celticpride678
Apr 3, 12:34 AM
Leopard requires 9GB, Snow Leopard requires 5GB, and now Lion is under 4GB?
Oh my, no. That's just the size of the installer, which is compressed. Right now on the partition that I'm pretty sure that I only have the OS installed on and little to nothing else, I have 6.55gb taken up. The final version might take up even less than that.
The reason Lion's only 3.7 GB right now is because it's an upgrade only. You can't install Lion on a clean partition right now, only upgrade from Snow Leopard.
Apple likely did this to reduce download times.
Oh my, no. That's just the size of the installer, which is compressed. Right now on the partition that I'm pretty sure that I only have the OS installed on and little to nothing else, I have 6.55gb taken up. The final version might take up even less than that.
The reason Lion's only 3.7 GB right now is because it's an upgrade only. You can't install Lion on a clean partition right now, only upgrade from Snow Leopard.
Apple likely did this to reduce download times.
rmhop81
Sep 7, 10:31 AM
i don't think buying family pack for .Mac gives you 5 licenses. i think it's more like spliting one .mac account to 5.
here's a direct quote from apple.com store
"You'll get one main .Mac subscriber account with 1GB of storage space and four additional .Mac accounts with 250MB of storage space each"
so still a decent deal compared to apple price
here's a direct quote from apple.com store
"You'll get one main .Mac subscriber account with 1GB of storage space and four additional .Mac accounts with 250MB of storage space each"
so still a decent deal compared to apple price
currentinterest
Jan 13, 02:23 AM
Why does the banner have to reference only one product or service? Perhaps it refers to a theme shared by all introductions at MacWorld.
Eorlas
Mar 23, 02:03 AM
Demanding a larger hard drive so that large size songs that are uncompressed and run at a higher bit rate becomes a moot point. A person's ears are only going to be able to tell the difference in quality up to a certain point. And that threshold becomes even more insignificant with more headphone listening time depending on how loud the individual listens to their music.
There will always be people that say that they can tell the difference, but in all honesty, they can't.
There will always be people that say that they can tell the difference, but in all honesty, they can't.
gnagy
Jun 23, 01:54 AM
Imagine you lived in the 1500s and someone showed you two computers. If you had zero prior computer experience, would you pick a touch based computer... or would you pick one where you move some arrow shaped icon with a 2nd device called the mouse.
We're very used to using a mouse, but it's definitely not the most natural way to interact with a computer. It's not easy either. I've seen old people that never could figure out how to double click without moving the cursor 50 pixels from where they wanted to click.
We're very used to using a mouse, but it's definitely not the most natural way to interact with a computer. It's not easy either. I've seen old people that never could figure out how to double click without moving the cursor 50 pixels from where they wanted to click.
ColoJohnBoy
Mar 18, 11:09 PM
How is Apple dying? The iPod is a huge seller, the iTMS is a huge success... the point is, Apple is posting profits, and so long as we, loyal Apple customers, continue to buy the products, SJ and crew will continue to make them.
I personally don't want a cheap Mac. You get what you pay for, and if Apple made a cheap Mac it would likely be crappy. Better than any PC, for sure, but not of the standard Apple is used to.
I personally don't want a cheap Mac. You get what you pay for, and if Apple made a cheap Mac it would likely be crappy. Better than any PC, for sure, but not of the standard Apple is used to.
Edge100
Sep 1, 12:28 PM
I'm not sure about this one. It will depend on how agressively Apple prices these.
I have a 20" iMac, and with my edu discount (at the time), I paid about $2500 (Canadian) for it with 2GB RAM (from Apple...was cheaper than anywhere else, believe it or not!), 256MB VRAM, and a 250GB HD.
For about $350-450, I can get a decent (not great, but decent) 20" widescreen display and hook it up to my iMac, giving me 3360 x 1050 resolution, which is plenty wide enough to display 36+ faders in Logic, plus some other apps (Live, Reason) that I use with it. A 23" display would only give me 1920 x 1200.
The point is: depending on how Apple prices it, I can get the 20" plus an external monitor and get more space for less money.
I can see this working if (a) the 23" isn't substantially more expensive than the 20" AND (b) there are a few other things (i.e. bigger HD, more RAM, faster/better vid card) to distinguish the machines. This is the precise reason I didn't get the 500GB drive in my iMac...I went up to 250, but I could make up the additional 250GB over Firewire for a lot less.
Either way, these should be sweet. I love my iMac (it does EVERYTHING I need today) and I don't anticipate upgrading for a number of years (well, maybe I'll slap in a Merom after the Applecare expires!)
Anyway, just my two cents.
I have a 20" iMac, and with my edu discount (at the time), I paid about $2500 (Canadian) for it with 2GB RAM (from Apple...was cheaper than anywhere else, believe it or not!), 256MB VRAM, and a 250GB HD.
For about $350-450, I can get a decent (not great, but decent) 20" widescreen display and hook it up to my iMac, giving me 3360 x 1050 resolution, which is plenty wide enough to display 36+ faders in Logic, plus some other apps (Live, Reason) that I use with it. A 23" display would only give me 1920 x 1200.
The point is: depending on how Apple prices it, I can get the 20" plus an external monitor and get more space for less money.
I can see this working if (a) the 23" isn't substantially more expensive than the 20" AND (b) there are a few other things (i.e. bigger HD, more RAM, faster/better vid card) to distinguish the machines. This is the precise reason I didn't get the 500GB drive in my iMac...I went up to 250, but I could make up the additional 250GB over Firewire for a lot less.
Either way, these should be sweet. I love my iMac (it does EVERYTHING I need today) and I don't anticipate upgrading for a number of years (well, maybe I'll slap in a Merom after the Applecare expires!)
Anyway, just my two cents.
poppe
Sep 1, 12:30 PM
My Guess:
iMac 17" - 1299
1.83 GHz
512MB RAM
160 SATA
8x DL
ATI x1600 - 128
iMac 20" - 1699
2.0 GHz upgradable to 2.16
512MB RAM
250 SATA
8x DL
ATI x1600 128 upgradable to 256 (As is already)
iMac 23": 1900 x 1200 - 1999
2.16 GHz upgradable to 2.33
1 GB Standard
250 SATA upgradable to 500 (as 17" and 20" is)
8x DL
ATI x1600 256
FW 800
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
I didn't say upgradable on 17" and 20" hard drives because we already know that.
In a dream world I'd say the 23" vCard would go to the x1800 or something
iMac 17" - 1299
1.83 GHz
512MB RAM
160 SATA
8x DL
ATI x1600 - 128
iMac 20" - 1699
2.0 GHz upgradable to 2.16
512MB RAM
250 SATA
8x DL
ATI x1600 128 upgradable to 256 (As is already)
iMac 23": 1900 x 1200 - 1999
2.16 GHz upgradable to 2.33
1 GB Standard
250 SATA upgradable to 500 (as 17" and 20" is)
8x DL
ATI x1600 256
FW 800
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
I didn't say upgradable on 17" and 20" hard drives because we already know that.
In a dream world I'd say the 23" vCard would go to the x1800 or something
donlphi
Sep 6, 07:26 PM
CAN YOU SAY, "HERBIE FULLY LOADED IS THE #1 DOWNLOAD ON ITUNES MOVIE STORE"?
IF YOU CAN'T, GET READY, BECAUSE THAT WILL BE THE ONLY MOVIE AVAILABLE... ugh... that and Mary Poppins... geeze...
56781
IF YOU CAN'T, GET READY, BECAUSE THAT WILL BE THE ONLY MOVIE AVAILABLE... ugh... that and Mary Poppins... geeze...
56781
Moyank24
Mar 22, 11:54 AM
I love how "gays" freak out when non-homosexual people do something. But yet when "gays" want to do something extreme it's because we don't accept them, so when they get in trouble it's a huge ordeal.
To me this is like the people that don't support war. If a veteran was killed in action and a funeral is happening they can picket the funeral all day long (talk about bull ****!) But yet if we don't let them picket they freak out scream free rights free rights. Well guess what those veterans (me included since I serve) gave them that freedom to stand there in picket.
Gays are the same way. I have no issue with gays, I don't agree with it but if your gay, be gay. Just don't expect the world to conform to your way of life, especially a country (United States) founded on Christianity. If anything go to a foreign country and complain then see how bad it really is to come out, unless it's Amsterdam, Iraq or Afghan they'll love your butt over there.
Congrats for winning the most ignorant post of the day.
And for the record, we don't expect the world to conform to our way of life, and people like you and your "Christianity" shouldn't expect us to conform to your way of life.
And as others above me have said...I would suggest googling separation between Church and State. It's kind of important to the history of our country. And I do thank you for being a veteran, but do you have any idea what you were fighting for?
To me this is like the people that don't support war. If a veteran was killed in action and a funeral is happening they can picket the funeral all day long (talk about bull ****!) But yet if we don't let them picket they freak out scream free rights free rights. Well guess what those veterans (me included since I serve) gave them that freedom to stand there in picket.
Gays are the same way. I have no issue with gays, I don't agree with it but if your gay, be gay. Just don't expect the world to conform to your way of life, especially a country (United States) founded on Christianity. If anything go to a foreign country and complain then see how bad it really is to come out, unless it's Amsterdam, Iraq or Afghan they'll love your butt over there.
Congrats for winning the most ignorant post of the day.
And for the record, we don't expect the world to conform to our way of life, and people like you and your "Christianity" shouldn't expect us to conform to your way of life.
And as others above me have said...I would suggest googling separation between Church and State. It's kind of important to the history of our country. And I do thank you for being a veteran, but do you have any idea what you were fighting for?
j800r
Mar 23, 04:57 PM
I have a huge music collection consisting of 15,648 tracks (and trust me, it's gonna grow). I bought my iPod Classic at the end of 2008. It's a 160GB model and I must say, it's the best portable mp3 player I've ever owned or used in my entire life! As for the person who said the sound quality sucks, I don't know what the hell they're smoking. Maybe they should stop using the default earphones and buy some decent ones, cause the sound quality is perfect!
I don't care about cover flow being a little laggy. With a music collection as large as mine it would be extremely counter-productive to browse through every single album, so I browse through my extensive list of artists instead, THEN chose the artist's album. Or I just stick it on shuffle and let the iPod surprise me.
They shouldn't update it either. Nowadays people are spoiled by every little gadget being packed with so many ridiculous features it's unbelievable. The classic is perfect for what it is, and you shouldn't mess with perfection otherwise you'd screw it up. If they discontinued the Classic they'd be discontinuing a legacy and I for one will not be happy.
I don't care about cover flow being a little laggy. With a music collection as large as mine it would be extremely counter-productive to browse through every single album, so I browse through my extensive list of artists instead, THEN chose the artist's album. Or I just stick it on shuffle and let the iPod surprise me.
They shouldn't update it either. Nowadays people are spoiled by every little gadget being packed with so many ridiculous features it's unbelievable. The classic is perfect for what it is, and you shouldn't mess with perfection otherwise you'd screw it up. If they discontinued the Classic they'd be discontinuing a legacy and I for one will not be happy.
Marx55
Jul 14, 03:28 AM
Cheaper Blu-ray next month: "BenQ to launch Blu-ray Disc writer in August"
http://www.macworld.com/news/2006/07/05/benq/index.php
Blu-ray is awesome for backups as well as HDTV and HD movies in general. You can also have much more content on a Blu-ray than on a HD-DVD disk.
So, should Blu-ray drop prices more to match HD-DVD as seems the trend, the election is clear: Blu-ray for ever!
Apple: go for it with the option ot two-drive BTO Macs. We need them.
http://www.macworld.com/news/2006/07/05/benq/index.php
Blu-ray is awesome for backups as well as HDTV and HD movies in general. You can also have much more content on a Blu-ray than on a HD-DVD disk.
So, should Blu-ray drop prices more to match HD-DVD as seems the trend, the election is clear: Blu-ray for ever!
Apple: go for it with the option ot two-drive BTO Macs. We need them.
reel2reel
Apr 12, 10:21 PM
Some definite improvements but I wouldn't go as far as to call it a "jaw-dropper". I was really hoping to see more about how it integrates with the rest of the suite.
Thank Larry Jordan for that "jaw-dropper" remark.
Thank Larry Jordan for that "jaw-dropper" remark.
goobot
May 2, 06:58 PM
Great news, i just wish they would scan my apps and link them to the app store if i downloaded else where, i mean at least for free apps :(
Azathoth
May 3, 03:38 AM
This concept might seem alien to a lot of MacRumours users, but being a 'switcher', the method of deleting any app on OS X currently seems very ad hoc. I've been a mac user now for about 4 years and yet the idea of having to delete an app by dragging it to the trash seems very... strange. You never know if you've deleted ALL of that program.
Since trying Mac the past 12 months, the biggest problem I have is that the "drag to trash" is inconsistent, just like the install process!
Half the apps require me to drag to Applications (and drag to trash to uninstall), the other half require me to run the installer, and find the custom uninstaller to remove them.
This is hard to explain to my mother (though thankfully she seldom really needs to install / uninstall apps).
Since trying Mac the past 12 months, the biggest problem I have is that the "drag to trash" is inconsistent, just like the install process!
Half the apps require me to drag to Applications (and drag to trash to uninstall), the other half require me to run the installer, and find the custom uninstaller to remove them.
This is hard to explain to my mother (though thankfully she seldom really needs to install / uninstall apps).
sigamy
Jul 18, 11:30 AM
My theory is this: We are going to get first run movies in the iTMS.
This is why it is rental only. The movie companies are worried about releasing DVDs at the same time as a film hits the theater. (Not sure why.) Jobs finally got to them--he tricked them by fighting for the sale/rental but he didn't even care about that. He wanted the first run movies and I think he got them. Now you'll be able to rent a brand new film the day it is released in theaters. This is the only real selling point for movie downloads. Why download a limited copy of a movie when I can get if from numerous other sources?
This will be Jobs' 3rd home run in iTunes. First was music, the no brainer. Second was TV. Nobody was thinking about downloading existing TV shows before Apple did it. Everyone thought they were working on movie downloads. TV was brilliant. There is an immediate need--if you missed Lost and forgot to tape it, you need to get it soon because you can't miss what happened, etc.
Movies don't work that way. You can wait a while to see a movie. Also, movies have been available on other media for 30 years so there were other places to go for the content. TV shows just started appearing on DVD recently.
Would I ever download 1979's Superman The Movie? Nope, never. have it on DVD. Would I download 2006's Superman Returns? Yep, definetly.
This is why it is rental only. The movie companies are worried about releasing DVDs at the same time as a film hits the theater. (Not sure why.) Jobs finally got to them--he tricked them by fighting for the sale/rental but he didn't even care about that. He wanted the first run movies and I think he got them. Now you'll be able to rent a brand new film the day it is released in theaters. This is the only real selling point for movie downloads. Why download a limited copy of a movie when I can get if from numerous other sources?
This will be Jobs' 3rd home run in iTunes. First was music, the no brainer. Second was TV. Nobody was thinking about downloading existing TV shows before Apple did it. Everyone thought they were working on movie downloads. TV was brilliant. There is an immediate need--if you missed Lost and forgot to tape it, you need to get it soon because you can't miss what happened, etc.
Movies don't work that way. You can wait a while to see a movie. Also, movies have been available on other media for 30 years so there were other places to go for the content. TV shows just started appearing on DVD recently.
Would I ever download 1979's Superman The Movie? Nope, never. have it on DVD. Would I download 2006's Superman Returns? Yep, definetly.
swingerofbirch
Jul 14, 01:54 AM
I don't understand why anyone would complain about Apple not waiting and including as a BTO option. If that's the case it wouldn't affect the price of any machine you want with a standard DVD burner.
To say not to include it because of price would mean we would wait forever for new techology! You could say that Sony shouldn't produce set-top Blu-ray players now because they're too expensive!
We have early adopters to thank for the prices eventually going down! The more are sold, the farther the prices will be able to drop.
The turning point may come even faster with PS3.
I think this transition will happen even faster than with VHS to DVD. The US is full of millionaires and people with enough credit card debt to act like they are. They have plasma HDTVs and are going to want Blu-ray when they hear it's the only way to see 1080p full length movies on those fancy screens.
To say not to include it because of price would mean we would wait forever for new techology! You could say that Sony shouldn't produce set-top Blu-ray players now because they're too expensive!
We have early adopters to thank for the prices eventually going down! The more are sold, the farther the prices will be able to drop.
The turning point may come even faster with PS3.
I think this transition will happen even faster than with VHS to DVD. The US is full of millionaires and people with enough credit card debt to act like they are. They have plasma HDTVs and are going to want Blu-ray when they hear it's the only way to see 1080p full length movies on those fancy screens.
turbineseaplane
Jun 22, 02:55 PM
My goodness...
I'm just hoping Apple continues to make a few machines that can do actual design and coding work.
A touchscreen iPad, iPhone or touchscreen "anything" really doesn't work for that.
Some of us love Apple gear but actually want to get some efficient and creative work done.
Note to Apple: Not every device has to be a whiz-bang, wow 'em at Best Buy, touchscreen device with more reflection than a mirror and finger smudges all over it.
Speaking of which...The Mac Pro ever getting updated again Apple?
I'm just hoping Apple continues to make a few machines that can do actual design and coding work.
A touchscreen iPad, iPhone or touchscreen "anything" really doesn't work for that.
Some of us love Apple gear but actually want to get some efficient and creative work done.
Note to Apple: Not every device has to be a whiz-bang, wow 'em at Best Buy, touchscreen device with more reflection than a mirror and finger smudges all over it.
Speaking of which...The Mac Pro ever getting updated again Apple?
SaMaster14
Jan 11, 10:44 PM
I was intending on getting a 335i coupe and decided to take the 135i for a spin for kicks (it was the year they came out). While they run about the same speed, the 135i just felt quicker. I ended up with the 135i vert ( pic in old thread). I have had two 3 series before, so this was just a change of pace.
For those that think it is too tall, keep in mind that it gives it a much roomier feel inside. I am 6'4 and I could not fit in a miata sized car. When I get in a 3 series, even it feels less roomy in the cockpit.
I also like the fact that the 1series is much more rare, around here anyway, than the 3. I still love the 3, though.
Both the 1 series and the 3 series are really common where I live (Los Angeles, CA). I'm not a big guy, so the inside of a car being small has never bothered me at all. Personally, I didn't get the 335i coupe because my parents didn't want me have a coupe for a first car, and the G37S sedan was nicer looking, $10,000 less and about 95% of what the 3 series would give me. (plus, since I'm obviously not going to keep my first car for that long, I wanted something to look forward to when I upgrade... hopefully a 335iS coupe or something along that price range).
For those that think it is too tall, keep in mind that it gives it a much roomier feel inside. I am 6'4 and I could not fit in a miata sized car. When I get in a 3 series, even it feels less roomy in the cockpit.
I also like the fact that the 1series is much more rare, around here anyway, than the 3. I still love the 3, though.
Both the 1 series and the 3 series are really common where I live (Los Angeles, CA). I'm not a big guy, so the inside of a car being small has never bothered me at all. Personally, I didn't get the 335i coupe because my parents didn't want me have a coupe for a first car, and the G37S sedan was nicer looking, $10,000 less and about 95% of what the 3 series would give me. (plus, since I'm obviously not going to keep my first car for that long, I wanted something to look forward to when I upgrade... hopefully a 335iS coupe or something along that price range).
ouimetnick
Apr 26, 02:53 PM
"Amazon" is a generic term and should not be used for a store name.
Apple, Mac, Macintosh are all generic terms and should not be a compant or product name. :rolleyes:
Some for the name Windows for Microsoft.
Apple, Mac, Macintosh are all generic terms and should not be a compant or product name. :rolleyes:
Some for the name Windows for Microsoft.
vincenz
Apr 3, 01:10 AM
Great ad, love the new direction
heffemonkeyman
Sep 7, 12:59 PM
On my lunch break at work, I just downloaded a couple of HD trailers, both 2min30sec in length; 1 at 480p and the other at 720p. My set up is an 3.0Ghz Pentium D, 1G ram, 256K Nvidia Gforce 6800, 20" Dell Digital LCD.
I could tell no difference in file quality. The problem lies in download time. Both files average dl speed was 150KBps. Thats 1.2Mbps if my math is right. The 420p file took 4:28 to dl, translating to 3:34:24 for a 2hr movie. For 720p, it took 12:39, meaning a full movie would take 9:28:45.
I know my cable provider offers up to 4Mbps downlaods, for about $120/month. And thats before the cable servise itself. Even then its not dedicated. Most people with cable will opt for their providers basic service ,like $40 - 50/month for 500-600kbps, or 1/2 as fast as my test. The movies would take twice as long to dl. 19hrs to downlaod will not fly. 7hrs may not either.
If the compression works to get a DVD quality movie down to 1G, then it could be downloaded in about 1h50mim, nearly realtime at work, or 3h40min at home. At work, I would only need maybe a 15min buffer before I start watching, and not catch up to the dl. But at home, I would need about 1h40min buffer. Maybe this is acceptable to some, but if I can walk to Wal-mart or Blockbuster and back in that time, then what's the consumer advantage beyond the novelty?
I'm sure apple engineers can do these same napkin calculations. There would have to be some alternative to the straight dl. Maybe a torrent of some kind built into iTunes 7. I don't know. Just thinking.
This is a good test, but your connection is not fast enough for this to be viable. If your getting only getting 1.2mbps, that not going to cut it.
Bandwith is a huge issue. In my area, Seattle, I can get Comcast cable for about $50/mo and I get 6-8mbps solid download. So I can stream anything that is encoded at 6-8mbps just fine. The 720p trailers are about 4-8mbps, so it works for me.
I know not everyone can get that kind of bandwidth/price, but they will soon. I think this is where Apple is going, but it's not going to work for everyone. At least not right away. But maybe enough to be profitable?
I could tell no difference in file quality. The problem lies in download time. Both files average dl speed was 150KBps. Thats 1.2Mbps if my math is right. The 420p file took 4:28 to dl, translating to 3:34:24 for a 2hr movie. For 720p, it took 12:39, meaning a full movie would take 9:28:45.
I know my cable provider offers up to 4Mbps downlaods, for about $120/month. And thats before the cable servise itself. Even then its not dedicated. Most people with cable will opt for their providers basic service ,like $40 - 50/month for 500-600kbps, or 1/2 as fast as my test. The movies would take twice as long to dl. 19hrs to downlaod will not fly. 7hrs may not either.
If the compression works to get a DVD quality movie down to 1G, then it could be downloaded in about 1h50mim, nearly realtime at work, or 3h40min at home. At work, I would only need maybe a 15min buffer before I start watching, and not catch up to the dl. But at home, I would need about 1h40min buffer. Maybe this is acceptable to some, but if I can walk to Wal-mart or Blockbuster and back in that time, then what's the consumer advantage beyond the novelty?
I'm sure apple engineers can do these same napkin calculations. There would have to be some alternative to the straight dl. Maybe a torrent of some kind built into iTunes 7. I don't know. Just thinking.
This is a good test, but your connection is not fast enough for this to be viable. If your getting only getting 1.2mbps, that not going to cut it.
Bandwith is a huge issue. In my area, Seattle, I can get Comcast cable for about $50/mo and I get 6-8mbps solid download. So I can stream anything that is encoded at 6-8mbps just fine. The 720p trailers are about 4-8mbps, so it works for me.
I know not everyone can get that kind of bandwidth/price, but they will soon. I think this is where Apple is going, but it's not going to work for everyone. At least not right away. But maybe enough to be profitable?
Kranchammer
Mar 24, 02:09 PM
IMO both issues are insurmountable. Battery Life would be 15 mins. Sorry man, but no way in HELL could a desktop card (even a small GTX 560) fit in a MBP case...even WITHOUT HEATSINK+FAN. :eek:
Lol, I totally agree. I was arguing against what I thought was you saying that macbook pro's could support non-mobile video cards. I misread your abbreviation MP as MBP. ;)
Lol, I totally agree. I was arguing against what I thought was you saying that macbook pro's could support non-mobile video cards. I misread your abbreviation MP as MBP. ;)
danvdr
Oct 23, 11:12 PM
FWI Dell Just Lowered The List Of All Their Monitors � 30" $1279 24" $679 Right Now (http://accessories.us.dell.com/sna/productlisting.aspx?c=us&category_id=6198&cs=19&l=en&s=dhs). We paid $1349 last week in a sale and now it's been trumped. New 30" list is only $1599 and 24" list is $799.
2007FP 20" 1600x1200 is now only $359.20 (http://accessories.us.dell.com/sna/productdetail.aspx?c=us&l=en&s=dhs&cs=19&sku=320-4687). This is amazing.
And the E207WFP 20" monitor (which seems to be comparable to the 2007FP minus a few bells and whistles (http://accessories.us.dell.com/sna/productcompare.aspx?c=us&category_id=6198&cs=19&l=en&s=dhs&p=320-4688~320-5123~)) is only $289.
2007FP 20" 1600x1200 is now only $359.20 (http://accessories.us.dell.com/sna/productdetail.aspx?c=us&l=en&s=dhs&cs=19&sku=320-4687). This is amazing.
And the E207WFP 20" monitor (which seems to be comparable to the 2007FP minus a few bells and whistles (http://accessories.us.dell.com/sna/productcompare.aspx?c=us&category_id=6198&cs=19&l=en&s=dhs&p=320-4688~320-5123~)) is only $289.
No comments:
Post a Comment