App Store Closed
in [UK Mac]
|
Prev: The patched Flash Player
Next: Prediction
From: Pd on 18 Jun 2010 01:27 zoara <me18(a)privacy.net> wrote: > Aha - that �339 price was what I was thinking of. Not *under* �300, but > close enough that I'd filed it away in my brain as "about �300". Don't say that - the marketers will get hold of it, and instead of pricing everything at �x99 which already annoys the snot out of me, will start pricing things at �x39, knowing that mentally you'll round it down to �x00. Actually they'll price it at �(x+1)39 so they can gouge that extra �30. Can't be �x49 because that would have you think �x50. -- Pd
From: whisky-dave on 18 Jun 2010 08:54 "Colin Harper" <colinharper(a)x.com.invalid> wrote in message news:0001HW.C840247A027D6250B01029BF(a)news-europe.giganews.com... > On Thu, 17 Jun 2010 15:56:52 +0100, whisky-dave wrote > (in article <hvdd3h$eci$1(a)qmul>): > > >> well it's an assumption it won;t run it. >> > > As I said in another post, I've built some hackintoshes at 10.5, and two > on > 10.6, so it might be said that by now I'm an experienced hackintosher, > though > not a guru by any means. I still find DSTD a bit brane-breaking. I guess it';s fun if yuo like doing that sort of thing but I like my computers to be up and running pretty quick. I managed to get my G4 500 on leopard but I'm thinking maybe it's time to retire the old G4 now save some trees and space. > > Anyway, when I got my Aspire Revo, it was with half an eye to a hackintosh > but I think the things that really break it are > > 1) Broken USB chipset which prevents handover from BIOS to OS in a way > that > OS X likes, meaning you can't boot the damn thing into OS X from USB > reliably. That makes everything else hard. would it be OK from FW ? > > 2) ION chipset makes things hard as well. > > I think I might have persevered with it a bit more if I could reliably get > it > past the kernel init part of the boot, where there kernel tries to > enumerate > the disks, but with that USB issue - only one boot in a dozen would make > it > past there. Not worth the time. yeah, I'm considering a new mac mini bit pricey thought and the imacs look better value. > > This was back in Feb I think when I was working on that. I have no idea if > things have changed in the interim. They may have done. That's another problem, I'll expect a computer to work for quite a while without too many hassles, I would want to find that 10.6.6 woul;d work on an acer[1] I'd brough the week before. [1] or any other unsuported hardware
From: Jaimie Vandenbergh on 21 Jun 2010 08:24
On Thu, 17 Jun 2010 13:51:55 +0100, eastender <nospam(a)nospam.com> wrote: >In article <1jk97uc.g9xki9iy7xvkN%dempson(a)actrix.gen.nz>, > dempson(a)actrix.gen.nz (David Empson) wrote: > > >> The situation with the new Mac Mini appears to be that Apple wanted a >> body redesign similar to their other models, based around Aluminium >> Unibody (which pushed the cost up somewhat), and there is no way they >> could fit a Core i5 plus dedicated graphics controller into anything as >> small as the Mini without retaining the separate power brick. Plus it >> would have pushed the cost even higher. >> > >Thanks for the detailed post - it explains a lot. As a desktop machine I >can't see the objection to the separate power brick, which I presume >also takes some heat of a box. As the body of the new Mini does look >wide and deeper but thinner, without the power unit it may well have >taken the i5 architecture? The likely reason for Core2 rather than i5 (i3, whatever) is that there's no non-shite integrated graphics solution for i5 (i3, whatever) chips yet. Mostly thanks to nVidia/Intel's ongoing litigation stopping nVidia from providing one, and Intel not bothering. Cheers - Jaimie -- I love children, especially when they cry, for then someone takes them away. -- Nancy Mitford |