.MarketingName requires Z-rated tires, which are quite expensive. I'm also curious whether, with the right apps, the ix.Mac.MarketingName can serve as a prophylactic or if it's better to have a dedicated device for that.
So, whaddya think? What other ix.Mac.MarketingName rumors have you heard? :apple:
IJ Reilly
Jul 11, 10:36 AM
Photoshop Elements 4.0 is a capable replacement for Photoshop CS2 for a lot of people, even professionals. It depends on what you're doing with it.
I've used various word processors since writing my own in the early 1980s and MS Word 4.0 was quite nice but Microsoft kept adding so many features that it's become haphazard and troublesome. It is counter-productive for a lot of people, especially when you have to revise previous documents.
Pages 2 is a useful release but it's not final. To discount it or iWork totally is not reasonable.
Yeah, isn't it nice when people decide unilaterally what is "professional" and what is not? The distinctions are totally arbitrary of course, but it's easy to see how by virtue of this thinking, Word remains dominant. Nothing else will do, because nothing else will do. What a wonderful tautology.
For the record, I've been using Pages happily and successfully since it came out. Version 2 is an improvement, as well it should be, but that's a long way from saying that version 1 was worthless.
I've used various word processors since writing my own in the early 1980s and MS Word 4.0 was quite nice but Microsoft kept adding so many features that it's become haphazard and troublesome. It is counter-productive for a lot of people, especially when you have to revise previous documents.
Pages 2 is a useful release but it's not final. To discount it or iWork totally is not reasonable.
Yeah, isn't it nice when people decide unilaterally what is "professional" and what is not? The distinctions are totally arbitrary of course, but it's easy to see how by virtue of this thinking, Word remains dominant. Nothing else will do, because nothing else will do. What a wonderful tautology.
For the record, I've been using Pages happily and successfully since it came out. Version 2 is an improvement, as well it should be, but that's a long way from saying that version 1 was worthless.
rdowns
Mar 9, 05:49 AM
Exactly! He is doing what he wants. Why does he have to do what other people want?
Also, the more we talk about him, the more he wins. If people continue to talk about him, he will just keep winning. There really is not anything else to discuss, but the media seems to enjoy rehashing his choices for some reason.
Congrats on the win, Charlie.
Children removed form his custody.
Fired from #1 sitcom on TV.
Going on the Internet and melting down nightly.
Winning, indeed. :rolleyes:
Also, the more we talk about him, the more he wins. If people continue to talk about him, he will just keep winning. There really is not anything else to discuss, but the media seems to enjoy rehashing his choices for some reason.
Congrats on the win, Charlie.
Children removed form his custody.
Fired from #1 sitcom on TV.
Going on the Internet and melting down nightly.
Winning, indeed. :rolleyes:
southernpaws
Apr 22, 02:05 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)
Ruahrc
Apr 26, 12:18 PM
Apple is expected to charge customers a fee in order to use its forthcoming cloud-based music storage service
No *****! :rolleyes: In other news, the sun rose in the east today!
Seriously, who expected it to be free? The real question is, will it be rolled in for current MM subscribers, or will it be a separate service or tag-on fee?
No *****! :rolleyes: In other news, the sun rose in the east today!
Seriously, who expected it to be free? The real question is, will it be rolled in for current MM subscribers, or will it be a separate service or tag-on fee?
peapody
Jan 26, 02:08 AM
Post Your Last Purchase XV...WOWEEE! (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1053646) at 57 pages and 2265 posts later, it was time.
[/tIMG]
I was waiting for it to hit 100 pages on my end before starting a new thread. :( Oh well.
Celebrated the completion of a 4 hour residency interview at UCSF with dinner at Wayfare Tavern where my cousin works.
[/tIMG]
I was waiting for it to hit 100 pages on my end before starting a new thread. :( Oh well.
Celebrated the completion of a 4 hour residency interview at UCSF with dinner at Wayfare Tavern where my cousin works.
FloatingBones
Nov 25, 12:34 AM
For the last time, STOP SPEAKING FOR OTHER PEOPLE!!! You have NO right what-so-ever to speak for anyone but yourself and yet you continue to state that EVER SINGLE iOS USER hates Flash and is glad to be rid of it and yet this Skyfire app proves just the opposite.
What I said: Users of the 120M+ iOS devices are doing just fine without Flash plugins is completely true. There are no Flash plugins for this device. Nobody can run a shred of Flash content in their browser on this device.
No amount of nonsensical shouting will change the facts.
You have every right to give your opinion on the matter, but it is your opinion, not the opinion of every single iOS user in existence.
But owners of those 120M+ iOS devices are doing just fine without Flash. Nobody forced them to buy those devices. If they were somehow "disappointed" because there are no Flash plugins available, nobody prevented them from returning them or reselling them.
That is NOT a shortcoming of Flash dude.
Also incorrect. There are huge shortcomings of Flash, and you've never addressed them.
You've never addressed the identity-leaking of Flash cookies: Flash doesn't honor the cookie privacy settings of the browser. More than half of the top 100 websites are now using Flash cookies to track users and store information about them. (http://www.grc.com/sn/sn-209.txt) Do you actually like the fact that those sites do an end-run around the cookie privacy settings by using Flash? I can't find a single rational person that likes the identity-leaking.
You've never addressed the quirkiness that Flash brings to the browser UI. On my Mac, scrolling works differently when my mouse is over a Flash region. Certain keyboard shortcuts cease to work. Text that appears in a Flash window is not searchable with the browser's text-finding feature. My Mac doesn't behave like a Mac inside of a Flash window.
The engineering choice made for iOS is simplicity. Layering Flash on top of the browser would compromise that simplicity. Click-to-flash semantics would add yet another layer of clutter and obfuscation to the UI.
You've never addressed Adobe's inability to deal competently to secure their software. Security experts believe that Adobe is going to surpass Microsoft as the #1 target for security attacks. (http://www.grc.com/sn/sn-231.htm) Besides Flash, Adobe Reader is a vector for zero day bugs (http://www.grc.com/sn/sn-273.txt). I really don't know how you do that: it's a PDF reader! The bugs have been around in Adobe Reader for years and Adobe still hasn't fixed them.
If Apple enabled Flash in iOS Safari, they would be farming out the correct operation of their iOS browser to a company that has proven to be one of the least competent companies in dealing with malware attacks. Noted security expert Steve Gibson mocks their cluelessness:
"[Adobe:] how is that quarterly update cycle going for you?" (http://www.grc.com/sn/sn-273.txt)
I have yet to find a single Flash enthusiast who can address those issues. I'm hardly surprised that you can't address them, either.
That is a shortcoming of Steve Jobs' choosing.
Nonsense. They are engineering and design choices. If Apple made bad engineering and design choices, they would never have sold 120M+ of these devices.
If you think they are a "shortcoming": there are simple solutions. Don't buy an iOS device. If you did buy one, sell it. Or maybe you can see if it will blend (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lAl28d6tbko).
One thing is certain: Apple will not compromise their iOS browser with Flash, and complaining about that is rather silly.
Even if Flash is on the road to becoming obsolete, that doesn't mean people don't want to be able to access the entire Web in the here and now.
Adobe Flash is on the road to becoming obsolete. Even Adobe acknowledges the fact (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1039999).
Between the 120M+ iOS devices, the click-to-flash plugins disable Flash downloads on Windows, Mac OS X and Linux machines, and Adobe's new Flash-to-HTML5 conversion tools (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1039999), the abandonment of Flash will continue to accelerate.
You just don't seem to comprehend that.
You are correct. Flash is a legacy technology, and its day has passed.
You seem to have this deep seated hatred of Flash
There are fundamental failings in both the design and deployment of Flash. I listed three of those earlier in my reply.
The thing that got my attention was when I realized that Flash was maintaining its own set of cookies and that those cookies did not honor the privacy settings of my browser. I then learned about click-to-flash plugins to minimize my exposure to Flash. The shocking thing to me was how much disabling Flash improved the browsing experience: faster page loads, less flashing advertisements, and far less CPU usage.
and I can tell that if Steve had said "I LOVE Flash" instead you would almost undoubtedly be here fighting against HTML5 and for Flash.
You imply that I blindly agree with Apple's (and Jobs's) decisions. That is not the case.
I strongly disagree with Apple's decision to prevent Hypermac from selling external batteries for Mac computers (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1032695). Hypermac makes a quality product, and they are filling a niche that Apple ignores. Magsafe is a wonderful technology, but they should be licensing this tech to third-party vendors. I fondly hope that Apple addresses this deficiency in their strategy and product accessories soon.
If you search, you can find where I commented on this in the public record weeks ago.
Yes, I honestly believe that. You have no vested interest in either one. You're just being Steve's doormat.
Now you know better.
I see no reason why ANYONE should have to convert to HTML5.
Too many laptop users are tired of the CPU loading and battery suck of Flash apps.
Too many users don't like that Flash alters the UI inside of the browsers: altered scrolling behavior, keyboard shortcuts that don't work in Flash, text searches that don't work with text in a Flash app.
Too many privacy advocates are bothered that Flash maintains a separate set of cookies and those cookies do not honor the privacy settings of the browser. Commercial websites are using those Flash cookies to track users. (http://www.grc.com/sn/sn-209.txt)
Too many security advocates are wary of using Adobe products because of Adobe's poor track record against security attacks.
Even if all those four large concerns were addressed, websites have to deal with the growing number of users that use Flash-blocking plugins. Advertisers that deliver their ads with Flash have no guarantee that users will allow those Flash apps to be downloaded and run on their machines.
Those are the reasons why Flash's viability for delivering web content is in decline. Even if you don't see the reasons, Adobe does (http://blogs.adobe.com/jnack/2010/10/adobe-demos-flash-to-html5-conversion-tool.html).
What I said: Users of the 120M+ iOS devices are doing just fine without Flash plugins is completely true. There are no Flash plugins for this device. Nobody can run a shred of Flash content in their browser on this device.
No amount of nonsensical shouting will change the facts.
You have every right to give your opinion on the matter, but it is your opinion, not the opinion of every single iOS user in existence.
But owners of those 120M+ iOS devices are doing just fine without Flash. Nobody forced them to buy those devices. If they were somehow "disappointed" because there are no Flash plugins available, nobody prevented them from returning them or reselling them.
That is NOT a shortcoming of Flash dude.
Also incorrect. There are huge shortcomings of Flash, and you've never addressed them.
You've never addressed the identity-leaking of Flash cookies: Flash doesn't honor the cookie privacy settings of the browser. More than half of the top 100 websites are now using Flash cookies to track users and store information about them. (http://www.grc.com/sn/sn-209.txt) Do you actually like the fact that those sites do an end-run around the cookie privacy settings by using Flash? I can't find a single rational person that likes the identity-leaking.
You've never addressed the quirkiness that Flash brings to the browser UI. On my Mac, scrolling works differently when my mouse is over a Flash region. Certain keyboard shortcuts cease to work. Text that appears in a Flash window is not searchable with the browser's text-finding feature. My Mac doesn't behave like a Mac inside of a Flash window.
The engineering choice made for iOS is simplicity. Layering Flash on top of the browser would compromise that simplicity. Click-to-flash semantics would add yet another layer of clutter and obfuscation to the UI.
You've never addressed Adobe's inability to deal competently to secure their software. Security experts believe that Adobe is going to surpass Microsoft as the #1 target for security attacks. (http://www.grc.com/sn/sn-231.htm) Besides Flash, Adobe Reader is a vector for zero day bugs (http://www.grc.com/sn/sn-273.txt). I really don't know how you do that: it's a PDF reader! The bugs have been around in Adobe Reader for years and Adobe still hasn't fixed them.
If Apple enabled Flash in iOS Safari, they would be farming out the correct operation of their iOS browser to a company that has proven to be one of the least competent companies in dealing with malware attacks. Noted security expert Steve Gibson mocks their cluelessness:
"[Adobe:] how is that quarterly update cycle going for you?" (http://www.grc.com/sn/sn-273.txt)
I have yet to find a single Flash enthusiast who can address those issues. I'm hardly surprised that you can't address them, either.
That is a shortcoming of Steve Jobs' choosing.
Nonsense. They are engineering and design choices. If Apple made bad engineering and design choices, they would never have sold 120M+ of these devices.
If you think they are a "shortcoming": there are simple solutions. Don't buy an iOS device. If you did buy one, sell it. Or maybe you can see if it will blend (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lAl28d6tbko).
One thing is certain: Apple will not compromise their iOS browser with Flash, and complaining about that is rather silly.
Even if Flash is on the road to becoming obsolete, that doesn't mean people don't want to be able to access the entire Web in the here and now.
Adobe Flash is on the road to becoming obsolete. Even Adobe acknowledges the fact (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1039999).
Between the 120M+ iOS devices, the click-to-flash plugins disable Flash downloads on Windows, Mac OS X and Linux machines, and Adobe's new Flash-to-HTML5 conversion tools (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1039999), the abandonment of Flash will continue to accelerate.
You just don't seem to comprehend that.
You are correct. Flash is a legacy technology, and its day has passed.
You seem to have this deep seated hatred of Flash
There are fundamental failings in both the design and deployment of Flash. I listed three of those earlier in my reply.
The thing that got my attention was when I realized that Flash was maintaining its own set of cookies and that those cookies did not honor the privacy settings of my browser. I then learned about click-to-flash plugins to minimize my exposure to Flash. The shocking thing to me was how much disabling Flash improved the browsing experience: faster page loads, less flashing advertisements, and far less CPU usage.
and I can tell that if Steve had said "I LOVE Flash" instead you would almost undoubtedly be here fighting against HTML5 and for Flash.
You imply that I blindly agree with Apple's (and Jobs's) decisions. That is not the case.
I strongly disagree with Apple's decision to prevent Hypermac from selling external batteries for Mac computers (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1032695). Hypermac makes a quality product, and they are filling a niche that Apple ignores. Magsafe is a wonderful technology, but they should be licensing this tech to third-party vendors. I fondly hope that Apple addresses this deficiency in their strategy and product accessories soon.
If you search, you can find where I commented on this in the public record weeks ago.
Yes, I honestly believe that. You have no vested interest in either one. You're just being Steve's doormat.
Now you know better.
I see no reason why ANYONE should have to convert to HTML5.
Too many laptop users are tired of the CPU loading and battery suck of Flash apps.
Too many users don't like that Flash alters the UI inside of the browsers: altered scrolling behavior, keyboard shortcuts that don't work in Flash, text searches that don't work with text in a Flash app.
Too many privacy advocates are bothered that Flash maintains a separate set of cookies and those cookies do not honor the privacy settings of the browser. Commercial websites are using those Flash cookies to track users. (http://www.grc.com/sn/sn-209.txt)
Too many security advocates are wary of using Adobe products because of Adobe's poor track record against security attacks.
Even if all those four large concerns were addressed, websites have to deal with the growing number of users that use Flash-blocking plugins. Advertisers that deliver their ads with Flash have no guarantee that users will allow those Flash apps to be downloaded and run on their machines.
Those are the reasons why Flash's viability for delivering web content is in decline. Even if you don't see the reasons, Adobe does (http://blogs.adobe.com/jnack/2010/10/adobe-demos-flash-to-html5-conversion-tool.html).
NT1440
May 1, 11:54 PM
are you suggesting we give him a pass? :rolleyes:
Where the **** did I ever suggest anything of the sort?
Because I'm not jumping for joy and mindlessly chanting it means I didn't want justice done for a mass murderer?
Who was talking about stretches earlier? :mad:
Where the **** did I ever suggest anything of the sort?
Because I'm not jumping for joy and mindlessly chanting it means I didn't want justice done for a mass murderer?
Who was talking about stretches earlier? :mad:
Old Muley
Mar 31, 01:43 PM
I don't really care what it looks like; just come up with a clean way of syncing iCal (home) with Outlook (work) without having to go through Google. It's a huge pain having to maintain two separate calendars!
scottnj1966
Sep 30, 05:27 AM
I really think AT&T cannot make it better.
MMS is not looking that good either. I know many that still cannot use it.
Dropped calls all the time. The alien voice syndrom was always funny, but not anymore.
They are over their heads. Too much to handle.
The only thing that they can do is let apple out of the agreement so other carriers can take some of the load off their hands.
I will stay with AT&T since most everyone I know uses it, but it would be nice to let everyone that came to AT&T to be able to go back to the carrier of their choice.
I also think AT&T should lower the monthly charges. They were suppose to use the extra to upgrade. That didnt happen. Now they are scrambling.
MMS is not looking that good either. I know many that still cannot use it.
Dropped calls all the time. The alien voice syndrom was always funny, but not anymore.
They are over their heads. Too much to handle.
The only thing that they can do is let apple out of the agreement so other carriers can take some of the load off their hands.
I will stay with AT&T since most everyone I know uses it, but it would be nice to let everyone that came to AT&T to be able to go back to the carrier of their choice.
I also think AT&T should lower the monthly charges. They were suppose to use the extra to upgrade. That didnt happen. Now they are scrambling.
Don't panic
Apr 28, 12:56 PM
The best I can do on short notice...
that's pretty good.
let's hope in a short night (but not too short, as in abruptly ended ;))
the tricky part will be to find the infected (which probably is not infected yet)
that's pretty good.
let's hope in a short night (but not too short, as in abruptly ended ;))
the tricky part will be to find the infected (which probably is not infected yet)
shanmugam
May 3, 08:04 AM
Order placed. Upgrading from 24" 2.93 GHz Core 2.
Configuration:
3.4GHz Quad-Core Intel Core i7
8GB 1333MHz DDR3 SDRAM - 2x4GB
2TB Serial ATA Drive + 256GB Solid State Drive
AMD Radeon HD 6970M 2GB GDDR5
Hopefully should last me a few years like the old one. 6 weeks to wait though. :(
expensive, why not go MBP + nice LED Screen + SSD?
if you are selling 24", it will go for dirt
I am interested in the upgrade from 21.5" 2009 mode, but the resales value is low, i have no interest in the upgrade.
Configuration:
3.4GHz Quad-Core Intel Core i7
8GB 1333MHz DDR3 SDRAM - 2x4GB
2TB Serial ATA Drive + 256GB Solid State Drive
AMD Radeon HD 6970M 2GB GDDR5
Hopefully should last me a few years like the old one. 6 weeks to wait though. :(
expensive, why not go MBP + nice LED Screen + SSD?
if you are selling 24", it will go for dirt
I am interested in the upgrade from 21.5" 2009 mode, but the resales value is low, i have no interest in the upgrade.
ECUpirate44
Apr 14, 12:28 PM
I'm not touching this. I'm perfectly fine on my jailbroken 4.2.6 :D
No comments:
Post a Comment