pubwvj
About
- Username
- pubwvj
- Joined
- Visits
- 0
- Last Active
- -
- Roles
- member
- Badges
- 0
- Posts
- 7
Reactions
Comments
-
Quote: Originally posted by RBR Sheesh yourself. Apple has ignored it for a very long time in failing to bring about changes which are of use to the end user. "Bug stomping" as you put it should be a given. It is hardly praiseworthy. Sure, the…
-
Quote: Originally posted by Unfiltered 128MB is not enough to run OS X[/B] Incorrect. I have an original iBook with 128MB and another original iBook with 196MB both running MacOS X 10.3.5. Works like a charm.
-
[QUOTE][i]telekon /i]why is everyone so excited about this Mac? Ok it's cheap but it's very crippled.. only 256Mb RAM only 32Mb of graphics/QUOTE] Gee... sounds damn good. My wife and my son's original iBooks are only 128MB and 196MB of RAM, 4MB…
-
Quote: pmjoeWell, I think a $129 OS update after you've owned a brand new machine model (Mac mini) for two months is a bit absurd. So don't buy the machine, or don't buy the upgrade. A lot of people don't buy the upgrades when they first come ou…
-
Quote: pmjoe If they'd promise me a free Tiger upgrade, I might be ordering today, but as it is I'm waiting. So wait. That has nothing to do with the Mac Mini. You're waiting because you want a free Tiger. Wait then, but don't blame it on the ma…
-
It is exactly the right machine for what it is intended. Many people don't need the extra RAM. OSX will run fine in 256MB. I have it running in 196MB of RAM on an old iBook at 266MHz. For non-power users the Mac Mini at 1.25GHz is going to be one ve…
-
Quote: Originally posted by lkrupp Let's see now. 10.3.7 is nice and stable. NO, it's not stable. 10.2.8 was a nightmare. No it wasn't. 10.3.5 was the "worst update ever" (from an Apple Discussions thread). 10.3.6 was a "disaster" (from MacFixit)…