eeboarder
Jul 27, 07:44 PM
With those frequent speed bumps I begin to worry that my G5 imac will not be fast enough to run Leopard...
It absolutely will!!! Leopard is just going to be mostly beneficial for dual-core machines. Read this article:
http://macosrumors.com/20060710A1.php
Leopard sounds FAST!
It absolutely will!!! Leopard is just going to be mostly beneficial for dual-core machines. Read this article:
http://macosrumors.com/20060710A1.php
Leopard sounds FAST!
59031
Jul 14, 03:04 PM
Power Supply at the top is REALLY stupid.
Homy
Jul 20, 11:44 AM
eight cores + Tiger = Octopussy?!?:p
DwightSchrute
Aug 27, 01:03 PM
Then for some reason it was bumped to a new ship date of august 31st, just enough time to drop a new merom processor in it!
That is interesting because I ordered a Macbook on Tuesday (the 22nd) and mine is also scheduled to ship on the 31st. It is suspiciously strange and hopefully it means that we'll get Meroms because I was waiting for the Merom MBP when I decided to just order a Yonah MB.
That is interesting because I ordered a Macbook on Tuesday (the 22nd) and mine is also scheduled to ship on the 31st. It is suspiciously strange and hopefully it means that we'll get Meroms because I was waiting for the Merom MBP when I decided to just order a Yonah MB.
marksman
Apr 25, 04:38 PM
Prove it.
The burden of proof is not on him or Apple and you can't prove a negative.
The burden of proof would be on those bringing the lawsuit or people like yourself to prove apple is doing something with this data.
The burden of proof is not on him or Apple and you can't prove a negative.
The burden of proof would be on those bringing the lawsuit or people like yourself to prove apple is doing something with this data.
Snowy_River
Jul 30, 02:08 AM
It looks pretty good! The extra room would allow for the 3.5" HDD and a dedicated GPU--making it a "true" media center.
Not to nitpick, but maybe it would only have to be 1.5x wider rather than 2x wide. Either way, I think it's pretty cool. Thanks! ;)
I think that the bigger issue with Dan=='s design (full credit and kudos for the idea!) is that the Mac Mini is so small that it only uses laptop components. If you want to have a full-size optical drive or a full-size hard drive, you need to use a larger form factor. This is part of the reason for the size of my design.
Here's a comparison in sizes (I've also changed the floor because my wife thought that the reflection was confusing...)
http://www.ghwphoto.com/3MacsFrontSm.png
http://www.ghwphoto.com/3MacsBackSm.png
Cheers!
Not to nitpick, but maybe it would only have to be 1.5x wider rather than 2x wide. Either way, I think it's pretty cool. Thanks! ;)
I think that the bigger issue with Dan=='s design (full credit and kudos for the idea!) is that the Mac Mini is so small that it only uses laptop components. If you want to have a full-size optical drive or a full-size hard drive, you need to use a larger form factor. This is part of the reason for the size of my design.
Here's a comparison in sizes (I've also changed the floor because my wife thought that the reflection was confusing...)
http://www.ghwphoto.com/3MacsFrontSm.png
http://www.ghwphoto.com/3MacsBackSm.png
Cheers!
ssk2
Apr 11, 01:45 PM
The sheer amount of people posting here, saying they're moving from iPhone if the new model is delayed significantly is quite telling really.
We're a community that thrives on tech news, but the average joe doesn't care and if his/her contract is up for renewal between June and the release date and there's no new iPhone to fill that void, chances are they AREN'T going to hang around for iPhone 5.
I've had iPhones on the 'odd numbered cycles' (ie. 1 and 3) and I really am thinking of switching. I don't want the hassle of having to wait 2/3/4/however many months. Call me fickle, or having no patience, but MY OPINION is that Apple just isn't keeping up with competition.
We're a community that thrives on tech news, but the average joe doesn't care and if his/her contract is up for renewal between June and the release date and there's no new iPhone to fill that void, chances are they AREN'T going to hang around for iPhone 5.
I've had iPhones on the 'odd numbered cycles' (ie. 1 and 3) and I really am thinking of switching. I don't want the hassle of having to wait 2/3/4/however many months. Call me fickle, or having no patience, but MY OPINION is that Apple just isn't keeping up with competition.
Mattsasa
Apr 6, 03:01 PM
I hope that number keeps rising; we need competition to not let Apple rest on it's laurels.
apple isn't resting on their laurels,
if that number rises... which it will, it just means less developers and apps for ios
apple isn't resting on their laurels,
if that number rises... which it will, it just means less developers and apps for ios
padr�
Sep 19, 01:12 PM
then i will have to work just a little bit harder i'm afraid ;)
i'll start with the 1 gig ram, maybe 2, and later i will be upgrading,it can't stay expansive forever.
thx again for your reply
i'll start with the 1 gig ram, maybe 2, and later i will be upgrading,it can't stay expansive forever.
thx again for your reply
Nuck81
Dec 7, 10:35 AM
Anyone know where to get a fast car? My level isn't enough for the good ones in store (only 21 atm, need 23) but all my opponents have +900hp ~700kg cars so my 840hp Lambo just doesn't cut it anymore. Have around 1.8m cash plus 40 cars so money isn't an issue but I just can't find any :(
Corvette ZR1 with Racing Mod. Tune it to max (but get the racing mod and oil change first thing) and you have a 905HP full on racing car for about 600,000cr
In setting makes sure to give it the Maximum amount of Downforce you can, and turn down the accelerator and torque in the LSD, so it's a little easier to control the power.
And Soft Slicks are a must as well.
Here is a pretty good tune (http://www.gtplanet.net/forum/showthread.php?t=136110#post4225807) for the ZR1
Corvette ZR1 with Racing Mod. Tune it to max (but get the racing mod and oil change first thing) and you have a 905HP full on racing car for about 600,000cr
In setting makes sure to give it the Maximum amount of Downforce you can, and turn down the accelerator and torque in the LSD, so it's a little easier to control the power.
And Soft Slicks are a must as well.
Here is a pretty good tune (http://www.gtplanet.net/forum/showthread.php?t=136110#post4225807) for the ZR1
epitaphic
Aug 18, 10:55 AM
That chart speaks for NOTHING. Comparing a Mac Pro to old 2004 single core Dual G5 PowerMacs is a completely irrelevant and spurious "test"
Nah, man, you're missing the point of the chart:
http://twoholepunch.com/quad_vs_dual.gif
Thats showing that the quad core Mac Pro is essentially the same speed as dual core Mac Pro. To translate it to normal mac scenario: If apple releases a 2.66GHz Conroe iMac/Mac/whathaveyou it will be able to crunch through FCP/Photoshop/etc faster than a Mac Pro because it can use regular DDR2 and won't suffer from horrendous memory latency.
The only way a quad Woodcrest or octo Clovertown is superior is if you're doing exactly what you do: send a bunch of things to be encoded at the same time. Video editing is a small part of the professional market. People who only encode videos day in and out are an even smaller group.
Nah, man, you're missing the point of the chart:
http://twoholepunch.com/quad_vs_dual.gif
Thats showing that the quad core Mac Pro is essentially the same speed as dual core Mac Pro. To translate it to normal mac scenario: If apple releases a 2.66GHz Conroe iMac/Mac/whathaveyou it will be able to crunch through FCP/Photoshop/etc faster than a Mac Pro because it can use regular DDR2 and won't suffer from horrendous memory latency.
The only way a quad Woodcrest or octo Clovertown is superior is if you're doing exactly what you do: send a bunch of things to be encoded at the same time. Video editing is a small part of the professional market. People who only encode videos day in and out are an even smaller group.
cbronfman
Apr 11, 06:35 PM
I'm with the other 3GS posters who hoped to be able to upgrade in June when our phones will be 2 years old (and showing their age for a tech product). I can wait until September (well, I'll have to as I don't want an iP4 which will be a year old by then). If something goes awry with my 3GS I'll have a problem as I don't want to be locked into a contract with AT&T buying a iP4 a year after it was released, and my iPhone 2G (original) has no GPS so some of the functionality I rely on will be gone). Maybe I'll schedule a genius bar check-up for my 3GS before my Apple Care expires. I don't expect LTE although it woudl be nice. I do hope for 3G+, dual core processor, improved antenna (although the signal strength on the IP4 is much stronger than on the 3GS) and thinner would be nice. I'd also really like it to be like the iPad2 with the GSM version able to work on other GSM networks by a quick change in SIM card and not locked to AT&T for those that travel a lot abroad or to Canada.
janstett
Oct 23, 11:44 AM
Unfortunately not many multithreaded apps - yet. For a long time most of the multi-threaded apps were just a select few pro level things. 3D/Visualization software, CAD, database systems, etc.. Those of us who had multiprocessor systems bought them because we had a specific software in mind or group of software applications that could take advantage of multiple processors. As current CPU manufacturing processes started hitting a wall right around the 3GHz mark, chip makers started to transition to multiple CPU cores to boost power - makes sense. Software developers have been lazy for years, just riding the wave of ever-increasing MHz. Now the multi-core CPUs are here and the software is behind as many applications need to have serious re-writes done in order to take advantage of multiple processors. Intel tried to get a jump on this with their HT (Hyper Threading) implementation that essentially simulated dual-cores on a CPU by way of two virtual CPUs. Software developers didn't exactly jump on this and warm up to it. But I also don't think the software industry truly believed that CPUs would go multi-core on a mass scale so fast... Intel and AMD both said they would, don't know why the software industry doubted. Intel and AMD are uncommonly good about telling the truth about upcoming products. Both will be shipping quad-core CPU offerings by year's end.
What you're saying isn't entirely true and may give some people the wrong idea.
First, a multicore system is helpful when running multiple CPU-intensive single-threaded applications on a proper multitasking operating system. For example, right now I'm ripping CDs on iTunes. One processor gets used a lot and the other three are idle. I could be using this CPU power for another app.
The reality is that to take advantage of multiple cores, you had to take advantage of threads. Now, I was doing this in my programs with OS/2 back in 1992. I've been writing multithreaded apps my entire career. But writing a threaded application requires thought and work, so naturally many programmers are lazy and avoid threads. Plus it is harder to debug and synchronize a multithreaded application. Windows and Linux people have been doing this since the stone age, and Windows/Linux have had usable multiprocessor systems for more than a decade (it didn't start with Hyperthreading). I had a dual-processor 486 running NT 3.5 circa 1995. It's just been more of an optional "cool trick" to write threaded applications that the timid programmer avoids. Also it's worth noting that it's possible to go overboard with excessive threading and that leads to problems (context switching, thrashing, synchronization, etc).
Now, on the Mac side, OS 9 and below couldn't properly support SMP and it required a hacked version of the OS and a special version of the application. So the history of the Mac world has been, until recently with OSX, to avoid threading and multiprocessing unless specially called for and then at great pain to do so.
So it goes back to getting developers to write threaded applications. Now that we're getting to 4 and 8 core systems, it also presents a problem.
The classic reason to create a thread is to prevent the GUI from locking up while processing. Let's say I write a GUI program that has a calculation that takes 20 seconds. If I do it the lazy way, the GUI will lock up for 20 seconds because it can't process window messages during that time. If I write a thread, the calculation can take place there and leave the GUI thread able to process messages and keep the application alive, and then signal the other thread when it's done.
But now with more than 4 or 8 cores, the problem is how do you break up the work? 9 women can't have a baby in a month. So if your process is still serialized, you still have to wait with 1 processor doing all the work and the others sitting idle. For example, if you encode a video, it is a very serialized process. I hear some work has been done to simultaneously encode macroblocks in parallel, but getting 8 processors to chew on a single video is an interesting problem.
What you're saying isn't entirely true and may give some people the wrong idea.
First, a multicore system is helpful when running multiple CPU-intensive single-threaded applications on a proper multitasking operating system. For example, right now I'm ripping CDs on iTunes. One processor gets used a lot and the other three are idle. I could be using this CPU power for another app.
The reality is that to take advantage of multiple cores, you had to take advantage of threads. Now, I was doing this in my programs with OS/2 back in 1992. I've been writing multithreaded apps my entire career. But writing a threaded application requires thought and work, so naturally many programmers are lazy and avoid threads. Plus it is harder to debug and synchronize a multithreaded application. Windows and Linux people have been doing this since the stone age, and Windows/Linux have had usable multiprocessor systems for more than a decade (it didn't start with Hyperthreading). I had a dual-processor 486 running NT 3.5 circa 1995. It's just been more of an optional "cool trick" to write threaded applications that the timid programmer avoids. Also it's worth noting that it's possible to go overboard with excessive threading and that leads to problems (context switching, thrashing, synchronization, etc).
Now, on the Mac side, OS 9 and below couldn't properly support SMP and it required a hacked version of the OS and a special version of the application. So the history of the Mac world has been, until recently with OSX, to avoid threading and multiprocessing unless specially called for and then at great pain to do so.
So it goes back to getting developers to write threaded applications. Now that we're getting to 4 and 8 core systems, it also presents a problem.
The classic reason to create a thread is to prevent the GUI from locking up while processing. Let's say I write a GUI program that has a calculation that takes 20 seconds. If I do it the lazy way, the GUI will lock up for 20 seconds because it can't process window messages during that time. If I write a thread, the calculation can take place there and leave the GUI thread able to process messages and keep the application alive, and then signal the other thread when it's done.
But now with more than 4 or 8 cores, the problem is how do you break up the work? 9 women can't have a baby in a month. So if your process is still serialized, you still have to wait with 1 processor doing all the work and the others sitting idle. For example, if you encode a video, it is a very serialized process. I hear some work has been done to simultaneously encode macroblocks in parallel, but getting 8 processors to chew on a single video is an interesting problem.
NY Guitarist
Apr 6, 02:24 PM
I guess I just assumed that anyone who has used a computer for more than two weeks would be capable of typing without staring at the keyboard.
That is highly limited thinking. It might be time to open your mind and learn how and why other people might actually want a particular feature rather than assume that they are the person who is limited.
I, and many others, use our computers for way more than typing.
A simple example is when I use my MBPro on stage with any number of apps for musical performances.
Also the sound engineers use MBPro for audio cues,audio mixing, recording, effects processing. The lighting guys use them.
When you are heavily involved in multitasking you need to be able to see something, identify it and use it, all within a fraction of a second. You are not sitting there touch typing.
That is highly limited thinking. It might be time to open your mind and learn how and why other people might actually want a particular feature rather than assume that they are the person who is limited.
I, and many others, use our computers for way more than typing.
A simple example is when I use my MBPro on stage with any number of apps for musical performances.
Also the sound engineers use MBPro for audio cues,audio mixing, recording, effects processing. The lighting guys use them.
When you are heavily involved in multitasking you need to be able to see something, identify it and use it, all within a fraction of a second. You are not sitting there touch typing.
H. Flower
Apr 7, 11:03 PM
All right then, here we are.
This better be good. Or back to AVID, or on to Premiere.
This better be good. Or back to AVID, or on to Premiere.
Mattie Num Nums
Apr 20, 10:51 AM
Depends on which model. The AT&T/Rogers Galaxy S Captivate hardly ressembles the iPhone :
http://www.droiddog.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/att-samsung-captivate-photo-1.jpg
I'm also hard-pressed to see how the Nexus S comes even close :
http://blog.eches.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/samsung-nexus-s.jpg
Let's not even go there with the Epic 4G :
http://handies.phandroid.com/media/samsung-epic-4g-1288875927-196.jpg
Yet they are all included in the complaint...
Of course. Apple invented the phone, the computer, the GUI, the mouse, etc etc etc. :rolleyes:
http://www.droiddog.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/att-samsung-captivate-photo-1.jpg
I'm also hard-pressed to see how the Nexus S comes even close :
http://blog.eches.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/samsung-nexus-s.jpg
Let's not even go there with the Epic 4G :
http://handies.phandroid.com/media/samsung-epic-4g-1288875927-196.jpg
Yet they are all included in the complaint...
Of course. Apple invented the phone, the computer, the GUI, the mouse, etc etc etc. :rolleyes:
Amazing Iceman
Mar 22, 10:31 PM
Microsoft Office 2007 (Windows) and 2011 (Mac) are not slow.
They may be slow in your super �ber Mac from which uses the super �ber Core 2 Duo, but it's certainly not in my sister's Core i3 notebook.
Your machine is outdated. I hope you're not using it as a reference to judge Microsoft Office performance.
Are you having PMS (no offense to the ladies) or something like that?
I didn't say it ran slow on my MAC. Even FCP and CS5 run great. Otherwise I would have already purchased a new one. Unlike you, I can afford it. I'm going to buy the new 17" MBP, but because it has issues I decided to wait until these get solved, but that's not your business.
Also, your ignorance and arrogance didn't let you understand my point. Every new version of Office, specially the Windows version, requires a bigger and faster computer to run. And when you compare features, there's no real gain from one version to the next, just nice looking colors and animations, which are a waste of processor speed.
Go learn some manners, and mature at least a little. Idiots like you shouldn't be allowed in these forums.
They may be slow in your super �ber Mac from which uses the super �ber Core 2 Duo, but it's certainly not in my sister's Core i3 notebook.
Your machine is outdated. I hope you're not using it as a reference to judge Microsoft Office performance.
Are you having PMS (no offense to the ladies) or something like that?
I didn't say it ran slow on my MAC. Even FCP and CS5 run great. Otherwise I would have already purchased a new one. Unlike you, I can afford it. I'm going to buy the new 17" MBP, but because it has issues I decided to wait until these get solved, but that's not your business.
Also, your ignorance and arrogance didn't let you understand my point. Every new version of Office, specially the Windows version, requires a bigger and faster computer to run. And when you compare features, there's no real gain from one version to the next, just nice looking colors and animations, which are a waste of processor speed.
Go learn some manners, and mature at least a little. Idiots like you shouldn't be allowed in these forums.
miniConvert
Mar 22, 12:47 PM
Samsung redesigned the 10.1 'just like that' did they? Wow, that's going to be one impressive piece of carefully considered and crafted engineering if they poured over it for such an extensive amount of time.... </sarcasm>
Seriously, either Samsung have pulled something incredible out of the bag or, more likely IMHO, this 'new' 10.1 wont be all that. They're certainly desperate to have a tablet success!
Seriously, either Samsung have pulled something incredible out of the bag or, more likely IMHO, this 'new' 10.1 wont be all that. They're certainly desperate to have a tablet success!
jmbear
Nov 29, 12:39 PM
See, that's the catch-22 for new artists. The labels are the ones that get tunes played on the radio. In the 50's and 60's they would strong-arm their stuff in, but I'm sure even nowadays they provide incentives (read: bribes) to get new stuff on the air. Especially if they think the band is really good and will make it in the long run. And don't fool yourself into thinking a new band can get huge without radio.
The internet can become the new radio. I am quite fond of looking for pre-made playlists, I will get the songs on LimeWire, listen to them, the ones I like, I buy legally, the ones I don�t I delete them. You don�t get commercials, just music. I am not saying that radio is going to dissapear completely. TV didn�t kill it. But its importance will diminish.
The problem is that the labels get the artists by the balls when they sign them up to ridiculous contracts. Your 1-4 examples look pretty good on paper, but in order to sell any significant number of copies of their music, anyone wanting it (but doesn't know it yet) has to wade through tons of (what that persons sees as) crap just to get any exposure to something they'll consider good. I'm sure there's a lot of music in the indie catalog that I would just love, but I don't have the time to wade through it all to find it. Instead, I'll listen to the radio and when I hear something I like, I'll try to pay attention to who it is. I may or may not end up buying it, or checking out what else they do, but without radio exposure, most good indie bands don't have a chance in hell of selling to anyone except those that happen to be in the bar where they're playing one weekend..
iTMS could potentially change this. There are some people that will do all the research for you (as in what is good music), then ratings will allow you to get the good songs! It�s similar (and somebody will flame me for saying this) to researching a product on Amazon or CNET, you usually look for a LCD screen, all the results pop, and you will go for the ones with the highest ratings, read the comments and eventually make up your mind. Some day you will look up for electronic music (which I love), all the DJ�s will pop, you will pick the highest rated songs or playlists (because most people like a song because other people like it), listen to their songs for free (yeah, just like radio), and then buy them if you want.
Now, if you take a look at already established and popular bands, that's a different story. Someone mentioned huge bands like Pink Floyd. Their last couple of CDs didn't need a big label to sell. People were going to buy it if they like Floyd no matter what. And in a case of that kind of popularity, the radio stations were going to play them with or without a major label. The same could be applied to other huge (classic) rock bands, as well as established artists in other music styles (country, rap, R&B, blues, etc...). Another example would be someone like Eric Clapton. He could put one out on "Clapton Records" and would sell nearly, if not exactly, the same number of CDs as he will on a major label..
I agree record labels + good music = superstars like Calpton, Floyd, U2 etc... But these bands became popular in a different time (before the internet). Internet is changing the record labels� business model, and that is what they afraid of. The new wait of creating bands and distributing their music is not as profitable for them as it used to.
Unfortunately, the number of artists (of any type of music) that could dismiss the labels and still sell as many CDs and get the same radio exposure are limited. And any new band is going to go nowhere without radio (or MTV/VH1) exposure.
Internet is offering them exposure. Right now MTV and VH1 are still popular. But YouTube, Yahoo!, MSN could become the new MTV and VH1.
Not really relevant, but interesting to think about is that most of you have probably seen the video of the ruma ruma guy (I can�t link it because I am at work and the proxie does not allow me to visit YouTube). But how many have actually seen the video for the song? YouTube made that fat kid a star, and most people probably know his face better than the guys that sing the song. Exposure.
In the end, I don't see the labels going away totally any time soon. They're in cahoots with the big FM music stations and in general, they do a good job of promoting new good bands that sign up. It's just a shame that there's really nothing to keep them from raping the artists. If there were just some way for new bands to get exposure to the masses without having to sell their souls to the labels then things would be better. Unfortunately, the Internet can only go so far in helping a new band with this.
I agree, they won�t go away anytime soon, but change is coming, and change will be good for artists and consumers, not for the record labels.
Sorry for my weird grammar or mispells, I am not a native english speaker, I don�t have a spell checker on this computer (in english at least) and I am too lazy to proof read what I wrote lol :)
The internet can become the new radio. I am quite fond of looking for pre-made playlists, I will get the songs on LimeWire, listen to them, the ones I like, I buy legally, the ones I don�t I delete them. You don�t get commercials, just music. I am not saying that radio is going to dissapear completely. TV didn�t kill it. But its importance will diminish.
The problem is that the labels get the artists by the balls when they sign them up to ridiculous contracts. Your 1-4 examples look pretty good on paper, but in order to sell any significant number of copies of their music, anyone wanting it (but doesn't know it yet) has to wade through tons of (what that persons sees as) crap just to get any exposure to something they'll consider good. I'm sure there's a lot of music in the indie catalog that I would just love, but I don't have the time to wade through it all to find it. Instead, I'll listen to the radio and when I hear something I like, I'll try to pay attention to who it is. I may or may not end up buying it, or checking out what else they do, but without radio exposure, most good indie bands don't have a chance in hell of selling to anyone except those that happen to be in the bar where they're playing one weekend..
iTMS could potentially change this. There are some people that will do all the research for you (as in what is good music), then ratings will allow you to get the good songs! It�s similar (and somebody will flame me for saying this) to researching a product on Amazon or CNET, you usually look for a LCD screen, all the results pop, and you will go for the ones with the highest ratings, read the comments and eventually make up your mind. Some day you will look up for electronic music (which I love), all the DJ�s will pop, you will pick the highest rated songs or playlists (because most people like a song because other people like it), listen to their songs for free (yeah, just like radio), and then buy them if you want.
Now, if you take a look at already established and popular bands, that's a different story. Someone mentioned huge bands like Pink Floyd. Their last couple of CDs didn't need a big label to sell. People were going to buy it if they like Floyd no matter what. And in a case of that kind of popularity, the radio stations were going to play them with or without a major label. The same could be applied to other huge (classic) rock bands, as well as established artists in other music styles (country, rap, R&B, blues, etc...). Another example would be someone like Eric Clapton. He could put one out on "Clapton Records" and would sell nearly, if not exactly, the same number of CDs as he will on a major label..
I agree record labels + good music = superstars like Calpton, Floyd, U2 etc... But these bands became popular in a different time (before the internet). Internet is changing the record labels� business model, and that is what they afraid of. The new wait of creating bands and distributing their music is not as profitable for them as it used to.
Unfortunately, the number of artists (of any type of music) that could dismiss the labels and still sell as many CDs and get the same radio exposure are limited. And any new band is going to go nowhere without radio (or MTV/VH1) exposure.
Internet is offering them exposure. Right now MTV and VH1 are still popular. But YouTube, Yahoo!, MSN could become the new MTV and VH1.
Not really relevant, but interesting to think about is that most of you have probably seen the video of the ruma ruma guy (I can�t link it because I am at work and the proxie does not allow me to visit YouTube). But how many have actually seen the video for the song? YouTube made that fat kid a star, and most people probably know his face better than the guys that sing the song. Exposure.
In the end, I don't see the labels going away totally any time soon. They're in cahoots with the big FM music stations and in general, they do a good job of promoting new good bands that sign up. It's just a shame that there's really nothing to keep them from raping the artists. If there were just some way for new bands to get exposure to the masses without having to sell their souls to the labels then things would be better. Unfortunately, the Internet can only go so far in helping a new band with this.
I agree, they won�t go away anytime soon, but change is coming, and change will be good for artists and consumers, not for the record labels.
Sorry for my weird grammar or mispells, I am not a native english speaker, I don�t have a spell checker on this computer (in english at least) and I am too lazy to proof read what I wrote lol :)
intlplby
Nov 28, 10:53 PM
i'd love to see this work as a defense in court, but it'd never happen
Dark K
Jun 22, 09:07 AM
That is just ridicoulous, what, shipment will come the 23rd on midnight? If they tell you "come Thursday", that probably means that we won't get any, if Radioshack has indeed not receive any info, that means that selected stores will get the pre-orders plus some others.
bibbz
Jun 8, 09:57 PM
RadioShack store manager here and i have some very interesting information if you guys don't already know this. Please quote this as much as possible to get the word out.
We offer a trade in program. We offer the most money on a trade in on the iPhones. As of 9:42pm on 6/8/10 these are the values...
These prices are taken off instantly from what you purchase(no mail in rebates) or applied to a gift card instantly. Your choice.
3Gs 32Gb - $271
3Gs 16Gb - $210
3G 16Gb - $149
3G 8Gb - $118
The older models are on the website as well, look for yourself...
http://radioshack.cexchange.com/online/Home/ManufacturerSelected.rails?enc=sU4reD6QJWP5MQn1SwFn38CtURe9PcXAJv9fUpYciv8=
That means if you are eligible for the $199 price and trade in your 16gb 3Gs, we will instantly (no mail in rebates) take $210 off the $199 for the iPhone 4 and you will have a $10 balance either applied on a gift card, to the taxes, or towards an accessory, whatever you prefer.
Intrigued yet? Now follow me here...
Not sure if this will be the same policy on the iPhone 4, but the way its set up right now: The day you do an upgrade to any phone, you are immediately eligible for an "Early iPhone Upgrade". That means ATT tacks on a $200 early upgrade fee.
If you are currently not eligible for an upgrade, but eligible for an "Early iPhone Upgrade" (You will be, you always are, again even if you did an upgrade 5 minutes ago.) Now, that $199 iPhone 4 becomes $399. You can trade in your current model towards that $399 price.
Trade in a 16Gb 3Gs and the $399 Early upgrade on the iPhone 4 is now $189. If you need to, take a sec and read this again so you fully understand.
This is 100% accurate except there has been no announcement made for the "Early iPhone Upgrade" continuing on the iPhone 4. I very strongly believe it will. Also, the trade in values may drop a tad when the iPhone 4 launches, but look at the current prices we give on 3G's and original iPhones, it is still very good. You are not gonna get "eBay money" but you get a respectable amount and it is all taken care of instantly in the store. SPREAD THE WORD!!
Now, What do you think about getting your iPhone 4 at the shack? I'll see you there... :)
We offer a trade in program. We offer the most money on a trade in on the iPhones. As of 9:42pm on 6/8/10 these are the values...
These prices are taken off instantly from what you purchase(no mail in rebates) or applied to a gift card instantly. Your choice.
3Gs 32Gb - $271
3Gs 16Gb - $210
3G 16Gb - $149
3G 8Gb - $118
The older models are on the website as well, look for yourself...
http://radioshack.cexchange.com/online/Home/ManufacturerSelected.rails?enc=sU4reD6QJWP5MQn1SwFn38CtURe9PcXAJv9fUpYciv8=
That means if you are eligible for the $199 price and trade in your 16gb 3Gs, we will instantly (no mail in rebates) take $210 off the $199 for the iPhone 4 and you will have a $10 balance either applied on a gift card, to the taxes, or towards an accessory, whatever you prefer.
Intrigued yet? Now follow me here...
Not sure if this will be the same policy on the iPhone 4, but the way its set up right now: The day you do an upgrade to any phone, you are immediately eligible for an "Early iPhone Upgrade". That means ATT tacks on a $200 early upgrade fee.
If you are currently not eligible for an upgrade, but eligible for an "Early iPhone Upgrade" (You will be, you always are, again even if you did an upgrade 5 minutes ago.) Now, that $199 iPhone 4 becomes $399. You can trade in your current model towards that $399 price.
Trade in a 16Gb 3Gs and the $399 Early upgrade on the iPhone 4 is now $189. If you need to, take a sec and read this again so you fully understand.
This is 100% accurate except there has been no announcement made for the "Early iPhone Upgrade" continuing on the iPhone 4. I very strongly believe it will. Also, the trade in values may drop a tad when the iPhone 4 launches, but look at the current prices we give on 3G's and original iPhones, it is still very good. You are not gonna get "eBay money" but you get a respectable amount and it is all taken care of instantly in the store. SPREAD THE WORD!!
Now, What do you think about getting your iPhone 4 at the shack? I'll see you there... :)
SodaPopMonster
Aug 11, 10:13 AM
Wow, must be hella good.
leekohler
Feb 28, 12:57 PM
A same-sex attracted person is living a "gay lifestyle" when he or she dates people of the same sex, "marries" people of the same sex, has same-sex sex, or does any combination of these things. I think that if same-sex attracted people are going to live together, they need to do that as though they were siblings, not as sex partners. In my opinion, they should have purely platonic, nonsexual relationships with one another.
What I do is none of your damn business. And your opinion has no bearing on my life. Why you feel the need to tell others what to do is beyond me. Take care of your own house, let me take care of mine.
What I do is none of your damn business. And your opinion has no bearing on my life. Why you feel the need to tell others what to do is beyond me. Take care of your own house, let me take care of mine.
No comments:
Post a Comment