DrSQL
Mar 22, 02:10 PM
the best competition against iPad2.
I am an Apple fanboy, love Apple products. Got iPad2 on day1, but....
The Samsung 8.9" has me sold.
iPad 2, say hello to your new sister at my side.
I am an Apple fanboy, love Apple products. Got iPad2 on day1, but....
The Samsung 8.9" has me sold.
iPad 2, say hello to your new sister at my side.
Henri Gaudier
Aug 17, 04:34 AM
It's odd, seeing as Mac's are still the choice for many musicians that some kind of specs are never given that would be of interest to musicians. The released figures don't do much for me. I'd like to know the polyphony improvements say for Kontakt under both systems in Digital Performer 5. Other than, of course you can't because Mac have pulled the rugs out from the software developers feet again. Hence, the software doesn't exist yet. Anyway, the Intel should beat the G5. The Quad G5 is a year old and at the time of it's release it was considered disappointing because we'd had a 2.7 processor released 6 months before that ... so I think the expectation (And SJ promise) was for a Quad 3.0. Quad 2.5 was almost like a step back. Aren't these the results, more or less, that SJ promised 2 years ago? Only he's had to F about with our work flow yet again? Yeah great! In 18 months when everything has settled down and been revised a few times and the software has undergone some adjustments we'll all be coasting along and BAM .. Apple are switching again back to Freescale who are now world leaders. "The Freescale roadmap" say Steve Jobs " is very exciting...."
kcmac
Mar 26, 12:07 PM
I'm shocked at how many people are so willing to just wave away all the nice under-the-hood changes and improvements that Lion offers just because there aren't any super-radical UI changes... really disappointing to be honest. Does it really have to be all flashy to be of interest to you? What, the functional side of things doesn't matter any more?
As an amateur OS X developer, I really hate this attitude because it will end up slowing Lion adoption. That really sucks, because there are a ton of awesome changes in 10.6 that I (and many, many other developers) would love to take advantage of to make their software even greater, but it's not going to be viable to go Lion-only for said features until Lion is installed on the majority of Macs out there.
The people that read sites such as macrumors is minuscule in comparison to the number of apple users out there. There will be nothing slow about the adoption of Lion. Just as all of the versions before it. In fact, I am betting on a faster than normal adoption.
You will be foolish to wait around unless you want to get buried in the on-slaught of new and improved apps to take advantage of Lion from day one.
As an amateur OS X developer, I really hate this attitude because it will end up slowing Lion adoption. That really sucks, because there are a ton of awesome changes in 10.6 that I (and many, many other developers) would love to take advantage of to make their software even greater, but it's not going to be viable to go Lion-only for said features until Lion is installed on the majority of Macs out there.
The people that read sites such as macrumors is minuscule in comparison to the number of apple users out there. There will be nothing slow about the adoption of Lion. Just as all of the versions before it. In fact, I am betting on a faster than normal adoption.
You will be foolish to wait around unless you want to get buried in the on-slaught of new and improved apps to take advantage of Lion from day one.
celo48
Apr 6, 01:38 PM
Puuuahhhh
That proves one more time to "some" that having a fast car does not really matter if you do not have nice roads to drive it.
That proves one more time to "some" that having a fast car does not really matter if you do not have nice roads to drive it.
coolbreeze
Apr 7, 11:24 PM
I'll pile on here.
I hate Best Buy.
I miss Circuit City.
I wish there was a Frys in Utah.
There, I feel better. I hope this place suffers. I hate Best Buy.
I hate Best Buy.
I miss Circuit City.
I wish there was a Frys in Utah.
There, I feel better. I hope this place suffers. I hate Best Buy.
nikhsub1
Apr 7, 10:20 PM
Wow. I bought mine at Best Buy on opening day and they sold out of them. Why in anybody's right mind would best buy not sell what they have?
Obviously you know little about retail and accounting.
Obviously you know little about retail and accounting.
Lord Blackadder
Mar 23, 05:50 PM
Here we have an article laying out the case for non intervention (http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/opinion/2011/03/2011322135442593945.html) by a Princeton law professor (emeritus) published by Al Jazeera. A worthy read, and here are two exerpts I've commented on.
In effect, overall historical trends vindicate trust in the dynamics of self-determination, even if short-term disasters may and do occur, and similarly underscores the problematic character of intervention, even given the purest of motivations, which rarely, if ever, exists in world politics.
I find it hard to disagree with this, but watching Gaddafi strongarm his way back into authority is a very bitter pill to swallow - plus, historical trends also suggest that other nations rarely resist the temptation to intervene when they feel they have something to gain by intervention (be it increased political influence, territorial gains, economic interests etc). The current structure of the UN is unable to prevent this. Also, even without direct intervention, the process of self-determination does not exist in a total vaccum. I wonder how the author regards more passive measures such as official censure, economic sanctions, asset-freezing etc etc? Do he consider those to be intereferences to self-determination?
The Charter in Article 2(7) accepts the limitation on UN authority to intervene in matters "essentially within the domestic jurisdiction" of member states unless there is a genuine issue of international peace and security present, which there was not, even in the claim, which was supposedly motivated solely to protect the civilian population of Libya.
But such a claim was patently misleading and disingenuous as the obvious goals, as manifest from the scale and character of military actions taken, were minimally to protect the armed rebels from being defeated, and possibly destroyed, and maximally, to achieve a regime change resulting in a new governing leadership that was friendly to the West, including buying fully into its liberal economic geopolitical policy compass.
Using a slightly altered language, the UN Charter embedded a social contract with its membership that privileged the politics of self-determination and was heavily weighted against the politics of intervention.
Neither position is absolute, but what seems to have happened with respect to Libya is that intervention was privileged and self-determination cast aside.
It is an instance of normatively dubious practise trumping the legal/moral ethos of containing geopolitical discretion with binding rules governing the use of force and the duty of non-intervention.
We do not know yet what will happen in Libya, but we do know enough to oppose such a precedent that exhibits so many unfortunate characteristics.
It is time to restore the global social contract between territorial sovereign states and the organised international community, which not only corresponds with the outlawry of aggressive war but also reflect the movement of history in support of the soft power struggles of the non-Western peoples of the world.
I do agree with him that it would be foolish not to recognize that the ultimate goal here is - yet again - regime change regardless of what the official statements and resolutions state.
But while the author adheres to a legal argument, reality is more expansive in my mind. Isn't the UN, by it's very nature, interventionalist on some level? Also, at what point does outside influence affect "self-determination" to the point that it is no longer that? Surely there will always be outside influence - but when does it interfere with self-determination?
Of course, all of these considerations are irrelevant if you are against the concept of the UN or even foreign alliances, as a vocal minority of conservatives are in the US. I imagine they'd prefer to let the "free market" somehow decide what happens.
In effect, overall historical trends vindicate trust in the dynamics of self-determination, even if short-term disasters may and do occur, and similarly underscores the problematic character of intervention, even given the purest of motivations, which rarely, if ever, exists in world politics.
I find it hard to disagree with this, but watching Gaddafi strongarm his way back into authority is a very bitter pill to swallow - plus, historical trends also suggest that other nations rarely resist the temptation to intervene when they feel they have something to gain by intervention (be it increased political influence, territorial gains, economic interests etc). The current structure of the UN is unable to prevent this. Also, even without direct intervention, the process of self-determination does not exist in a total vaccum. I wonder how the author regards more passive measures such as official censure, economic sanctions, asset-freezing etc etc? Do he consider those to be intereferences to self-determination?
The Charter in Article 2(7) accepts the limitation on UN authority to intervene in matters "essentially within the domestic jurisdiction" of member states unless there is a genuine issue of international peace and security present, which there was not, even in the claim, which was supposedly motivated solely to protect the civilian population of Libya.
But such a claim was patently misleading and disingenuous as the obvious goals, as manifest from the scale and character of military actions taken, were minimally to protect the armed rebels from being defeated, and possibly destroyed, and maximally, to achieve a regime change resulting in a new governing leadership that was friendly to the West, including buying fully into its liberal economic geopolitical policy compass.
Using a slightly altered language, the UN Charter embedded a social contract with its membership that privileged the politics of self-determination and was heavily weighted against the politics of intervention.
Neither position is absolute, but what seems to have happened with respect to Libya is that intervention was privileged and self-determination cast aside.
It is an instance of normatively dubious practise trumping the legal/moral ethos of containing geopolitical discretion with binding rules governing the use of force and the duty of non-intervention.
We do not know yet what will happen in Libya, but we do know enough to oppose such a precedent that exhibits so many unfortunate characteristics.
It is time to restore the global social contract between territorial sovereign states and the organised international community, which not only corresponds with the outlawry of aggressive war but also reflect the movement of history in support of the soft power struggles of the non-Western peoples of the world.
I do agree with him that it would be foolish not to recognize that the ultimate goal here is - yet again - regime change regardless of what the official statements and resolutions state.
But while the author adheres to a legal argument, reality is more expansive in my mind. Isn't the UN, by it's very nature, interventionalist on some level? Also, at what point does outside influence affect "self-determination" to the point that it is no longer that? Surely there will always be outside influence - but when does it interfere with self-determination?
Of course, all of these considerations are irrelevant if you are against the concept of the UN or even foreign alliances, as a vocal minority of conservatives are in the US. I imagine they'd prefer to let the "free market" somehow decide what happens.
kresh
Aug 26, 04:41 AM
If you haven't been reading the comments, it would appear MOST people are complaining about the more recent models. I would agree with most that the Powermac G5's have had serious issues and now recent macbook's... Apple needs to do one of the following ... Higher Quality Assurance testing OR better support cause right now they're missing both.
I'm 40 years old and literally can't remember how many computers I have purchased for personal use. I normally only keep a computer for 5 or 6 months before getting something newer. I know I had to have purchased 50 or 60 computers for personal use.
My very first Apple product was a 1.25GHz G4 Mac Mini. (March 2005 I think) On advice from a friend, I purchased this computer and he helped me over-clock it to 1.58GHz and upgrade to 1GB ram.
I'll be the first to admit that I'm not a power user, but I absolutely love this little computer. It's the best piece of electronics I have ever purchased, and it's the longest time I have ever kept a computer. I just can't imagine using any other operating system, for ANY reason.
My whole household is now all macs, my wife and 4 kids each have one. The 6 mac mini's that we have in our house are unconditionally flawless.
I was going to put my Mini on eBay this weekend and get a MacBook Saturday at the Apple store in Raleigh. I was assuming the MacBook was a Mini in a notebook case, but now I'm scared of doing so. If the MacBook is not as nice and reliable as my mini, I would be extremely upset.
Sorry to ramble on so, but it is really rare for me to find a product, or anything, that has impressed me as much as my Mini has.
After the long story, would any of you really recommend the MacBook vs my Mini (knowing that I love it so)?
I'm 40 years old and literally can't remember how many computers I have purchased for personal use. I normally only keep a computer for 5 or 6 months before getting something newer. I know I had to have purchased 50 or 60 computers for personal use.
My very first Apple product was a 1.25GHz G4 Mac Mini. (March 2005 I think) On advice from a friend, I purchased this computer and he helped me over-clock it to 1.58GHz and upgrade to 1GB ram.
I'll be the first to admit that I'm not a power user, but I absolutely love this little computer. It's the best piece of electronics I have ever purchased, and it's the longest time I have ever kept a computer. I just can't imagine using any other operating system, for ANY reason.
My whole household is now all macs, my wife and 4 kids each have one. The 6 mac mini's that we have in our house are unconditionally flawless.
I was going to put my Mini on eBay this weekend and get a MacBook Saturday at the Apple store in Raleigh. I was assuming the MacBook was a Mini in a notebook case, but now I'm scared of doing so. If the MacBook is not as nice and reliable as my mini, I would be extremely upset.
Sorry to ramble on so, but it is really rare for me to find a product, or anything, that has impressed me as much as my Mini has.
After the long story, would any of you really recommend the MacBook vs my Mini (knowing that I love it so)?
appleguy123
Feb 28, 06:42 PM
Got me on "ignore", have you? :p
I could never ignore you. :D
I actually had something typed up to refute it, but it wasn't consistent with what I actually believe or do on the PRSI(and didn't want it used for quote mining against me :) ), so I deleted it. Then I saw that more people were quoting that, so I had to officially resign the point.
I could never ignore you. :D
I actually had something typed up to refute it, but it wasn't consistent with what I actually believe or do on the PRSI(and didn't want it used for quote mining against me :) ), so I deleted it. Then I saw that more people were quoting that, so I had to officially resign the point.
LagunaSol
Apr 6, 03:08 PM
For those of my friends who are techy and into computers/technology, the XOOM is much more enjoyable.
Riiight. Because when you're "techie" and "into computers," you want a native app catalog of 30?
How many of your "friends" actually have a XOOM?
This is why having competition is good.
Can we just assume "competition is good" so people don't have to repeat it on every single thread?
If Jobs had his way we'd all be stuck with iPads whether we wanted them or not.
And if Motorola had its way, we'd all be stuck with XOOMS whether we wanted them or not, and if Samsung had its way, we'd all be stuck with Galaxy Tabs whether we wanted them or not, and if Microsoft had its way, we'd all be stuck with whatever crappy Win7 tablet is out there whether we wanted them or not. Welcome to...business!
Your attempt to show Jobs in a bad light in this regard is absurd.
Riiight. Because when you're "techie" and "into computers," you want a native app catalog of 30?
How many of your "friends" actually have a XOOM?
This is why having competition is good.
Can we just assume "competition is good" so people don't have to repeat it on every single thread?
If Jobs had his way we'd all be stuck with iPads whether we wanted them or not.
And if Motorola had its way, we'd all be stuck with XOOMS whether we wanted them or not, and if Samsung had its way, we'd all be stuck with Galaxy Tabs whether we wanted them or not, and if Microsoft had its way, we'd all be stuck with whatever crappy Win7 tablet is out there whether we wanted them or not. Welcome to...business!
Your attempt to show Jobs in a bad light in this regard is absurd.
puckhead193
Aug 26, 09:57 PM
god i hope new iMacs are coming out on tues. My butt will be at an apple store placing the order in 5 seconds... well not literally i'll wait till the weekend, but still.... i want an iMac...the mac pro is way to big for my college dorm (i think)
ssteve
Aug 16, 10:41 PM
Should we be surprised? I mean really this is good information, but it is does not really make me sit up and say "WOW". It is definitely interesting for the benchmarks. Thank you Steve for making the switch to Intel!
Eduard
Apr 9, 04:22 PM
I would rather keep my 330m than an integrated Intel GPU :(
~Shard~
Jul 15, 01:31 PM
The point is that Apple doesn't have an option for potential buyers that want a high performance, customisable and upgradable consumer level product (not all-in-one). There are no Apple product to compare those $1199 Conroe PCs to. The closest thing is the iMac.
Exactly. As I said above, a PowerMac is overkill (on both price and power) for many users. The iMac might suit their needs from this perspective, however many people do not like the fact that they are not upgradeable (apart from the RAM). What if I want a larger HDD in my iMac? What if I want two HDDs? What if I want to swap in a new burner? What if the HDD fails? It would be nice to pop a new one in, not have to buy a whole new machine. And then there's the display. If the HDD goes, as in my example above, how many people would like to throw away that nice 20" display which still works perfectly? Or, vice versa, what if the display goes? The rest of the computer is perfectly fine...
A Conroe mini-tower would be perfect for many people. The gap between Mac mini/iMac and PowerMac is simply too large for many people. :cool:
Exactly. As I said above, a PowerMac is overkill (on both price and power) for many users. The iMac might suit their needs from this perspective, however many people do not like the fact that they are not upgradeable (apart from the RAM). What if I want a larger HDD in my iMac? What if I want two HDDs? What if I want to swap in a new burner? What if the HDD fails? It would be nice to pop a new one in, not have to buy a whole new machine. And then there's the display. If the HDD goes, as in my example above, how many people would like to throw away that nice 20" display which still works perfectly? Or, vice versa, what if the display goes? The rest of the computer is perfectly fine...
A Conroe mini-tower would be perfect for many people. The gap between Mac mini/iMac and PowerMac is simply too large for many people. :cool:
NoSmokingBandit
Nov 12, 05:38 PM
I'm disappointed the Bugatti Veyron is standard only
Doesnt bother me one bit, i dont like them much. Their handling always seems a bit.... "off" but i can't put my finger on it.
I probably wont even buy one, so i dont care about much of anything regarding the Bugatti.
Doesnt bother me one bit, i dont like them much. Their handling always seems a bit.... "off" but i can't put my finger on it.
I probably wont even buy one, so i dont care about much of anything regarding the Bugatti.
bommai
Apr 8, 07:15 AM
Quota? Are these guys idiots?
Best Buy isn't the only place to buy these... I've thought through the various marketing gimmicks, and really none apply here. Why would they do this...
May be they did not want to embarrass the Xoom too much :rolleyes:
Best Buy isn't the only place to buy these... I've thought through the various marketing gimmicks, and really none apply here. Why would they do this...
May be they did not want to embarrass the Xoom too much :rolleyes:
milo
Sep 13, 07:05 AM
A bit pointless given that no software utilises the extra cores yet.
Not true, according to the article. They said it wasn't easy, but they were able to max out all 8 cores. You can see the Activity Monitor graph all filled up.
It would be nice if 10.5 would allow a more 'blind' method to utilize these cores, versus having programmers specificly program for multi-core. Now that would be extremely helpful and allow a more simultanous workflow.
That's how it is now, at least with multiple apps. I bet it's possible to program for an unspecified number of multiple cores, and there may be apps doing it already.
I was interested to see that they were unable to max out CPU utilization on all 8 cores in the system. I hope it's due to the software these days not being ready to fully utilize more than one or two cores and not due to OSX's ability to scale to larger core counts. Since that's obviously where we're heading. Does anyone know about the potential for scalability of OSX to large numbers of CPU's/cores? I know some *nix varieties and BSD varieties do this really well, but one wonders if they were thinking this far in the future when they developed OSX. It'll be interesting to see...
Read the article again, they WERE able to max them out, just not easily. Based on that, OSX seems to be able to scale already. Developers just need to start writing apps that are more MP friendly.
Not true, according to the article. They said it wasn't easy, but they were able to max out all 8 cores. You can see the Activity Monitor graph all filled up.
It would be nice if 10.5 would allow a more 'blind' method to utilize these cores, versus having programmers specificly program for multi-core. Now that would be extremely helpful and allow a more simultanous workflow.
That's how it is now, at least with multiple apps. I bet it's possible to program for an unspecified number of multiple cores, and there may be apps doing it already.
I was interested to see that they were unable to max out CPU utilization on all 8 cores in the system. I hope it's due to the software these days not being ready to fully utilize more than one or two cores and not due to OSX's ability to scale to larger core counts. Since that's obviously where we're heading. Does anyone know about the potential for scalability of OSX to large numbers of CPU's/cores? I know some *nix varieties and BSD varieties do this really well, but one wonders if they were thinking this far in the future when they developed OSX. It'll be interesting to see...
Read the article again, they WERE able to max them out, just not easily. Based on that, OSX seems to be able to scale already. Developers just need to start writing apps that are more MP friendly.
dclocke
Sep 19, 09:43 AM
You're so wrong. Most people posting in this thread don't have a clue what 64 bit computing really means. They just think they have to have it because it's the newest thing.
That doesn't mean they think they need a 64-bit processor just so they can use a lot of RAM. I may be wrong, but the content of your post certainly doesn't justify this assertion.
That doesn't mean they think they need a 64-bit processor just so they can use a lot of RAM. I may be wrong, but the content of your post certainly doesn't justify this assertion.
regandarcy
Apr 6, 10:56 AM
So are the current MacBook airs using a dedicated gpu? Or is it integrated? I'm confused. :-)
skunk
Mar 3, 01:28 PM
But, but, but we'll have nobody to argue with... :(
epitaphic
Aug 18, 09:06 PM
Do you think a Conroe iMac will beat a Mac Pro due to lower memory latency alone? Do you have real experience or data regarding how horrendous a problem this is? Extra dual-core processor aside, the Mac Pro has a higher speed FSB, higher memory bus bandwidth, higher RAM capacity, and ability to set up internal RAID amongst other advantages over a Conroe iMac.
Obviously, inherently the iMac design is inferior to the Mac Pro/Powermac. But I think there's a bigger reason why Apple chose to go all quad with the Mac Pro: Apple chose all quad because a duo option would have had the same performance in professional apps (again, excluding handbrake and toast which are the only two examples touted about). A single processor Woodcrest or Conroe option will have the same obtainable CPU power for 90-95% of the professional market for another 6-12 months at the very least.
Here's some data regarding the Mac Pro's FSB:
the Mac Pro (...) actually takes longer to access main memory than the Core Duo processor in the MacBook Pro. This is much worse than it sounds once you take into account the fact that the MacBook Pro features a 667MHz FSB compared to the 1333MHz FSB (per chip) used in the Mac Pro.
What can we take from this? Because of the use of FB-DIMMs, the Mac Pro's effective FSB is that of ~640MHz DDR2 system.
And how does it fare in memory latency?
It's not Apple's fault, but FB-DIMMs absolutely kill memory latency; even running in quad channel mode, the FB-DIMM equipped Mac Pro takes 45% more time to access memory than our DDR2 equipped test bed at the same memory frequency.
As for bandwidth, although the Mac Pro has a load of theoretical bandwidth, the efficiency is an abysmal 20%. In real use a DDR2 system has 72% more usable bandwidth. (source here (http://www.anandtech.com/mac/showdoc.aspx?i=2816&p=11))
I don't know bout you, but if I were a heavy user of memory intensive apps such as Photoshop, I'd be worried. Worried in the sense that a Conroe would be noticeably faster.
Memory issues aside, Woodcrests are faster than Conroes, 2.4% on average (source here (http://www.anandtech.com/showdoc.aspx?i=2795&p=6))
Obviously, inherently the iMac design is inferior to the Mac Pro/Powermac. But I think there's a bigger reason why Apple chose to go all quad with the Mac Pro: Apple chose all quad because a duo option would have had the same performance in professional apps (again, excluding handbrake and toast which are the only two examples touted about). A single processor Woodcrest or Conroe option will have the same obtainable CPU power for 90-95% of the professional market for another 6-12 months at the very least.
Here's some data regarding the Mac Pro's FSB:
the Mac Pro (...) actually takes longer to access main memory than the Core Duo processor in the MacBook Pro. This is much worse than it sounds once you take into account the fact that the MacBook Pro features a 667MHz FSB compared to the 1333MHz FSB (per chip) used in the Mac Pro.
What can we take from this? Because of the use of FB-DIMMs, the Mac Pro's effective FSB is that of ~640MHz DDR2 system.
And how does it fare in memory latency?
It's not Apple's fault, but FB-DIMMs absolutely kill memory latency; even running in quad channel mode, the FB-DIMM equipped Mac Pro takes 45% more time to access memory than our DDR2 equipped test bed at the same memory frequency.
As for bandwidth, although the Mac Pro has a load of theoretical bandwidth, the efficiency is an abysmal 20%. In real use a DDR2 system has 72% more usable bandwidth. (source here (http://www.anandtech.com/mac/showdoc.aspx?i=2816&p=11))
I don't know bout you, but if I were a heavy user of memory intensive apps such as Photoshop, I'd be worried. Worried in the sense that a Conroe would be noticeably faster.
Memory issues aside, Woodcrests are faster than Conroes, 2.4% on average (source here (http://www.anandtech.com/showdoc.aspx?i=2795&p=6))
Bill McEnaney
Mar 1, 04:13 AM
You can condemn me to Hell if you want to, I'm still gonna bump uglies with my girlfriend.
On another note, please join us in the 21st century. Why is it so important to you what other people do? Wouldn't it be very crowded in Heaven if everyone did as you said?
I have no right to condemn anyone to hell.
If heaven were very crowded, it wouldn't be very heavenly, would it?
On another note, please join us in the 21st century. Why is it so important to you what other people do? Wouldn't it be very crowded in Heaven if everyone did as you said?
I have no right to condemn anyone to hell.
If heaven were very crowded, it wouldn't be very heavenly, would it?
Tones2
Apr 11, 01:23 PM
The iPhone 4 is still the best smartphone in the market, so not surprising.
As for people expecting a 4" screen on the next iPhone dream on. They are not going to make an iPhone with a bigger screen.
To me, it's much more likely that the iPhone 5 will have a 4"+ screen than it is to have 64GB or 4G, although given Apple's increasing tendancy to underwhelm us with new technology features (which are in fact old by the time of their introduction 1-2 years after everyone else), I doubt we get any of these three.
Tony
As for people expecting a 4" screen on the next iPhone dream on. They are not going to make an iPhone with a bigger screen.
To me, it's much more likely that the iPhone 5 will have a 4"+ screen than it is to have 64GB or 4G, although given Apple's increasing tendancy to underwhelm us with new technology features (which are in fact old by the time of their introduction 1-2 years after everyone else), I doubt we get any of these three.
Tony
tundrabuggy
Apr 19, 03:35 PM
So True...
Poor lost souls rely on Steve to think for them, bring them courage, and guide them in worship.
Anyone who fails to fall in line, is immediately a threat to them.
It's this weakness is laughable.
Funny, I'm a Dallas Cowboy fan, the fans are fanatics and everyone who is not a Dallas fan HATES the Cowboys. I feel the same heat being an Apple fanatic. The fans are loyal and defending of the brand while every other tech fan hates us. I need a big white Apple logo with a blue Dallas Cowboy star in it. I might be shot!!!! lol
Poor lost souls rely on Steve to think for them, bring them courage, and guide them in worship.
Anyone who fails to fall in line, is immediately a threat to them.
It's this weakness is laughable.
Funny, I'm a Dallas Cowboy fan, the fans are fanatics and everyone who is not a Dallas fan HATES the Cowboys. I feel the same heat being an Apple fanatic. The fans are loyal and defending of the brand while every other tech fan hates us. I need a big white Apple logo with a blue Dallas Cowboy star in it. I might be shot!!!! lol
No hay comentarios:
Publicar un comentario