KnightWRX
Apr 22, 12:02 PM
The resolution stayed the same on the 13" Pro. The 13" Air has a higher resolution, but perhaps that's to preserve a selling point. I don't think the Sandy Bridge IGP would have any difficulty driving the 1440x900 display.
You don't think ? Seriously people, we had 1440x900 displays 10 years ago, on GPUs that had about 1% the graphics processing power of today and about a tenth of the RAM.
Heck, the 9400M could power external 30" monitors at their native resolution of 2560x1600 at the same time it powered in the laptop's internal display of 1280x800 without breaking a sweet.
What's so hard to grasp that the MBP's resolution staying at 1280x800 has nothing to do with the GPU in SB ? :confused:
Have you guys never used computers 10 years ago ? CRT monitors at 1600x1200 ring a bell to anyone but me here ?
You don't think ? Seriously people, we had 1440x900 displays 10 years ago, on GPUs that had about 1% the graphics processing power of today and about a tenth of the RAM.
Heck, the 9400M could power external 30" monitors at their native resolution of 2560x1600 at the same time it powered in the laptop's internal display of 1280x800 without breaking a sweet.
What's so hard to grasp that the MBP's resolution staying at 1280x800 has nothing to do with the GPU in SB ? :confused:
Have you guys never used computers 10 years ago ? CRT monitors at 1600x1200 ring a bell to anyone but me here ?
Chupa Chupa
Sep 5, 05:15 AM
Are you insinuating that Apple should put out a gaming system to compete for PS3 dollars, or just the holiday dollars in general and right now the PS3 is the "Hot Ticket" this coming Holiday season?
Just wondering.....:confused:
No, don't be so silly or literal. PS3 dollars are the money people have dedicated to buy the PS3 -- the defacto "big ticket" item this year. Apple needs a product that will compete for that money...and press converage. Everyone and their mother got an iPod last year. Apple needs to pull a fresh product out of Jobs pocket; not a storage bump or new skins for the nano. THAT is what I'm saying.
Just wondering.....:confused:
No, don't be so silly or literal. PS3 dollars are the money people have dedicated to buy the PS3 -- the defacto "big ticket" item this year. Apple needs a product that will compete for that money...and press converage. Everyone and their mother got an iPod last year. Apple needs to pull a fresh product out of Jobs pocket; not a storage bump or new skins for the nano. THAT is what I'm saying.
wnurse
Aug 23, 10:08 PM
So, in summary...
Apple pays Creative a one time fee of $100M to licence their patents.
Creative joins the 'Made for iPod' program making accessories for their competitor, Apple, who gets money for 'Made for iPod'.
Creative still HAS to defend it's patent against other competitors - that's the nature of patents - or licence it to them. If they do, Apple takes some of that money too. In a round-a-bout way, Apple is getting money back from it's competitors. Nice.
Creative have a much better case because Apple settled.
Creative still owns a valid patent. If Apple had won, there would be no patent so anyone could copy the Creative/Apple style interface.
Apple continues on as if nothing has happened. No long court case delaying sales. No injunctions to halt imports.
Explain to me why people think Apple lost here?
Creative knew it was about to get reamed by Microsoft's Zune which it's players aren't compatible with. They knew to get out of the market. Instead of legitimising Microsoft's offering, they've tied up with Apple. It might bug us that Apple have legitimised a bogus patent but it's otherwise very, very smart.
Interesting, I did not know so many apple fans were lawyers and patent experts. Some call the patent bogus, some claim apple really didn't infringe but felt like being santa claus to creative and some even claim that the lawsuit would have cost apple 100 million (like it would have cost creative 0. Why not slug it out and see how much creative have in the coffers to pay their lawyers?). You guys would all make excellent attorneys!!!.
I'll summarize.
1. Apple infringed on the patent
2. Apple paid license for use of the patent
3. Go watch TV.. show over folks.
Apple could blow a hundred million in legal expenses. It's less of an instance of throwing in the towel, and more of an instance of, "You know, the way idiot judges/juries hand out settlements these days, let's just give them a paltry sum, let them think they've won, and still destroy them in the MP3 market."
Actually, creative won, regardless of whether apple destroys them in the market or not. Man, even Steven (jobs) is not as pissed as you all are. I think he's lying comfortable in his bed right now, probably watching the news. Chill out. Companies infringe on other companies patents all the time. Companies settle all the time. This is not an abnormal event.
Apple pays Creative a one time fee of $100M to licence their patents.
Creative joins the 'Made for iPod' program making accessories for their competitor, Apple, who gets money for 'Made for iPod'.
Creative still HAS to defend it's patent against other competitors - that's the nature of patents - or licence it to them. If they do, Apple takes some of that money too. In a round-a-bout way, Apple is getting money back from it's competitors. Nice.
Creative have a much better case because Apple settled.
Creative still owns a valid patent. If Apple had won, there would be no patent so anyone could copy the Creative/Apple style interface.
Apple continues on as if nothing has happened. No long court case delaying sales. No injunctions to halt imports.
Explain to me why people think Apple lost here?
Creative knew it was about to get reamed by Microsoft's Zune which it's players aren't compatible with. They knew to get out of the market. Instead of legitimising Microsoft's offering, they've tied up with Apple. It might bug us that Apple have legitimised a bogus patent but it's otherwise very, very smart.
Interesting, I did not know so many apple fans were lawyers and patent experts. Some call the patent bogus, some claim apple really didn't infringe but felt like being santa claus to creative and some even claim that the lawsuit would have cost apple 100 million (like it would have cost creative 0. Why not slug it out and see how much creative have in the coffers to pay their lawyers?). You guys would all make excellent attorneys!!!.
I'll summarize.
1. Apple infringed on the patent
2. Apple paid license for use of the patent
3. Go watch TV.. show over folks.
Apple could blow a hundred million in legal expenses. It's less of an instance of throwing in the towel, and more of an instance of, "You know, the way idiot judges/juries hand out settlements these days, let's just give them a paltry sum, let them think they've won, and still destroy them in the MP3 market."
Actually, creative won, regardless of whether apple destroys them in the market or not. Man, even Steven (jobs) is not as pissed as you all are. I think he's lying comfortable in his bed right now, probably watching the news. Chill out. Companies infringe on other companies patents all the time. Companies settle all the time. This is not an abnormal event.
jelloshotsrule
Oct 27, 09:03 AM
Seriously. I mean I support the environment, but I know reactionary sensationalism when I see it. As someone said, Greenpeace has lost most of it's respect, even with the EPA (Environmental Protection Agency).
i followed you up til you implied that the EPA is some gold standard of environmentalism. talk about an agency/group having lost respect...
i followed you up til you implied that the EPA is some gold standard of environmentalism. talk about an agency/group having lost respect...
Badandy
Sep 17, 10:31 PM
OK. hang on. back the f&6king truck up.
maybe we're backwards here. but i have NEVER, EVER heard of ANY kind of phone service where INCOMING calls are anything BUT free (excluding reverse-charge, obviously).
Im sorry, but if you all accept crappy CDMA phones specific to a carrier, and paying for incoming calls, you are kidding yourself if you think you are anything but backwards. (i wont go into the whole metric thing :P )
O no! Our cell phone technology is behind that of Europe's, where the small, congested spaces make it easier to unveil new cell technologies! The horror...
maybe we're backwards here. but i have NEVER, EVER heard of ANY kind of phone service where INCOMING calls are anything BUT free (excluding reverse-charge, obviously).
Im sorry, but if you all accept crappy CDMA phones specific to a carrier, and paying for incoming calls, you are kidding yourself if you think you are anything but backwards. (i wont go into the whole metric thing :P )
O no! Our cell phone technology is behind that of Europe's, where the small, congested spaces make it easier to unveil new cell technologies! The horror...
askthedust
Sep 12, 02:35 PM
CAUTION THIS ERASES YOUR MUSIC.
had to go to summary/restore/update
it downloads update to 1.2 and then restarts iteself.
learn how to restore iPod, iPod mini, and iPod nano to factory settings.
If you need to restore an iPod shuffle, click here.
Background
It is important to understand the difference between "update" and "restore". Update simply installs the software that controls iPod and does not affect the songs and files stored on iPod's disk. Restore erases the iPod's disk and restores iPod to its original factory condition.
Warning: because Restore erases all of the songs and files on iPod, make sure to back up any files you've saved on the iPod disk. All of your songs, videos, podcasts, audiobooks, and games can be loaded back to your iPod provided that you have them stored in your iTunes Library. If you use the Nike + iPod Sport Kit, see this document for more information.
How to restore iPod
Ensure that you have an active Internet connection as new versions of iTunes and iPod Software may need to be downloaded to your computer.
Download and install iTunes 7.0 or later if you do not already have it installed.
Open iTunes, and then connect your iPod to your computer using the USB or FireWire cable that came with your iPod.
After a few moments, your iPod will appear in the Source pane in iTunes.
Select your iPod in the Source pane and you will see information about your iPod appear in the Summary tab of the main iTunes windows.
Click the Restore button. You will be prompted with one or more restore options that may prompt iTunes to automatically download of the latest iPod Software. The 4 possible restore options are:
Restore Option 1: Restore - Restores with same iPod Software version already on iPod.
Restore Option 2: Use Same Version - Restores with same iPod Software version already on iPod even though a newer version is available.
Restore Option 3: Use Newest Version - Restores with the latest iPod Software on your computer.
Restore Option 4: Restore and Update - Restores with the latest iPod Software on your computer.
If you are using a Mac, a message will appear prompting you to enter an administrator’s name and password.
A progress bar will appear on the computer screen indicating that the first stage of the restore process has started. When this stage is completed, iTunes will present one of two messages on screen with instructions specific to the iPod model you are restoring.
Restore Instruction 1: Disconnect iPod and connect it to iPod Power Adapter (typically applies to older iPod models).
Restore Instruction 2: Leave iPod connected to computer to complete restore (typically applies newer iPod models).
During the stage 2 of the restore process, the iPod will show an Apple logo as well as a progress bar at the bottom of the display. It is critical that the iPod remains connected to the computer or iPod Power adapter during this stage. Note: The progress bar may be difficult to see since the backlight on the iPod display may be off.
After stage 2 of the restore process is complete and the iPod is connected to the computer, the iTunes Setup Assistant window will appear asking you to name your iPod and choose your syncing preferences similar to when you connected your iPod for the first time.
had to go to summary/restore/update
it downloads update to 1.2 and then restarts iteself.
learn how to restore iPod, iPod mini, and iPod nano to factory settings.
If you need to restore an iPod shuffle, click here.
Background
It is important to understand the difference between "update" and "restore". Update simply installs the software that controls iPod and does not affect the songs and files stored on iPod's disk. Restore erases the iPod's disk and restores iPod to its original factory condition.
Warning: because Restore erases all of the songs and files on iPod, make sure to back up any files you've saved on the iPod disk. All of your songs, videos, podcasts, audiobooks, and games can be loaded back to your iPod provided that you have them stored in your iTunes Library. If you use the Nike + iPod Sport Kit, see this document for more information.
How to restore iPod
Ensure that you have an active Internet connection as new versions of iTunes and iPod Software may need to be downloaded to your computer.
Download and install iTunes 7.0 or later if you do not already have it installed.
Open iTunes, and then connect your iPod to your computer using the USB or FireWire cable that came with your iPod.
After a few moments, your iPod will appear in the Source pane in iTunes.
Select your iPod in the Source pane and you will see information about your iPod appear in the Summary tab of the main iTunes windows.
Click the Restore button. You will be prompted with one or more restore options that may prompt iTunes to automatically download of the latest iPod Software. The 4 possible restore options are:
Restore Option 1: Restore - Restores with same iPod Software version already on iPod.
Restore Option 2: Use Same Version - Restores with same iPod Software version already on iPod even though a newer version is available.
Restore Option 3: Use Newest Version - Restores with the latest iPod Software on your computer.
Restore Option 4: Restore and Update - Restores with the latest iPod Software on your computer.
If you are using a Mac, a message will appear prompting you to enter an administrator’s name and password.
A progress bar will appear on the computer screen indicating that the first stage of the restore process has started. When this stage is completed, iTunes will present one of two messages on screen with instructions specific to the iPod model you are restoring.
Restore Instruction 1: Disconnect iPod and connect it to iPod Power Adapter (typically applies to older iPod models).
Restore Instruction 2: Leave iPod connected to computer to complete restore (typically applies newer iPod models).
During the stage 2 of the restore process, the iPod will show an Apple logo as well as a progress bar at the bottom of the display. It is critical that the iPod remains connected to the computer or iPod Power adapter during this stage. Note: The progress bar may be difficult to see since the backlight on the iPod display may be off.
After stage 2 of the restore process is complete and the iPod is connected to the computer, the iTunes Setup Assistant window will appear asking you to name your iPod and choose your syncing preferences similar to when you connected your iPod for the first time.
Sensamic
Mar 23, 09:21 PM
Dont forget you'll need an SSD too inside the iMac to achieve the Thunderbolt speeds!!
And it must be a very good and expensive SSD, with more than 700MB/s.
Thunderbolt not worth it right now because its TOO expensive. I'll wait 2 years, when SSDs are much MUCH more cheaper.
And it must be a very good and expensive SSD, with more than 700MB/s.
Thunderbolt not worth it right now because its TOO expensive. I'll wait 2 years, when SSDs are much MUCH more cheaper.
BC2009
Mar 30, 11:33 AM
Office and Windows are/were generic words OUTSIDE of the computer industry (like Apple). But app(lication) store is a generic word INSIDE of the computer industry and that the big legal difference here.
Like I just said.... Mac's had windows (and they called them that) before PC's had "Windows". Mac OS has used windows and trash and all that drag-and-drop and double-click-a-file goodness long before any DOS PC had it. Xerox invented it, sold it to Apple, and Apple used it in the Mac.
"Windows" was a generic term in the computer industry before Microsoft had any trademark.
EDIT: I still think neither should be allowed, but given the precedents out there I would give Apple the "App Store" trademark. Certainly MS is the pot calling the kettle black here. Considering their windows-based operating system is called "Windows" and their Office productivity suite is called "Office". These guys should all have to come up with better names for their stuff if they want a trademark. Like.... why not just stick an "i" in front of it? iApp Store (see how easy that was).
Like I just said.... Mac's had windows (and they called them that) before PC's had "Windows". Mac OS has used windows and trash and all that drag-and-drop and double-click-a-file goodness long before any DOS PC had it. Xerox invented it, sold it to Apple, and Apple used it in the Mac.
"Windows" was a generic term in the computer industry before Microsoft had any trademark.
EDIT: I still think neither should be allowed, but given the precedents out there I would give Apple the "App Store" trademark. Certainly MS is the pot calling the kettle black here. Considering their windows-based operating system is called "Windows" and their Office productivity suite is called "Office". These guys should all have to come up with better names for their stuff if they want a trademark. Like.... why not just stick an "i" in front of it? iApp Store (see how easy that was).
israelagm
Mar 30, 01:24 PM
XP shows them with the same names, but it's irrelevant to the discussion at hand. There is no "App Store" in the screenshot.
Shows what with the same names?
And I think it is relevant to the entire discussion. IF they have never used 'applications' in a 'general' or specific way on any type of their OSs then why pick a fight over Apple's use of AppStore, who have been using the term 'Applications' in their OSs and in their ecosystem and brand recognition lingo.
And your right, you don't see an 'App Store' in this screenshot or on any Windows OS or mobile OS.
EDIT: NVM! as noted by logandzwon "Anything ending in .exe will have the same description." Which makes my argument weak and mute.
Shows what with the same names?
And I think it is relevant to the entire discussion. IF they have never used 'applications' in a 'general' or specific way on any type of their OSs then why pick a fight over Apple's use of AppStore, who have been using the term 'Applications' in their OSs and in their ecosystem and brand recognition lingo.
And your right, you don't see an 'App Store' in this screenshot or on any Windows OS or mobile OS.
EDIT: NVM! as noted by logandzwon "Anything ending in .exe will have the same description." Which makes my argument weak and mute.
blondepianist
Mar 29, 01:52 PM
I always assumed, probably wrongly, that there was some file size limit or that it could affect performance when using it for large files (I mostly work with huge ProRes files.)
Just FYI...
File size wouldn't affect performance at all, as long as you're copying between locations on the same drive. The "file" that you see in the GUI is actually a link to a location on disk where your data is; all the OS has to move is the link, which is very tiny.
Just FYI...
File size wouldn't affect performance at all, as long as you're copying between locations on the same drive. The "file" that you see in the GUI is actually a link to a location on disk where your data is; all the OS has to move is the link, which is very tiny.
Lesser Evets
Apr 30, 02:26 PM
perhaps, don't take it the wrong way but when people buy machines today, they also intend to use it for all the days leading up to the point where you can get 1 TB flashdrives for a few bucks.
True, but the BluRay market isn't a runaway success. If I didn't have it in my PS3 I'd never have one. Nice, not necessary. With all the programming and money toward the Sony owned rights, etc., the tech isn't worth it in a computer except to a small percentage. Apple sat on their hands long enough that 2005 super-tech looks a little plain. If they waited this long, why put energy and profits down the tubes for a soon-fading tech?
BluRay in Apple--hold your breath at your own risk.
True, but the BluRay market isn't a runaway success. If I didn't have it in my PS3 I'd never have one. Nice, not necessary. With all the programming and money toward the Sony owned rights, etc., the tech isn't worth it in a computer except to a small percentage. Apple sat on their hands long enough that 2005 super-tech looks a little plain. If they waited this long, why put energy and profits down the tubes for a soon-fading tech?
BluRay in Apple--hold your breath at your own risk.
KilGil27
Sep 26, 11:53 PM
This may never come out...
steve_hill4
Sep 14, 08:39 AM
Having just seen Sony's soon to be launched line-up, (Sony Rep showing us all sneak previews of models we'll be getting), I think Apple need Core 2 Duo in the MBPs very soon and may be getting them in the MacBook no later than MWSF, possibly even November.
As for Aperture 2, I just wonder what extra features it will offer. It would be a shame if it turned out to be merely an update.
As for Aperture 2, I just wonder what extra features it will offer. It would be a shame if it turned out to be merely an update.
Intarweb
Apr 20, 11:06 AM
All I've seen is one paragraph claiming that. Until someone shows data from when location services was turned off it's hard to run with it.
Applogist? Jesus, that's such a sad bastardization of words. I'm trying to apply reasoning to this and have people understand that they've likely agreed to something because they don't read the ToS or SLA.
I'm sorry it was harsh to call you and appologist. From your posting you're not like the typical robot running around here.
Mine has always been off. When I get home I'll try the program and will have first had knowledge of if it does or doesn't track with it switched off.
Applogist? Jesus, that's such a sad bastardization of words. I'm trying to apply reasoning to this and have people understand that they've likely agreed to something because they don't read the ToS or SLA.
I'm sorry it was harsh to call you and appologist. From your posting you're not like the typical robot running around here.
Mine has always been off. When I get home I'll try the program and will have first had knowledge of if it does or doesn't track with it switched off.
econgeek
Apr 14, 12:28 PM
USB3=native to all platforms
TB=Mac Only
Sounds like TB just died.
This is why Apple was wise to do Thunderbolt in partnership with Intel. It is not at all Mac Only.... it is built into Intel's support chips.
For FireWire, manufacturers had to incur the cost of a FW controller chip. For thunderbolt, it is built into the chipsets they are using already, and therefore, is simply a matter of adding a connector to the motherboard.
This should drastically lower the barrier for adoption.
Plus, being built into the displayport standard-- which is also open, and has been adopted by Dell for its displays-- there is a good incentive to offer a combo tunderbolt/mini-displayport port on their motherboards.
Follow Us of Facebook
Join our group on Facebook:
as small as possible
Group middot; Fuzzy on Facebook
TB=Mac Only
Sounds like TB just died.
This is why Apple was wise to do Thunderbolt in partnership with Intel. It is not at all Mac Only.... it is built into Intel's support chips.
For FireWire, manufacturers had to incur the cost of a FW controller chip. For thunderbolt, it is built into the chipsets they are using already, and therefore, is simply a matter of adding a connector to the motherboard.
This should drastically lower the barrier for adoption.
Plus, being built into the displayport standard-- which is also open, and has been adopted by Dell for its displays-- there is a good incentive to offer a combo tunderbolt/mini-displayport port on their motherboards.
Westside guy
Sep 5, 03:16 PM
This could be either really big or really bad.
Well, based on past experience here - no matter what is announced, there will be people on this forum complaining that it isn't enough. :p We'll have to wait and see how it (whatever "it" is) plays in Peoria over time.
Personally I'm hoping for the AV streaming device; and if it ties in with my Tivo that'll be a big plus. :D
Well, based on past experience here - no matter what is announced, there will be people on this forum complaining that it isn't enough. :p We'll have to wait and see how it (whatever "it" is) plays in Peoria over time.
Personally I'm hoping for the AV streaming device; and if it ties in with my Tivo that'll be a big plus. :D
jettredmont
Sep 5, 12:16 PM
"Media Device" = Does it include an iPod Video?
This would somewhat explain why the Paris Expo was given the cold shoulder.
"Bonjour, mes amis! The iTunes Movie Store is finally here! (but only in the U.S.)"
This way, they announce the store but also get a chance to demo the product at the Expo.
-Squire
The Paris Expo is a redheaded stepchild, and hardly even acknowledged by Apple PR folks. ("We have two events per year, WWDC and MWSF." "And Paris Expo." "Paris what?")
Even if the iTMediaStore was to be US and France (which, I agree, is about 95% unlikely) they'd still not announce it at Paris. Apple has decided on two major events, and impromptu mini-events as announcements warrant. And Paris Expo is not on that list.
Personally, I see the timing of this event as a way of driving that point home in the press. Why would you go to Paris, when you might miss something really important coming out of Cupertino?
This would somewhat explain why the Paris Expo was given the cold shoulder.
"Bonjour, mes amis! The iTunes Movie Store is finally here! (but only in the U.S.)"
This way, they announce the store but also get a chance to demo the product at the Expo.
-Squire
The Paris Expo is a redheaded stepchild, and hardly even acknowledged by Apple PR folks. ("We have two events per year, WWDC and MWSF." "And Paris Expo." "Paris what?")
Even if the iTMediaStore was to be US and France (which, I agree, is about 95% unlikely) they'd still not announce it at Paris. Apple has decided on two major events, and impromptu mini-events as announcements warrant. And Paris Expo is not on that list.
Personally, I see the timing of this event as a way of driving that point home in the press. Why would you go to Paris, when you might miss something really important coming out of Cupertino?
Blue Fox
Apr 22, 06:39 PM
Its a little sad though, about the SB IGP :(
Why? The Intel Integrated 3000 graphics outperform the current Nividia GeForce 320M's found in the current MacBook Airs and outgoing pre-gen MacBook Pro's. So why is an improvement sad?
Why? The Intel Integrated 3000 graphics outperform the current Nividia GeForce 320M's found in the current MacBook Airs and outgoing pre-gen MacBook Pro's. So why is an improvement sad?
AvSRoCkCO1067
Sep 14, 08:04 AM
Is there any chance that they'll release the MBPs here?
Psychic Shopper
Sep 4, 07:20 PM
"This would somewhat explain why the Paris Expo was given the cold shoulder."
Cold shoulder to say the least. The same day as the expo, in London, Apple will hold a press conference. If you are a reporter, where do you go?
Apple distanced itself from the Macworld New York Expo, I wonder if they are doing the same thing with the Paris expo?
Cold shoulder to say the least. The same day as the expo, in London, Apple will hold a press conference. If you are a reporter, where do you go?
Apple distanced itself from the Macworld New York Expo, I wonder if they are doing the same thing with the Paris expo?
Stridder44
Jul 14, 01:37 PM
You're impressed that a chip not even available yet beats a chip from june 2003?
No Im amused that people still think (more or less wish really) the G5 is better.
No Im amused that people still think (more or less wish really) the G5 is better.
AppleScruff1
Mar 23, 07:23 PM
If it was a Microsoft app most here would have a different opinion.
shecky
Aug 28, 09:25 PM
Sorry to crash the party, but it would seem a little strange for Apple to upgrade the MacBook and/or MB Pro's until sometime after the 16th when their current college promotion ends.
well, in the past they have run this promotion and released new product without adding it to the rebate. so... i guess it would not be strange, no.
Keep your mom's credit card in her purse for a few more weeks.
here is a quarter, go call your mom and let her know you are not allowed to make condescending ill-informed posts on forums anymore.
well, in the past they have run this promotion and released new product without adding it to the rebate. so... i guess it would not be strange, no.
Keep your mom's credit card in her purse for a few more weeks.
here is a quarter, go call your mom and let her know you are not allowed to make condescending ill-informed posts on forums anymore.
iMacZealot
Sep 18, 01:34 AM
You're right it's just like the ages old Mac verses PC debate can't really compare them.
It really comes down to want you need to do and how much you are prepared to spend.
It's not even the technology's price that's the difference, that's decided by another company. it's the technologies that are hard to compare.
It really comes down to want you need to do and how much you are prepared to spend.
It's not even the technology's price that's the difference, that's decided by another company. it's the technologies that are hard to compare.
No comments:
Post a Comment