Popeye206
Apr 8, 04:20 PM
I think I get it now. They save inventory so they can advertise they have iPad2 in stock on date x. Date x comes a long and hordes of people flock to their stores, buying all of their iPad2s in minutes. They now have an opportunity to try and move some of their Xoom inventory on thr more gullible in the group. I am sure most buys are trying to figure what pieces of the Xoom can be recycled.
Obviously that strategy isn't working with only 100K in Xoom sales so far! :p
Obviously that strategy isn't working with only 100K in Xoom sales so far! :p
leekohler
Mar 4, 09:05 AM
Strikes would be illegal? This is why the Republican Party can never be allowed to lead this country. Land Of The Free my arse. Unions are made up of people who want some control over their professions (whatever it is) and their lives. Conservatives/Republican's will never be happy if lowly workers have some control. They can take what we give them and they'd better be happy with it or else.
That's my company's attitude. We need less of that kind of thing, not more. That attitude is spreading too.
That's my company's attitude. We need less of that kind of thing, not more. That attitude is spreading too.
felixen
Apr 16, 01:41 AM
I hope not, I read that the next iphone might have a camera flash and I dont see one in these pictures. The flash is essential. The lack of one nearly made me decide not to get the current iphone. Either flash or the new technology that makes the pictures just as bright.. DO IT
macman2790
Oct 3, 01:18 PM
If it takes that long before C2D finds its way into the MBP, I think Apple will be laughed at by a lot of the other manufacturers who have already announced models due before the holiday season.
They might get laughed at but apple will be the ones laughing when their the first to debut santa rosa with 800mhz fsb and nand flash. Hopefully this is whats going to happen
They might get laughed at but apple will be the ones laughing when their the first to debut santa rosa with 800mhz fsb and nand flash. Hopefully this is whats going to happen
gri
Apr 17, 01:57 PM
The radiation dosage from any properly maintained active scanner is still orders of magnitude less than what you get from a 4-hour flight at 10 km. Go ahead and opt out of your full-body scans... if you're doing it for the "health" reason you're tilting at a very small windmill.
Just read this letters from 4 UCSF professors to Dr. Holdren (advisor to the president) regarding the as of yet not proven harmlessness of the X-ray backscatter devices (http://www.npr.org/assets/news/2010/05/17/concern.pdf). Just to name a few: low dose radiation with high dose administered to the skin. Real photon Flux is not known. And - who is controlling the scanners and how to you know they are properly maintained? I am a radiologist and nuclear medicine physician and we have to report every dose the patient receives (X-rays and nuclides) - here you don't know the deposited dose. The letter is a good read and should be made much more public. The link is through NPR thankfully...
Just read this letters from 4 UCSF professors to Dr. Holdren (advisor to the president) regarding the as of yet not proven harmlessness of the X-ray backscatter devices (http://www.npr.org/assets/news/2010/05/17/concern.pdf). Just to name a few: low dose radiation with high dose administered to the skin. Real photon Flux is not known. And - who is controlling the scanners and how to you know they are properly maintained? I am a radiologist and nuclear medicine physician and we have to report every dose the patient receives (X-rays and nuclides) - here you don't know the deposited dose. The letter is a good read and should be made much more public. The link is through NPR thankfully...
rhett7660
Apr 22, 10:15 AM
Boy I can't wait to see this used on some of the posts by certain members. This is going to be down right comical. Nothing like seeing a -54 on a post. :D
D*I*S_Frontman
Jan 12, 06:28 PM
Look, people--
There is nothing amazingly new or innovative technology-wise in the iPhone. Everything in it has been done before, and it does not even employ some of the latest (3G) features that its competition does.
Niether did the original iPod. Grasshopper, go and learn from Thread #500. People thought that product was "crippled" by high price and no new technology ("An overpriced HDD-based mp3 player with a B&W LCD display? Who cares?").
I predict that Apple will have 20% of the entire cell phone market and 50+% of the high-end communication device within three years of its June release. That will mean 150-200 million units.
In the intervening six months before formal release, or shortly thereafter, some of the smaller issues will be attended to (like the ability to at least open and review MS files, sync'ing issues, interfacing w/iTunes Store, what have you). The rest won't matter.
Apple does not sell products, people. They sell personal productivity, great user experiences, wow and chic. This phone phone meets all of those criteria. For consumer devices like these, a streamlined and intuitive user experience is like money in the bank. The only thing innovative about the iPod is the stupid click-wheel, and yet 75% of the ENTIRE aac/mp3 player market is controlled by ONE COMPANY. The one with the click-wheel.
So it is with this product. If the final build quality of the unit proves durable, reliable, and cosmetically superior, and the unit functions as billed, it will not only make a huge forray into that giant market, but essentially create a new one.
Right now, the "smartphone" is really a piece of business equipment. Apple just invented the quintessential "consumer" version of the same product. It doesn't matter that it is expensive or lacks some high-end features. If is actually works as effortlessly and seamlessly as billed, it will become another cultural icon. Apple marketing will see to it that everyone on the planet is aware of how "cool" this device is.
I'm glad to be on record here. I hope that when this thread is reviewed three years from now, everyone is talking about the foolish naysayers of Thread #3245138 (or whatever this one is).
There is nothing amazingly new or innovative technology-wise in the iPhone. Everything in it has been done before, and it does not even employ some of the latest (3G) features that its competition does.
Niether did the original iPod. Grasshopper, go and learn from Thread #500. People thought that product was "crippled" by high price and no new technology ("An overpriced HDD-based mp3 player with a B&W LCD display? Who cares?").
I predict that Apple will have 20% of the entire cell phone market and 50+% of the high-end communication device within three years of its June release. That will mean 150-200 million units.
In the intervening six months before formal release, or shortly thereafter, some of the smaller issues will be attended to (like the ability to at least open and review MS files, sync'ing issues, interfacing w/iTunes Store, what have you). The rest won't matter.
Apple does not sell products, people. They sell personal productivity, great user experiences, wow and chic. This phone phone meets all of those criteria. For consumer devices like these, a streamlined and intuitive user experience is like money in the bank. The only thing innovative about the iPod is the stupid click-wheel, and yet 75% of the ENTIRE aac/mp3 player market is controlled by ONE COMPANY. The one with the click-wheel.
So it is with this product. If the final build quality of the unit proves durable, reliable, and cosmetically superior, and the unit functions as billed, it will not only make a huge forray into that giant market, but essentially create a new one.
Right now, the "smartphone" is really a piece of business equipment. Apple just invented the quintessential "consumer" version of the same product. It doesn't matter that it is expensive or lacks some high-end features. If is actually works as effortlessly and seamlessly as billed, it will become another cultural icon. Apple marketing will see to it that everyone on the planet is aware of how "cool" this device is.
I'm glad to be on record here. I hope that when this thread is reviewed three years from now, everyone is talking about the foolish naysayers of Thread #3245138 (or whatever this one is).
Amazing Iceman
May 4, 11:39 AM
In iTunes you can see a banner ad that says "Apps from iPad TV ads." That will take you to a page where you will see the apps.
Thanks, but as I wrote on my original post, I have already checked there but the list was not updated with the apps featured in the latest Ad.
Thanks, but as I wrote on my original post, I have already checked there but the list was not updated with the apps featured in the latest Ad.
Mousse
Apr 13, 01:27 PM
http://humorpix.com/images/0f1f0056ca26878fc23be02deea2407c/TSA_statistics0-size-600x0.jpg
ZERO plots discovered.:eek: Why not have an automated body scanner that will alert an agent, if something odd pops up? Clearly the current system ain't working.:rolleyes:
ZERO plots discovered.:eek: Why not have an automated body scanner that will alert an agent, if something odd pops up? Clearly the current system ain't working.:rolleyes:
leekohler
May 6, 10:09 AM
I believe this might LITERALLY be the first time I've ever read something from Lee, been impressed with it's depth, and not been saddened by the complete opacity of his partisan blinders.
Very well said, sir. I agree, 100%
Funny, you could really use this advice more than anyone else here.
I would take that as a compliment, but it was just another backhanded insult.
Here's a little knowledge. Try to empower yourself with it.
I've shot guns.
And yet ... somehow ... I'm not bewitched by the thrill of firearms.
I know. How is that even possible? :eek:
Well, good for you. Maybe other people do enjoy them. Different strokes, dude. I tried marijuana, and wasn't "bewitched" by that thrill either. That doesn't mean I don't think other people should not be able to use it.
Very well said, sir. I agree, 100%
Funny, you could really use this advice more than anyone else here.
I would take that as a compliment, but it was just another backhanded insult.
Here's a little knowledge. Try to empower yourself with it.
I've shot guns.
And yet ... somehow ... I'm not bewitched by the thrill of firearms.
I know. How is that even possible? :eek:
Well, good for you. Maybe other people do enjoy them. Different strokes, dude. I tried marijuana, and wasn't "bewitched" by that thrill either. That doesn't mean I don't think other people should not be able to use it.
snberk103
Apr 15, 08:03 PM
Well actually we know the TSA methods don't work because both of the incidents were from European airports that mirror what the TSA does. Added to the number of weapons that make it through TSA checkpoints, it's easy to see that the TSA does in fact not work to the extent that it is expected to.
All we know is that increased security screening is not perfect. Perhaps you can extrapolate the European experience (in this case) to the TSA... but that's as far as you can go.
I understood your rather simplistic attempt at game theory just fine. The problem remains that one side is not a rational actor. The command portion of terrorists have virtually nothing to lose with a botched attempt, and neither does the fanatic patsy. A 50/50 ratio isn't good enough for our security because the downside for both command and patsy are much smaller than the upside (from their perspective). The chances of failure need to be much higher in order to effectively deter terrorists.
Do you always start with the insulting tone (see bolding) when the debate isn't going your way? I would argue that both sides are rational actors, though both sides may also employ non-rational players. The higher echelons of terrorist organizations have shown themselves to very worried about being captured by the fact that they are so hard to catch. If they didn't care, they wouldn't be going to a great deal of trouble to avoid it. Therefore, to my mind, they are rational actors. That 50/50 number is one that I threw into the argument as an "for argument's sake". Please don't rely on it for anything factual. The TSA in fact catches more than 50% of their training/testing planted weapons. And yes, I think even if the the number was as low as 50/50 a rational actor would do everything... oh heck... I've already written all that - you've not presented anything else of substance in it's place, so I'll just save my typing finger....
Sacrificing these things is appropriate when there is a tangible gain. There hasn't been much of a tangible gain with TSA, and this is coming from the head of Israeli Security. We're paying a lot and getting almost nothing in return. Every year there's a new "standard" put out there to make it seem like TSA is doing something, but time and again security experts have lambasted TSA and its efforts as a dog and pony show.
Your own opinion of flying should be an example of how ridiculous things have gotten. If people now become disgruntled and irritated every time they fly, for perhaps marginal gains in security, then our methods have failed.
That's the funny thing. I've never actually said that the TSA is the best thing around. All I've said is that the TSA is doing something. That's all - that the TSA is doing something right. Not everything. Just something. Go back and look it up. Even the head of the Israeli security never said they were useless (as in doing nothing right). Just that it wasn't the best use of resources. Oh, and if you know Israelis (and I do), then you'll also know that there is another Israeli who knows just as much as that first fellow, and she thinks the TSA is doing things just fine.
It is difficult to prove, but you can make an educated guess about what the cause is. Other than the correlational evidence, there is no other good data to suggest that TSA has actually been effective. In no field is correlation enough to establish anything but correlation.
That's the problem with 90% of the decisions Governments make. All they have is correlational connections. Or incomplete causal relationships. Or... basically the best they can do is make an educated guess, and hope for the best.
No, that's not how it works. If you want to assert your idea as correct, the burden is on you to show that it is correct. I am going to try to poke holes in your reasoning, and it's up to you to show that my criticisms are invalid on the bases of logic and evidence.
No, on two counts. 1) You asserted "Our attempts at security are at best as good as Lisa's rock...". I countered your assertion by saying that the TSA must be doing something right, and used the stats on hijackings. I (to paraphrase you) "poked hole in your reasoning". You've presented nothing that counters my evidence, except to try mocking it as simplistic. If it is, then show how it is.... If my argument doesn't convince you. Then say so, and then leave it at that. I have my opinion, you have yours. But if you want me to change my opinion you had better do better. 2) I've forgotten - cr*p.
So far you've only cited correlation, which is not sufficient evidence for causation. You ignored my criticism based on military intervention, changing travel patterns, etc, and only want to trumpet your belief that correlation is enough. It's not. If you don't want to do more on Mac Rumors, then don't post anymore on this topic concerning this line of discussion.
You are right correlations don't show causation. But they are evidence for it. If you have evidence that shows otherwise, present it.
sad life poems
Tags: i miss you poems, i miss
miss you poems. I Miss You
We all miss you and Love all
Miss You Love Letters. miss
ill miss you poems.
i miss you poems for him.
miss you quotes for boyfriend.
All we know is that increased security screening is not perfect. Perhaps you can extrapolate the European experience (in this case) to the TSA... but that's as far as you can go.
I understood your rather simplistic attempt at game theory just fine. The problem remains that one side is not a rational actor. The command portion of terrorists have virtually nothing to lose with a botched attempt, and neither does the fanatic patsy. A 50/50 ratio isn't good enough for our security because the downside for both command and patsy are much smaller than the upside (from their perspective). The chances of failure need to be much higher in order to effectively deter terrorists.
Do you always start with the insulting tone (see bolding) when the debate isn't going your way? I would argue that both sides are rational actors, though both sides may also employ non-rational players. The higher echelons of terrorist organizations have shown themselves to very worried about being captured by the fact that they are so hard to catch. If they didn't care, they wouldn't be going to a great deal of trouble to avoid it. Therefore, to my mind, they are rational actors. That 50/50 number is one that I threw into the argument as an "for argument's sake". Please don't rely on it for anything factual. The TSA in fact catches more than 50% of their training/testing planted weapons. And yes, I think even if the the number was as low as 50/50 a rational actor would do everything... oh heck... I've already written all that - you've not presented anything else of substance in it's place, so I'll just save my typing finger....
Sacrificing these things is appropriate when there is a tangible gain. There hasn't been much of a tangible gain with TSA, and this is coming from the head of Israeli Security. We're paying a lot and getting almost nothing in return. Every year there's a new "standard" put out there to make it seem like TSA is doing something, but time and again security experts have lambasted TSA and its efforts as a dog and pony show.
Your own opinion of flying should be an example of how ridiculous things have gotten. If people now become disgruntled and irritated every time they fly, for perhaps marginal gains in security, then our methods have failed.
That's the funny thing. I've never actually said that the TSA is the best thing around. All I've said is that the TSA is doing something. That's all - that the TSA is doing something right. Not everything. Just something. Go back and look it up. Even the head of the Israeli security never said they were useless (as in doing nothing right). Just that it wasn't the best use of resources. Oh, and if you know Israelis (and I do), then you'll also know that there is another Israeli who knows just as much as that first fellow, and she thinks the TSA is doing things just fine.
It is difficult to prove, but you can make an educated guess about what the cause is. Other than the correlational evidence, there is no other good data to suggest that TSA has actually been effective. In no field is correlation enough to establish anything but correlation.
That's the problem with 90% of the decisions Governments make. All they have is correlational connections. Or incomplete causal relationships. Or... basically the best they can do is make an educated guess, and hope for the best.
No, that's not how it works. If you want to assert your idea as correct, the burden is on you to show that it is correct. I am going to try to poke holes in your reasoning, and it's up to you to show that my criticisms are invalid on the bases of logic and evidence.
No, on two counts. 1) You asserted "Our attempts at security are at best as good as Lisa's rock...". I countered your assertion by saying that the TSA must be doing something right, and used the stats on hijackings. I (to paraphrase you) "poked hole in your reasoning". You've presented nothing that counters my evidence, except to try mocking it as simplistic. If it is, then show how it is.... If my argument doesn't convince you. Then say so, and then leave it at that. I have my opinion, you have yours. But if you want me to change my opinion you had better do better. 2) I've forgotten - cr*p.
So far you've only cited correlation, which is not sufficient evidence for causation. You ignored my criticism based on military intervention, changing travel patterns, etc, and only want to trumpet your belief that correlation is enough. It's not. If you don't want to do more on Mac Rumors, then don't post anymore on this topic concerning this line of discussion.
You are right correlations don't show causation. But they are evidence for it. If you have evidence that shows otherwise, present it.
Hattig
Aug 2, 08:27 AM
Despite what a couple of posters here seem to be saying, it is good that some countries have a mechanism for protecting consumers from bad situations.
In terms of Apple's DRM however, I think you'll find that each type of DRM is a platform. Much like CDs, cassettes, and so on. I can't play vinyl in my CD player, however I can make a recording of the output, much as I can burn a CD from iTunes of iTMS purchased music.
Also it is not restricted to iPods. You can play it on every Apple Mac and Windows based PC using the freely available software from Apple. You can even play them on a couple of Motorola phones. This will weaken this part of the case against Apple. Apple can say they've taken reasonable measures to ensure that purchased media is available to the purchaser. They'll also state that there is no "No DRM" option available, this is mandated by the music companies. Also they'll state that they're not selling the music under false pretences, and people aren't forced to buy music from their store.
However I hope that the terms and conditions of use are made more consumer friendly. There are laws about terms and conditions when they apply to consumers in the EU - basically they have to be easily understood - i.e., plain english (french, german, etc), and have no unreasonable clauses, and the ability to alter the terms and conditions is an unreasonable clause.
In the past Apple has used that clause to reduce the number of playlist recordings down from 7 to 5 - I don't remember if this happened before iTMS was available outside the US however.
In terms of Apple's DRM however, I think you'll find that each type of DRM is a platform. Much like CDs, cassettes, and so on. I can't play vinyl in my CD player, however I can make a recording of the output, much as I can burn a CD from iTunes of iTMS purchased music.
Also it is not restricted to iPods. You can play it on every Apple Mac and Windows based PC using the freely available software from Apple. You can even play them on a couple of Motorola phones. This will weaken this part of the case against Apple. Apple can say they've taken reasonable measures to ensure that purchased media is available to the purchaser. They'll also state that there is no "No DRM" option available, this is mandated by the music companies. Also they'll state that they're not selling the music under false pretences, and people aren't forced to buy music from their store.
However I hope that the terms and conditions of use are made more consumer friendly. There are laws about terms and conditions when they apply to consumers in the EU - basically they have to be easily understood - i.e., plain english (french, german, etc), and have no unreasonable clauses, and the ability to alter the terms and conditions is an unreasonable clause.
In the past Apple has used that clause to reduce the number of playlist recordings down from 7 to 5 - I don't remember if this happened before iTMS was available outside the US however.
Appel
Apr 29, 04:19 PM
Holy ****. Ical looks so f gross.
nate13
Apr 25, 11:55 AM
Fake. Display looks like paper / printed.
agreed. Even though with the white one, I'd expect a 64GB available. Just makes sense; they used to have an ipod nano that only came in black in the largest size, if memory serves...
agreed. Even though with the white one, I'd expect a 64GB available. Just makes sense; they used to have an ipod nano that only came in black in the largest size, if memory serves...
RichyHo
Sep 12, 08:29 AM
Wow those analysts really are going out on a limb with those predictions.
I am still of the opinion that the key to todays announcements is a large (30-50"), imac-styled, wall-mounted(?) computer with FULL media center capabilities. It would team up nicely with the iTunes movies angle and could be what the initial rumors of a 30" iMac were all about. £2000+ price point. HD, 5/7.1, inbuilt digital TV decoder. Consumer electronics? Maybe the 24" iMac was pushed out early to squash the 30" rumor? Just a guess.
Ah well... not long now....
I am still of the opinion that the key to todays announcements is a large (30-50"), imac-styled, wall-mounted(?) computer with FULL media center capabilities. It would team up nicely with the iTunes movies angle and could be what the initial rumors of a 30" iMac were all about. £2000+ price point. HD, 5/7.1, inbuilt digital TV decoder. Consumer electronics? Maybe the 24" iMac was pushed out early to squash the 30" rumor? Just a guess.
Ah well... not long now....
diamond.g
Apr 21, 10:41 AM
I just noticed them as well. Was kinda surprised, but figured out what they were pretty quick!
DTphonehome
Oct 17, 09:52 AM
I do , I have 140Gb of Photos from my DSLR (and previous digital cameras) putting this on 3 discs rather than 40 discs would be great
I also have 28Gb of music, backing up form itunes to 1 disc rather than 8 would also be useful
So why not just use an external HD?
I also have 28Gb of music, backing up form itunes to 1 disc rather than 8 would also be useful
So why not just use an external HD?
jbuck777
Apr 16, 03:00 AM
iPhone did nothing new. It just took some popular features and combined them. It was more of a game changer due to it being made by apple.
I think you should go watch the keynote of 2007... the iPhone's introduction. I watched it the other day cause I had a little too much time to kill and felt like seeing where we came from.
You don't realize just how incredible the iPhone is until you look back at what we came from.... go ahead, watch it.
I think you should go watch the keynote of 2007... the iPhone's introduction. I watched it the other day cause I had a little too much time to kill and felt like seeing where we came from.
You don't realize just how incredible the iPhone is until you look back at what we came from.... go ahead, watch it.
Yvan256
Nov 16, 07:55 PM
It's quite simple. AMD bought ATI. If Apple wants to use ATI GPUs in their computer, then I guess they have to talk to AMD now (at least for pricing, orders, etc).
wolfboy
Apr 29, 03:20 PM
To the people posting screenshots: You do know that you're breaking the non disclosure agreement you made with Apple when you signed up for the Mac Dev Program? If they track you down, the small print pretty much says they can do very evil things to you. Tred carefully, it's likely Apple will be watching out for people like you.
Who reads those things anyway...
Who reads those things anyway...
tny
Nov 16, 04:30 PM
uk store down too.. my moneys on maintenence
Nope. Wouldn't put the store down at 5:30 pm on a Thursday (EST) for maintenance. My money is on either a major failure (unlikely) or a PRODUCT(RED) MacBook.
EDIT:
Or, come to think of it, Quad Core Mac Pros.
Nope. Wouldn't put the store down at 5:30 pm on a Thursday (EST) for maintenance. My money is on either a major failure (unlikely) or a PRODUCT(RED) MacBook.
EDIT:
Or, come to think of it, Quad Core Mac Pros.
tigress666
May 3, 02:03 PM
I'm fine with the cell companies charging more for tethering. I'm also fine with them doing tiered data plans. Either one of those is okay in my book. Doing both, however, is robbery.
I agree with this. AT&T at least got a little better once Verizon got the iphone by offering additional GB for the extra charge they charged for tethering so at least you actually got something for that extra money (vs. being ripped off for being charged to use the data you already paid for).
But overall, if you are paying for the actual data (paying for a set amount), it should not matter how you use it. But I could see on a "all you can eat" plan where it would matter how you use it cause some ways you'd end up using it a lot more than they planned for (basically I think it is fair in an all you can eat style plan, food or data ;), to specify rules on what you can do. I mean even in all you can eat buffets they have rules like no taking home food or you're only allowed there for an hour or you have to eat everything and not just pick out stuff otherwise it is too easily abused to the point that they wouldn't make a profit. It is the same way with data use).
I agree with this. AT&T at least got a little better once Verizon got the iphone by offering additional GB for the extra charge they charged for tethering so at least you actually got something for that extra money (vs. being ripped off for being charged to use the data you already paid for).
But overall, if you are paying for the actual data (paying for a set amount), it should not matter how you use it. But I could see on a "all you can eat" plan where it would matter how you use it cause some ways you'd end up using it a lot more than they planned for (basically I think it is fair in an all you can eat style plan, food or data ;), to specify rules on what you can do. I mean even in all you can eat buffets they have rules like no taking home food or you're only allowed there for an hour or you have to eat everything and not just pick out stuff otherwise it is too easily abused to the point that they wouldn't make a profit. It is the same way with data use).
kiljoy616
Jul 22, 11:59 PM
Annoyed by Apple? I'm sure Apple is annoyed by all the people who are saying that Apple doesn't know how to make phones, especially when the problem they're getting flak from is also reproduced on other phones just as easilly, but no other companies are getting **** on by the public and media for also having this issue? Why is it ONLY Apple that gets dumped on?
Because we love Apple and just use Nokia phones, who cares about BlackBerry, except when someone with a patent almost shut them down completely in America. In the end Apple with ONE ONLY PHONE MODEL IS DOING INCREDIBLE, who can say the same?
Iphone 4 is not perfect but it sweet that for sure! :D
Because we love Apple and just use Nokia phones, who cares about BlackBerry, except when someone with a patent almost shut them down completely in America. In the end Apple with ONE ONLY PHONE MODEL IS DOING INCREDIBLE, who can say the same?
Iphone 4 is not perfect but it sweet that for sure! :D
InuNacho
Mar 25, 01:42 AM
This would NEVER Happen. but wouldn't it be an awesome treat if Apple added an emulator to Lion that could run (and was pre loaded with) each major version of Apple OS's from the Apple I on. ! (and heck while we're dreaming, how about all the Next Step OS versions too)
It's in no way practical, but I'd truly geek out over it ! :)
That'd be pretty cool! I really miss some of the little things about OS 9 and earlier versions of X particularly the pinstripes and dumb OS 9 sounds.
It's in no way practical, but I'd truly geek out over it ! :)
That'd be pretty cool! I really miss some of the little things about OS 9 and earlier versions of X particularly the pinstripes and dumb OS 9 sounds.
No comments:
Post a Comment