He said he didn't want an all-in-one PC. He said he didn't need or want to pay for a workstation-class machine. The Mac mini perfectly fits his needs, then. 2GHz Intel Core 2 Duo. 1 or 2GB of DDR2 RAM. 120 or 160GB SATA hard drive. Stand-alone PC that runs Mac OS. I'd say it fits nicely.
Yeah, we won't even consider iPhones here without Lotus Notes sync. They'll also need to drop the price significantly. Maybe in 2010 or 2011 when the 2nd or 3rd generation iPhone comes out and AT&T starts giving away iPhone Classics with contracts, we'll get them here.;)
You people that ask why on posts like this need to turn in your geek card. Geeks do this kind of stuff because we can. We like a challenge. We like to explore technology to its fullest to find out just how much it can do -- despite the fact that there aren't any practical applications for whatever we come up with. It's all about exploration and learning (and a little bit about showing off what we can do).
Wii Play sold so well because it costs about the same as a Wii Remote and it comes with a Wii Remote, so you basically got the game for free. Many people bought Wii Play the same day they bought their Wii console.
I wonder how many of those businesses that are planning on upgrading to Vista are only doing so because they feel that they have to? Where I work, we are heavily invested in Windows. We have over 20,000 workstations and hundreds of servers all running Windows. We have in-house custom-built applications that run in Windows. For the foreseeable future, we're using Windows, and at some point we won't be legally able to install XP. This means, like it or not, our future is Vista, which we are in the process of preparing for.
Why should Vista be compared to the initial release of XP? Shouldn't we expect Microsoft to build on what they've learned in the past few years with XP? Shouldn't the newest release of an OS contain all of the security, stability and features of previous versions PLUS whatever new features and technology that they've developed? Why would it be acceptable to take a huge step backwards just because it's a new major version number? That makes no sense. I didn't find it acceptable when we went from Windows 2000 to XP, and I don't find it acceptable now. The difference for me now is that I have a bit more money than I did back then, so now I have a Mac mini and I don't have to put up with that nonsense at home. At work, we're still deploying XP and will continue to do so until late this year or possibly 2009.
I have a 46" 1080p Samsung LCD with a 1080p upconverting DVD player. DVDs look fantastic on this equipment. I see no value in upgrading to either high-def format - especially considering the price of the media. When I can get a brand new DVD for $15 or a gently used one for under $10 and the high-def format discs are still $25 or more, color me uninterested.
I don't think that's it's a foregone conclusion that either format is going to win out. Look at what happened to SACD and DVD-Audio.
If you had kept reading that very same Wikipedia page, you would have seen this:
In the vernacular, the term quantum leap has come to mean an abrupt change or "step change", especially an advance or augmentation. The term dates back to early-to-mid-20th century, coinciding with the discoveries of quantum mechanics. The popular and scientific terms are similar in that both describe a change that happens all at once (revolutionary), rather than gradually over time (evolutionary), but the two uses are different when it comes to the magnitude of the change or advance in question.
Slashdot Mirror
Firefox 3 always starts maximized in Mac OS. Anyone else notice this annoyance? Better yet, anyone know how to change this behavior?
It's called "good old days syndrome". Nothing is as good as when you were a kid.
I'm right-handed, you insensitive clod!
Well of course the planet is like a gooey piece of chocolate candy. Haven't you ever noticed that it's covered in NUTS?
That's just perfectly normal paranoia. Everyone in the universe has that.
Damn, dude. An apostrophe doesn't mean "Look out, here comes an S!"
He said he didn't want an all-in-one PC. He said he didn't need or want to pay for a workstation-class machine. The Mac mini perfectly fits his needs, then. 2GHz Intel Core 2 Duo. 1 or 2GB of DDR2 RAM. 120 or 160GB SATA hard drive. Stand-alone PC that runs Mac OS. I'd say it fits nicely.
"Basically anyone who doesn't want an all-in-one, but doesn't want or can't afford a high end workstation." For those people, there is the Mac mini.
I work for a company that has no competition and runs with a budget surplus every year. I'm not concerned.
Yeah, we won't even consider iPhones here without Lotus Notes sync. They'll also need to drop the price significantly. Maybe in 2010 or 2011 when the 2nd or 3rd generation iPhone comes out and AT&T starts giving away iPhone Classics with contracts, we'll get them here. ;)
You people that ask why on posts like this need to turn in your geek card. Geeks do this kind of stuff because we can. We like a challenge. We like to explore technology to its fullest to find out just how much it can do -- despite the fact that there aren't any practical applications for whatever we come up with. It's all about exploration and learning (and a little bit about showing off what we can do).
I have a 1st generation 1.25GHz PPC Mac mini.
I agree. Nothing bogs down my Mac mini like Flash.
Perhaps you should be reading and commenting in the forums over on cnn.com, then. Here at Slashdot, we talk about geekery.
Yes. Yes you are.
Wii Play sold so well because it costs about the same as a Wii Remote and it comes with a Wii Remote, so you basically got the game for free. Many people bought Wii Play the same day they bought their Wii console.
all the condescending douchebags who are far too intelligent to watch television.
Probably about 5.
I wonder how many of those businesses that are planning on upgrading to Vista are only doing so because they feel that they have to? Where I work, we are heavily invested in Windows. We have over 20,000 workstations and hundreds of servers all running Windows. We have in-house custom-built applications that run in Windows. For the foreseeable future, we're using Windows, and at some point we won't be legally able to install XP. This means, like it or not, our future is Vista, which we are in the process of preparing for.
Why should Vista be compared to the initial release of XP? Shouldn't we expect Microsoft to build on what they've learned in the past few years with XP? Shouldn't the newest release of an OS contain all of the security, stability and features of previous versions PLUS whatever new features and technology that they've developed? Why would it be acceptable to take a huge step backwards just because it's a new major version number? That makes no sense. I didn't find it acceptable when we went from Windows 2000 to XP, and I don't find it acceptable now. The difference for me now is that I have a bit more money than I did back then, so now I have a Mac mini and I don't have to put up with that nonsense at home. At work, we're still deploying XP and will continue to do so until late this year or possibly 2009.
How were you able to tell the difference?
I don't give a rat's ass what the official stance is. They're Legos. They have always been Legos. They will always be Legos.
I have a 46" 1080p Samsung LCD with a 1080p upconverting DVD player. DVDs look fantastic on this equipment. I see no value in upgrading to either high-def format - especially considering the price of the media. When I can get a brand new DVD for $15 or a gently used one for under $10 and the high-def format discs are still $25 or more, color me uninterested.
I don't think that's it's a foregone conclusion that either format is going to win out. Look at what happened to SACD and DVD-Audio.
Anyone else hate idiots like Jason1729?
If you had kept reading that very same Wikipedia page, you would have seen this:
In the vernacular, the term quantum leap has come to mean an abrupt change or "step change", especially an advance or augmentation. The term dates back to early-to-mid-20th century, coinciding with the discoveries of quantum mechanics. The popular and scientific terms are similar in that both describe a change that happens all at once (revolutionary), rather than gradually over time (evolutionary), but the two uses are different when it comes to the magnitude of the change or advance in question.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_leap
that won't degrade. punchcards! Just don't make 'em out of paper. How about aluminum or something?