Ben Dixon
Sep 17, 05:37 PM
How are these? I'm looking for a wheel for F1 2010 and GT5 (when they both come out).
I was about to purchase the G25 but these may do as well.
Does it have paddles?
Hey. I got the wheel for the same games. I'm loving mine at the moment. It's the first proper steering wheel I have had and I can't fault it at all. I paid �80 for each of them and for me personally, its well worth the money.
It does have paddles on the reverse of the wheel. I've read many reviews about them being too small to use comfortably, but I've put a good 2 hours or so use on it so far and I have no problems what so ever. Its improved my lap times already and has made me (from what I can tell) a smoother driver.
I did look at the fanatec wheels, but ultimately decided to get the GT5 one as it was in a price range I could comfortably (due to student loans) afford.
I was about to purchase the G25 but these may do as well.
Does it have paddles?
Hey. I got the wheel for the same games. I'm loving mine at the moment. It's the first proper steering wheel I have had and I can't fault it at all. I paid �80 for each of them and for me personally, its well worth the money.
It does have paddles on the reverse of the wheel. I've read many reviews about them being too small to use comfortably, but I've put a good 2 hours or so use on it so far and I have no problems what so ever. Its improved my lap times already and has made me (from what I can tell) a smoother driver.
I did look at the fanatec wheels, but ultimately decided to get the GT5 one as it was in a price range I could comfortably (due to student loans) afford.
pilotError
May 3, 08:23 AM
4-6 weeks for an SSD upgrade?!?!
Steve jobs: "umad?"
Looks like another month of waiting for me!
Is it easy for us to install an SSD by ourselves? (I'm not a geek)
I've been waiting for the new 27" to replace my 2006 iMac, but I don't really have a pressing need believe it or not. I already put a core2duo in it and a 2gb 7200 rpm HD in it...
In response to the other 2 posters, I'm waiting for the iFixit teardown to see how bad the upgrade would be, just to see which SSD's they are going to use, and how hard it would be to do the upgrade on my own. Another $600 on the 27" w/ i7 pushes the price to nearly 3000, a bit expensive these days for a desktop, even if it is an Apple.
Steve jobs: "umad?"
Looks like another month of waiting for me!
Is it easy for us to install an SSD by ourselves? (I'm not a geek)
I've been waiting for the new 27" to replace my 2006 iMac, but I don't really have a pressing need believe it or not. I already put a core2duo in it and a 2gb 7200 rpm HD in it...
In response to the other 2 posters, I'm waiting for the iFixit teardown to see how bad the upgrade would be, just to see which SSD's they are going to use, and how hard it would be to do the upgrade on my own. Another $600 on the 27" w/ i7 pushes the price to nearly 3000, a bit expensive these days for a desktop, even if it is an Apple.
steadysignal
Apr 15, 06:57 AM
Now I'd just wait for the iPhone 5
as will most.
this white phone delay seems rather odd.
hopefully those who wanted the color will now finally be able to get one.
as will most.
this white phone delay seems rather odd.
hopefully those who wanted the color will now finally be able to get one.
renewed
Sep 15, 10:55 PM
Decided to get my one expensive electronic for several months (College student budget)
How you gunna play the iPad like that? :p
How you gunna play the iPad like that? :p
Evangelion
Jul 25, 11:50 AM
Then good for him, but if he's that much of a power user, he's looking at a redesign of the PowerMac case, not a mini-tower.
Maybe it's a re-design of the PM. Hell, I have talked of such a system on these forums before, and in that case I talked it as a cheap version of MacPro.
Yeah, lots of gamers. But they aren't going to buy Macs anyway are they?
There are others who want such a system besides gamers. Or are you saying that only gamers buy PowerMacs?
You want a huge selection of models, each one suited to your particular needs?
No, what makes you think that? Apple currently has two lines of laptops, one for coneumers, one for professionals. Apple has three desktop-lines available: two for consumers, one for professionals. Would having a second pro-model really mean that there is "huge selection of models"?
Apple tried the multiple models approach back in the 90s and nearly went bankrupt as a result.
Go check history. Back in the nineties, Apple offered zillion different models, with very little differentiation between them (I believe there were some differences in the software, but that's it). In this case there would still be relatively few models available, and each of them would be substantially different from each other. Mac Mini and iMac are substantially different from each other. And MacPro and MacPro Mini would also be significantly different. If Apple wants to expand it's market-share, they will need more models than the current ones.
You may as well throw these criticisms at laptops. However, they sell. Apple mini-towers traditionally don't.
Maybe they don't sell, because Apple hasn't had any?
But obviously not enough from the studies Apple have conducted, otherwise where is it?
Coming up maybe?
Just showing how the iMac does have "desirability" for hundreds of thousands of real buyers, something some posters here seem to refute.
Apple does sell lots of systems. Does that mean that things and products are perfect and they couldn't do anything better? No it does not. Apple has expanded their product-line in the past (Mac Mini for example), why not do it this time?
But only SOME of you.
And iMac is only ideal for some of you. So what's your point?
Why aren't Apple releasing a mini-tower?
Maybe they are. Before Apple released the Mini, people were asking "Why doesn't Apple release an inexpensive Mac?". And people like you were saying "Apple is doing well, they know what they are doing, there is no need for cheap Mac".
As for two Mac minis, the case would have to be a standard depth to fit standard parts, otherwise we're back in the realm of special Mac versions of hardware.
Of course, and two Mac Mini's is more than enough (note: I talked of desk real-estate, not the volume). On the PC-side there are small cases (from Shuttle for example) that are quite small, but they still accept standard components.
MacPro might be a lot smaller, fitting your requirements much closer whilst keeping Apple's range in check.
Maybe, but it would propably be quite expensive. Currently there is a hole in Apple's product-lineup. Some people want a computer in the $1000+-range. What does Apple have to offer there? The iMac. But there are people who don't want an all-in-one.
What about companies? My employer uses lots of desktops, and Apple simply does not have a system that would be suitable. We want a desktop that could be expanded and fixed onsite by the IT-staff if needed. So we have three choices: iMac, Mac Mini and PowerMac. iMac is not expandable and it's hard to service. Mac Mini is not expandable either. PowerMac is, but it's WAY too expensive, and too big. And I bet my employer is not alone here.
Maybe it's a re-design of the PM. Hell, I have talked of such a system on these forums before, and in that case I talked it as a cheap version of MacPro.
Yeah, lots of gamers. But they aren't going to buy Macs anyway are they?
There are others who want such a system besides gamers. Or are you saying that only gamers buy PowerMacs?
You want a huge selection of models, each one suited to your particular needs?
No, what makes you think that? Apple currently has two lines of laptops, one for coneumers, one for professionals. Apple has three desktop-lines available: two for consumers, one for professionals. Would having a second pro-model really mean that there is "huge selection of models"?
Apple tried the multiple models approach back in the 90s and nearly went bankrupt as a result.
Go check history. Back in the nineties, Apple offered zillion different models, with very little differentiation between them (I believe there were some differences in the software, but that's it). In this case there would still be relatively few models available, and each of them would be substantially different from each other. Mac Mini and iMac are substantially different from each other. And MacPro and MacPro Mini would also be significantly different. If Apple wants to expand it's market-share, they will need more models than the current ones.
You may as well throw these criticisms at laptops. However, they sell. Apple mini-towers traditionally don't.
Maybe they don't sell, because Apple hasn't had any?
But obviously not enough from the studies Apple have conducted, otherwise where is it?
Coming up maybe?
Just showing how the iMac does have "desirability" for hundreds of thousands of real buyers, something some posters here seem to refute.
Apple does sell lots of systems. Does that mean that things and products are perfect and they couldn't do anything better? No it does not. Apple has expanded their product-line in the past (Mac Mini for example), why not do it this time?
But only SOME of you.
And iMac is only ideal for some of you. So what's your point?
Why aren't Apple releasing a mini-tower?
Maybe they are. Before Apple released the Mini, people were asking "Why doesn't Apple release an inexpensive Mac?". And people like you were saying "Apple is doing well, they know what they are doing, there is no need for cheap Mac".
As for two Mac minis, the case would have to be a standard depth to fit standard parts, otherwise we're back in the realm of special Mac versions of hardware.
Of course, and two Mac Mini's is more than enough (note: I talked of desk real-estate, not the volume). On the PC-side there are small cases (from Shuttle for example) that are quite small, but they still accept standard components.
MacPro might be a lot smaller, fitting your requirements much closer whilst keeping Apple's range in check.
Maybe, but it would propably be quite expensive. Currently there is a hole in Apple's product-lineup. Some people want a computer in the $1000+-range. What does Apple have to offer there? The iMac. But there are people who don't want an all-in-one.
What about companies? My employer uses lots of desktops, and Apple simply does not have a system that would be suitable. We want a desktop that could be expanded and fixed onsite by the IT-staff if needed. So we have three choices: iMac, Mac Mini and PowerMac. iMac is not expandable and it's hard to service. Mac Mini is not expandable either. PowerMac is, but it's WAY too expensive, and too big. And I bet my employer is not alone here.
Seo
Apr 12, 09:10 AM
Wow, we're all over the place aren't we. If we cover our bases we'll have to be right! :D
applefan27073
May 3, 07:57 AM
Awesome! But how do I get it????
Don't say go to the apple store, just did that
Check the link
http://store.apple.com/au/browse/home/shop_mac/family/imac/select?mco=MjIwNTQyNjE
Don't say go to the apple store, just did that
Check the link
http://store.apple.com/au/browse/home/shop_mac/family/imac/select?mco=MjIwNTQyNjE
gnasher729
Jul 24, 10:56 AM
By definition, having alternatives makes Apple NOT a monopoly.
It is not even necessary that there _are_ alternatives. It is enough if others _could_ enter the market if they wanted. In that situation, you cannot increase prices as you like, because at that point others _would_ enter the market.
It is not even necessary that there _are_ alternatives. It is enough if others _could_ enter the market if they wanted. In that situation, you cannot increase prices as you like, because at that point others _would_ enter the market.
BeSweeet
Apr 26, 02:59 PM
Drive arrays can easily exceed 10 Gbps - even with spinning hard drives. Today a 2 SSD drive RAID 0 array can hit 10 Gbps with consumer-grade drives.
Single drives faster than TBolt already exist - 12 Gbps SSD drive (http://www.fusionio.com/products/iodriveduo/) 48 Gbps SSD drive (http://www.fusionio.com/products/iodriveoctal/).
TBolt devices haven't even hit the market, but TBolt is already too slow for many uses.
Ah, I completely forgot about PCI-Express based SSDs. I kept thinking about 6Gbps SATA SSDs.
Also, "SSD drive" is redundant :).
Single drives faster than TBolt already exist - 12 Gbps SSD drive (http://www.fusionio.com/products/iodriveduo/) 48 Gbps SSD drive (http://www.fusionio.com/products/iodriveoctal/).
TBolt devices haven't even hit the market, but TBolt is already too slow for many uses.
Ah, I completely forgot about PCI-Express based SSDs. I kept thinking about 6Gbps SATA SSDs.
Also, "SSD drive" is redundant :).
Eidorian
Nov 3, 11:43 AM
Parallels just posted an update on their blog about USB 2 and 3D graphics:
w00t for competition :DSounds like another copy of Parallels to buy. :(
But yay! Competition.
w00t for competition :DSounds like another copy of Parallels to buy. :(
But yay! Competition.
daveschroeder
Oct 23, 08:35 AM
Dave,
I understand where you are coming from, but I still don't interpret the EULA as you do. Neither does Paul Thurrott http://www.winsupersite.com/showcase/winvista_licensing.asp. Can you please provide links to others who think like you, preferably if they happen to work for MS. ;)
Coincidentally, I had just emailed Paul.
He already responded:
From: thurrott [at] gmail.com
Subject: RE: Row over Vista virtualization much ado about nothing?
Date: October 23, 2006 8:23:04 AM CDT
To: das [at] doit.wisc.edu
Microsoft told me that the retail EULA forbids the installation of Windows
Vista Home Basic or Home Premium in virtual machines. They said that if
developers wanted to do this, they should get an MSDN subscription, which
has a different license allowing such an install. All that said, there's
nothing technical from preventing users from installing any Vista version in
a virtual machine.
Paul
...to which I replied:
From: das [at] doit.wisc.edu
Subject: Re: Row over Vista virtualization much ado about nothing?
Date: October 23, 2006 8:30:57 AM CDT
To: thurrott [at] gmail.com
Security: Signed
So Microsoft actually does intend the EULA to prohibit someone from, say, buying Vista Home as a retail box and then installing it in Parallels Desktop on a Mac? (I know there is nothing technical preventing that.)
This still seems curious, given that in that scenario, not only does Vista Ultimate allow VM use, but also includes an additional license specifically so that same copy can be installed in a VM on the same device. Why wouldn't Home's license allow a single instance of itself to be used in a VM as long as it's not already installed somewhere else? The language all revolves around "the software installed on the licensed device", and I take that to mean the software *already* installed on that device, but I suppose that could be argued to mean that it can't be installed on *any* device where it would be used in a virtualization environment...
Update: Paul's response:
From: thurrott [at] gmail.com
Subject: RE: Row over Vista virtualization much ado about nothing?
Date: October 23, 2006 8:34:07 AM CDT
To: das [at] doit.wisc.edu
Yeah, that's what they told me. My guess is that they don't want people
purchasing the low-cost versions, installing them on virtual machine
environments they don't understand (like Parallels) and then demanding
support.
You can understand why this is an issue, given that the Business and Ultimate EULAs not only explicitly allow VM use, but also include additional licenses to use that copy a second time in a VM, legally (on the same device). Also, all the language, as I said, revolves around using "the software installed on the licensed device" (implying that it's an installation that already exists on a licensed device) in a VM.
So I'll say that, if this is accurate, I stand corrected. After a few years of reading Microsoft (and other) EULAs, even I thought Microsoft wouldn't be that retarded. ;-)
Given the language, and given the additional-license situation with Business and Ultimate, I still have to say I'm surprised.
I understand where you are coming from, but I still don't interpret the EULA as you do. Neither does Paul Thurrott http://www.winsupersite.com/showcase/winvista_licensing.asp. Can you please provide links to others who think like you, preferably if they happen to work for MS. ;)
Coincidentally, I had just emailed Paul.
He already responded:
From: thurrott [at] gmail.com
Subject: RE: Row over Vista virtualization much ado about nothing?
Date: October 23, 2006 8:23:04 AM CDT
To: das [at] doit.wisc.edu
Microsoft told me that the retail EULA forbids the installation of Windows
Vista Home Basic or Home Premium in virtual machines. They said that if
developers wanted to do this, they should get an MSDN subscription, which
has a different license allowing such an install. All that said, there's
nothing technical from preventing users from installing any Vista version in
a virtual machine.
Paul
...to which I replied:
From: das [at] doit.wisc.edu
Subject: Re: Row over Vista virtualization much ado about nothing?
Date: October 23, 2006 8:30:57 AM CDT
To: thurrott [at] gmail.com
Security: Signed
So Microsoft actually does intend the EULA to prohibit someone from, say, buying Vista Home as a retail box and then installing it in Parallels Desktop on a Mac? (I know there is nothing technical preventing that.)
This still seems curious, given that in that scenario, not only does Vista Ultimate allow VM use, but also includes an additional license specifically so that same copy can be installed in a VM on the same device. Why wouldn't Home's license allow a single instance of itself to be used in a VM as long as it's not already installed somewhere else? The language all revolves around "the software installed on the licensed device", and I take that to mean the software *already* installed on that device, but I suppose that could be argued to mean that it can't be installed on *any* device where it would be used in a virtualization environment...
Update: Paul's response:
From: thurrott [at] gmail.com
Subject: RE: Row over Vista virtualization much ado about nothing?
Date: October 23, 2006 8:34:07 AM CDT
To: das [at] doit.wisc.edu
Yeah, that's what they told me. My guess is that they don't want people
purchasing the low-cost versions, installing them on virtual machine
environments they don't understand (like Parallels) and then demanding
support.
You can understand why this is an issue, given that the Business and Ultimate EULAs not only explicitly allow VM use, but also include additional licenses to use that copy a second time in a VM, legally (on the same device). Also, all the language, as I said, revolves around using "the software installed on the licensed device" (implying that it's an installation that already exists on a licensed device) in a VM.
So I'll say that, if this is accurate, I stand corrected. After a few years of reading Microsoft (and other) EULAs, even I thought Microsoft wouldn't be that retarded. ;-)
Given the language, and given the additional-license situation with Business and Ultimate, I still have to say I'm surprised.
Plutonius
Apr 26, 04:05 PM
Ah, a last minute vote by Aggie. It looks like he might not have purposely bolded his original vote. Add his name to the list for tomorrow.
cleric
Apr 23, 06:36 PM
Good news finally a carrier in the US with lower prices.
The Beatles
Apr 28, 10:14 PM
i cant even believe im commenting on this. And in other news, a fish farts in the atlantic.
crackpip
Jul 24, 11:21 PM
Without the third party economy and proprietary ports, there is also little to keep the MS Menace at bay, despite the coolness of such a product.
Bottom Line: there WILL be a regular dock connector for the foreseeable future on all iPods except the shuffle (which is on it's way out).
While, I am skeptical of the no non-wireless interfaces. I have to disagree that Apple cares much about third-parties when designing their iPods. The dock connector has been pretty standard, but other characteristics have not. For example, the remote port, that used to be near the headphones. It was also used by FM transmitters and microphones and maybe more. The size of the iPods also keeps changing (the new 5G are a bit wider and thinner than the 4G) making any devices that the iPod "fits into" need to be retooled.
The bottom line is that if Apple sees merit in changing the interface (like removing the remote port to conserve space), it will do it regardless of effects to accessory manufacturers. They will adapt to the new designs.
crackpip
Bottom Line: there WILL be a regular dock connector for the foreseeable future on all iPods except the shuffle (which is on it's way out).
While, I am skeptical of the no non-wireless interfaces. I have to disagree that Apple cares much about third-parties when designing their iPods. The dock connector has been pretty standard, but other characteristics have not. For example, the remote port, that used to be near the headphones. It was also used by FM transmitters and microphones and maybe more. The size of the iPods also keeps changing (the new 5G are a bit wider and thinner than the 4G) making any devices that the iPod "fits into" need to be retooled.
The bottom line is that if Apple sees merit in changing the interface (like removing the remote port to conserve space), it will do it regardless of effects to accessory manufacturers. They will adapt to the new designs.
crackpip
Nermal
Nov 3, 01:37 PM
At least the interface looks like an OS X application. I've always hated Parallels mega cheesy Longhorn icon looking crappy interface.
Indeed. I was appalled when Apple started promoting it!
Indeed. I was appalled when Apple started promoting it!
buckers
Apr 22, 04:59 PM
Have to admit, I think that mock-up looks really ugly. Just my opinion.
btree
Oct 23, 11:55 AM
who reads the EULA anyway, i have better things to do with my time
Careful, this might happen to you:
http://www.hackles.org/cgi-bin/archives.pl?request=327
Careful, this might happen to you:
http://www.hackles.org/cgi-bin/archives.pl?request=327
halse
Nov 3, 10:24 AM
I signed up for this months ago, may have to do so again since I didn't get a reply yet, my guess is that Fusion will be (somewhat) better and (slightly) more expensive than Parallels
Whorehay
Nov 10, 05:22 PM
So I can charge more money for 2 platforms! Thats why (I think) the SlingPlayer app will not be universal. If you want to get the iPhone and iPad app it will be $60 instead of $30
And that's exactly why I will buy neither!
And that's exactly why I will buy neither!
turbobass
Apr 27, 04:28 PM
Tuesday was yesterday. QUICK! Create a new thread saying that the new iMacs will be here NEXT TUESDAY!
I'm shaking so hard from excitement after convincing myself this was true, I CAN'T TYPE!!
I'm shaking so hard from excitement after convincing myself this was true, I CAN'T TYPE!!
KnightWRX
Dec 31, 07:48 AM
ok, I'm sorry but how the hell do you know what I do or don't understand about nutrition?? your presumptions are offensive
And yours about me weren't ? Look, I made my presumptions based on some facts you posted :
- Too busy to work out (which isn't an issue for weight control)
- Having to lose weight (Doctor's orders)
- Thinking Yoga is an effective weight control.
- No mention of food.
I made a presumption that you don't understand the basic premise of weight control. I hope my post at least opened up your eyes and you can go from there to learn what works for you, with your busy schedule, instead of thinking a busy schedule is a reason to stay the way you are.
This is her choice. It effects her and her family, not you. I forgot how God declared that fat people go straight to hell, because being fat is so evil...
It's her choice up to a point. There's nothing wrong with 20 lbs overweight, give or take a few. Doctors will always tell you to be in the "zone" (healthy weight with a BMI between 18-25) but mostly there isn't much harm until later in life. Just like there's nothing wrong with taking fast food in reasonable quantities, or smoking if done occasionally.
However, what she is doing is not just affecting her and her family. Morbid obesity affects all of society, be it through requiring services reserved for the disabled (she's not really disabled, she just chooses to be). The problem, like in all things bad for you (fast food, alcohol, smoking, drugs, whatever) is not occasional use, it's abuse. This woman has an abusive food consumption. Your examples are wrong because they try to equate what she is doing with what people are doing within reason. Your list should have been more :
- Alcoholics should be able to stay that way! There's nothing wrong with 2 glasses of gin to wake up
- 3 packs a day of smokes is perfectly fine!
- Gambling all your money away and then borrowing some to gamble more is a person's choice!
- You can never have enough Crystal Meth.
The fact is, these are abusive tendencies which stem from deeper problems or addictions.
BTW, I run about 5 km, 5 days a week. I ski (doing mostly Park, so climbing uphill on foot dragging my equipment), I do weight lifting too. I think I can sit and post on Macrumors a few times :D
And yours about me weren't ? Look, I made my presumptions based on some facts you posted :
- Too busy to work out (which isn't an issue for weight control)
- Having to lose weight (Doctor's orders)
- Thinking Yoga is an effective weight control.
- No mention of food.
I made a presumption that you don't understand the basic premise of weight control. I hope my post at least opened up your eyes and you can go from there to learn what works for you, with your busy schedule, instead of thinking a busy schedule is a reason to stay the way you are.
This is her choice. It effects her and her family, not you. I forgot how God declared that fat people go straight to hell, because being fat is so evil...
It's her choice up to a point. There's nothing wrong with 20 lbs overweight, give or take a few. Doctors will always tell you to be in the "zone" (healthy weight with a BMI between 18-25) but mostly there isn't much harm until later in life. Just like there's nothing wrong with taking fast food in reasonable quantities, or smoking if done occasionally.
However, what she is doing is not just affecting her and her family. Morbid obesity affects all of society, be it through requiring services reserved for the disabled (she's not really disabled, she just chooses to be). The problem, like in all things bad for you (fast food, alcohol, smoking, drugs, whatever) is not occasional use, it's abuse. This woman has an abusive food consumption. Your examples are wrong because they try to equate what she is doing with what people are doing within reason. Your list should have been more :
- Alcoholics should be able to stay that way! There's nothing wrong with 2 glasses of gin to wake up
- 3 packs a day of smokes is perfectly fine!
- Gambling all your money away and then borrowing some to gamble more is a person's choice!
- You can never have enough Crystal Meth.
The fact is, these are abusive tendencies which stem from deeper problems or addictions.
BTW, I run about 5 km, 5 days a week. I ski (doing mostly Park, so climbing uphill on foot dragging my equipment), I do weight lifting too. I think I can sit and post on Macrumors a few times :D
Full of Win
Apr 22, 09:53 AM
Kind of torn on 4G. I can see AT&T and Verizon making an upgrade to capped 4G data plans mandatory once these radios are added, even if you are happy with 3G. Personally, I'd rather have unlimited 3G data than capped 4G data any day of the week.
LarryC
Apr 25, 04:23 PM
Think iPad 2 with the "L" shape stand as the new iMac. Ditch the Optical Drive, not needed anymore considering its takes up space and is hardly ever used by the majority. :)
I may not be in the majority, but I use mine a great deal.
I may not be in the majority, but I use mine a great deal.