iMacs Now Have IPS Displays

[usayit]

Linux? I didn't literally mean it was Unix, but it is not Linux.
Mac OS X - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

FreeBSD isn't Linux either... but hey.. most of the general public will lump unix and linux together.

So someone posts a link of a new type of display to be incorporated into iMacs... its just a matter of time before the Windows groupies crash the party....

 

[Derrel]

I got a huge belly laugh at this comment, "Windows 7 is likely to be much more stable, simply because MS got it together and went back to the NT architecture, which was so successful in no small part to it's very, very Unix-like way of operating."

The NT architecture??? hah hah hah...you mean the Windows Nice Try architecture? The one that left United States nuclear powered submarines DEAD in the water off the Atlantic coast for two days? That NT architecture? The one that caused many United States Pentagon departtments to switch to Apple computers for security and reliability reasons? You mean THAT Windoze NT architecture? The Windoze NT that could not support DVD players or Firewire? Of course, you probably were in elementary school when the Windoze NT systems failed and those two billion dollar submarines had to be towed back to port because the Nicxe Try systems would not come back on-line...

 

[musicaleCA]

Yup those ones! As I said. More stable! :lmao:

 

[Derrel]

This was an absolute and total gem....Bill Gates and one of his lieutenants, demonstrating their take on "plug and play" architecture, as they prepared to unleash Windows 98 on the world...hooking up a scanner for its plug and play installation caused the infamous Windoze Blue Screen of Death. In front of thousands of computer nerds, system administrators, and IT professionals at the Comdex computer and software expo.



Windows and 'reliability' go hand in hand..as long as the hand is that of a competent, certified IT professional to keep each five machines operational in the real world. I recently had a young guy in his twenties tell me that, "Vinyl records sound a LOT better than CD's." Wow....from the mouths of twenty-somethings...come some amazing stories about the old days, like the imaginary world in which NT was stable and reliable, and in which vinyl recordings sounded "a LOT better" than CD-quality audio.I thoroughly enjoyed Bill Gates' book The Road Ahead, in which he predicted that internet commerce would never amount to anything of any real significance. Pure unadulterated genius!:lmao:

 

[Mbnmac]

Eh, I've been a mac user for a few years now and simply wouldn't go back, even with the latest issues with snowleopard (never buy 1.0 apple software/hardware, let the saps with deep pockets do that).

I'll be getting the 27" sometime in the next few years probably.

And for those saying it's price gouging, I've had my imac for over 3 years now, it's only just started slowing a little, and I have a lot of junk open all the time, and I spent just under £1k, my brother who is a qualified microsoft desktop support guy and builds his own comps, has a really nice gaming rig with multiple screens etc etc has spent WAY more then that in the same amount of time just replacing things that stop working properly.

I'm not raging on windows here, I'm just saying that I've gotten more mileage out of my mac than I ever got out of a windows machine

 

[battletone]

"Vinyl records sound a LOT better than CD's." Wow....from the mouths of twenty-somethings...come some amazing stories about the old days, like the imaginary world in which NT was stable and reliable, and in which vinyl recordings sounded "a LOT better" than CD-quality audio.I thoroughly enjoyed Bill Gates' book The Road Ahead, in which he predicted that internet commerce would never amount to anything of any real significance. Pure unadulterated genius!:lmao:

The sad thing is the he probably never even has heard what it really has to offer. Ask audiophiles of any age who listen records and play them on high end stereo systems what sounds better.

It isn't CDs.

Don't bash records because the last time you heard them was on 1970's budget stereo equipment. But another reason is because music on CDs and MP3s are dynamically compressed so much so the overall volume can be boosted to maximum amounts so its "louder" (just like commercials on TV) when that disc comes up in rotation that it makes an impression. They didn't do that with records. The dynamic range available was much greater, and there wasn't a need to sacrifice it to make it louder than it needed to be since (outside of the jukebox) there was no disc changers to breed competition. The "remastered" thing they try to sell is the most atrocious thing they can do to some classic rock records.