rstansby
Apr 19, 11:21 PM
The logo on the center of the record, not the album artwork. The Beatle's logo looks like an apple to me, Apple's logo looks like an apple to me. We both know if the sides were reversed, Apple would have filed a suit.
Apple Corps (owned by the The Beatles) did sue Apple.
So there you have it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Corps_v_Apple_Computer
Apple Corps (owned by the The Beatles) did sue Apple.
So there you have it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Corps_v_Apple_Computer
:DRS:Church
Aug 23, 08:31 PM
there goes all those iTunes sales:rolleyes:
Vegasman
Mar 30, 12:43 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vegasman
Examples of uses (Dvorak in his references to "killer app"):
2005: http://www.marketwatch.com/story/a-k...or-real-estate
2004: http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,1599324,00.asp
2003: http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,1191830,00.asp
What I understood is that the word "App" by itself is not the reason for the lawsuit, but the term "App Store" is; both words used together. .
Correct. I was simply providing additional evidence that "app" was used before the App Store. Something the poster I was replying to was saying and something a lot of other posters are claiming is not true.
Originally Posted by Vegasman
Examples of uses (Dvorak in his references to "killer app"):
2005: http://www.marketwatch.com/story/a-k...or-real-estate
2004: http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,1599324,00.asp
2003: http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,1191830,00.asp
What I understood is that the word "App" by itself is not the reason for the lawsuit, but the term "App Store" is; both words used together. .
Correct. I was simply providing additional evidence that "app" was used before the App Store. Something the poster I was replying to was saying and something a lot of other posters are claiming is not true.
AML707
Jul 14, 11:41 AM
Ok, has anyone even stopped to think what graphic they will use on the heatsink cover. You know like the current PMs have "G5". Are they going to leave it blank? Maybe C2:cool: :confused:
raymondthimmes
Mar 30, 11:29 AM
Honestly the term "app" didn't even exist 5 years ago. And yeah, it's super generic.
I support microsoft on this one, guys.
I support microsoft on this one, guys.
kiljoy616
May 3, 01:10 PM
So which options are worth it with these new models?
Vast white each Wallpaper
A eautiful beach scene
kimbah.net » Beautiful photos
Beautiful Beach
Beautiful beach
wallpaper beach girl.
View more wallpapers from this
Beach11 in Beautiful Beach and
eautiful beach wallpaper
eautiful beach wallpaper
eautiful beach summer collage
link for Beach Wallpapers,
Tropical Beach Wallpaper
OllyW
Apr 20, 10:28 AM
Has to have some back and forth that could be tracked.
So most Sat Navs are safe because they don't transmit back.
So most Sat Navs are safe because they don't transmit back.
cwt1nospam
Feb 23, 08:38 PM
Also, android has free anti-virus scanners available in there market. Apple may have some too. I think mcafee is just trying to sell product, but if I was them i would want to sell my product to EVERY person who had Android or iOS based phone, simply because that is a VERY large user base.
I am constantly amazed at the number of people who buy into this crap!
Here, I'll try to spell it out for you:
Apple has no antivirus for IOS because it would be completely useless. In order for a virus to get through to an IOS device it has to get past Apple's reviewers. That's the only way to install software of any kind on IOS, including malware.
I am constantly amazed at the number of people who buy into this crap!
Here, I'll try to spell it out for you:
Apple has no antivirus for IOS because it would be completely useless. In order for a virus to get through to an IOS device it has to get past Apple's reviewers. That's the only way to install software of any kind on IOS, including malware.
MagnusVonMagnum
Apr 16, 11:21 AM
God forbid you carry around an inch long adapter in your laptop bag. Is that too much for you?
You keep talking about a non-existent adapter that costs $10 and comparing mini-display port adapters that merely convert signal paths isn't even in the same realm as converting to an entirely different interface. In other words your 'adapter' prices are 100% BS and you know it.
LOL, are you kidding me bro? Do you think USB 3 peaks out at it's max 5 Gbps? YOU are the one dreaming if you believe that. Here's some more evidence for your FUD:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CCz_c_rDAXw
USB 3 would completely choke in that situation let alone in a simply hard drive speed comparison. Give me a break. Here's another example for you to look at for some REAL WORLD USB 3 speeds:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qrtwtSjzjZI
Don't tase me bro! :eek:
Seriously, you going to compare a demonstration with a professional mass storage array that isn't available to the public yet and which I said at the bottom of my last post is a perfect use for TB (i.e. with professional editing software) with the Lacie consumer grade 5200 RPM SLOW USB3 drive? Dude, you have to compare apples to apples. You're comparing a race car to a Chevette.... That neither proves nor disproves anything about the full capability of USB3. The ad on that box is marketing BS about the "interface" not the drive they're selling (which is a slow 5200 RPM SATA drive which all top out between 40-60MB/sec PERIOD, regardless whether they use SATA, USB3, Firewire 800 or Thunderbolt). Show me a 7200 RPM (or better yet a 10,000+ SCSI rated) drive connected to USB3 AND TB (or even FW800) and then compare their actual speeds. OR find an array that goes fast like the one Intel was using that also has USB3 on it and compare their actual speeds 1 to 1. Showing me Steak Diane on one plate and a hot dog on the other doesn't prove the cook who made the hot dog doesn't know how to cook. It simply proves he was given a hot dog to cook.
In reality with USB 3 you get about 480 Megabits as opposed to the promised 5 Gpbs meaning Thunderbolt will be even faster than two times.
In reality, you need an actual hard drive test that makes sense not comparing a Porsche to a lawn tractor.... :rolleyes:
So you are just ASSUMING that they will cost $250 more than USB 3 drives.
No more than you assuming you're going to get a $10 USB3 adapter. At least my assumption is based on Firewire statistics and early adoption rates. Yours is based on dreaming.
LOL, words can't describe how wrong you are. You think HDD speeds cap out at 480 Mbps? Maybe in your 'practical world' where you enjoy using inferior
I think the 5200 RPM 2.5" drive that came with my MBP capped out around 50MB/sec using a SATA II interface (or 450mbps). Does that prove my SATA chip set SUCKS? NO, IT DOES NOT. When I replaced it with a 7200 RPM Hitachi, it now caps out around 110MB/sec (or 880mbps, well above FW800's theoretical cap even). Even my PPC G4 gets 105MB/sec caps with its 1.5TB 7200 RPM Seagate Barracuda drives (and SATA does eat CPU as well; if I try to run two of them at the same time I still get a total of around 100MB/sec with the CPU pegged at 95-100%. The older PCI bus is also in the way. Thus it's not the SATA interface there that's the problem either, but you might think so if you make assumptions based only on one test number and no idea what's in the computer being used or any statistics about the CPU or Bus while its being used. Your YouTube videos comparisons are absurd in that regard. Cheap mass storage devices (like the Lacie) aren't made for performance. Show me TB making that same drive do over 100MB/sec. It won't happen.
Your 'practical world' when you were just talking about how no one will pay a premium for USB 3.
I never said any such thing. I said they won't pay a premium for Thunderbolt for every-day use. If you're just going to lie and change what I said, I won't bother replying anymore.
USB 3 won't be a premium over anything. It's going to be dirt cheap and a simple performance upgrade for everyone. It already is cheap for new computers and a pretty cheap add-on for existing ones; you cannot add TB to existing computers so there's another problem it has to contend with, especially trying to get a large user base in any reasonable length of time. The longer it takes to get a large installed user base, the longer the prices will stay high on any TB products. It's plainly obvious that TB is going to be a high-end niche product just like FW800, at least for the forseeable future. While Intel's demo is totally cool, it doesn't remotely represent the AVERAGE PC user in any shape or form. Most people aren't editing 4 simultaneous streams of 1080p video on a mega-buck professional high-speed drive array.
I have NO problem with TB technology or its usefulness in certain applications. I do contend that most people aren't going to give a crap about it one way or the other since their computers will not have it or need it for their everyday uses. More to the point, most computers (save maybe those from Apple) will have ALSO have USB3, allowing the user to make the best possible choices for their needs. USB3 will not fail or go away simply because it is a cheap upgrade to USB2 that is fully backwards compatible. Computers will have it just for that reason alone even if the user doesn't make good use of it.
IF TB ever achieves mass acceptance, it will be years into the future. It takes time to build a user base on a totally new technology. USB3 is a simple dump and replace and still works with everything USB2. TB works with NOTHING that already exists (save a few Mini-display port monitors and that's only because it carries Mini-display port video signals). The fact that Intel plans to do USB3 alongside TB on their next chipset shows even they understand that TB is going to be high-end/niche product for some time to come.
I have said in the past that IF Intel had used the USB3 style connector and essentially had USB compatibility + MORE bandwidth THEN they might start appearing on everything. But they chose instead to use a connector that is hardly on anything (but newer Macs) and that isn't much different than starting over with a totally new connector and no compatibility with anything (outside breakout boxes that are essentially PCI cards in a box). When it comes down to it, TB is basically the entire PCIe bus on a single external connector.
You keep talking about a non-existent adapter that costs $10 and comparing mini-display port adapters that merely convert signal paths isn't even in the same realm as converting to an entirely different interface. In other words your 'adapter' prices are 100% BS and you know it.
LOL, are you kidding me bro? Do you think USB 3 peaks out at it's max 5 Gbps? YOU are the one dreaming if you believe that. Here's some more evidence for your FUD:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CCz_c_rDAXw
USB 3 would completely choke in that situation let alone in a simply hard drive speed comparison. Give me a break. Here's another example for you to look at for some REAL WORLD USB 3 speeds:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qrtwtSjzjZI
Don't tase me bro! :eek:
Seriously, you going to compare a demonstration with a professional mass storage array that isn't available to the public yet and which I said at the bottom of my last post is a perfect use for TB (i.e. with professional editing software) with the Lacie consumer grade 5200 RPM SLOW USB3 drive? Dude, you have to compare apples to apples. You're comparing a race car to a Chevette.... That neither proves nor disproves anything about the full capability of USB3. The ad on that box is marketing BS about the "interface" not the drive they're selling (which is a slow 5200 RPM SATA drive which all top out between 40-60MB/sec PERIOD, regardless whether they use SATA, USB3, Firewire 800 or Thunderbolt). Show me a 7200 RPM (or better yet a 10,000+ SCSI rated) drive connected to USB3 AND TB (or even FW800) and then compare their actual speeds. OR find an array that goes fast like the one Intel was using that also has USB3 on it and compare their actual speeds 1 to 1. Showing me Steak Diane on one plate and a hot dog on the other doesn't prove the cook who made the hot dog doesn't know how to cook. It simply proves he was given a hot dog to cook.
In reality with USB 3 you get about 480 Megabits as opposed to the promised 5 Gpbs meaning Thunderbolt will be even faster than two times.
In reality, you need an actual hard drive test that makes sense not comparing a Porsche to a lawn tractor.... :rolleyes:
So you are just ASSUMING that they will cost $250 more than USB 3 drives.
No more than you assuming you're going to get a $10 USB3 adapter. At least my assumption is based on Firewire statistics and early adoption rates. Yours is based on dreaming.
LOL, words can't describe how wrong you are. You think HDD speeds cap out at 480 Mbps? Maybe in your 'practical world' where you enjoy using inferior
I think the 5200 RPM 2.5" drive that came with my MBP capped out around 50MB/sec using a SATA II interface (or 450mbps). Does that prove my SATA chip set SUCKS? NO, IT DOES NOT. When I replaced it with a 7200 RPM Hitachi, it now caps out around 110MB/sec (or 880mbps, well above FW800's theoretical cap even). Even my PPC G4 gets 105MB/sec caps with its 1.5TB 7200 RPM Seagate Barracuda drives (and SATA does eat CPU as well; if I try to run two of them at the same time I still get a total of around 100MB/sec with the CPU pegged at 95-100%. The older PCI bus is also in the way. Thus it's not the SATA interface there that's the problem either, but you might think so if you make assumptions based only on one test number and no idea what's in the computer being used or any statistics about the CPU or Bus while its being used. Your YouTube videos comparisons are absurd in that regard. Cheap mass storage devices (like the Lacie) aren't made for performance. Show me TB making that same drive do over 100MB/sec. It won't happen.
Your 'practical world' when you were just talking about how no one will pay a premium for USB 3.
I never said any such thing. I said they won't pay a premium for Thunderbolt for every-day use. If you're just going to lie and change what I said, I won't bother replying anymore.
USB 3 won't be a premium over anything. It's going to be dirt cheap and a simple performance upgrade for everyone. It already is cheap for new computers and a pretty cheap add-on for existing ones; you cannot add TB to existing computers so there's another problem it has to contend with, especially trying to get a large user base in any reasonable length of time. The longer it takes to get a large installed user base, the longer the prices will stay high on any TB products. It's plainly obvious that TB is going to be a high-end niche product just like FW800, at least for the forseeable future. While Intel's demo is totally cool, it doesn't remotely represent the AVERAGE PC user in any shape or form. Most people aren't editing 4 simultaneous streams of 1080p video on a mega-buck professional high-speed drive array.
I have NO problem with TB technology or its usefulness in certain applications. I do contend that most people aren't going to give a crap about it one way or the other since their computers will not have it or need it for their everyday uses. More to the point, most computers (save maybe those from Apple) will have ALSO have USB3, allowing the user to make the best possible choices for their needs. USB3 will not fail or go away simply because it is a cheap upgrade to USB2 that is fully backwards compatible. Computers will have it just for that reason alone even if the user doesn't make good use of it.
IF TB ever achieves mass acceptance, it will be years into the future. It takes time to build a user base on a totally new technology. USB3 is a simple dump and replace and still works with everything USB2. TB works with NOTHING that already exists (save a few Mini-display port monitors and that's only because it carries Mini-display port video signals). The fact that Intel plans to do USB3 alongside TB on their next chipset shows even they understand that TB is going to be high-end/niche product for some time to come.
I have said in the past that IF Intel had used the USB3 style connector and essentially had USB compatibility + MORE bandwidth THEN they might start appearing on everything. But they chose instead to use a connector that is hardly on anything (but newer Macs) and that isn't much different than starting over with a totally new connector and no compatibility with anything (outside breakout boxes that are essentially PCI cards in a box). When it comes down to it, TB is basically the entire PCIe bus on a single external connector.
iMacx
Mar 22, 02:04 PM
well, i guess its time to start thinking about selling my mid 2010 2.93 27" :rolleyes:
JimMacFan
Mar 23, 09:18 AM
What are the odds on a 30" display? I'm thinking it's not likely but would buy one if they built it. Probably unlikely since they did away with the 30" monitors already.
chezhoy
Apr 22, 12:30 PM
I sure hope not!
Ooh, I wonder what the other upgrades will be. Macbook Airs are becoming really awesome notebooks. Hopefully it someday takes over the macbook. iPad <Macbook (Air) < Macbook Pro < iMac < Mac Pro
Ooh, I wonder what the other upgrades will be. Macbook Airs are becoming really awesome notebooks. Hopefully it someday takes over the macbook. iPad <Macbook (Air) < Macbook Pro < iMac < Mac Pro
spencers
Apr 12, 11:15 AM
Don't pretend you actually care about 'open'. To you, 'open' simply means 'free'. I'm going to make a stab in the dark and make the logical assumption that all your '720p and 1080p media' is torrented videos. Please, correct me if I'm wrong
To me, it just sounds like yet another person wanting everything but willing to pay nothing. What a sustainable model that is...
Nah, I really don't care about open. No, I do not Torrent.
I just want the technology available without having to buy more junk. I prefer the "one piece of hardware that does it all" approach. :p
To me, it just sounds like yet another person wanting everything but willing to pay nothing. What a sustainable model that is...
Nah, I really don't care about open. No, I do not Torrent.
I just want the technology available without having to buy more junk. I prefer the "one piece of hardware that does it all" approach. :p
TheSideshow
Apr 28, 05:31 PM
Apple and MS haven't competed against each other since 1993. And back then it was still just on the OS.
Apple has always competed against the entire Wintel PC market...not just Microsoft's Windows OS.
It's all about 2 different business models, essentially centering at the OS:
1)Apple makes, sells, supports the Mac OS and Mac hardware
2)Microsoft, on the other hand, simply creates the OS and licenses it to hardware vendors.
Of course Microsoft is unhappy with this breaking news but they, again, are 2 completely different business models. One could write a small book on the topic.
Why is it all the intelligent posts come from people without solely Apple products littering their signature?
Apple has always competed against the entire Wintel PC market...not just Microsoft's Windows OS.
It's all about 2 different business models, essentially centering at the OS:
1)Apple makes, sells, supports the Mac OS and Mac hardware
2)Microsoft, on the other hand, simply creates the OS and licenses it to hardware vendors.
Of course Microsoft is unhappy with this breaking news but they, again, are 2 completely different business models. One could write a small book on the topic.
Why is it all the intelligent posts come from people without solely Apple products littering their signature?
Mr_Ed
Mar 30, 11:26 AM
His name is Butters? :D
LOL! Good catch! :D
LOL! Good catch! :D
str1f3
Nov 13, 10:54 PM
Amen! You are on the dot! Everyone (including developers) complain about their app not getting approved for one reason or another, and yet it's always because they breached the Developers Guide for the App Store. Just ******** get a printer and print the damn pdf out. Then, step two, READ it. Then, before you go and submit the app, use it yourself and see if it follows the guidelines.
It's like high school, when the teacher gives you a RUBRIC to FOLLOW, when you FAIL, it's because you didn't follow it. So shut up, or nut up. And build a better app. Hopefully one that doesn't say "that's what she says". :mad:
You're telling developers, who are the ones to deal with the policies daily, to read the SDK agreement. Rogue Amoeba, one the most respected Mac devs, did not violate the terms of the SDK agreement. They do not need to license these icons from Apple as they are being transmitted from the Mac and not by the iPhone app.
It's like high school, when the teacher gives you a RUBRIC to FOLLOW, when you FAIL, it's because you didn't follow it. So shut up, or nut up. And build a better app. Hopefully one that doesn't say "that's what she says". :mad:
You're telling developers, who are the ones to deal with the policies daily, to read the SDK agreement. Rogue Amoeba, one the most respected Mac devs, did not violate the terms of the SDK agreement. They do not need to license these icons from Apple as they are being transmitted from the Mac and not by the iPhone app.
macidiot
Jul 14, 02:17 PM
Conroe benchmarks posted on AnandTech (http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2795) are really good. I luv this statement:
I'm wondering how the yonah stacks up against this chip...
I'm wondering how the yonah stacks up against this chip...
kansast
Sep 13, 09:38 PM
I am not really crazy about this design. Having to slide the click-wheel down every time I need to use my phone doesn't sound like fun (plus, what would this thing look like open? ...what I'm picturing is ugly).
I was hoping for an iPod Nano form factor with a numerical keypad... nice an simple.
I would have thought the same thing.. but I used a Sony Erricson phone for awhile.. iWalk I think they called it ?? but it had a simplified buttons under the screen, if you needed to "Dial" a number you could flip out the buttons. But most often you are either "answering" your phone, or pulling up a number from the directory, either case you don't need a full number pad key for. As it was, I almost never revealed the keypad on that phone.
I was hoping for an iPod Nano form factor with a numerical keypad... nice an simple.
I would have thought the same thing.. but I used a Sony Erricson phone for awhile.. iWalk I think they called it ?? but it had a simplified buttons under the screen, if you needed to "Dial" a number you could flip out the buttons. But most often you are either "answering" your phone, or pulling up a number from the directory, either case you don't need a full number pad key for. As it was, I almost never revealed the keypad on that phone.
EagerDragon
Sep 10, 06:45 PM
Anyone got numbers on percentage of computer users who play games? I never play games. Am I in a minority?
The target is Windows users, Most windows users between 10 and 25 play some game or another. I have no clue about OS X users on the Macs but probably 20 % do.
Apple is interested in selling hardware and putting a hurt on PC companies like Dell and others. They can sell a heck of a lot of machines to the PC market and double or quatruple their market share in just one year alone. That is what BootCamp is there for.
The target is Windows users, Most windows users between 10 and 25 play some game or another. I have no clue about OS X users on the Macs but probably 20 % do.
Apple is interested in selling hardware and putting a hurt on PC companies like Dell and others. They can sell a heck of a lot of machines to the PC market and double or quatruple their market share in just one year alone. That is what BootCamp is there for.
sterno74
Mar 29, 02:25 PM
So the theory they seem to be positing here is that most of the former Symbian users are going to become Windows Mobile users. If you look at the market share figures they show Windows climbing to the 20.9% share that Symbian currently has and Symbian largely ceasing to exist.
The reality is that the OS of phones is becoming the key differentiator. You decide iPhone, Android, or Windows, and then from there you decide the specific hardware you want to run. Nobody is going to be looking for a Nokia phone specifically and then just taking whatever OS it runs.
So if you assume that Android, iOS and Windows are all equal competitors, then figure, at most, Windows is going to take 1/3rd of the market from former Symbian users. Those users will be looking at three OS's that are all completely different from Symbian, so there's no reason to believe they'd have any particular loyalty to the Windows mobile OS because of former Symbian use on a Nokia phone.
They seem to predict that, instead, about 75% of the Symbian users go to Windows mobile. I find that highly unlikely.
The reality is that the OS of phones is becoming the key differentiator. You decide iPhone, Android, or Windows, and then from there you decide the specific hardware you want to run. Nobody is going to be looking for a Nokia phone specifically and then just taking whatever OS it runs.
So if you assume that Android, iOS and Windows are all equal competitors, then figure, at most, Windows is going to take 1/3rd of the market from former Symbian users. Those users will be looking at three OS's that are all completely different from Symbian, so there's no reason to believe they'd have any particular loyalty to the Windows mobile OS because of former Symbian use on a Nokia phone.
They seem to predict that, instead, about 75% of the Symbian users go to Windows mobile. I find that highly unlikely.
iMacZealot
Sep 17, 07:48 PM
OK. hang on. back the f&6king truck up.
maybe we're backwards here. but i have NEVER, EVER heard of ANY kind of phone service where INCOMING calls are anything BUT free (excluding reverse-charge, obviously).
http://www1.sprintpcs.com/explore/servicePlansOptionsV2/FreeClearFairFlexiblePlans.jsp?FOLDER%3C%3Efolder_id=1436723&CURRENT_USER%3C%3EATR_SCID=ECOMM&CURRENT_USER%3C%3EATR_PCode=None&CURRENT_USER%3C%3EATR_cartState=group
maybe we're backwards here. but i have NEVER, EVER heard of ANY kind of phone service where INCOMING calls are anything BUT free (excluding reverse-charge, obviously).
http://www1.sprintpcs.com/explore/servicePlansOptionsV2/FreeClearFairFlexiblePlans.jsp?FOLDER%3C%3Efolder_id=1436723&CURRENT_USER%3C%3EATR_SCID=ECOMM&CURRENT_USER%3C%3EATR_PCode=None&CURRENT_USER%3C%3EATR_cartState=group
hoonu
May 4, 10:07 AM
So I read that if a monitor, such as an imac in target display mode, is part of a thunderbolt chain of devices, it must be the last in the chain and is not hot-swappable. Correct me if I'm wring but that is what I remember reading about it here on MR I believe.
This reminds me of the days of scsi. So if I want to use a thunderbolt monitor, I need to turn the computer off and back on at the start and end of the session in order to connect and later disconnect the monitor.
Are devices connected to a hub in the chain ending with the monitor still hor swappable?
I'm looking forward to thunderbolt drives. The monitor thing doesn't look too appealing for portable macs at least. For a mac mini or tower it isn't as much of a problem.
Too bad the mac mini that works with this iMac doesn't exist. Nor does that tower you're speaking of.
This reminds me of the days of scsi. So if I want to use a thunderbolt monitor, I need to turn the computer off and back on at the start and end of the session in order to connect and later disconnect the monitor.
Are devices connected to a hub in the chain ending with the monitor still hor swappable?
I'm looking forward to thunderbolt drives. The monitor thing doesn't look too appealing for portable macs at least. For a mac mini or tower it isn't as much of a problem.
Too bad the mac mini that works with this iMac doesn't exist. Nor does that tower you're speaking of.
Chundles
Oct 12, 04:10 PM
Steve, if you are reading this, make a nano in ORANGE and I'll buy one. :)
Sorry if someone already mentioned orange in this thread. I just came along and couldn't be bothered to read the entire thread up to this point.
ORANGE!
Yep, seconded. And proper, bright, "safety orange."
Sorry if someone already mentioned orange in this thread. I just came along and couldn't be bothered to read the entire thread up to this point.
ORANGE!
Yep, seconded. And proper, bright, "safety orange."
cube
May 3, 11:13 AM
Ivy Bridge will bring it up to 3 displays. AMD has 6 displays for embedded systems now.
These iMacs have discrete chips supporting 6 displays, too. But they are crippled by Thunderbolt, like the MBPs.
These iMacs have discrete chips supporting 6 displays, too. But they are crippled by Thunderbolt, like the MBPs.
No comments:
Post a Comment