wmmk
Jul 14, 03:09 PM
... and the other one HD-DVD! :eek: ;) :D
:dools: whoa, that'd be lovely. would they both also accept normal DVDs and CDs?
:dools: whoa, that'd be lovely. would they both also accept normal DVDs and CDs?
wordoflife
Apr 11, 02:19 PM
Depending on what features are available on iOS 5 for iPhone 4 compared to 3GS, I might upgrade. Getting sick of my 3GS.
Steviejobz
Mar 22, 01:03 PM
Can I exchange my iPad 2 for this Playbook?
I really like the minimal app appearance of the Playbook compared to Apple's cluttered group of tens of thousands of applications.
I really like the minimal app appearance of the Playbook compared to Apple's cluttered group of tens of thousands of applications.
johnnyturbouk
Apr 7, 10:22 PM
Obviously you know little about retail and accounting.
i know even less - enlighten me pls .........;)
i know even less - enlighten me pls .........;)
NoSmokingBandit
Nov 30, 07:15 AM
I havent gotten to them yet, but i've heard they are just as awesome as GT3's endurance races.
ergle2
Sep 19, 12:56 PM
thx for your reply,
i will go for the mac pro quad know (i'm updating my home computer wich is a G3, but i'm used to work on a dual G5 for my projects) and yeah i will allways be able then to update later, but how about ram, when DDR3 comes out, i read that its going to replace FB-DIMMs so will that be upgradeble too???
cause these FB-DIMMS are so ********** expensive :) thx
DDR and FB aren't mutually exclusive technologies. Current FB-DIMMs use DDR2 chips. Newer FB-DIMMs will use DDR3 chips but due to the way FB-DIMMs work -- the buffer and control hardware essentially sit between the memory and the MCH -- you should still be able to use them in a Mac Pro. Note, should, not will.
You won't be able to use regular DDR3 DIMMs just like you can't use regular DDR2 DIMMs tho'. That's something that'd require a major design change to the motherboard.
So, memory will still be damn' expensive compared to that found in the cheap desktops...
i will go for the mac pro quad know (i'm updating my home computer wich is a G3, but i'm used to work on a dual G5 for my projects) and yeah i will allways be able then to update later, but how about ram, when DDR3 comes out, i read that its going to replace FB-DIMMs so will that be upgradeble too???
cause these FB-DIMMS are so ********** expensive :) thx
DDR and FB aren't mutually exclusive technologies. Current FB-DIMMs use DDR2 chips. Newer FB-DIMMs will use DDR3 chips but due to the way FB-DIMMs work -- the buffer and control hardware essentially sit between the memory and the MCH -- you should still be able to use them in a Mac Pro. Note, should, not will.
You won't be able to use regular DDR3 DIMMs just like you can't use regular DDR2 DIMMs tho'. That's something that'd require a major design change to the motherboard.
So, memory will still be damn' expensive compared to that found in the cheap desktops...
cjc81
Sep 19, 11:31 AM
I don't think you've got anything to worry about there...
Looks like your order is going to be delayed, in your favour =)
Looks like your order is going to be delayed, in your favour =)
shelterpaw
Sep 13, 12:05 PM
Yes, that's true.
It's also true that most of the time, most people aren't even maxing out ONE core never mind eight.
And when they do, their program won't get any faster unless it's multithreaded and able to run on multiple cores at once.
The Mac Pro isn't for most people. It's for professionals and professional applications, which are usally multithreaded, and will take advantage of the capabilities.
If you have a complaint about all these cores and not being able to take advantage of them, then this is not the computer for you. You're probably not using the software that will take advantage of them, so let it go and stop whining about it. For the those of us that do, this is great news.
It's also true that most of the time, most people aren't even maxing out ONE core never mind eight.
And when they do, their program won't get any faster unless it's multithreaded and able to run on multiple cores at once.
The Mac Pro isn't for most people. It's for professionals and professional applications, which are usally multithreaded, and will take advantage of the capabilities.
If you have a complaint about all these cores and not being able to take advantage of them, then this is not the computer for you. You're probably not using the software that will take advantage of them, so let it go and stop whining about it. For the those of us that do, this is great news.
BWhaler
Aug 27, 11:37 AM
I happen to have a Yonah Macbook, and im a little concerned.
I wonder, if merom does make it into the Macbooks did i make a mistake by buying my computer before i had to (as in next friday is the cutoff)
I wonder if Merom is really that good.
Don't sweat it.
There is a very comprehensive review of Core Duo vs. Core 2 Duo on Anandtech. Here is there conclusion for people like you:
For Apple users this means that early adopters of the new MacBook or MacBook Pro won't be too pressured to upgrade again by the end of this year...Owners of Core Duo laptops really have no reason to worry about upgrading for now, and waiting for the Santa Rosa platform before your next laptop upgrade seems reasonable.
Sure, the Core 2 Duo is better, but if you read the article, it's not really better in significant ways.
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2808&p=1
I wonder, if merom does make it into the Macbooks did i make a mistake by buying my computer before i had to (as in next friday is the cutoff)
I wonder if Merom is really that good.
Don't sweat it.
There is a very comprehensive review of Core Duo vs. Core 2 Duo on Anandtech. Here is there conclusion for people like you:
For Apple users this means that early adopters of the new MacBook or MacBook Pro won't be too pressured to upgrade again by the end of this year...Owners of Core Duo laptops really have no reason to worry about upgrading for now, and waiting for the Santa Rosa platform before your next laptop upgrade seems reasonable.
Sure, the Core 2 Duo is better, but if you read the article, it's not really better in significant ways.
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2808&p=1
bep207
Aug 15, 01:03 PM
has adobe dropped any hints as to when CS3 will be available
ValSalva
Apr 6, 11:10 AM
I still don't think this means new MacBook Airs in June. Can anyone really see Apple releasing new hardware before Lion is released?
Silentwave
Aug 18, 10:21 AM
http://images.anandtech.com/graphs/mac%20pro_081406100848/12798.png
I think this speaks for itself.
When I'm working on one project, that's all my attention to it. When I'd like to encode it, I'd like my however many cores to be at full blast. Sadly, that's not happening at the moment and will remain so until they rewrite h264 encoding.
Like I said, unless people are doing what you do (sending multiple files to be encoded at the same time all the time) they won't benefit from 4, 8, 100 cores.
Now if anyone can show benchmarks that show FCP being 40-50% faster on a quad than on a dual when working on a project, I'll shut up :)
Or maybe they have?
Didn't FCP just get updated to optimize it for the Mac Pro?
I think they need the latest version over there and should rerun the test.
I think this speaks for itself.
When I'm working on one project, that's all my attention to it. When I'd like to encode it, I'd like my however many cores to be at full blast. Sadly, that's not happening at the moment and will remain so until they rewrite h264 encoding.
Like I said, unless people are doing what you do (sending multiple files to be encoded at the same time all the time) they won't benefit from 4, 8, 100 cores.
Now if anyone can show benchmarks that show FCP being 40-50% faster on a quad than on a dual when working on a project, I'll shut up :)
Or maybe they have?
Didn't FCP just get updated to optimize it for the Mac Pro?
I think they need the latest version over there and should rerun the test.
mkruck
Apr 6, 02:56 PM
I remember when I was a kid and I asked my father for a toy and he came with a different one... I was the saddest kid on earth.
I believe that who ever asked for an iPad and got a Motorola would feel the same.
(Dad, I love you)
Funny, and true.
By the same token, if I explicitly told my wife I wanted a Xoom, Playbook, Tab 10.1 and she came home with an iPad, I wouldn't be the saddest kid on earth, but I do know that I'd be returning it for something I want.
Of course, I also hate it when she brings me home a cheeseburger when I wanted a hamburger.
I believe that who ever asked for an iPad and got a Motorola would feel the same.
(Dad, I love you)
Funny, and true.
By the same token, if I explicitly told my wife I wanted a Xoom, Playbook, Tab 10.1 and she came home with an iPad, I wouldn't be the saddest kid on earth, but I do know that I'd be returning it for something I want.
Of course, I also hate it when she brings me home a cheeseburger when I wanted a hamburger.
DavidLeblond
Apr 27, 07:59 AM
I actually thought looking at a history of where my phone has been on a map was kinda cool. Bummer.
SevenInchScrew
Dec 9, 12:36 PM
Even though I sometimes get bored of your constant dissing of GT5, those are my thoughts as well.
I know it probably seems, at times, like I'm just mindlessly bashing the game, but I'm not. That isn't how I intend to come across. I'm a LOOOONG time GT fan who is just really frustrated with how the whole saga of this game has played out. Too long in the making and still releasing with flaws, half-assed features, and needing patches is not what I've come to expect from PD.
My only hope is, now that they've got this out the door, they will start major work on GT6 and get things cleaned up and to customers in a couple years, not half a decade. Like I said, the core of a great game is in there, somewhere. They just need to trim off a lot of the fat, and make GT6 that great game we expected.
I know it probably seems, at times, like I'm just mindlessly bashing the game, but I'm not. That isn't how I intend to come across. I'm a LOOOONG time GT fan who is just really frustrated with how the whole saga of this game has played out. Too long in the making and still releasing with flaws, half-assed features, and needing patches is not what I've come to expect from PD.
My only hope is, now that they've got this out the door, they will start major work on GT6 and get things cleaned up and to customers in a couple years, not half a decade. Like I said, the core of a great game is in there, somewhere. They just need to trim off a lot of the fat, and make GT6 that great game we expected.
skunk
Feb 28, 07:12 PM
2) okay, they can pretend to get marriedNo, you are absolutely wrong., They can get married like any other couple where the laws allow. Marriage is not a special preserve of any religion. You cannot just commandeer it.
No, I'm not kidding. To the Catholic Church sex outside of a valid sacramental marriage is fornicationWho cares what Catholic dogma claims? It's an irrelevance.
Last time I checked when the vast majority of people did such behavior it was with the opposite gender not the same.So what is the problem? Are you against variation?
Do you have proof that Plato was a repressed homosexual?No, not proof
"Homosexuality," Plato wrote, "is regarded as shameful by barbarians and by those who live under despotic governments just as philosophy is regarded as shameful by them, because it is apparently not in the interest of such rulers to have great ideas engendered in their subjects, or powerful friendships or passionate love-all of which homosexuality is particularly apt to produce." This attitude of Plato's was characteristic of the ancient world, and I want to begin my discussion of the attitudes of the Church and of Western Christianity toward homosexuality by commenting on comparable attitudes among the ancients.
To a very large extent, Western attitudes toward law, religion, literature and government are dependent upon Roman attitudes. This makes it particularly striking that our attitudes toward homosexuality in particular and sexual tolerance in general are so remarkably different from those of the Romans. It is very difficult to convey to modern audiences the indifference of the Romans to questions of gender and gender orientation. The difficulty is due both to the fact that the evidence has been largely consciously obliterated by historians prior to very recent decades, and to the diffusion of the relevant material.
Romans did not consider sexuality or sexual preference a matter of much interest, nor did they treat either in an analytical way. An historian has to gather together thousands of little bits and pieces to demonstrate the general acceptance of homosexuality among the Romans.
One of the few imperial writers who does appear to make some sort of comment on the subject in a general way wrote, "Zeus came as an eagle to god like Ganymede and as a swan to the fair haired mother of Helen. One person prefers one gender, another the other, I like both." Plutarch wrote at about the same time, "No sensible person can imagine that the sexes differ in matters of love as they do in matters of clothing. The intelligent lover of beauty will be attracted to beauty in whichever gender he finds it." Roman law and social strictures made absolutely no restrictions on the basis of gender. It has sometimes been claimed that there were laws against homosexual relations in Rome, but it is easy to prove that this was not the case. On the other hand, it is a mistake to imagine that anarchic hedonism ruled at Rome. In fact, Romans did have a complex set of moral strictures designed to protect children from abuse or any citizen from force or duress in sexual relations. Romans were, like other people, sensitive to issues of love and caring, but individual sexual (i.e. gender) choice was completely unlimited. Male prostitution (directed toward other males), for instance, was so common that the taxes on it constituted a major source of revenue for the imperial treasury. It was so profitable that even in later periods when a certain intolerance crept in, the emperors could not bring themselves to end the practice and its attendant revenue.
Gay marriages were also legal and frequent in Rome for both males and females. Even emperors often married other males. There was total acceptance on the part of the populace, as far as it can be determined, of this sort of homosexual attitude and behavior. This total acceptance was not limited to the ruling elite; there is also much popular Roman literature containing gay love stories. The real point I want to make is that there is absolutely no conscious effort on anyone's part in the Roman world, the world in which Christianity was born, to claim that homosexuality was abnormal or undesirable. There is in fact no word for "homosexual" in Latin. "Homosexual" sounds like Latin, but was coined by a German psychologist in the late 1 9th century. No one in the early Roman world seemed to feel that the fact that someone preferred his or her own gender was any more significant than the fact that someone preferred blue eyes or short people. Neither gay nor straight people seemed to associate certain characteristics with sexual preference. Gay men were not thought to be less masculine than straight men and lesbian women were not thought of as less feminine than straight women. Gay people were not thought to be any better or worse than straight people-an attitude which differed both from that of the society that preceded it, since many Greeks thought gay people were inherently better than straight people, and from that of the society which followed it, in which gay people were often thought to be inferior to others.
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/pwh/1979boswell.html
The most celebrated account of homosexual love comes in Plato's Symposium, in which homosexual love is discussed as a more ideal, more perfect kind of relationship than the more prosaic heterosexual variety. This is a highly biased account, because Plato himself was homosexual and wrote very beautiful epigrams to boys expressing his devotion. Platonic homosexuality had very little to do with sex; Plato believed ideally that love and reason should be fused together, while concern over the body and the material world of particulars should be annihilated. Even today, "Platonic love" refers to non-sexual love between two adults.
Behind Plato's contempt for heterosexual desire lay an aesthetic, highly intellectual aversion to the female body. Plato would have agreed with Schopenhauer's opinion that "only a male intellect clouded by the sexual drive could call the stunted, narrow-shouldered, broad-hipped and short-legged sex the fair sex".
http://www.newstatesman.com/199908230009
No, I'm not kidding. To the Catholic Church sex outside of a valid sacramental marriage is fornicationWho cares what Catholic dogma claims? It's an irrelevance.
Last time I checked when the vast majority of people did such behavior it was with the opposite gender not the same.So what is the problem? Are you against variation?
Do you have proof that Plato was a repressed homosexual?No, not proof
"Homosexuality," Plato wrote, "is regarded as shameful by barbarians and by those who live under despotic governments just as philosophy is regarded as shameful by them, because it is apparently not in the interest of such rulers to have great ideas engendered in their subjects, or powerful friendships or passionate love-all of which homosexuality is particularly apt to produce." This attitude of Plato's was characteristic of the ancient world, and I want to begin my discussion of the attitudes of the Church and of Western Christianity toward homosexuality by commenting on comparable attitudes among the ancients.
To a very large extent, Western attitudes toward law, religion, literature and government are dependent upon Roman attitudes. This makes it particularly striking that our attitudes toward homosexuality in particular and sexual tolerance in general are so remarkably different from those of the Romans. It is very difficult to convey to modern audiences the indifference of the Romans to questions of gender and gender orientation. The difficulty is due both to the fact that the evidence has been largely consciously obliterated by historians prior to very recent decades, and to the diffusion of the relevant material.
Romans did not consider sexuality or sexual preference a matter of much interest, nor did they treat either in an analytical way. An historian has to gather together thousands of little bits and pieces to demonstrate the general acceptance of homosexuality among the Romans.
One of the few imperial writers who does appear to make some sort of comment on the subject in a general way wrote, "Zeus came as an eagle to god like Ganymede and as a swan to the fair haired mother of Helen. One person prefers one gender, another the other, I like both." Plutarch wrote at about the same time, "No sensible person can imagine that the sexes differ in matters of love as they do in matters of clothing. The intelligent lover of beauty will be attracted to beauty in whichever gender he finds it." Roman law and social strictures made absolutely no restrictions on the basis of gender. It has sometimes been claimed that there were laws against homosexual relations in Rome, but it is easy to prove that this was not the case. On the other hand, it is a mistake to imagine that anarchic hedonism ruled at Rome. In fact, Romans did have a complex set of moral strictures designed to protect children from abuse or any citizen from force or duress in sexual relations. Romans were, like other people, sensitive to issues of love and caring, but individual sexual (i.e. gender) choice was completely unlimited. Male prostitution (directed toward other males), for instance, was so common that the taxes on it constituted a major source of revenue for the imperial treasury. It was so profitable that even in later periods when a certain intolerance crept in, the emperors could not bring themselves to end the practice and its attendant revenue.
Gay marriages were also legal and frequent in Rome for both males and females. Even emperors often married other males. There was total acceptance on the part of the populace, as far as it can be determined, of this sort of homosexual attitude and behavior. This total acceptance was not limited to the ruling elite; there is also much popular Roman literature containing gay love stories. The real point I want to make is that there is absolutely no conscious effort on anyone's part in the Roman world, the world in which Christianity was born, to claim that homosexuality was abnormal or undesirable. There is in fact no word for "homosexual" in Latin. "Homosexual" sounds like Latin, but was coined by a German psychologist in the late 1 9th century. No one in the early Roman world seemed to feel that the fact that someone preferred his or her own gender was any more significant than the fact that someone preferred blue eyes or short people. Neither gay nor straight people seemed to associate certain characteristics with sexual preference. Gay men were not thought to be less masculine than straight men and lesbian women were not thought of as less feminine than straight women. Gay people were not thought to be any better or worse than straight people-an attitude which differed both from that of the society that preceded it, since many Greeks thought gay people were inherently better than straight people, and from that of the society which followed it, in which gay people were often thought to be inferior to others.
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/pwh/1979boswell.html
The most celebrated account of homosexual love comes in Plato's Symposium, in which homosexual love is discussed as a more ideal, more perfect kind of relationship than the more prosaic heterosexual variety. This is a highly biased account, because Plato himself was homosexual and wrote very beautiful epigrams to boys expressing his devotion. Platonic homosexuality had very little to do with sex; Plato believed ideally that love and reason should be fused together, while concern over the body and the material world of particulars should be annihilated. Even today, "Platonic love" refers to non-sexual love between two adults.
Behind Plato's contempt for heterosexual desire lay an aesthetic, highly intellectual aversion to the female body. Plato would have agreed with Schopenhauer's opinion that "only a male intellect clouded by the sexual drive could call the stunted, narrow-shouldered, broad-hipped and short-legged sex the fair sex".
http://www.newstatesman.com/199908230009
jeanlain
Apr 12, 12:10 PM
You open it from Compressor, in the top right corner. Then, if you have a cluster (set up in Qmaster) it will show on top of "Your computer"
Here you can monitor your render progress and see how many cores are used.
See attached screen shot
I have not set up a cluster, so I only see "my computer" in the list.
Here you can monitor your render progress and see how many cores are used.
See attached screen shot
I have not set up a cluster, so I only see "my computer" in the list.
Oflife
Apr 8, 06:31 AM
Retailers create am impression of demand (as do the vendors sometimes, in particular Nintendo who mastered the art of 'selling out' of gear prior to Christmas) when they had plenty in the warehouse. Retailers also pretend to be low on stock too, so you buy an item because you were told "Ah, the system is showing just one left."
As we say in the UK, "Utter bollocks!"
:mad:
As we say in the UK, "Utter bollocks!"
:mad:
portishead
Apr 12, 12:54 PM
Then that just begs the question, "why haven't these people left already?" FCP has been fairly stagnant for years. There are plenty of other alternatives, so doesn't that kinda make them fanboyish too for sticking it out when up to this point Apple has given zero hints about when or how it will take FCP to the next level?
I'm not in the video editing biz, but if the pro s/w I use in my profession hobbled my efficiency and workflow the way you are carping about FCP, and there were viable alternatives, I would abandon it quicker than pigeon can snatch a bread crumb. Just sayin'.
People just love to complain. Yes Apple has been a little behind in the NLE business lately. They can't be on top all the time. Avid has made fantastic strides lately, and so has Adobe, although I would never advise using Premiere. You have to remember though Avid made a lot of bad moves, from nearly dropping Mac support to their closed hardware system. Just recently have they finally started to look like they got it together. FCP is being updated today, so all this nonsense about apple neglecting the pro market can stop. You may not like the update, but from what I've heard (not much) it's going to be pretty amazing.
I'm not in the video editing biz, but if the pro s/w I use in my profession hobbled my efficiency and workflow the way you are carping about FCP, and there were viable alternatives, I would abandon it quicker than pigeon can snatch a bread crumb. Just sayin'.
People just love to complain. Yes Apple has been a little behind in the NLE business lately. They can't be on top all the time. Avid has made fantastic strides lately, and so has Adobe, although I would never advise using Premiere. You have to remember though Avid made a lot of bad moves, from nearly dropping Mac support to their closed hardware system. Just recently have they finally started to look like they got it together. FCP is being updated today, so all this nonsense about apple neglecting the pro market can stop. You may not like the update, but from what I've heard (not much) it's going to be pretty amazing.
gekko513
Jul 15, 01:24 PM
The only reason I see Apple going all Woodcrest is to justify their high markups , while insulting you Mac Loyalist on price they also offer you less performance for your money.
Look here at the current woody pricing at Newegg
http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.asp?Submit=ENE&N=50001157+2010340343+1050922423&Subcategory=343&description=&srchInDesc=&minPrice=&maxPrice=
So apple is going to charge you guys $1799 for a Desktop with a 2.0ghz CPU , when everyone else will charge $1199 for a Conroe E6600 2.4ghz based desktop.
This is not looking good apple.
There's a good point here, but it's not the one you're pointing at. If Apple continues as they have with the PowerMac pricing, the Mac Pro will not be an insult if you compare it to Dells, HP and other vendors' pro offerings. Historically they have all been at very comparable price levels for comparable products. There are other differences between the lines than GHz. Quality standards for the pro/expensive lines are higher than for the consumer line, for one thing.
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.
Look here at the current woody pricing at Newegg
http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.asp?Submit=ENE&N=50001157+2010340343+1050922423&Subcategory=343&description=&srchInDesc=&minPrice=&maxPrice=
So apple is going to charge you guys $1799 for a Desktop with a 2.0ghz CPU , when everyone else will charge $1199 for a Conroe E6600 2.4ghz based desktop.
This is not looking good apple.
There's a good point here, but it's not the one you're pointing at. If Apple continues as they have with the PowerMac pricing, the Mac Pro will not be an insult if you compare it to Dells, HP and other vendors' pro offerings. Historically they have all been at very comparable price levels for comparable products. There are other differences between the lines than GHz. Quality standards for the pro/expensive lines are higher than for the consumer line, for one thing.
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.
sachamun
Nov 28, 11:57 PM
In the words of Tony Montana...
"Shu know wha' Capitalism is? Ge' *********"
http://www.blknblu.com/voxart/lts/img/tony3.gif
"Shu know wha' Capitalism is? Ge' *********"
http://www.blknblu.com/voxart/lts/img/tony3.gif
MacRumorUser
Nov 26, 05:42 PM
Hired it. Meh. It's not going to win any new audience. Car damage is still a joke and the idea of a racing simulation that still feels like I'm driving a bumper car for the most part just leaves me cold. I won't be buying and I'm glad I hired.
Riemann Zeta
Mar 25, 10:42 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Mobile/8G4)
********. If Apple is really done with Lion, then they should only be charging $29 for it (if that), like 10.6. More confusing scrollbars, tiny window controls and a better graphics/OGL support stack...add in the touch-screen readiness and you might have a quick $29 update.
I suppose, following the iOS model, Apple will likely stop charging anything for Mac OS; the OS features will revolve around new hardware features and/or gimmicks.
********. If Apple is really done with Lion, then they should only be charging $29 for it (if that), like 10.6. More confusing scrollbars, tiny window controls and a better graphics/OGL support stack...add in the touch-screen readiness and you might have a quick $29 update.
I suppose, following the iOS model, Apple will likely stop charging anything for Mac OS; the OS features will revolve around new hardware features and/or gimmicks.
chimerical
Nov 28, 07:42 PM
(Did the music companies ask for money for every CD player or Tape Recorder sold? Nope)
Actually, yes. I believe that CD-R/CD-RW blank discs and recorders have had some type of royalties fee added to the price, which gets passed down to us consumers. It's frustrating.
Actually, yes. I believe that CD-R/CD-RW blank discs and recorders have had some type of royalties fee added to the price, which gets passed down to us consumers. It's frustrating.
No comments:
Post a Comment