jimmyjoemccrow
May 4, 07:34 AM
No, those aren't the best possible choices. Those are probably the worst possible choice.
http://www.wakeinteractive.com/blog/view/yes_no_dialogs_are_confusing/
The examples given in that link are extremely dumb. Nobody is going anywhere when they are at their PC. They are not being forced to make a spur of the moment decision when they use their computer, they have time to sit and read the dialogue and understand the consequences of their choices. We are not talking about reading the whole works of Shakespeare and we aren't talking about an annoying pop up every 5 minutes. There is absolutely no harm in educating the user a little.
The example of the lift buttons is already present in the OS anyway, for example the arrows on a scrollbar.
http://www.wakeinteractive.com/blog/view/yes_no_dialogs_are_confusing/
The examples given in that link are extremely dumb. Nobody is going anywhere when they are at their PC. They are not being forced to make a spur of the moment decision when they use their computer, they have time to sit and read the dialogue and understand the consequences of their choices. We are not talking about reading the whole works of Shakespeare and we aren't talking about an annoying pop up every 5 minutes. There is absolutely no harm in educating the user a little.
The example of the lift buttons is already present in the OS anyway, for example the arrows on a scrollbar.
Schnebar
Jan 13, 01:39 AM
So the only way to use a thumb drive or download photos from a camera or sync your iPod/iPhone is through your dock when you're at home???
This IS the most ridiculous thing I've heard in a while.
Yeah I guess there are a lot of problems with this.
But how cool would it be if the sides were completely clean. Maybe they could have a USB and audio output one the side that has a cover that slides over when it is not being used.
I remember when wifi came out and there were all of these commercials about how there were no wires.
But now there will never be any wires ever.
I am just wishful thinking and do not actually know about the complexity that this kind of charging entails but it sounds cool if it worked.
This IS the most ridiculous thing I've heard in a while.
Yeah I guess there are a lot of problems with this.
But how cool would it be if the sides were completely clean. Maybe they could have a USB and audio output one the side that has a cover that slides over when it is not being used.
I remember when wifi came out and there were all of these commercials about how there were no wires.
But now there will never be any wires ever.
I am just wishful thinking and do not actually know about the complexity that this kind of charging entails but it sounds cool if it worked.
Lord Blackadder
Mar 7, 06:20 PM
Because there is not enough of it, and it will increase our need of foreign oil not lessen it.
There is twice as much gasoline refined from a barrel of sweet crude than diesel.
Can you quote a source on that? As far as I'm aware, that is not necessarily true (http://www.theoildrum.com/node/2174). It all depends on what is in highest demand. Diesel can be refined into gasoline, and gasoline is what people in the US want at the moment. I will try to find some more citeable links than this (http://cr4.globalspec.com/thread/26624/Maximum-gallons-of-diesel-from-a-barrel-of-crude-oil), but my impression is that a single barrel of crude always potentially contains more diesel fuel than gasoline. This is a very market-driven process. Refineries make what people want to buy.
It's also worth pointing out that a lot of gasoline has ethanol and other compounds in it that diesel does not have, and that stuff had to be refined before being added - increasing the engery cost of refining gasoline. Regular unleaded gasoline also has more sulphur in it than the now mandatory-for-passenger-cars ULSD fuel.
For a long time, and in many places people that drove diesel vehicles did so because of the tax advantages. The taxes were kept lower in order to make commercial usage cheaper.
Diesel may be cheaper in Europe due to tax structures, but the same could be said about gasoline here. It doesn't have to be that way in either case. On a purely technical level, gasoline should actually cost more because it takes more energy to refine.
It is not greener to go diesel. It takes that resource from other parts of the economy and puts it into cars. Cars do just fine with gasoline. They are relatively clean and there is twice as much of the stuff in a gallon of oil. They don't get better mileage except in volume of stuff. Which is not the correct measurement. If cars became more diesel, then diesel would become dramatically more expensive, affecting the overall livelihood of everyone, dramatically increase the cost of oil and bring about energy devastation much faster than anyone could imagine.
Diesel takes less energy to refine, contains more energy per unit of volume, emits less CO2, you get potentially more of it out of a barrel of crude and diesel engines are always more fuel efficient than equivalent gasoline engines. Where's the problem?
I can't see how you are going to argue that it is necessary for us to drive gasoline-engined cars in order to prevent "energy devastation". Most other countries already use a much larger proportion of diesel and they seem just fine. We could make a lot more diesel with the crude we are currently extracting, and the market for gasoline will never go away.
By moving to hybrids and electrics, we actually decrease our dependence on foreign oil, and make our cars greener per mile driven. This is why it is the answer and diesel isn't.
I am not advocating that we all switch to diesel. Nor do I want to get rid of the gasoline engine (especially in performance cars!). But the USA has an unecessary obsession with the gasoline-engined car. We need diesel serial hybrids for starters, and more hybrids and diesel-engined cars of all types. There is no one solution. If tens of thousands of people in the US started buying diesel Cruzes, it would not destroy the world's energy infrastructure.
But come on - "energy devastation"?
the argument for that silent agreement ? they don't want "a horsepower arms race"... look how well that has turned out
Indeed. Same with the Japanese and their 280hp/180 km/h limit. Some of the cars made under this "agreement" were considerably faster/more powerful than was officially admitted, and anyway they did away with that a number of years ago.
There is twice as much gasoline refined from a barrel of sweet crude than diesel.
Can you quote a source on that? As far as I'm aware, that is not necessarily true (http://www.theoildrum.com/node/2174). It all depends on what is in highest demand. Diesel can be refined into gasoline, and gasoline is what people in the US want at the moment. I will try to find some more citeable links than this (http://cr4.globalspec.com/thread/26624/Maximum-gallons-of-diesel-from-a-barrel-of-crude-oil), but my impression is that a single barrel of crude always potentially contains more diesel fuel than gasoline. This is a very market-driven process. Refineries make what people want to buy.
It's also worth pointing out that a lot of gasoline has ethanol and other compounds in it that diesel does not have, and that stuff had to be refined before being added - increasing the engery cost of refining gasoline. Regular unleaded gasoline also has more sulphur in it than the now mandatory-for-passenger-cars ULSD fuel.
For a long time, and in many places people that drove diesel vehicles did so because of the tax advantages. The taxes were kept lower in order to make commercial usage cheaper.
Diesel may be cheaper in Europe due to tax structures, but the same could be said about gasoline here. It doesn't have to be that way in either case. On a purely technical level, gasoline should actually cost more because it takes more energy to refine.
It is not greener to go diesel. It takes that resource from other parts of the economy and puts it into cars. Cars do just fine with gasoline. They are relatively clean and there is twice as much of the stuff in a gallon of oil. They don't get better mileage except in volume of stuff. Which is not the correct measurement. If cars became more diesel, then diesel would become dramatically more expensive, affecting the overall livelihood of everyone, dramatically increase the cost of oil and bring about energy devastation much faster than anyone could imagine.
Diesel takes less energy to refine, contains more energy per unit of volume, emits less CO2, you get potentially more of it out of a barrel of crude and diesel engines are always more fuel efficient than equivalent gasoline engines. Where's the problem?
I can't see how you are going to argue that it is necessary for us to drive gasoline-engined cars in order to prevent "energy devastation". Most other countries already use a much larger proportion of diesel and they seem just fine. We could make a lot more diesel with the crude we are currently extracting, and the market for gasoline will never go away.
By moving to hybrids and electrics, we actually decrease our dependence on foreign oil, and make our cars greener per mile driven. This is why it is the answer and diesel isn't.
I am not advocating that we all switch to diesel. Nor do I want to get rid of the gasoline engine (especially in performance cars!). But the USA has an unecessary obsession with the gasoline-engined car. We need diesel serial hybrids for starters, and more hybrids and diesel-engined cars of all types. There is no one solution. If tens of thousands of people in the US started buying diesel Cruzes, it would not destroy the world's energy infrastructure.
But come on - "energy devastation"?
the argument for that silent agreement ? they don't want "a horsepower arms race"... look how well that has turned out
Indeed. Same with the Japanese and their 280hp/180 km/h limit. Some of the cars made under this "agreement" were considerably faster/more powerful than was officially admitted, and anyway they did away with that a number of years ago.
bug67
Sep 14, 02:33 PM
Whatever. I got one anyway. No problems whatsoever. :D
imac_japan
Mar 18, 08:41 AM
Please sign it !! For our sakes
http://www.petitiononline.com/rumi04/petition.html
Thanks
http://www.petitiononline.com/rumi04/petition.html
Thanks
boncellis
Jul 18, 02:57 PM
In the meantime, Movielink already offers rental and purchase options, and I read that they will also be allowing you to burn your own DVDs, although I don't know the details.
This is from their site:
Seems to me the difference between this rumored Apple service and Movielink or Vongo or Moviebeam, et al, is analogous to the difference between the iTMS and Yahoo! Music, Sony Connect, Napster 2.0...
Apple just has a knack for getting it right, and it's by allowing the user the most control. I just don't see the service staying a rental-only venture for very long.
This is from their site:
Seems to me the difference between this rumored Apple service and Movielink or Vongo or Moviebeam, et al, is analogous to the difference between the iTMS and Yahoo! Music, Sony Connect, Napster 2.0...
Apple just has a knack for getting it right, and it's by allowing the user the most control. I just don't see the service staying a rental-only venture for very long.
rasmasyean
Mar 19, 05:01 PM
As if we need to be told that.
This forum needs a delete post function. Maybe it's just me, but sometimes I get confused and even post accross a different forum by accident. lol Too much multitasking! :p
This forum needs a delete post function. Maybe it's just me, but sometimes I get confused and even post accross a different forum by accident. lol Too much multitasking! :p
Hellhammer
Apr 21, 03:50 PM
I'd welcome HellHammer's thoughts on this as he generally has a well informed perspective on these things.
I have made my predictions and I still stand behind them. I don't really follow this thread though so if someone has me a question, you may be better off PMing me.
1199$ 21.5" iMac
Intel Core i3-2100 (3.1GHz)
AMD 6490M with 256MB GDDR5
500GB HD
2x2GB RAM; option for 4x2GB
1499$ 21.5" iMac
Intel Core i5-2400S (2.5/3.3GHz); option for Core i5-2500S (2.7/3.7GHz)
AMD 6750M with 512MB GDDR5
1TB HD; option for 2TB
2x2GB RAM: option for 4x2GB
1699$ 27" iMac
Intel Core i5-2400 (3.1/3.4GHz)
AMD 6750M with 512MB GDDR5; option for AMD 6950M with 1024MB GDDR5
1TB HD; option for 2TB
2x2GB RAM; options for 4x2GB, 2x4GB and 4x4GB
1999$ 27" iMac
Intel Core i7-2600 (3.4/3.8GHz)
AMD 6950M with 1024MB GDDR5
1TB HD; option for 2TB
2x4GB RAM; option for 4x4GB
http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=11688279&postcount=26
I'm sure it's been done to death, but I spent some time actually thinking about realistic-ish speculations of what the new line could look like. I think they're going to get rid of one SKU ( the step up 27" without the quad i7), because it's kind of redundant, and for the $100 price difference, I can't imagine anyone NOT spending the extra modey to get the quad core). The only spec that is more of a wishful thinking piece is the inclusion of the HD6800M 1GB card in the 27" quad i7. THAT would be a beast!
Common Upgrades
1. Thunderbolt port
2. HDMI out
3. Sandybridge
Now, here's the model breakdown:
21.5" (1920x1080) display
3.2 GHz i3 processor
4 GB RAM
500 GB HD
Thunderbolt
ATI Radeon HD 4870 (256MB)
HDMI out
$1199.99
21.5" (1920x1080) display
3.5 GHz i3 processor
8 GB RAM
1 TB HD
Thunderbolt
ATI Radeon HD 4870 (256MB)
HDMI out
$1499.99
27" (2560x1440) display
2.8 GHz i5 processor
4 GB RAM
1 TB HD
Thunderbolt
ATI Radeon HD 5870 (512MB)
HDMI out
$1699.99
27" (2560x1440) display
3.2 GHz quad i7 processor
8 GB RAM
2 TB HD
Thunderbolt
ATI Radeon HD 6970 (1 GB)
HDMI out
$1999.99
ATI 4870M has TDP of 65W, there is no way it is going to fit in 21.5". Also, it makes absolutely no sense to use three different generations as that, if something, would confuse consumers a big time. The only possibility I see is that the low-end gets ATI 5670 (aka 5730M) like Apple did in previous update. Other models will very likely feature AMD 6000M-series graphics.
I also doubt that Apple will use i3 in other than the low-end iMac. All MBPs have i5 or better, even the 1199$ one. Using i3 in 1499$ iMac sounds stupid because in the end, the consumer thinks that i5 is better because 5 is greater than 3, even though that doesn't really mean that when comparing desktop and mobile CPUs. Moreover, there is no 3.5GHz i3 either.
HDMI doesn't sound too likely, seeing that only Mac Mini has it. Thunderbolt or mDP can provide the same functionality and much more.
I have made my predictions and I still stand behind them. I don't really follow this thread though so if someone has me a question, you may be better off PMing me.
1199$ 21.5" iMac
Intel Core i3-2100 (3.1GHz)
AMD 6490M with 256MB GDDR5
500GB HD
2x2GB RAM; option for 4x2GB
1499$ 21.5" iMac
Intel Core i5-2400S (2.5/3.3GHz); option for Core i5-2500S (2.7/3.7GHz)
AMD 6750M with 512MB GDDR5
1TB HD; option for 2TB
2x2GB RAM: option for 4x2GB
1699$ 27" iMac
Intel Core i5-2400 (3.1/3.4GHz)
AMD 6750M with 512MB GDDR5; option for AMD 6950M with 1024MB GDDR5
1TB HD; option for 2TB
2x2GB RAM; options for 4x2GB, 2x4GB and 4x4GB
1999$ 27" iMac
Intel Core i7-2600 (3.4/3.8GHz)
AMD 6950M with 1024MB GDDR5
1TB HD; option for 2TB
2x4GB RAM; option for 4x4GB
http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=11688279&postcount=26
I'm sure it's been done to death, but I spent some time actually thinking about realistic-ish speculations of what the new line could look like. I think they're going to get rid of one SKU ( the step up 27" without the quad i7), because it's kind of redundant, and for the $100 price difference, I can't imagine anyone NOT spending the extra modey to get the quad core). The only spec that is more of a wishful thinking piece is the inclusion of the HD6800M 1GB card in the 27" quad i7. THAT would be a beast!
Common Upgrades
1. Thunderbolt port
2. HDMI out
3. Sandybridge
Now, here's the model breakdown:
21.5" (1920x1080) display
3.2 GHz i3 processor
4 GB RAM
500 GB HD
Thunderbolt
ATI Radeon HD 4870 (256MB)
HDMI out
$1199.99
21.5" (1920x1080) display
3.5 GHz i3 processor
8 GB RAM
1 TB HD
Thunderbolt
ATI Radeon HD 4870 (256MB)
HDMI out
$1499.99
27" (2560x1440) display
2.8 GHz i5 processor
4 GB RAM
1 TB HD
Thunderbolt
ATI Radeon HD 5870 (512MB)
HDMI out
$1699.99
27" (2560x1440) display
3.2 GHz quad i7 processor
8 GB RAM
2 TB HD
Thunderbolt
ATI Radeon HD 6970 (1 GB)
HDMI out
$1999.99
ATI 4870M has TDP of 65W, there is no way it is going to fit in 21.5". Also, it makes absolutely no sense to use three different generations as that, if something, would confuse consumers a big time. The only possibility I see is that the low-end gets ATI 5670 (aka 5730M) like Apple did in previous update. Other models will very likely feature AMD 6000M-series graphics.
I also doubt that Apple will use i3 in other than the low-end iMac. All MBPs have i5 or better, even the 1199$ one. Using i3 in 1499$ iMac sounds stupid because in the end, the consumer thinks that i5 is better because 5 is greater than 3, even though that doesn't really mean that when comparing desktop and mobile CPUs. Moreover, there is no 3.5GHz i3 either.
HDMI doesn't sound too likely, seeing that only Mac Mini has it. Thunderbolt or mDP can provide the same functionality and much more.
DavidLeblond
Sep 1, 12:55 PM
if this turns out to be true, here's my prediction on the pricing:
17" is stripped down and relegated to "emac" status and sells at a $999 price point
20" sells for $1299 or $1399
23" sells for $1699 or MAYBE $1799 at the most
Wishful thinking (both yours and mine).
Not gonna happen.
17" is stripped down and relegated to "emac" status and sells at a $999 price point
20" sells for $1299 or $1399
23" sells for $1699 or MAYBE $1799 at the most
Wishful thinking (both yours and mine).
Not gonna happen.
admanimal
Mar 31, 12:16 AM
Can you only get one code per dev account? What if I want to install on multiple computers?
The thing that downloads from the App Store is the installer. Once you have it on one computer, you just copy it to another.
The thing that downloads from the App Store is the installer. Once you have it on one computer, you just copy it to another.
iW00t
Jan 7, 12:35 AM
Highly unlikely that the Quad chip will end up in the iTV. Especially at the already announced $299 proce point of iTV
It will be a loss leader than. Apple sells these boxes for $299 and make their money when they sell movies.
It will be a loss leader than. Apple sells these boxes for $299 and make their money when they sell movies.
puuukeey
Sep 1, 02:43 PM
if it gets bigger, does it get thinner?
jc1350
Apr 21, 12:45 PM
Al Franken isnt tracking me, my iphone is.
What a lame ass attempt to politicize the issue :rolleyes:
When it comes to politicians, EVERYTHING is political. They don't do or say anything without some idea on how it can help them politically.
What a lame ass attempt to politicize the issue :rolleyes:
When it comes to politicians, EVERYTHING is political. They don't do or say anything without some idea on how it can help them politically.
banjomamo
Jul 14, 01:26 AM
I think it will be at least 12 more months before bluray shows up in an Apple machine - at least as a standard. The only real hint I have seen is that they already let you author the HD-DVD spec video in DVD SP. Maybe because the Bluray specs werent done in time for that release though.
Multimedia
Sep 1, 03:51 PM
This basically confirms that Apple will release the "Mac".
A mini/mid tower with a Conroe, upgradeable video card maybe 1 or 2 open PCI slots, 2 HDD slots, 1 DVD slot and 4 ram slots.
It all seems pretty obvious.What "This" is This? You need to include a link with your references please? We can't read your mind. :confused:http://static.flickr.com/95/231249512_9eccfef387_o.jpg
Oh yeah. Hope they remember the Dual-Link DVI. This is 30" BTW. Could sell for $2999 with a 2.66 GHz Conroe inside. Brilliant idea to perforate the sides like the Pro case thus letting in and out a LOT of air all the time. *
So I guess getting back to reality, the 2GHz Mac Pro is the new "weakling" that will be the only decently powered headless Mac. That is really sad. $2124 stripped to the bone.
We need benchmarks between 2GHz Mac Pro and iMacs and Dual Core PowerMac G5's to see what that really means.
* Anyone know the source of this image/design? I think it's fantastic.
A mini/mid tower with a Conroe, upgradeable video card maybe 1 or 2 open PCI slots, 2 HDD slots, 1 DVD slot and 4 ram slots.
It all seems pretty obvious.What "This" is This? You need to include a link with your references please? We can't read your mind. :confused:http://static.flickr.com/95/231249512_9eccfef387_o.jpg
Oh yeah. Hope they remember the Dual-Link DVI. This is 30" BTW. Could sell for $2999 with a 2.66 GHz Conroe inside. Brilliant idea to perforate the sides like the Pro case thus letting in and out a LOT of air all the time. *
So I guess getting back to reality, the 2GHz Mac Pro is the new "weakling" that will be the only decently powered headless Mac. That is really sad. $2124 stripped to the bone.
We need benchmarks between 2GHz Mac Pro and iMacs and Dual Core PowerMac G5's to see what that really means.
* Anyone know the source of this image/design? I think it's fantastic.
budman1961
Nov 27, 07:06 AM
What do you think of this drive?
I have that drive in my mid-2010 MBP 15" 2.66, and I am impressed. 50 second cold boot to Outlook full load. App opening is fast, reopening the same app is almost instantaneous. You will take a slight hit in battery, I think less than 1/2 hour or so, but it was well worth it for me.
Avoid the temptation to restore from a backup (documents only), take the time to reinstall each app, and you will be delighted. I had plenty of time, and did it both ways, restore from time machine, and later app by app. If you have the time, app by app is much better, plus you can really look at what you have installed over time, and purge what you no longer use.
Well worth the $$! :D
I have that drive in my mid-2010 MBP 15" 2.66, and I am impressed. 50 second cold boot to Outlook full load. App opening is fast, reopening the same app is almost instantaneous. You will take a slight hit in battery, I think less than 1/2 hour or so, but it was well worth it for me.
Avoid the temptation to restore from a backup (documents only), take the time to reinstall each app, and you will be delighted. I had plenty of time, and did it both ways, restore from time machine, and later app by app. If you have the time, app by app is much better, plus you can really look at what you have installed over time, and purge what you no longer use.
Well worth the $$! :D
SciFrog
Nov 18, 05:25 PM
It is almost becoming that unless you do bigadv units, why bother...
The top end iMac now gets as much as 7 times the top previous generation iMac...
The top end iMac now gets as much as 7 times the top previous generation iMac...
ssdeg7
May 2, 05:15 PM
If you click on Show Content on any app and replace the first three files from an app downloaded from the app store it will happen with any app you want.
Right Click -> Show Package Contents -> Contents
Copy:
_CodeSignature
_MASReceipt
CodeResources
Then select and app not from the Mac App Store and Right Click -> Show Package Contents -> Contents
Then paste the three files. After you reboot your Mac it should work.
(This has been working since the past DP)
Right Click -> Show Package Contents -> Contents
Copy:
_CodeSignature
_MASReceipt
CodeResources
Then select and app not from the Mac App Store and Right Click -> Show Package Contents -> Contents
Then paste the three files. After you reboot your Mac it should work.
(This has been working since the past DP)
theelysium
Apr 21, 11:15 AM
They are blowing it out of proportion.
What about Google? Why don't they go after them for tracking every little thing you do with their services. If you want to talk about a company that violates & then documents our privacy go after Google.
What about Google? Why don't they go after them for tracking every little thing you do with their services. If you want to talk about a company that violates & then documents our privacy go after Google.
lowbatteries
May 2, 05:51 PM
Whatever happened to Command-Delete?
....this is starting to look like Aero in Windows Vista.
See any similarities?
Image (http://thecustomizewindows.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/How-to-remove-the-confirmation-prompt-to-delete-any-file-in-Windows-7-2.png)
Image (http://cdn.macrumors.com/article/2011/05/02/171331-lion_delete_evernote.jpg)
That Windows dialog is horrible. Why is there so much info? Are the file size and image dimensions really helping me decided whether or not I want to delete it? And it has the classic Windows "Yes" and "No" buttons (instead of having something useful like Cancel and Delete). If that dialog pops up, you have to squint your eyes and look all over until you see "Delete ..." in the upper left corner, then take a second to make sure "Yes" actually means "Delete". And if you want to cancel, should you hit "No" or the X in the top right?
That OS X dialog IS NOTHING like that Aero dialog.
....this is starting to look like Aero in Windows Vista.
See any similarities?
Image (http://thecustomizewindows.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/How-to-remove-the-confirmation-prompt-to-delete-any-file-in-Windows-7-2.png)
Image (http://cdn.macrumors.com/article/2011/05/02/171331-lion_delete_evernote.jpg)
That Windows dialog is horrible. Why is there so much info? Are the file size and image dimensions really helping me decided whether or not I want to delete it? And it has the classic Windows "Yes" and "No" buttons (instead of having something useful like Cancel and Delete). If that dialog pops up, you have to squint your eyes and look all over until you see "Delete ..." in the upper left corner, then take a second to make sure "Yes" actually means "Delete". And if you want to cancel, should you hit "No" or the X in the top right?
That OS X dialog IS NOTHING like that Aero dialog.
Hooksta
Oct 22, 06:47 AM
14 million devices sold in Q3 2010.
'Nuff said.
LOL...that's like Fox News touting their ratings as a testament that they are Fair and Balanced.
'Nuff said.
LOL...that's like Fox News touting their ratings as a testament that they are Fair and Balanced.
GregA
Mar 22, 04:39 PM
I don't think the classic will die, nor will conventional hard drives in laptops, until you can buy 500GB flash drives for $100.
I'm going to take my meandering thoughts further :)
Many people could live with a 32GB flash-based laptop if all their data was available via mobileme OR a nearby 220GB iPod.
I'm going to take my meandering thoughts further :)
Many people could live with a 32GB flash-based laptop if all their data was available via mobileme OR a nearby 220GB iPod.
ChrisA
Jul 18, 10:02 AM
My local public library will loan me any DVD title I want for free. OK I might have to wait for a while for a popular title but they have hundreds always on the selves.
NAG
Jan 11, 10:41 PM
Seeing as how we don't know the specs of the machine let alone the price point, no, no one will be able to tell you the benefits of this product.