tmornini
Jul 20, 01:10 AM
This is excellent. iPod sales are slowing down however this is to be expected. Nice to see the Mac sales well above the million mark.
iPod sales GROWTH is slowing, but iPod sales are still speeding up.
30% more than same quarter last year...
iPod sales GROWTH is slowing, but iPod sales are still speeding up.
30% more than same quarter last year...
zoran
Nov 23, 04:39 AM
So when will the faster versions of clovertown be available, any rumor on that?
ju5tin81
Oct 24, 06:19 AM
Bring on the MacBooks...
Can't afford a pro :(
Can't afford a pro :(
mikolia
Sep 7, 08:00 AM
I checked around at comp usa, best buy and even the apple store to see if the mini's they had in stock would be reduced in price because of the new ones that came out.
Best buy and Comp USA had no clue that new models were released and would not budge in price. I dont know what the apple store policy is.
Shouldnt comp usa and best buy reduce the price of the core solo minis they have left?
Best buy and Comp USA had no clue that new models were released and would not budge in price. I dont know what the apple store policy is.
Shouldnt comp usa and best buy reduce the price of the core solo minis they have left?
mc68k
Jan 7, 04:19 PM
yeah it was between super sprint, eisenmann, and remus. the shop wanted to do remus so i wasn't gonna argue. turned out real nice, a lot better than the stock look. quiet on the highway. loud but not obnoxious around town
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/9144153/IMG_0160.JPG
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/9144153/IMG_0160.JPG
ericinboston
Apr 26, 12:51 PM
"Amazon" is a generic term and should not be used for a store name.
Amazon is not a generic term. It is, however, the name of a single river on planet Earth...among a few other names/uses ("the Amazon", "Amazon basin", "Amazon Women").
Where else have you seen/heard the term Amazon in a generic sense? Some examples of a generic term are (at least have been generic over the past 75+ years):
light bulb
door
wood
lock
Amazon is not a generic term. It is, however, the name of a single river on planet Earth...among a few other names/uses ("the Amazon", "Amazon basin", "Amazon Women").
Where else have you seen/heard the term Amazon in a generic sense? Some examples of a generic term are (at least have been generic over the past 75+ years):
light bulb
door
wood
lock
BC2009
Oct 24, 12:59 AM
What a crock of nonsense. :rolleyes:
Apparently, your idea of "corrupt" is to tell the truth about products instead of letting unsafe, Chinese garbage get pushed on the world with millions in advertising, but not a useful word in the bunch. Do you think Apple is going to advertise their antenna problem or Suzuki is going to brag that their vehicle is more likely to roll over than most other vehicles on the road? Heck no. Most magazines take money directly from the manufacturers that advertise in their magazines and thus have a total conflict of interests. Here's a magazine that doesn't take a dime from advertisers and thus has no reason to pick on anyone or lie about anything. But YOU call that "corruption." That's like Republicans saying they will create jobs (and leave out the "in China" part).
First off, Consumer Reports makes money by selling subscriptions which means free press is good for them. Sensational popular bad reviews gets them publicity - good reviews get them nothing. In fact their video review was so obviously biased and unprofessional it was a joke. The guy should have been wearing an "Down with Apple" T-shirt with the Android robot peeing on the Apple logo.
Second, the Suzuki Samarai is not a Chinese vehicle - Suzuki is a Japanese company.
Third, save your political slant for some other forum - we talk tech here - not politics.
Fourth, hate China much?
Fifth, I personally tried to verify Consumer Reports claims in multiple iPhone-4 units to no avail. I'm still holding off for iPhone-5 to save my budget, but all I can say about iPhone-4 is that it's the best phone I've ever seen.
Apparently, your idea of "corrupt" is to tell the truth about products instead of letting unsafe, Chinese garbage get pushed on the world with millions in advertising, but not a useful word in the bunch. Do you think Apple is going to advertise their antenna problem or Suzuki is going to brag that their vehicle is more likely to roll over than most other vehicles on the road? Heck no. Most magazines take money directly from the manufacturers that advertise in their magazines and thus have a total conflict of interests. Here's a magazine that doesn't take a dime from advertisers and thus has no reason to pick on anyone or lie about anything. But YOU call that "corruption." That's like Republicans saying they will create jobs (and leave out the "in China" part).
First off, Consumer Reports makes money by selling subscriptions which means free press is good for them. Sensational popular bad reviews gets them publicity - good reviews get them nothing. In fact their video review was so obviously biased and unprofessional it was a joke. The guy should have been wearing an "Down with Apple" T-shirt with the Android robot peeing on the Apple logo.
Second, the Suzuki Samarai is not a Chinese vehicle - Suzuki is a Japanese company.
Third, save your political slant for some other forum - we talk tech here - not politics.
Fourth, hate China much?
Fifth, I personally tried to verify Consumer Reports claims in multiple iPhone-4 units to no avail. I'm still holding off for iPhone-5 to save my budget, but all I can say about iPhone-4 is that it's the best phone I've ever seen.
Hraggleblarg
Sep 29, 10:41 PM
Every time I go by CR's reviews, I make a terrible purchase... I wonder what that says.
Object-X
Nov 28, 03:25 AM
Wow. For someone who seems to have all the answers, you're not reading the rest of this thread very well.
http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=252327
In short, Apple's monitors are for higher-end users. Anyone can go out and get a Dell. Most people do. If you want cheap and easy, you get a Dell monitor.
I noticed that you didn't mention any of the 20" NEC Displays that run much, MUCH higher in price than even Apple's. Now why are they so much more expensive? Are they too high-priced? Vastly overpriced?
There are differences. You'd know that if you took the time to look.
Yes, you are indeed correct. Those are "real" numbers. Numbers that are comparing two different types of monitors.
Next time you wish to present facts, try and present them all instead of just the ones that support your case.
Well, you just made my point better than me. Of the millions of Macs sold, how many are to customers needing correct color and really care about the finer details of the monitor's specs? If you're buying a $2400 + Mac Pro the choice is obvious and you could justify the higher price, but what about the low end?
I have both the Dell and the Apple cinema display 20". The Apple monitor is extremely dim, so much so I'm not buying the superior color argument with that model, it's very noticable; the iMac however is very bright and the colors look much richer. If you want to argue that the Apple monitor is sooo much better with color reproduction and the numbers don't lie, than OK, I'll give you that. But who cares? A very small percentage of Apple's market cares or could even tell the difference.
If Apple has been all about getting "switchers" and trying to persuade Windows users that Apple and OS X is better, than why is Apple ignoring that market with their monitor offering? You said so yourself, these are "PRO" monitors. Because they want you to buy iMacs. That's an extremely limited choice if you ask me. Oh, I can hear the fan boys now, screw you if you don't care about color seperation and the finer details of image quality. Go buy your $hi+ dell and get off of this board.
Apple sells a consumer mini, but not a consumer monitor? Why not? You all are hammering away at the professional quality of this monitor. But I have both the Dell and the Apple and they look about the same to me. Actually, before Apple updated their monitors the 20" looked terrible next to the Dell. (I have both generations) And are the "Pros" who need that color perfection buying 20" monitors? Probably not. 23" and 30" would be my guess. So why have a high priced 20" display?
So all this hupla about color correction is making my point. Apple wants you to buy an iMac and they keep their monitors price high and limit their computer offerings to give you the incentive to buy one. Since that's all they sell they are making a good profit off of them. Don't get me wrong, they are nice computers, beautiful even, but what if I wan't something more flexable? Maybe a little more expandible. My choice is a $600 mini (not too flexable or expandable) or a $2400 Mac Pro. Big Difference. Oh, that $1499 price spot fits nicely with an iMac however. See my point?
If they lower the price of the 20" any more it will cut into their sales of 20" iMacs. And that is why it's hovering close to $700 and not $200 or $300 cheaper. Apple won't make as much money off of a mini/cinema combo as they will off of a 20" iMac; especially if the profit margin on the monitor is razor thin.
So, comfort yourself all you want that you have a "pro" quality monitor. If that makes you feel better parting with $300 then go for it. I doubt you could tell the differnce with both monitors sitting side by side. I have both and I can't realy see a $200 - $300 price justification, at least at the low end. Oh, I'm just a poor consumer, not a "pro", so I should go buy my crappy Dell and be happy. Right? But if Apple really want's to get people to switch in larger numbers they need to offer a little more choice at a competitive price. A nice quality 20" monitor competitvly priced to go with that mini or a mid-range tower. I'm asking Apple to drop their price on their monitors $200 and offer a $1200 - $1500 tower. Is that asking too much?
http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=252327
In short, Apple's monitors are for higher-end users. Anyone can go out and get a Dell. Most people do. If you want cheap and easy, you get a Dell monitor.
I noticed that you didn't mention any of the 20" NEC Displays that run much, MUCH higher in price than even Apple's. Now why are they so much more expensive? Are they too high-priced? Vastly overpriced?
There are differences. You'd know that if you took the time to look.
Yes, you are indeed correct. Those are "real" numbers. Numbers that are comparing two different types of monitors.
Next time you wish to present facts, try and present them all instead of just the ones that support your case.
Well, you just made my point better than me. Of the millions of Macs sold, how many are to customers needing correct color and really care about the finer details of the monitor's specs? If you're buying a $2400 + Mac Pro the choice is obvious and you could justify the higher price, but what about the low end?
I have both the Dell and the Apple cinema display 20". The Apple monitor is extremely dim, so much so I'm not buying the superior color argument with that model, it's very noticable; the iMac however is very bright and the colors look much richer. If you want to argue that the Apple monitor is sooo much better with color reproduction and the numbers don't lie, than OK, I'll give you that. But who cares? A very small percentage of Apple's market cares or could even tell the difference.
If Apple has been all about getting "switchers" and trying to persuade Windows users that Apple and OS X is better, than why is Apple ignoring that market with their monitor offering? You said so yourself, these are "PRO" monitors. Because they want you to buy iMacs. That's an extremely limited choice if you ask me. Oh, I can hear the fan boys now, screw you if you don't care about color seperation and the finer details of image quality. Go buy your $hi+ dell and get off of this board.
Apple sells a consumer mini, but not a consumer monitor? Why not? You all are hammering away at the professional quality of this monitor. But I have both the Dell and the Apple and they look about the same to me. Actually, before Apple updated their monitors the 20" looked terrible next to the Dell. (I have both generations) And are the "Pros" who need that color perfection buying 20" monitors? Probably not. 23" and 30" would be my guess. So why have a high priced 20" display?
So all this hupla about color correction is making my point. Apple wants you to buy an iMac and they keep their monitors price high and limit their computer offerings to give you the incentive to buy one. Since that's all they sell they are making a good profit off of them. Don't get me wrong, they are nice computers, beautiful even, but what if I wan't something more flexable? Maybe a little more expandible. My choice is a $600 mini (not too flexable or expandable) or a $2400 Mac Pro. Big Difference. Oh, that $1499 price spot fits nicely with an iMac however. See my point?
If they lower the price of the 20" any more it will cut into their sales of 20" iMacs. And that is why it's hovering close to $700 and not $200 or $300 cheaper. Apple won't make as much money off of a mini/cinema combo as they will off of a 20" iMac; especially if the profit margin on the monitor is razor thin.
So, comfort yourself all you want that you have a "pro" quality monitor. If that makes you feel better parting with $300 then go for it. I doubt you could tell the differnce with both monitors sitting side by side. I have both and I can't realy see a $200 - $300 price justification, at least at the low end. Oh, I'm just a poor consumer, not a "pro", so I should go buy my crappy Dell and be happy. Right? But if Apple really want's to get people to switch in larger numbers they need to offer a little more choice at a competitive price. A nice quality 20" monitor competitvly priced to go with that mini or a mid-range tower. I'm asking Apple to drop their price on their monitors $200 and offer a $1200 - $1500 tower. Is that asking too much?
takao
Mar 3, 07:58 AM
I will give it the benefit of the doubt until I get a chance to test drive it.
Apropos to our discussion here, if Volkswagen takes the Jetta downmarket, that will bode well for GM and the Cruze diesel, which may be able to equal or exceed the new Jetta TDI's level of equipment, refinement and pricepoint.
i haven't seen either in the flesh yet to be honest... GM selling the cruze in europe without a hatchback version for 2 years simply was a mistake
if you want to be successful in europe as mass car maker you have to:
1. offer a diesel
2. offer a hatchback if its a small car/ offer a station wagon if it's a large one
3. combine rule 1 and rule 2
4. offer them within 3 months of release
on quality i wouldn't be surprised if the the new jetta spikes up in that department ... after all there will be less to go wrong ;). Never underestimate the people who just want a good sized car which simply drives
i suspect this new jetta is going for a very similiar strategy like Renault went with the Dacia Logan around here: decent size, no bells and whistles, reliable/old technology and a low price
on the opposite side Lexus Europe is in a delirium or absolutly high: they expect their new CT200h to double lexus sales in europe: a 30.000+ euro hatchback which looks like a 18.000 mazda3 except made uglier, has a less comfortable and noisier ride then usual for a lexus, without achieving any 'sporty' fell whatsoever despite claiming otherwise, has a whopping 136 hp hybrid only which doesn't even come close to it's claimed MPG, a very american interieur, less interieur space than the A3 despite being larger on the outside etc.
i wan to have the things they are smoking... doubling sales :rolleyes:
compared to the other premium compacts, A3, BMW 1, Alfa Guiletta and even the Volvo C30 they are going to fail miserable
Apropos to our discussion here, if Volkswagen takes the Jetta downmarket, that will bode well for GM and the Cruze diesel, which may be able to equal or exceed the new Jetta TDI's level of equipment, refinement and pricepoint.
i haven't seen either in the flesh yet to be honest... GM selling the cruze in europe without a hatchback version for 2 years simply was a mistake
if you want to be successful in europe as mass car maker you have to:
1. offer a diesel
2. offer a hatchback if its a small car/ offer a station wagon if it's a large one
3. combine rule 1 and rule 2
4. offer them within 3 months of release
on quality i wouldn't be surprised if the the new jetta spikes up in that department ... after all there will be less to go wrong ;). Never underestimate the people who just want a good sized car which simply drives
i suspect this new jetta is going for a very similiar strategy like Renault went with the Dacia Logan around here: decent size, no bells and whistles, reliable/old technology and a low price
on the opposite side Lexus Europe is in a delirium or absolutly high: they expect their new CT200h to double lexus sales in europe: a 30.000+ euro hatchback which looks like a 18.000 mazda3 except made uglier, has a less comfortable and noisier ride then usual for a lexus, without achieving any 'sporty' fell whatsoever despite claiming otherwise, has a whopping 136 hp hybrid only which doesn't even come close to it's claimed MPG, a very american interieur, less interieur space than the A3 despite being larger on the outside etc.
i wan to have the things they are smoking... doubling sales :rolleyes:
compared to the other premium compacts, A3, BMW 1, Alfa Guiletta and even the Volvo C30 they are going to fail miserable
Stella
Mar 19, 04:31 PM
All about the oil... "protect the citizens" is a perfect excuse. Sadly, because this is what it should be about.
t0mat0
Aug 31, 07:51 AM
...why do you want the wireless? I have seen one (maybe two) ideas that caught my eye; but not enough too change my opinion on the negative cost/benefit impact including wireless as envisioned by many here would have on my beloved device.
Blue sky on wireless? Think a device which works out presence of others, and can connect safely.
Imagine being able to *share* (not stream, but share) your tunes with others on a "I'm interested in your... can I share/get that from you).
Being on the tube/commuting for ~ 1 1/2 hours a day or so and seeing >6 ipods through glancing for white buds alone, the possiblities are huge.
What are net connections used mostly for (in terms of Mb up/down) It's P2P. There wouldn't be any roaming charges, any peak rates. You could do it in a lecture room, whilst you were studying, or having coffee with friends (sharing tunes, rather than listening )
Think one big interacting social darknet :D Think virality without PC's needed.
Someone has a cool tune, and it could replicate exponentially!
For more benefits: Linking up to USB wireless receiver chips - you can wireless move files to/from PC.
Hands free driving - using changeable function paddles/butons on the steeering wheel. Hell - You could have a HUD of iTunes on a car soon (or at the very least, hook it up to those screens in the back of those orrible 4x4s )
In terms of illegal possibilities, think discogs. The amount of music you'll bump into increases a lot, so the rarer stuff might be out there. You could strike up a friendship with someone who had say, the entire back catalogue of (insert your fave band/movie/TV series). People could be walking lossless discographies of current artists. A discog of an artist is at most probably under 10Gig, so for a >60Gig player...
Who needs radio when you can stream? You could get it to actively hunt for a MP3 id tag genre - rock/pop, or highly rated artists. You could have the function to hunt for certain artists/songs...
That's another reason why I want wireless.
Blue sky on wireless? Think a device which works out presence of others, and can connect safely.
Imagine being able to *share* (not stream, but share) your tunes with others on a "I'm interested in your... can I share/get that from you).
Being on the tube/commuting for ~ 1 1/2 hours a day or so and seeing >6 ipods through glancing for white buds alone, the possiblities are huge.
What are net connections used mostly for (in terms of Mb up/down) It's P2P. There wouldn't be any roaming charges, any peak rates. You could do it in a lecture room, whilst you were studying, or having coffee with friends (sharing tunes, rather than listening )
Think one big interacting social darknet :D Think virality without PC's needed.
Someone has a cool tune, and it could replicate exponentially!
For more benefits: Linking up to USB wireless receiver chips - you can wireless move files to/from PC.
Hands free driving - using changeable function paddles/butons on the steeering wheel. Hell - You could have a HUD of iTunes on a car soon (or at the very least, hook it up to those screens in the back of those orrible 4x4s )
In terms of illegal possibilities, think discogs. The amount of music you'll bump into increases a lot, so the rarer stuff might be out there. You could strike up a friendship with someone who had say, the entire back catalogue of (insert your fave band/movie/TV series). People could be walking lossless discographies of current artists. A discog of an artist is at most probably under 10Gig, so for a >60Gig player...
Who needs radio when you can stream? You could get it to actively hunt for a MP3 id tag genre - rock/pop, or highly rated artists. You could have the function to hunt for certain artists/songs...
That's another reason why I want wireless.
Tubby The Bull
Oct 23, 09:00 AM
Nov'06? wow.. the future :)
doh! sorry... Nov'05
doh! sorry... Nov'05
iphone3gs16gb
Apr 2, 07:47 PM
This ad makes me want to buy one...
so magical!!!
so magical!!!
r.j.s
Jan 2, 04:37 PM
Here we go, the new and improved 2011 Picture of your car thread.
2009 Edition (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=627003)
2010 Edition (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=868502)
Mine: 2006 F-150 SuperCrew
266102
266103
And since it doesn't fit into the garage (it's too long), I have to clean the snow off :mad: :
266105
2009 Edition (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=627003)
2010 Edition (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=868502)
Mine: 2006 F-150 SuperCrew
266102
266103
And since it doesn't fit into the garage (it's too long), I have to clean the snow off :mad: :
266105
Big-TDI-Guy
Mar 7, 09:04 AM
Of recent memory - I've had no issue starting all the way down to -26C. Haven't gone colder, yet. Driving this diesel for 7 years now.
Most places that DO get very cold - treat their diesel fuel to prevent wax crystals accumulating. Only issues with this are low-volume stations that may have summer hold-over (haven't yet received winter-grade fuel). Or, you could be living in southern Cali - and decide for a road trop to Canada in December (might have some issues there, too) But for these situations you can put in your own additive.
All this said, I've never needed any additive myself, car is never garaged, and has never failed to start as of yet.
Most places that DO get very cold - treat their diesel fuel to prevent wax crystals accumulating. Only issues with this are low-volume stations that may have summer hold-over (haven't yet received winter-grade fuel). Or, you could be living in southern Cali - and decide for a road trop to Canada in December (might have some issues there, too) But for these situations you can put in your own additive.
All this said, I've never needed any additive myself, car is never garaged, and has never failed to start as of yet.
MacRumors
Jan 11, 04:51 PM
http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com)
I've heard various whispers about the new thin MacBook. Here are a few additional tidbits and confirmations about what might be coming from Apple on Tuesday.
- A slim notebook, but not a "sub notebook"
- 13.3" screen
- Not a "Pro" machine
- External Optical Drive
- It will be called the MacBook Air
A reminder, though, that Apple has been known to seed people with false specs/designs, so these whispers may not be accurate... but we believe they are.
Article Link (http://www.macrumors.com/2008/01/06/thin-macbook-specs/)
I've heard various whispers about the new thin MacBook. Here are a few additional tidbits and confirmations about what might be coming from Apple on Tuesday.
- A slim notebook, but not a "sub notebook"
- 13.3" screen
- Not a "Pro" machine
- External Optical Drive
- It will be called the MacBook Air
A reminder, though, that Apple has been known to seed people with false specs/designs, so these whispers may not be accurate... but we believe they are.
Article Link (http://www.macrumors.com/2008/01/06/thin-macbook-specs/)
Hattig
Nov 27, 02:32 PM
Maybe they should drop the price of the 20" Cinema Display to something more reasonable, such as $499 - $699 is far too much. In the UK it is �529!
I've seen 22" DVI Widescreen TFTs selling for under �300, often close to �200. $499 is probably too high still (even if it is a better standard of panel, and includes a Firewire hub) - maybe $399. Put the 17" up for ~$249 and aim it at Mac Mini purchasers (+iSight, -Firewire, 4 USB2 ports).
I've seen 22" DVI Widescreen TFTs selling for under �300, often close to �200. $499 is probably too high still (even if it is a better standard of panel, and includes a Firewire hub) - maybe $399. Put the 17" up for ~$249 and aim it at Mac Mini purchasers (+iSight, -Firewire, 4 USB2 ports).
Reventon
Apr 9, 10:13 PM
I learnt to drive manual on my brother's 1989 Honda CRX. Haven't drove stick in years though, sadly. :o
I'mAMac
Sep 1, 01:30 PM
Talking about the iMac chin, isn't it time for a new-look iMac? I couldn't imagine a 23" wide chin :eek:
What is the chin. Though, i have heard people talking about it and they said that if there is a 23" it is possible for Apple to eliminate it.
What is the chin. Though, i have heard people talking about it and they said that if there is a 23" it is possible for Apple to eliminate it.
ellsworth
Apr 26, 12:50 PM
Ridiculous.
Luveno
Sep 1, 04:05 PM
If they did offer a 23" iMac, that would be their first "HD Ready" iMac. I was just about to buy a 20" ACD for my 20" iMac, because I needed more screen real estate, now I need to wait 2 weeks to see how i'm going to handle that, too. Bloody Hell :)
peharri
Aug 19, 08:24 AM
You step into your car. The bluetooth receiver in your dashboard automatically detects the presence of your iPod. The finger controls on the steering wheel switch from controlling radio stations to stepping through playlists etc. It "just works". No cables. No need to even take the iPod out of your pocket or bag.
That's why I want wireless. Well, one of the reasons.
Of course, the bluetooth feature's great and all, but it's the 802.11g support I love using. I walk into the office, and suddenly the playlists of all of my collegues who run iTunes appears on screen. Another collegue has his own wireless iPod, and his playlists appear too. It's just like iTunes's shared playlist feature, only it's on my iPod too. It's nice enough having everyone's iTunes playlists in iTunes, but this really takes it to a dimension where it becomes truly useful.
That's why I want wireless, well, one of the reasons.
But, you know, I have my own music tastes, and there are only two or three fellow classical music fans in the office. I could listen to the radio, but only the NPR station here does classical, and that's only part of the time. Still, there are a bunch of netradio classical radio stations, so I can expose myself to even more sources, and I'm not limited by the relatively conservative selection of my collegues and friends. I go to the root menu, Radio Stations -> Favorites -> Classical 24, and now I'm receiving streamed audio from across the country.
That's another reason why I want wireless.
To all of you saying "I can't see why anyone would want wireless", I can't see why you wouldn't want wireless. Small scale sharing. Automatic integration with music systems. Net radio. What's not to love? And for what, a couple of dollars in chips, some improved firmware, and probably the same amount of battery life (given you'll not be running the hard drive)?
That's why I want wireless. Well, one of the reasons.
Of course, the bluetooth feature's great and all, but it's the 802.11g support I love using. I walk into the office, and suddenly the playlists of all of my collegues who run iTunes appears on screen. Another collegue has his own wireless iPod, and his playlists appear too. It's just like iTunes's shared playlist feature, only it's on my iPod too. It's nice enough having everyone's iTunes playlists in iTunes, but this really takes it to a dimension where it becomes truly useful.
That's why I want wireless, well, one of the reasons.
But, you know, I have my own music tastes, and there are only two or three fellow classical music fans in the office. I could listen to the radio, but only the NPR station here does classical, and that's only part of the time. Still, there are a bunch of netradio classical radio stations, so I can expose myself to even more sources, and I'm not limited by the relatively conservative selection of my collegues and friends. I go to the root menu, Radio Stations -> Favorites -> Classical 24, and now I'm receiving streamed audio from across the country.
That's another reason why I want wireless.
To all of you saying "I can't see why anyone would want wireless", I can't see why you wouldn't want wireless. Small scale sharing. Automatic integration with music systems. Net radio. What's not to love? And for what, a couple of dollars in chips, some improved firmware, and probably the same amount of battery life (given you'll not be running the hard drive)?
devburke
May 2, 05:02 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPod; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_2 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Mobile/8H7)
WTF? This is a computer, with a real mouse/trackpad. Click and hold til it wiggles, then click the x?
RIGHT-CLICK. COME ON APPLE, THIS ISN'T ROCKET SCIENCE.
WTF? This is a computer, with a real mouse/trackpad. Click and hold til it wiggles, then click the x?
RIGHT-CLICK. COME ON APPLE, THIS ISN'T ROCKET SCIENCE.
No comments:
Post a Comment