Transporteur
Feb 26, 12:25 PM
1xpain in the ass yellow labrador...
:D Awesome!
Great setup by the way. Looks great. Some more high res pictures would be nice, though. ;)
:D Awesome!
Great setup by the way. Looks great. Some more high res pictures would be nice, though. ;)
Donnacha
Nov 27, 05:05 PM
*smacks head on desk*
Beating a dead horse...
Congratulations on starting your point with not one but two violent images... clearly, you must be a real PRO.
This thread is about the possible introduction of a 17" monitor to possibly complement the Mac Mini, Apple's only headless consumer desktop.
My point is that introducing a new size will do little to plug the consumer-sized hole in Apple's monitor line-up. If Apple can squeeze extra money out of some egotists who like to think of themselves as prosumers, fine, but the overwhelming majority of users aren't going to get anal about some supposed color-accuracy issues: they want a good-quality, good-looking reliable monitor and if Apple can't provide that at a decent price, Apple loses them to someone who can.
Apple could, of course, bring out two lines of monitors, one for print professionals and one to compete directly with Dell but, of course, they won't because it wouldn't take long for people to realize that there isn't really that much difference.
Terms such as "color accuracy" probably make people worry that Dell's display all reds as green whereas, in fact, we're talking about differences that are indiscernible to the untrained eye. I would wager that barely 1% of customers who pore such technical details actually need or even understand them.
You're right, Dell monitor's are fine for my needs. Before you write them off, however, as being "cheapo" and irrelevant to Apple's market, I suggest you take a look at one of these Ultrasharps - personally, I'm not a fan of Dell computers, but their recent monitors are catching up fast with Apple.
Beating a dead horse...
Congratulations on starting your point with not one but two violent images... clearly, you must be a real PRO.
This thread is about the possible introduction of a 17" monitor to possibly complement the Mac Mini, Apple's only headless consumer desktop.
My point is that introducing a new size will do little to plug the consumer-sized hole in Apple's monitor line-up. If Apple can squeeze extra money out of some egotists who like to think of themselves as prosumers, fine, but the overwhelming majority of users aren't going to get anal about some supposed color-accuracy issues: they want a good-quality, good-looking reliable monitor and if Apple can't provide that at a decent price, Apple loses them to someone who can.
Apple could, of course, bring out two lines of monitors, one for print professionals and one to compete directly with Dell but, of course, they won't because it wouldn't take long for people to realize that there isn't really that much difference.
Terms such as "color accuracy" probably make people worry that Dell's display all reds as green whereas, in fact, we're talking about differences that are indiscernible to the untrained eye. I would wager that barely 1% of customers who pore such technical details actually need or even understand them.
You're right, Dell monitor's are fine for my needs. Before you write them off, however, as being "cheapo" and irrelevant to Apple's market, I suggest you take a look at one of these Ultrasharps - personally, I'm not a fan of Dell computers, but their recent monitors are catching up fast with Apple.
KevanDual2.5
Sep 6, 08:56 AM
Maybe i am alone on this one....
I think the 24" iMac G5 is the beginning of the end of the G5 iMac. We all watched as the outstanding G4 iMac grew from a 15" to a 17" and finally to 20". While the stunning design remained the same, the 20" just didn't look as good as the 2 previous models. The proportions were wrong and it looked top-heavy.
I am sitting in front of an original 23" Apple Display (plastic rather than aluminium). The new iMac cannot be much smaller than it. I firmly believe that the 24" will be, and should be, as big as it gets. I just hope that heat doesn't become a problem with the Core 2 Duo chips else the G5 iMac may have to evolve into a new enclosure.
Anyone else have thoughts similar?
I think the 24" iMac G5 is the beginning of the end of the G5 iMac. We all watched as the outstanding G4 iMac grew from a 15" to a 17" and finally to 20". While the stunning design remained the same, the 20" just didn't look as good as the 2 previous models. The proportions were wrong and it looked top-heavy.
I am sitting in front of an original 23" Apple Display (plastic rather than aluminium). The new iMac cannot be much smaller than it. I firmly believe that the 24" will be, and should be, as big as it gets. I just hope that heat doesn't become a problem with the Core 2 Duo chips else the G5 iMac may have to evolve into a new enclosure.
Anyone else have thoughts similar?
Piggie
Mar 26, 09:10 AM
Whilst tablet gaming will never overtake console gaming, unless a TV dock and controller is introduced, its always fun to see a portable device that is capable of outputting games at 1920x1080, where the xbox 360 and ps3 (retail games only) can not.
They seriously think the 360 can last another 5 years? Considering this is only the iPad's 2nd release, I wouldn't bet on it.
Ok, here are some numbers:
The very best, most positive numbers I could find about the iPad2 are:
Apple iPad 2 A5 carries a PowerVR SGX graphics chip 543MP2, also Dual Core, displaying 70 million polygons and two billion pixels per second, always at a frequency 200 MHz or raw power four times greater than that of the first iPad.
Here are the numbers from consoles you will recognise:
Xbox360 Maximum polygon count: 500 million triangles per second
PS3 Maximum polygon count: 333.3 million polygons per second (1 billion vertices per second / 3 vertices per tirangle)NOT OFFICAL BY SONY
Xbox Maximum polygon count: 100 million polygons per sec
Wii Maximum polygon count: No Info I think between 60/75 million polygons per sec
PS2 Maximum polygon count : 66 million polygons per sec
Gamecube Maximum polygon count : 12 million per sec
They seriously think the 360 can last another 5 years? Considering this is only the iPad's 2nd release, I wouldn't bet on it.
Ok, here are some numbers:
The very best, most positive numbers I could find about the iPad2 are:
Apple iPad 2 A5 carries a PowerVR SGX graphics chip 543MP2, also Dual Core, displaying 70 million polygons and two billion pixels per second, always at a frequency 200 MHz or raw power four times greater than that of the first iPad.
Here are the numbers from consoles you will recognise:
Xbox360 Maximum polygon count: 500 million triangles per second
PS3 Maximum polygon count: 333.3 million polygons per second (1 billion vertices per second / 3 vertices per tirangle)NOT OFFICAL BY SONY
Xbox Maximum polygon count: 100 million polygons per sec
Wii Maximum polygon count: No Info I think between 60/75 million polygons per sec
PS2 Maximum polygon count : 66 million polygons per sec
Gamecube Maximum polygon count : 12 million per sec
legacyb4
Aug 29, 11:49 AM
Agreed. They need to get that bottom end of the price range covered so that there are options for everyone including students.
I think Apple is more concerned with price for the Mac Mini than speed. Make them just a little bit faster than they are now, but much cheaper.
They're too expensive in the line-up now, with merom they would stay the same price but with Yonah they can make them cheaper again.
I think Apple is more concerned with price for the Mac Mini than speed. Make them just a little bit faster than they are now, but much cheaper.
They're too expensive in the line-up now, with merom they would stay the same price but with Yonah they can make them cheaper again.
pedidoc
Jan 11, 11:28 PM
Its a hydrogen fuel-cell powered notebook!
iMeowbot
Nov 29, 11:38 AM
I was in a Brookstone at a pretty upscale mall where the manager told me they were selling well - much better than their other MP3 players. Brookstone doesn't carry iPods so take it for what it's worth.
Is what they show here (http://www.brookstone.com/store/thumbnail.asp?sid=194&wid=2&cid=67&search_type=subcategory&cm_re=C*MP3*MP3%20Players) the whole selection they have in their stores? If so, it wouldn't be too surprising that the Zune did better there.
Is what they show here (http://www.brookstone.com/store/thumbnail.asp?sid=194&wid=2&cid=67&search_type=subcategory&cm_re=C*MP3*MP3%20Players) the whole selection they have in their stores? If so, it wouldn't be too surprising that the Zune did better there.
Nero Wolfe
Apr 3, 12:29 PM
One thing that's been frustrating me since DP1 is that when you minimize a window into its app icon it's sort of in limbo. Mission Control won't show it, nor does app expose (at least in some apps). Swipe-up on the dock icon (is this app-expose?) does sometimes, but it's mingled with recent files. Add that to the indicator lights being gone and I could have an open app with 20 minimized windows and totally forget about it.
It's not a huge deal, I suppose, but it makes the window management seem broken. I'd hate to go back to using the old-style minimize to the right side of the dock. I never liked that because it mixed those windows with stacks and got messy, plus it stretched and shrank my already-full dock.
Anyway, anyone else bugged by this? Am i missing something? Expose is the single most important thing to me in OS X; I rely on it to greatly speed my workflow. I like mission Control but this needs to be addressed. And, yes I filed a bug report for each DP release on this.
It's not a huge deal, I suppose, but it makes the window management seem broken. I'd hate to go back to using the old-style minimize to the right side of the dock. I never liked that because it mixed those windows with stacks and got messy, plus it stretched and shrank my already-full dock.
Anyway, anyone else bugged by this? Am i missing something? Expose is the single most important thing to me in OS X; I rely on it to greatly speed my workflow. I like mission Control but this needs to be addressed. And, yes I filed a bug report for each DP release on this.
viggin
Apr 12, 11:43 PM
Here's the deal...(and I just realized that the way this is written might make it look like I have earlier posts in this thread. I don't. I'm jumping in right here.)
The reason that I think pros fear "dumbed down" isn't so much because they want something that is difficult to use, but rather because sometimes making difficult things easy makes things that were previously easy difficult, or impossible.
So just this week I had to help somebody with an iMovie problem. There was a part where they had 3 overlapping audio tracks. Movie audio, voiceover, and music. Try as they might, and try as I might, we could not get the movie audio to actually go away -- even though we had set it's volume level to "0%."
Oh...and did I mention that they're on a white iBook? Fine machine, but a little slow. So I copy their iMovie stuff onto an external drive so we can look at it on my Core i7 iMac instead.
Except iMovie on my iMac won't recognize the project on an external drive. I know that supposedly iMovie is supposed to...but it won't work. So I have to copy the files onto my iMac, and then iMovie magically sees them...because they're in the spot that iMovie wants files to be in.
Well the only way to get the clips to work right that I could come up with, was to actually run all their clips through Quicktime 7 and just delete the audio track off them. Voila! No audio track for iMovie to play, when it's not supposed to.
My point is that I spent 30 minutes dinking around with the "Easy" iMovie to do what would have taken me 10 seconds to do in Final Cut. (Select audio. Delete.)
And that's pretty much my experience every time I get lulled into trying to run a quick project through iMovie. Everything seems to be going well, I'm even sort of enjoying myself (Don't tell anyone), then I hit a snag or a wall...bump up into some limitation of iMovie that there isn't a very good work-around to...and wish that I'd just used Final Cut to begin with.
So while I agree that there are those who want pro tools to be difficult simply for the sake of having a high barrier of entry...
...I also think there are a ton of us that are just afraid that the cost of these new and handy features will be that some of the things we rely on doing, especially things that are a little "hackish," will become difficult/impossible. In the name of simplicity.
It's like my iPhone. I love it to pieces, and I don't plan to have any other type of phone any time soon, but sometimes I wish for a few more advanced features...features that are available (Usually through third-party tools) on Android. Instead I'm stuck hoping and wishing and praying that Apple will implement them.
The reason that I think pros fear "dumbed down" isn't so much because they want something that is difficult to use, but rather because sometimes making difficult things easy makes things that were previously easy difficult, or impossible.
So just this week I had to help somebody with an iMovie problem. There was a part where they had 3 overlapping audio tracks. Movie audio, voiceover, and music. Try as they might, and try as I might, we could not get the movie audio to actually go away -- even though we had set it's volume level to "0%."
Oh...and did I mention that they're on a white iBook? Fine machine, but a little slow. So I copy their iMovie stuff onto an external drive so we can look at it on my Core i7 iMac instead.
Except iMovie on my iMac won't recognize the project on an external drive. I know that supposedly iMovie is supposed to...but it won't work. So I have to copy the files onto my iMac, and then iMovie magically sees them...because they're in the spot that iMovie wants files to be in.
Well the only way to get the clips to work right that I could come up with, was to actually run all their clips through Quicktime 7 and just delete the audio track off them. Voila! No audio track for iMovie to play, when it's not supposed to.
My point is that I spent 30 minutes dinking around with the "Easy" iMovie to do what would have taken me 10 seconds to do in Final Cut. (Select audio. Delete.)
And that's pretty much my experience every time I get lulled into trying to run a quick project through iMovie. Everything seems to be going well, I'm even sort of enjoying myself (Don't tell anyone), then I hit a snag or a wall...bump up into some limitation of iMovie that there isn't a very good work-around to...and wish that I'd just used Final Cut to begin with.
So while I agree that there are those who want pro tools to be difficult simply for the sake of having a high barrier of entry...
...I also think there are a ton of us that are just afraid that the cost of these new and handy features will be that some of the things we rely on doing, especially things that are a little "hackish," will become difficult/impossible. In the name of simplicity.
It's like my iPhone. I love it to pieces, and I don't plan to have any other type of phone any time soon, but sometimes I wish for a few more advanced features...features that are available (Usually through third-party tools) on Android. Instead I'm stuck hoping and wishing and praying that Apple will implement them.
dongmin
Sep 6, 10:08 PM
Rentals...
The studios won't go for it because people will figure out a way to record off the streams and/or rented file. You can argue that people'll figure out a way to crack the purchased movie fiels too, but at least in this case the studio has the $10 or $15 for it instead of $4. Personally, I love the Netflix model, but I don't see the studios going for it.
Burning DVDs...
The new hardware from Apple (video iPod and video-streaming Airport) will make DVD players obsolete. Really, why hassle with discs when you get just browse and play via Front Row?
As for backing up, you can easily back up the .m4v file onto a HD or DVD-R (data). Why would you need to burn a video DVD, except for the convenience of playing on a stand-alone DVD player (which I addressed above)?
The studios won't go for it because people will figure out a way to record off the streams and/or rented file. You can argue that people'll figure out a way to crack the purchased movie fiels too, but at least in this case the studio has the $10 or $15 for it instead of $4. Personally, I love the Netflix model, but I don't see the studios going for it.
Burning DVDs...
The new hardware from Apple (video iPod and video-streaming Airport) will make DVD players obsolete. Really, why hassle with discs when you get just browse and play via Front Row?
As for backing up, you can easily back up the .m4v file onto a HD or DVD-R (data). Why would you need to burn a video DVD, except for the convenience of playing on a stand-alone DVD player (which I addressed above)?
KonaBlend
Apr 12, 10:19 PM
This is so that each eye receives 24fps for 3d. So finally 3d will now look like a 3d "movie" rather than a 3d flip book.
err that would be 48 fps for each eye. the current 24 fps for each eye is what Cameron wants to improve upon.
err that would be 48 fps for each eye. the current 24 fps for each eye is what Cameron wants to improve upon.
finchna
Oct 23, 09:20 AM
Apple needs to get away from making such a big deal our of small updates (processor change) as Intel will have such things changing more often than motorola or ibm ever did. apple should reserve such announcements and hoopla for major revisions or complete overhauls. based on recent benchmarks there is little performance improvement in these new chips save for the speed bump.
paradox00
May 3, 01:29 PM
I'm glad Apple is thinking for themselves and leaving the purists behind as they adopt newer, better ways of doing things. The idea of installing from a disc image is ridiculous. Anyone I've explained it to can understand it, but always mention there must be a better way. "Install" is much better than launching a disc image, opening an applications window, and then dragging the icon over to the other window. Also, dragging a file to the trash doesn't delete all the pieces it came with. An uninstall was needed. I have been using AppZapper, but this will now be built into the OS.
There is a better way. Good programs include a shortcut to the applications folder in the disk image. Some even have arrows directing you to drag the application to the shortcut within the same window. How on earth is an installer better than that?
Apple's uninstall process also works really well. If you want to delete the program but retain the settings, drag the program to the trash, if you want to delete the settings, drag the settings folder from the library to the trash as well or use a third party app like app zapper (as you mentioned). How is the Windows uninstall process better than the one step process of dragging into the trash or dragging into app zapper?
People coming from Windows often criticize macs because they get the job done too efficiently, and they find it hard to believe that things can work so smoothly yet still be effective. They come with the expectation of expecting complexity, and when it isn't there, they find the lack of complexity to be a fault. It's a ridiculous phenomenon, but it's quite real. I should know, I also switched.
There is a better way. Good programs include a shortcut to the applications folder in the disk image. Some even have arrows directing you to drag the application to the shortcut within the same window. How on earth is an installer better than that?
Apple's uninstall process also works really well. If you want to delete the program but retain the settings, drag the program to the trash, if you want to delete the settings, drag the settings folder from the library to the trash as well or use a third party app like app zapper (as you mentioned). How is the Windows uninstall process better than the one step process of dragging into the trash or dragging into app zapper?
People coming from Windows often criticize macs because they get the job done too efficiently, and they find it hard to believe that things can work so smoothly yet still be effective. They come with the expectation of expecting complexity, and when it isn't there, they find the lack of complexity to be a fault. It's a ridiculous phenomenon, but it's quite real. I should know, I also switched.
xPismo
Oct 24, 01:00 AM
FW800 and/or eSATA, HD screen, C2D (nice shortening btw) and $200.00 less price point. Please Apple. Make it so.
iW00t
Jan 7, 12:45 AM
But the screen on the 17in MBP (1680x1050) by definition can't do HD (1920x1080). I don't care how well it can scale down, scaling down is not playing at true native resolution, and with most new content heading toward 1080i (and eventually 1080p), getting anything less than that now is just heading toward a dead end media wise IMO.
Why do you need HD on such a small device?
People have been watching TV on 640*480 28" TV sets for decades just fine. Likewise your Macbook Pro at 17" is doing as good as it possibly can at 17 inches, not like that extra 30 pixels vertically will make some difference.
My main concern with the Macbook Pros getting higher resolution displays is that there may be a possibility that Apple will break away from the current crop of low quality grainy displays and drop something else better in. Perhaps when Leopard is released we may even get the option to BTO in a higher resolution display.
Why do you need HD on such a small device?
People have been watching TV on 640*480 28" TV sets for decades just fine. Likewise your Macbook Pro at 17" is doing as good as it possibly can at 17 inches, not like that extra 30 pixels vertically will make some difference.
My main concern with the Macbook Pros getting higher resolution displays is that there may be a possibility that Apple will break away from the current crop of low quality grainy displays and drop something else better in. Perhaps when Leopard is released we may even get the option to BTO in a higher resolution display.
gorgeousninja
Apr 20, 09:15 AM
I'll be darned! This is the first post this guy has made in months that hasn't annoyed me! This is a good sign!
+1 (though not convinced it will last);)
+1 (though not convinced it will last);)
tinman0
May 2, 05:56 PM
But my iPhone is far more limited than my first Windows PC in that regard. Even with Windows 95 I could go from one app to another while letting the other on load in the background. iOS freezes everything. If I want a video to upload on Facebook, I have no choice but to keep the app open until it's done. On my PC, I can start the upload and then move on to other things while the process is completing.
I find moving to non-true multitasking as a step backward, not a step forward. As you said, out systems capabilites are able to do so much more. I can be playing a computer game, hit the Windows key, and open a media player and never see a drop in performance. Why limit your computer to one task at a time? Kind of defeats the point of multi-core processors.
I doubt that the Mac is getting the type of multi tasking that you see with the iPhone, more likely it's getting the option to suspend something in the background, but for everything else, life goes on as normal (eg I can batch stuff in an application whilst I continue surfing, reading mail, watching porn etc).
As for the crippled multi tasking on an iPhone - it's a phone for heavens sake. The BIGGEST problem that all smartphones are suffering from is battery - batteries are not able to cope with the demands of the modern phone.
If you let people multi task properly, the phone would eat its battery alive. And we've all seen bad programming (cough...flash) which given half a chance will kill your battery in 15 seconds stone dead just to show you some crappy ad.
So a phone does need a sensible trade off when it comes to multi tasking, and both Apple and Google (with Android) made a very sensible choice to put battery before true background multitasking.
I find moving to non-true multitasking as a step backward, not a step forward. As you said, out systems capabilites are able to do so much more. I can be playing a computer game, hit the Windows key, and open a media player and never see a drop in performance. Why limit your computer to one task at a time? Kind of defeats the point of multi-core processors.
I doubt that the Mac is getting the type of multi tasking that you see with the iPhone, more likely it's getting the option to suspend something in the background, but for everything else, life goes on as normal (eg I can batch stuff in an application whilst I continue surfing, reading mail, watching porn etc).
As for the crippled multi tasking on an iPhone - it's a phone for heavens sake. The BIGGEST problem that all smartphones are suffering from is battery - batteries are not able to cope with the demands of the modern phone.
If you let people multi task properly, the phone would eat its battery alive. And we've all seen bad programming (cough...flash) which given half a chance will kill your battery in 15 seconds stone dead just to show you some crappy ad.
So a phone does need a sensible trade off when it comes to multi tasking, and both Apple and Google (with Android) made a very sensible choice to put battery before true background multitasking.
kazmac
Apr 19, 01:31 PM
I'm looking forward to seeing the new iMacs (and eventually Mac Minis).
Computer-wise I'm set for the next 3 years, but it's always nice to see the computers get updated.
Fingers crossed for no screen etc. issues.
Computer-wise I'm set for the next 3 years, but it's always nice to see the computers get updated.
Fingers crossed for no screen etc. issues.
Lord Blackadder
Mar 1, 05:11 PM
That could be true, but I can't verify it - simply because I don't really see any of those around here....
A friend of mine owns a 2009 Jetta TDI, and another friend owns a 2003(ish) Golf TDI. The new Jetta is significantly better than the Golf with the older generation diesel, but even the Golf's engine is much more refined than a diesel truck engine.
I live out in the country (horse and cattle farms), and about half the pickups out here are 3/4 ton and 1 ton diesels, mostly Chevys and Fords. Following one down the highway it's hard to hear them, but if you're behind one you can damn sure smell it - and yes, I'm talking about the new ones, too.
I live in Alaska, and they love their big diesel trucks here. I can agree that pretty much all of them stink awfully when you drive behind them. Also, performance modifications are pretty popular, so that with re-tuned ECUs and free-flowing exhausts, the damned things are positively deafening and noxious. The older trucks are definitely much worse than the newest models though.
Can't speak to the new DPF-equipped trucks, I haven't had enough experience with them. Hopefully, the increasingly stringent economy and pollution regulations will continue to make pickup diesels less and less similar to the dumptruck, semi and bulldozer engines we currently associate them with.
Still, the bottom line is, passenger car diesel engines from Germany and Italy in particular are excellent and nothing like the big clunkers in American trucks. If a diesel Cruze makes it here, it will be very smooth and quiet by comparison.
A friend of mine owns a 2009 Jetta TDI, and another friend owns a 2003(ish) Golf TDI. The new Jetta is significantly better than the Golf with the older generation diesel, but even the Golf's engine is much more refined than a diesel truck engine.
I live out in the country (horse and cattle farms), and about half the pickups out here are 3/4 ton and 1 ton diesels, mostly Chevys and Fords. Following one down the highway it's hard to hear them, but if you're behind one you can damn sure smell it - and yes, I'm talking about the new ones, too.
I live in Alaska, and they love their big diesel trucks here. I can agree that pretty much all of them stink awfully when you drive behind them. Also, performance modifications are pretty popular, so that with re-tuned ECUs and free-flowing exhausts, the damned things are positively deafening and noxious. The older trucks are definitely much worse than the newest models though.
Can't speak to the new DPF-equipped trucks, I haven't had enough experience with them. Hopefully, the increasingly stringent economy and pollution regulations will continue to make pickup diesels less and less similar to the dumptruck, semi and bulldozer engines we currently associate them with.
Still, the bottom line is, passenger car diesel engines from Germany and Italy in particular are excellent and nothing like the big clunkers in American trucks. If a diesel Cruze makes it here, it will be very smooth and quiet by comparison.
deputy_doofy
Oct 23, 04:35 PM
Definitely gonna get the 15" MBP. C'mon, C2D. Come to Doofy. :D
Jack97
Apr 3, 04:13 AM
Did anyone else thing that was a really bad advert? They hardly showed the product fully at all!
Silentwave
Sep 6, 04:40 PM
It may have been introduced then, but that wasn't the last time it was refreshed . See here (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/05/20060516092750.shtml) which is actually on May 16th.
Come on, apple updated the MBP before it even shipped! The pace of things are different nowadays.
the MBP WILL get C2D in the next ~2 weeks tops.
Come on, apple updated the MBP before it even shipped! The pace of things are different nowadays.
the MBP WILL get C2D in the next ~2 weeks tops.
Krafty
Nov 26, 09:28 PM
http://lulzimg.com/i9/39dde9c5.jpg
Jr. Bacon Cheeseburger + 1/4lb Baconator = First meal of the day
Wendys, you had me at bacon.
Jr. Bacon Cheeseburger + 1/4lb Baconator = First meal of the day
Wendys, you had me at bacon.
PBF
Apr 10, 04:27 PM
I'm sorry, but unless you, guys, are suffering from some kinda severe form of ADHD, iCal's very orangey toolbar shouldn't be a distraction at all. Seriously.
No comments:
Post a Comment