itguy06
Oct 28, 06:17 PM
[QUOTE=eric_n_dfw;2992297]I'd love to be able to legally install OS X on a Dell or build-it-myself PC, even it it wasn't $0, but Apple would tank in no time as they make the lion's share of their money selling hardware. Especially when Dell's can sell this cheap: Is one MacBook Pro C2D worth two Dells? (http://blog.dealnews.com/?p=75)
That's IF you jump through hoops, IF you find the discount coupon, and IF Dell honors it. You WILL get an inferior machine in every way to Apple's offerings. If you simply call up Dell and order a machine, you won't get that price.
Trust me, I do this for a living - you don't put Dell and quality in the same page, let alone sentence.
That being said, Apple would do fine on software sales. Especially if they significantly upped their software sales. At least 1 OEM has said they would love to ditch Windows at the first sight of a capable OS. OS X is that OS. All Apple would have to do is shift from a primarily hardware company to an iPod/hardware and software co.
That's IF you jump through hoops, IF you find the discount coupon, and IF Dell honors it. You WILL get an inferior machine in every way to Apple's offerings. If you simply call up Dell and order a machine, you won't get that price.
Trust me, I do this for a living - you don't put Dell and quality in the same page, let alone sentence.
That being said, Apple would do fine on software sales. Especially if they significantly upped their software sales. At least 1 OEM has said they would love to ditch Windows at the first sight of a capable OS. OS X is that OS. All Apple would have to do is shift from a primarily hardware company to an iPod/hardware and software co.
I WAS the one
May 4, 07:11 AM
Finally... They realized the word "Magic" is childish.
840quadra
Oct 10, 09:24 PM
I'm starting to doubt page 1 rumors just as much as I doubt Page 2 rumors. Unless you (MacRumors, not the 'source' website of the rumor,) have credible, reliable, direct sources, it belongs on Page 2. If you don't have direct sources, (as rumors on other websites would be,) it does not belong on page 1. By your own standards.
I'm not sure where you got those criteria... but those aren't the criteria for which story make the first page.
arn
tips,eye makeup
Smokey Eye Makeup Brown Eyes.
When one says rown eyes,
makeup tips for rown how
eye makeup tips brown eyes.
Three Easy Eye Make Up Tips
Brown Eyes Makeup Tips 1. Eye
eye makeup for rown eyes.
Makeup for rown eyes, eye
eye makeup tips brown eyes. Eye Makeup For Brown Eyes.
+underwood+eye+makeup+tips
eye makeup tips for rown eyes
eye makeup tips brown eyes.
eye makeup ideas for rown
Eye Makeup For Brown Eyes And
Makeup tips for rown eyes
I'm not sure where you got those criteria... but those aren't the criteria for which story make the first page.
arn
jhartung
Jan 16, 12:02 PM
MacBook Air: Though it's pretty, the lack of a 12" screen, the RIDICULOUS fixed battery, and the sloggy speed were real disappointments. I've my PowerBook for 4 years now, and it looks like I'm not going to replace it anytime soon. I've talked to more people who want just a small, cheap little notebook.
ITunes rentals is OK, I guess--they just need to beef up the offerings.
ITunes rentals is OK, I guess--they just need to beef up the offerings.
swy32x
Sep 8, 07:48 AM
Yes, he is in fact criticising the whole gangsta image ... "We say ******* the police and that's how we treat 'em / we can buy our way out of jail but we can't buy freedom" ...
How is he a 'no-talent ass clown'. So, you don't like hip-hop. How is he a no-talent hack?
It seems that he felt a bit out of place during his performance, but at the end of his performance the applause and crowd were ecstatic.
How is he a 'no-talent ass clown'. So, you don't like hip-hop. How is he a no-talent hack?
It seems that he felt a bit out of place during his performance, but at the end of his performance the applause and crowd were ecstatic.
ghostlyorb
May 2, 09:48 AM
If battery life increases... I'll be happy!
bedifferent
Apr 29, 08:05 PM
"About This Mac" System Information now shows HDD content by type as opposed to just "other" (orange)
Ugg
Apr 15, 07:32 PM
Honestly, there isn't enough time, we are rushing through WWII to know it before the CST. I also don't remember people pushing creationism in California
What's CST? I honestly have no idea. Actually, the entire sentence is confusing, could you clarify?
What's CST? I honestly have no idea. Actually, the entire sentence is confusing, could you clarify?
Simmias
May 3, 10:37 PM
I love my iPad 2, but I don't care for the ads. I like the overall message, but the narrator's inflections really bug me for some reason - a little too sappy. Also, the use of the word "magic" (wink, wink) in this ad and the previous one smacks of Steve Jobs thumbing his nose at critics. No matter how successful the iPad is, we will still cringe at his calling it magical.
Geckotek
Jan 1, 03:34 PM
Forgive me if these two points have been mentioned as I didn't read the whole thread, but;
From what I'm hearing, the cell chip in the iPhone is capable of working on upgraded networks. Now, I don't know what that means as far as LTE goes because I haven't bothered to research it, but I do that it's based off of 3g (long term evolution). This may render the iPhone capable of using that network with no hardware specific changes. If anything, Apple may have to offer different firmwares per carrier.
No, the chip in the iPhone will not handle LTE. LTE, while being developed by the same group the developed HSPA, is NOT the same tech and requires all new hardware.
Also, the iPhone 4 is not capable of working on upgraded networks. It does not support anything higher than HSPA (does not support HSPA+)
The other point though, which is the most interesting to me in that it's so important and no one ever really mentions it, is that Verizon's network doesn't multitask. How ironic that the phone which was continuously bashed for not having multitasking in the OS was one of the only phones on the market that could multitask on the network. I'm gonna go out on a hunch here and say that Apple will NOT release an iPhone on a network that doesn't allow for calling and web browsing at the same time. Especially after they've worked so hard on getting application multitasking to work the way they wanted to. Apparently, the LTE network is supposed to take care of this, but we'll have to wait and see.
Lastly, Happy New Year everyone!
Verizon and Apple have at least 2 solutions they could implement to enable simultaneous voice and data on CDMA.
From what I'm hearing, the cell chip in the iPhone is capable of working on upgraded networks. Now, I don't know what that means as far as LTE goes because I haven't bothered to research it, but I do that it's based off of 3g (long term evolution). This may render the iPhone capable of using that network with no hardware specific changes. If anything, Apple may have to offer different firmwares per carrier.
No, the chip in the iPhone will not handle LTE. LTE, while being developed by the same group the developed HSPA, is NOT the same tech and requires all new hardware.
Also, the iPhone 4 is not capable of working on upgraded networks. It does not support anything higher than HSPA (does not support HSPA+)
The other point though, which is the most interesting to me in that it's so important and no one ever really mentions it, is that Verizon's network doesn't multitask. How ironic that the phone which was continuously bashed for not having multitasking in the OS was one of the only phones on the market that could multitask on the network. I'm gonna go out on a hunch here and say that Apple will NOT release an iPhone on a network that doesn't allow for calling and web browsing at the same time. Especially after they've worked so hard on getting application multitasking to work the way they wanted to. Apparently, the LTE network is supposed to take care of this, but we'll have to wait and see.
Lastly, Happy New Year everyone!
Verizon and Apple have at least 2 solutions they could implement to enable simultaneous voice and data on CDMA.
840quadra
Nov 24, 01:51 PM
what a pitiful thanksgiving sale apple provided.
nothing to wow about.
You are correct!
I should go back to the Apple store, and give them $101 + the extra tax associated (making it $107.56) for the MacBook I just bought. Only because this sale is lame! :rolleyes:
nothing to wow about.
You are correct!
I should go back to the Apple store, and give them $101 + the extra tax associated (making it $107.56) for the MacBook I just bought. Only because this sale is lame! :rolleyes:
aiqw9182
Apr 29, 01:50 PM
Everything and I mean *everything* is constantly being shared from these developer's builds. Check youtube. It is what it is. There are no killer features in iLion. Certainly nothing like going from Tiger to Leopard.
Don't kid yourself. Lion's list of new features is much longer than Leopard's.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mac_OS_X_Leopard#End-user_features
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mac_OS_X_v10.7#New_or_changed_features
Don't kid yourself. Lion's list of new features is much longer than Leopard's.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mac_OS_X_Leopard#End-user_features
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mac_OS_X_v10.7#New_or_changed_features
twoodcc
Apr 11, 03:26 PM
well i'm about to leave my apartment tonight again for the next 2 months. this time i'll only be 2 hours away, so i can come back on the weekends if something messes up again. we'll see.
oh, and i had to restart my VM before i left to take out the -oneunit flag, and guess what, i lost that unit! it was 96% complete!
i'm so mad right now :mad:
oh, and i had to restart my VM before i left to take out the -oneunit flag, and guess what, i lost that unit! it was 96% complete!
i'm so mad right now :mad:
dalvin200
Sep 12, 07:57 AM
Yeah. I am off to bed for 4 hours. iTunes will just be frustrating given its not going to be for us I think. Maybe there will be some juciy hardware in 4 hours or so.
u know u won;t get a seconds sleep.. cos you'll be thinking and thinking.. iPods, movie store, thinking.. and you'll be back on macrumors within 2 mins :P
u know u won;t get a seconds sleep.. cos you'll be thinking and thinking.. iPods, movie store, thinking.. and you'll be back on macrumors within 2 mins :P
Nekbeth
Apr 27, 01:13 PM
Let me ask you this: what do you think the difference is?
I hope it's not a rhetorical question, but I really don't know, that is why I asked.
Check out this timer tutorial. I'm trying to follow it by adding a Datepicker to it. Let me know what you think of it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5jmTQi98vec&feature=related
I hope it's not a rhetorical question, but I really don't know, that is why I asked.
Check out this timer tutorial. I'm trying to follow it by adding a Datepicker to it. Let me know what you think of it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5jmTQi98vec&feature=related
bedifferent
Apr 29, 07:11 PM
A slider like that only makes sense on a touch interface, where you would physically move it. A user would drag it along with a finger. Very "organic".
Animation for sake of animation is pointless. With a mouse, it is counter intuitive, when all users are used to "pushing" or "depressing" the button in.
What about using the magic trackpad to "slide" the selection? Perhaps engaging "Tap to Click" then sliding the bar with the trackpad.
My Magic Trackpad was collecting dust until the release of Lion DP's. OS X 10.7 is definitely making more use of the multi-touch features of the track pad.
Animation for sake of animation is pointless. With a mouse, it is counter intuitive, when all users are used to "pushing" or "depressing" the button in.
What about using the magic trackpad to "slide" the selection? Perhaps engaging "Tap to Click" then sliding the bar with the trackpad.
My Magic Trackpad was collecting dust until the release of Lion DP's. OS X 10.7 is definitely making more use of the multi-touch features of the track pad.
JohnBossu
Mar 19, 06:22 AM
Even though I own two iPhone 4's I never experienced being a meat sandwich so that survey is mostly bullshiznit.
Honestly, I don't buy the iPhone to show off but because it is a photography tool for my art studio.
I believe there are plenty of good cameras in the market at the same price with a iPhone, you picked iPhone instead?
yeah iPhone is so overrated then.
Honestly, I don't buy the iPhone to show off but because it is a photography tool for my art studio.
I believe there are plenty of good cameras in the market at the same price with a iPhone, you picked iPhone instead?
yeah iPhone is so overrated then.
Lord Blackadder
Aug 3, 11:20 AM
While that part is true that we would burn more fuel at power planets one advantage you are forgetting about is the power planets are by far much more efficient at producing power than the internal combustion engine on your car. On top of that it is much easier to capture and clean the pollution the power planet produces over what the cars produce. On top of that we can easily most our power over to other renewable choices.
I agree with you that series hybrids gain efficiency by running the internal combustion engine at a narrow RPM range representing the engine's most efficient speed. It's been done for over a hundred years that way in generators and a series hybrid drivetrain is set up exactly the same way as a generator.
Power plants are usually more efficent per unit of energy than autos, but right now they do not have the capacity to support a big switch to electrics. Also, the notion that power plants are cleaner than cars is debatable - many are, but many are not all that clean.
The critical point is, our power grid needs to become FAR more robust (more, bigger power plants) before we can make a large-scale switch to electrics - and it will only be worthwhile if the power grid becomes significantly more efficient. It can be done, but it will take a long, long time - and probably have to involve a significant new construction program of nuclear power plants.
I heard it that the reason why BMW stopped selling diesel cars in the US was that the engines failed, due to the very poor quality. In Europe, you can get quality fuel, but in the US, diesel is still the fuel of trucks, primarily.
Just one statistics: in continental Europe (not in the UK), new diesel cars have been outselling petrol ones for almost a decade, despite the premium.
The US began transitioning to ultra-low sulphur diesel in and by now the transition is nearly complete. The new fuel standard brings us in line with European diesel. Before the credit crunch recession hit, many car manufacturers were planning to bring Eurpoean-market diesel cars over here in slightly modified form, but those plans were scuppered in the recession. Subaru, for example, has delayed the introduction of their diesel by a year or two.
But I think diesels will start arriving here in the next couple years, and people will buy them in increasing numbers. The USA is 40 years behind in the adoption of diesel passenger cars.
You shouldn't have any impression about Subarus. They really have the traction of a train (AWD ones, of course - why would you buy anything else?!), but everything else is just midrange quality at best.
I've had a 1998 Impreza estate several years ago and it was OK. Recently, I've had a 2007 Legacy Outback from work. Nice glass on the top and good traction, but I have no intention of trading a BMW or Mercedes for it the next time. The interior is low quality and Subaru has no understanding of fuel efficiency, it seems. OK, it's a 2.5L engine, automatic and AWD, but still... 25 imperial mpg?!
It's not really fair to compare a Subaru to a BMW or Merc though, is it? Those German luxury cars are much more expensive and the AWD variants are even more expensive still. A 5-series with AWD will cost 70%-80% more than a roughly equivalent Legacy. They are very different carsm with totally different customers in mind.
I have a 2000 Forester currently. Mechanically they are well-made cars, they have a strong AWD system and I like the ride quality over rough roads, which they handle much better than the Audis I've driven.
Their biggest weaknesses are only average fuel economy (by US standards; I get about 28 mpg combined), and average interior quality, especially in the Impreza and Foresters, though I have seen the latest models and they are much better. The 2.5L four is really a great engine in a lot of ways, but it's just not quite fuel efficient enough, and in my car that problem is exacerbated by the short-ratio gearbox, which is crying for a 6th gear.
Hybrids actually have an equal to worse carbon footprint than regular gasoline engine cars due to the production and disposal process of the batteries. As such, they are not green at all. They are just another one of these ****** feel good deals for hippies with no brains an engineering knowledge.
I disagree. Real hippies don't work and thus can't afford fancy hybrids.
Of the commercially available cars, a well designed diesel, able to operate on biodiesel from waste oil for example has by far the best carbon footprint or an ethanol burner that can work on ethanol fermented from plant waste via cellulose digesting bacteria.
I would prefer if we could get to the point where we either have cars running on ethanol generated from cellulose or keratin digestion or natural gas buring engines.
Unfortunately fuel cells are not that great either because of the palladium used in the batteries that is pretty toxic in production as well.
Cheers,
Ahmed
The problem with biodiesel is that it's far too scarce to adopt widely. Sure, it's great that Joe Hippie can run his 1979 Mercedes 300D wagon on fast food grease, but once everyone starts looking into biodiesel Joe Hippie won't be getting free oil handouts anymore.
Also, biodiesel demand has already started competing with food production and I can tell you right away I'd rather eat than drive.
You're right about fuel cell carbon footprints - but that's the least of their worries now because they still cost a fortune to make and have short useful lives, making them totally unpractical to sell.
So far the biggest problem is not getting internal combustion engines to burn alternative fuels (we've found many alternative fuels) but to produce enough alternative fuel and distribute it widely enough to replace petroleum - without interrupting things like food production or power generation.
I agree with you that series hybrids gain efficiency by running the internal combustion engine at a narrow RPM range representing the engine's most efficient speed. It's been done for over a hundred years that way in generators and a series hybrid drivetrain is set up exactly the same way as a generator.
Power plants are usually more efficent per unit of energy than autos, but right now they do not have the capacity to support a big switch to electrics. Also, the notion that power plants are cleaner than cars is debatable - many are, but many are not all that clean.
The critical point is, our power grid needs to become FAR more robust (more, bigger power plants) before we can make a large-scale switch to electrics - and it will only be worthwhile if the power grid becomes significantly more efficient. It can be done, but it will take a long, long time - and probably have to involve a significant new construction program of nuclear power plants.
I heard it that the reason why BMW stopped selling diesel cars in the US was that the engines failed, due to the very poor quality. In Europe, you can get quality fuel, but in the US, diesel is still the fuel of trucks, primarily.
Just one statistics: in continental Europe (not in the UK), new diesel cars have been outselling petrol ones for almost a decade, despite the premium.
The US began transitioning to ultra-low sulphur diesel in and by now the transition is nearly complete. The new fuel standard brings us in line with European diesel. Before the credit crunch recession hit, many car manufacturers were planning to bring Eurpoean-market diesel cars over here in slightly modified form, but those plans were scuppered in the recession. Subaru, for example, has delayed the introduction of their diesel by a year or two.
But I think diesels will start arriving here in the next couple years, and people will buy them in increasing numbers. The USA is 40 years behind in the adoption of diesel passenger cars.
You shouldn't have any impression about Subarus. They really have the traction of a train (AWD ones, of course - why would you buy anything else?!), but everything else is just midrange quality at best.
I've had a 1998 Impreza estate several years ago and it was OK. Recently, I've had a 2007 Legacy Outback from work. Nice glass on the top and good traction, but I have no intention of trading a BMW or Mercedes for it the next time. The interior is low quality and Subaru has no understanding of fuel efficiency, it seems. OK, it's a 2.5L engine, automatic and AWD, but still... 25 imperial mpg?!
It's not really fair to compare a Subaru to a BMW or Merc though, is it? Those German luxury cars are much more expensive and the AWD variants are even more expensive still. A 5-series with AWD will cost 70%-80% more than a roughly equivalent Legacy. They are very different carsm with totally different customers in mind.
I have a 2000 Forester currently. Mechanically they are well-made cars, they have a strong AWD system and I like the ride quality over rough roads, which they handle much better than the Audis I've driven.
Their biggest weaknesses are only average fuel economy (by US standards; I get about 28 mpg combined), and average interior quality, especially in the Impreza and Foresters, though I have seen the latest models and they are much better. The 2.5L four is really a great engine in a lot of ways, but it's just not quite fuel efficient enough, and in my car that problem is exacerbated by the short-ratio gearbox, which is crying for a 6th gear.
Hybrids actually have an equal to worse carbon footprint than regular gasoline engine cars due to the production and disposal process of the batteries. As such, they are not green at all. They are just another one of these ****** feel good deals for hippies with no brains an engineering knowledge.
I disagree. Real hippies don't work and thus can't afford fancy hybrids.
Of the commercially available cars, a well designed diesel, able to operate on biodiesel from waste oil for example has by far the best carbon footprint or an ethanol burner that can work on ethanol fermented from plant waste via cellulose digesting bacteria.
I would prefer if we could get to the point where we either have cars running on ethanol generated from cellulose or keratin digestion or natural gas buring engines.
Unfortunately fuel cells are not that great either because of the palladium used in the batteries that is pretty toxic in production as well.
Cheers,
Ahmed
The problem with biodiesel is that it's far too scarce to adopt widely. Sure, it's great that Joe Hippie can run his 1979 Mercedes 300D wagon on fast food grease, but once everyone starts looking into biodiesel Joe Hippie won't be getting free oil handouts anymore.
Also, biodiesel demand has already started competing with food production and I can tell you right away I'd rather eat than drive.
You're right about fuel cell carbon footprints - but that's the least of their worries now because they still cost a fortune to make and have short useful lives, making them totally unpractical to sell.
So far the biggest problem is not getting internal combustion engines to burn alternative fuels (we've found many alternative fuels) but to produce enough alternative fuel and distribute it widely enough to replace petroleum - without interrupting things like food production or power generation.
MattSepeta
Apr 27, 01:12 PM
You're basically saying we're not women/men by having such strict and naive definitions of gender, thankfully you're in the minority.
Why is it so difficult to simply broaden your understanding of what woman/man actually means? If you want to point out that I'm genetically XY like it means a damn be my guest, otherwise your whole viewpoint can get stuffed.
Where to start....
- How about the definition of "Gender".... I am not talking about "Gender roles" or "norms" or any of that. I am speaking ONLY about the scientific aspect of "Gender".
Case in point: Lets say a transgendered individual is stricken with a life threatening ailment. Now we all know that certain illnesses are more prone to certain genders. The doctor asks you what gender you are, in order to diagnose and cure you before you die. No matter how much you are convinced that you are actually gender "X" , having successfully lived as gender "X" for years, despite being born gender "Y", you are still going to be disposed to illnesses that effect gender "Y".
Anyone care to debate that? Any MDs care to chime in?
Another thing- I find it very interesting how quickly you guys started to assume I'm being "narrow minded" and how I need to "broaden my horizons"...
I find it even more interesting that you jumped to the same conclusions (prejudicial conclusions, perhaps) despite my twice stating that I support transgender rights and that it is not a personal choice but an inherent predisposition.
EDIT: So let me clear it us as exhaustively as possible---
I understand that people are born feeling that they were put in the wrong body.
I understand it is not a choice, that these people are born like this, just as I was born with lots of moles. Not my choice, not their choice.
I understand that these people have sex reassignment surgery, or may dress/act like the opposite sex.
I understand and support full rights for these people.
I understand and support a person such as this living as the opposite gender.
BUT
I think it is wholly inaccurate to scientifically label them as the opposite gender, despite all of the above.
Does that really make me a narrow minded biggot? Seriously?
Why is it so difficult to simply broaden your understanding of what woman/man actually means? If you want to point out that I'm genetically XY like it means a damn be my guest, otherwise your whole viewpoint can get stuffed.
Where to start....
- How about the definition of "Gender".... I am not talking about "Gender roles" or "norms" or any of that. I am speaking ONLY about the scientific aspect of "Gender".
Case in point: Lets say a transgendered individual is stricken with a life threatening ailment. Now we all know that certain illnesses are more prone to certain genders. The doctor asks you what gender you are, in order to diagnose and cure you before you die. No matter how much you are convinced that you are actually gender "X" , having successfully lived as gender "X" for years, despite being born gender "Y", you are still going to be disposed to illnesses that effect gender "Y".
Anyone care to debate that? Any MDs care to chime in?
Another thing- I find it very interesting how quickly you guys started to assume I'm being "narrow minded" and how I need to "broaden my horizons"...
I find it even more interesting that you jumped to the same conclusions (prejudicial conclusions, perhaps) despite my twice stating that I support transgender rights and that it is not a personal choice but an inherent predisposition.
EDIT: So let me clear it us as exhaustively as possible---
I understand that people are born feeling that they were put in the wrong body.
I understand it is not a choice, that these people are born like this, just as I was born with lots of moles. Not my choice, not their choice.
I understand that these people have sex reassignment surgery, or may dress/act like the opposite sex.
I understand and support full rights for these people.
I understand and support a person such as this living as the opposite gender.
BUT
I think it is wholly inaccurate to scientifically label them as the opposite gender, despite all of the above.
Does that really make me a narrow minded biggot? Seriously?
Lesser Evets
May 4, 06:42 AM
I just hope the OS doesn't begin to clutter up like OSX began to do after a couple years.
The iPad is the future, no doubt. A little more capability, speed, and memory, and it's excellent as a home computer.
The iPad is the future, no doubt. A little more capability, speed, and memory, and it's excellent as a home computer.
Eidorian
Nov 24, 08:02 AM
AirPort Express Base Station
save $41.00
$129.00
$88.00$8 cheaper this year.
save $41.00
$129.00
$88.00$8 cheaper this year.
SeattleMoose
Apr 30, 10:43 AM
Please restore the forums to their "pre-improvement" state.
Thanx :D
Thanx :D
scottsjack
Mar 28, 05:52 PM
Seriously Apple, how soon until the app store is the only way to install apps on your mac?
If it's going to happen I hope it's soon. Photoshop CS5.5/6.0 will be out soon and I need to decide which platform will be my main one. It could go either way over the long term. My copy of PS CS3 for Windows will have to be updated to the next release in order to maintain upgrade privileges for Windows.
If it's going to happen I hope it's soon. Photoshop CS5.5/6.0 will be out soon and I need to decide which platform will be my main one. It could go either way over the long term. My copy of PS CS3 for Windows will have to be updated to the next release in order to maintain upgrade privileges for Windows.
macenforcer
Nov 24, 02:39 PM
You are correct!
I should go back to the Apple store, and give them $101 + the extra tax associated (making it $107.56) for the MacBook I just bought. Only because this sale is lame! :rolleyes:
Yeah you should. You could have gotten it cheaper from Macconnection. No tax, free shipping, free carrying case, free mouse and $100 off. Hmmm :rolleyes:
I should go back to the Apple store, and give them $101 + the extra tax associated (making it $107.56) for the MacBook I just bought. Only because this sale is lame! :rolleyes:
Yeah you should. You could have gotten it cheaper from Macconnection. No tax, free shipping, free carrying case, free mouse and $100 off. Hmmm :rolleyes:
No comments:
Post a Comment