or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by gar

My 15" MBP 2.33 ghz C2D with 2GB ram, 256 MB GPU: CINEBENCH R10 ************************************************** ** Tester : gar Processor : Intel Core 2 Duo MHz : 2.33 Number of CPUs : 2 Operating System : OS X 32 BIT 10.4.10 Graphics Card : ATI Radeon X1600 OpenGL Engine Resolution : 1440 x 900 Color Depth : 32-bit Color ************************************************** ** Rendering (Single ...
No, not if she doesn't care. If she isn't the person who makes the choice, don't choose for her because she will blame you for everything she dislikes about the Mac. If she wants a Mac herself because she knows the difference between a Mac and a Windows PC and she chooses a Mac, but can't afford it (yet), it's a different story. I would pay up, but in that case she is on the Mac train already, isn't she.
link please, not for the "millions" statement from Apple but a link for your 6-bit display statement
So... [newspeak mode] it's better to spend some extra money for something better and being overwhelmed by the effect now, than pay less (like windows pc owners seems to prefer) and regret it after a year or 2.[/newspeak mode] I bought my 20"iMac G5 back in september 2004. (didn't regret it then, don't regret it now, but it doesn't run Adobe CS3 as I hoped) In a week after I purchased the 20"iMac G5 I told my girlfriend: "If they introduce a 23" version in a couple of years...
Ordered mine a couple of hours ago: 24" 2.8Ghz 4GB 500GB HD After 3 years, my 20"iMacG5 revA is still a great graphic design workhorse when using Adobe CS1, but gets very slow when working in CS3. It has something to do with caching or buffering I guess. Anyway, I'm very curious if the glossy screen will be a problem for me and if I am able to calibrate it enough to get my work done.
1997 20th Anniversary Macintosh Ugly isn't it.
My point is: 20" is not overkill.In this case it's not about need, but what this user wants. I don't know any Mac user who would prefer the 17"iMac over the 20"iMac. If 2.6" extra width and 1.7" extra height is to much, I think the user is better served with a MacBook.Actually, every new version of the iMac started at $1,299. The original 1998 bondyblue iMac G3/233, the 2002 flatpanel iMac G4/700Mhz and the 2004 17" iMac G5/1.6Ghz. Even most revisions kept this pricetag...
You've actually used windows95? So you're mudblood than?
Actually, You're wrong.FYI: The iPod 5GB costed $399 in October 2001, the 10GB did $499 in March 2002.I don't consider the iPhone's $499 pricetag extremely high, though.Anyway:No new Apple product had a good launch. (until now, that is)The Macintosh didn't sell well in it's early years.But it revolutionized the graphic industry and, because of the lack of better solutions, became the dominant player in this market. It took MS a decade to get something comparable on the...
Overkill for a casual user is a Mac Pro with 30" screen. That overkill also includes most creative profesionals. I don't think the casual user would mind a 20" iMac with a lower price tag. Most PC's are sold with a 19"-22" screen (okay, I know the 19" resolution is 99% of the time 1280x768 but that's not the point) Apple has always upped the specs and/or lowered the price of a new model. I bought my 20"iMac G5 revA for $1,899 (actually more, because the euro sucked those...
New Posts  All Forums: