Apple has updated the iBook/Mini product lines, increasing standard RAM to 512MB on all models. Contrary to many rumors, the new iBooks do not sport widescreen. All iBooks and two of the now three Mac Minis contain AirPort Extreme and Bluetooth. My take: Not a word on better harddrives in the Mini Macs, which is something I personally hoped for.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:2005-07-06
>> If it said anything to that affect I certainly didn't
>> see that. if I'm wrong I'm wrong.
>Yep. You won't admit it though.
If I ever find it I will.
>> Any comments in that respect were in response to Ars's
>> article which made that implication.
>What it was was just speculation. Which was my point. Speculation +
>flamebait = speculative flamebait.
The speculation part was on Ars technicas part. Not the Journalist for osViews. Your whole argument is on the pasis that the osViews editorial was speculating about something, yet it doesn't speculate at all. Its a response to Ars' speculation. The fact that you are striving so hard to find fault where there is none is very telling about the agenda you seem to have.
>> The previous thread discussing this topic suggested
>> that I was challenging his technical expertise which
>> was not true.
>I didn't make any such suggestion.
I didn't say you did, but because you referenced raynieer hasheem who (if memory serves) was the one you who took issue with me saying that, I felt it necessary to set the record strait lest you adopt his comments for that discusson.
>> How does pointing out his misperceptions make me the
>> fanboy?
Your erratic, erroneous, overzealous spam made you the fanboy.
But the comments weren't erratic nor erroneous nor ov erzealous. The fact that you think of them as such may be telling of your fanboy nature though.
>"Your claims of him being a fanboy was him commenting on market
>trends. That was your big long-standing PC bias. Seriously warped."
But I was commenting on his comments about market trends that weren't true. The fact that you don't recognise this either shows how far off your perspectives are to what the computing industry is think or shows how warped you are.
>> If I ever start giving you nonsense, I'll know to stop.
>I doubt it.
At least now you recognise that I haven't yet started.
> Thats a given... but then why bring it up if I
> haven't said anything to the contrary?
>You attempted to vail your own ignorance by distraction.
i did no such thing.
>You don't know what Apple's global install base is.
I don't?
>You don't have any proof of what it is.
How do you know?
>> Until you start speaking to market research
>> companies, perhaps you shouldn't challenge those of
>> use that have.
>Which obviously doesn't include you, if you need for me to pay for
>you to access statistics.
For someone who doesn't read osViews you sure do like to make a lot of presumptions about me... even after telling you that I do in fact have the information for which you claim I do not have. I told you at least 2 times so far that I have spoken to Garter research about this and can not give you numbers or data from this without having purchased it first. I did give you a link to an article I wrote on osViews, which draws logical conclusions based on google's statistcs which indicate install base. Given that I had the gartner information before I wrote the Google article, you would think that you might put two and two together and see that this is my way of stating what I know without divulging anything that was proved to me in confidence... but I guess you didn't do that.
Member since:2005-06-30
> The fact that you are striving so hard to find fault
> where there is none is very telling about the agenda
> you seem to have.
The hardest I strove to find fault was to waste my time reading the article. Yes, it's telling of my agenda. Do tell me what my agenda is, dear reader.
> I didn't say you did, but because you referenced
> raynieer hasheem who (if memory serves) was the one
> you who took issue with me saying that, I felt it
> necessary to set the record strait lest you adopt his
> comments for that discusson.
Yeah, nice straw grasping. I specifically referred to him providing you with a link. Nothing else.
> But the comments weren't erratic nor erroneous nor ov
> erzealous. The fact that you think of them as such
> may be telling of your fanboy nature though.
They were wrong, spammy, and full of delusion. I am apparently the Hannibal fanboy, I take it? Well at least you aren't calling him a fanboy now; just me.
> But I was commenting on his comments about market
> trends that weren't true. The fact that you don't
> recognise this either shows how far off your
> perspectives are to what the computing industry is
> think or shows how warped you are.
What wasn't true about his trends? and if they are false--which you haven't established--how does that constitute a long-standing PC bias?
> At least now you recognise that I haven't yet
> started.
Your reading comprehension is not impressing me.
> I don't?
> How do you know?
Ah, so you have this proof? Please, let's see it. No? I didn't think so.
> I told you at least 2 times so far that I have spoken
> to Garter research about this and can not give you
> numbers or data from this without having purchased it
> first. I did give you a link to an article I wrote on
> osViews, which draws logical conclusions based on
> google's statistcs which indicate install base.
Google's statistics are completely useless for calculating install base.
> you would think that you might put two and two
> together and see that this is my way of stating what
> I know without divulging anything that was proved to
> me in confidence... but I guess you didn't do that.
Proved to you in confidence? That's wonderful. Truly impressive.
Member since:
2005-06-30
> If it said anything to that affect I certainly didn't
> see that. if I'm wrong I'm wrong.
Yep. You won't admit it though.
> Any comments in that respect were in response to Ars's
> article which made that implication.
What it was was just speculation. Which was my point. Speculation + flamebait = speculative flamebait.
> The article was not about proving anything.
Was that before or after it was disproving the other article?
> The previous thread discussing this topic suggested
> that I was challenging his technical expertise which
> was not true.
I didn't make any such suggestion. When you respond to something that I have said by erecting a straw man based upon someone else's comment to you, that wastes everyone else's time. Right now because you couldn't admit that you didn't actually know what you pretended to, this off-topic discussion has dwarfed legitimate conversation regarding Apple's refresh.
> How does pointing out his misperceptions make me the
> fanboy?
Your erratic, erroneous, overzealous spam made you the fanboy. Your claims of him being a fanboy was him commenting on market trends. That was your big long-standing PC bias. Seriously warped.
> If I ever start giving you nonsense, I'll know to stop.
I doubt it.
> Thats a given... but then why bring it up if I
> haven't said anything to the contrary?
You attempted to vail your own ignorance by distraction. You don't know what Apple's global install base is. You don't have any proof of what it is. You have nothing. Did you say that? No. You kept claiming an article that didn't say anything about it was evidence.
> Until you start speaking to market research
> companies, perhaps you shouldn't challenge those of
> use that have.
Which obviously doesn't include you, if you need for me to pay for you to access statistics.