rickdollar
Mar 26, 11:22 PM
With the increased competition of Android I doubt Apple will be dragging their feet when it comes to moving forward with iOS. The new Web OS will be out this summer, too.
Guess we'll see soon enough.
Guess we'll see soon enough.
twoodcc
Aug 3, 11:36 PM
the news say intel has already made small shipment last month enough for product launches, .. in september.. apple will expect large shipment.
so this means launching at wwdc, available in september
if this is true, then looks like i might be stuck with a 32-bit Macbook :o unless i can make myself wait........nah
so this means launching at wwdc, available in september
if this is true, then looks like i might be stuck with a 32-bit Macbook :o unless i can make myself wait........nah
Huntn
Apr 14, 11:20 AM
This may be veering in a direction the OP does not want to go. If so, please ignore.
Speaking of taxes don't believe any politician who seeks your approval by saying "elect me and I'll lower your taxes". Most likely what they are saying is I'll lower your taxes a smidgen, but I'll give a dump truck of tax breaks to the wealthy who as leaders of industry will do their best to destroy your lively hood by exporting your job overseas.
What you want to hear from politicians on taxes is a discussion framed as "what services do we want from government, what do we want to pay for, how and who will pay for it, and expectation that the government will penalize corporations whose business practices are actively lowering the standard of living in this country."
Speaking of taxes don't believe any politician who seeks your approval by saying "elect me and I'll lower your taxes". Most likely what they are saying is I'll lower your taxes a smidgen, but I'll give a dump truck of tax breaks to the wealthy who as leaders of industry will do their best to destroy your lively hood by exporting your job overseas.
What you want to hear from politicians on taxes is a discussion framed as "what services do we want from government, what do we want to pay for, how and who will pay for it, and expectation that the government will penalize corporations whose business practices are actively lowering the standard of living in this country."
JediZenMaster
May 7, 10:26 AM
How will Apple handle paying customers' subscriptions that expire after the point this takes effect?
Maybe an apple giftcard for the difference? Like apple did for the early adopters of iPhone 2G when there was a price drop :cool:
Maybe an apple giftcard for the difference? Like apple did for the early adopters of iPhone 2G when there was a price drop :cool:
Mainyehc
Nov 26, 02:59 PM
Like this? Linkety (http://www.oqo.com/)
A bit more expensive than you would like, but otherwise seems to fit pretty well.
Hey, I remember reading about this device back when it was still a prototype. It seems that the company was founded by some ex-Apple engineers (and it certainly shows... that thing suspiciously resembles a shrunken TiBook). I thought, at the time, that using it to run XPee would be such a waste, and after seeing the final product, I'm definitely sure about it.
If there's one device that could have been developed by Apple, or deserved to run OS X, this is definitely it.
Just look at the specs:
1GHz Transmeta Crusoe
30GB hard drive (shock-mounted)
512MB DDR RAM
Dimensions: 4.9" x 3.4" x 0.9"
Weight: 14 ounces
800 x 480 W-VGA 5" transflective display (indoor/outdoor readable)
3D accelerated graphics with 8MB of video RAM
QWERTY thumb keyboard with mouse buttons and TrackStik
802.11b wireless
Bluetooth wireless
4-pin FireWire (1394)
USB 2.0
3.5mm stereo headphone jack
Microphone
Speaker
Digital pen
Removable lithium polymer battery
Battery life up to three hours, depending on usage
OQO docking cable includes:
3D accelerated 1280 x 1024 VGA video output
Additional USB
Additional FireWire (1394)
Ethernet
DC power
Audio out
These specs roughly match the early 2004 G4 iBook (it has less 1/4 of VRAM but 2x more RAM!), so with some optimization, I'm guessing Tiger/x86 would run fine on that Trasmeta processor. Sure, it's a tad expensive and the battery life isn't that great, but it has some sweet specs...
Of course, I'm preety sure Apple could do even better, especially with their accumulated experience with the iPod and all those wicked patents, and some Intel partnership and their ULV processors, so I'm very eager to see what they come up with next year... ;)
A bit more expensive than you would like, but otherwise seems to fit pretty well.
Hey, I remember reading about this device back when it was still a prototype. It seems that the company was founded by some ex-Apple engineers (and it certainly shows... that thing suspiciously resembles a shrunken TiBook). I thought, at the time, that using it to run XPee would be such a waste, and after seeing the final product, I'm definitely sure about it.
If there's one device that could have been developed by Apple, or deserved to run OS X, this is definitely it.
Just look at the specs:
1GHz Transmeta Crusoe
30GB hard drive (shock-mounted)
512MB DDR RAM
Dimensions: 4.9" x 3.4" x 0.9"
Weight: 14 ounces
800 x 480 W-VGA 5" transflective display (indoor/outdoor readable)
3D accelerated graphics with 8MB of video RAM
QWERTY thumb keyboard with mouse buttons and TrackStik
802.11b wireless
Bluetooth wireless
4-pin FireWire (1394)
USB 2.0
3.5mm stereo headphone jack
Microphone
Speaker
Digital pen
Removable lithium polymer battery
Battery life up to three hours, depending on usage
OQO docking cable includes:
3D accelerated 1280 x 1024 VGA video output
Additional USB
Additional FireWire (1394)
Ethernet
DC power
Audio out
These specs roughly match the early 2004 G4 iBook (it has less 1/4 of VRAM but 2x more RAM!), so with some optimization, I'm guessing Tiger/x86 would run fine on that Trasmeta processor. Sure, it's a tad expensive and the battery life isn't that great, but it has some sweet specs...
Of course, I'm preety sure Apple could do even better, especially with their accumulated experience with the iPod and all those wicked patents, and some Intel partnership and their ULV processors, so I'm very eager to see what they come up with next year... ;)
appleguy123
May 3, 06:42 PM
No traps in the current room so we can leave without searching the current room.
There could be treasure here. Searching this room is guaranteed to be safe, as far as I can tell.
There could be treasure here. Searching this room is guaranteed to be safe, as far as I can tell.
bhtooefr
Apr 30, 10:56 PM
OK, so a few things about this that I'm seeing...
3200x2000 background: A bit odd choice of resolution, but I think they're making a 16:10 resolution that they'll crop to 16:9 for the machine with an actually 3200px wide display.
But, that does indicate a few things.
3200x1800 makes sense if you're pixel quadrupling a 1600x900 display, which is what a 15.6" 16:9 MBP at current pixel densities would be. But, it DOESN'T make sense for pixel quadrupling the 17" MBP, or any of the desktop displays.
If the 15.6" or 15.4" MBP gets this, and the 17" doesn't... that means that (and this is pure conjecture here) the 17" isn't long for the world. How well do they sell, anyway?
As for display technology supporting a pixel-quadrupled iMac, we've had the technology for a pixel-quadrupled 21.5" iMac since 2001. The IBM T221, a 3840x2400 22.2" monitor, is the same density as that theoretical display. It was $18,000 when it came out, and by the time IBM pulled the plug on IDTech, a Viewsonic-branded version of the T221, the VP2290b, was in the $4000 ballpark in 2005. So, had the T221 followed a curve influenced more by technology improvements than by the market getting saturated with unusable monitors, we'd be seeing these panels in the $2000 range nowadays, as a standalone monitor, I think.
Now, to look at all the machines that Apple has. Keep in mind that I think that only pro hardware will get this, and Apple likes to stick to around 100-110 PPI for desktops, and 110-130 PPI for laptops.
I'll go ahead and speculate on theoretical 16:9 variants of existing models, too.
MacBook Air 11.6": Currently 1366x768, 135 ppi, retina at 25.4" - would be 2732x1536, 270 ppi, retina at 12.7"
MacBook Air 13.3": Currently 1440x900, 128 ppi, retina at 26.9" - would be 2880x1800, 255 ppi, retina at 13.5"
MacBook and MacBook Pro 13.3": Currently 1280x800, 113 ppi, retina at 30.3" - would be 2560x1600, 227 ppi, retina at 15.1"
MacBook Pro 15.4" low-res: Currently 1440x900, 110 ppi, retina at 31.2" - would be 2880x1800, 221 ppi, retina at 15.6"
MacBook Pro 15.4" high-res: Currently 1680x1050, 129 ppi, retina at 26.7" - would be 3360x2100, 257 ppi, retina at 13.4"
MacBook Pro 17.0": Currently 1920x1200, 133 ppi, retina at 25.8" - would be 3840x2400, 266 ppi, retina at 12.9"
iMac 21.5": Currently 1920x1080, 102 ppi, retina at 33.6" - would be 3840x2160, 205 ppi, retina at 16.8"
iMac/Cinema Display 27": Currently 2560x1440, 109 ppi, retina at 31.6" - would be 5120x2880, 218 ppi, retina at 15.8"
Theoretical 13.3" 16:9 low-res: 1366x768, 118 ppi, retina at 29.2" - would be 2732x1536, 236 ppi, retina at 14.6"
Theoretical 13.3" 16:9 high-res: 1600x900, 138 ppi, retina at 24.9" - would be 3200x1800, 276 ppi, retina at 12.4"
Theoretical 15.6" 16:9: 1600x900, 118 ppi, retina at 29.2" - would be 3200x1800, 235 ppi, retina at 14.6"
Theoretical 17.1" 16:9: 1920x1080, 129 ppi, retina at 26.7" - would be 3840x2160, 258 ppi, retina at 13.3"
Hrm. I am noticing a problem here for getting consistent resolutions when getting 16:9 into the mix... and, interestingly, Apple stayed on 16:10 for the 13.3" MBA. So, I wonder if this could even be a red herring of some kind? Because 3200x2000 doesn't really match up with any expected 16:10 resolution...
(Current lineup can do 255-270 ppi, which is fairly tight, ignoring the 13.3" MB(P) and the low-res 15.4" MBP, but going to 16:9, either desktop area would shrink for many users (and even then, the 11.6" and 17.1" wouldn't fit in well), or there would be a wide variance in ppi.)
Another thing to consider is the $3.9 billion that Apple pumped into LCD makers... possibly to secure a supply of retina panels?
(In case you can't tell, I'm SERIOUS about my high ppi displays. Looking at a IDTech IAQX10N, a 2048x1536 15.0" 171 ppi IPS display right now, and I'm stuck on a 5 year old machine because of it. Whoever makes something roughly equivalent or better gets my business, unless they're Sony.)
3200x2000 background: A bit odd choice of resolution, but I think they're making a 16:10 resolution that they'll crop to 16:9 for the machine with an actually 3200px wide display.
But, that does indicate a few things.
3200x1800 makes sense if you're pixel quadrupling a 1600x900 display, which is what a 15.6" 16:9 MBP at current pixel densities would be. But, it DOESN'T make sense for pixel quadrupling the 17" MBP, or any of the desktop displays.
If the 15.6" or 15.4" MBP gets this, and the 17" doesn't... that means that (and this is pure conjecture here) the 17" isn't long for the world. How well do they sell, anyway?
As for display technology supporting a pixel-quadrupled iMac, we've had the technology for a pixel-quadrupled 21.5" iMac since 2001. The IBM T221, a 3840x2400 22.2" monitor, is the same density as that theoretical display. It was $18,000 when it came out, and by the time IBM pulled the plug on IDTech, a Viewsonic-branded version of the T221, the VP2290b, was in the $4000 ballpark in 2005. So, had the T221 followed a curve influenced more by technology improvements than by the market getting saturated with unusable monitors, we'd be seeing these panels in the $2000 range nowadays, as a standalone monitor, I think.
Now, to look at all the machines that Apple has. Keep in mind that I think that only pro hardware will get this, and Apple likes to stick to around 100-110 PPI for desktops, and 110-130 PPI for laptops.
I'll go ahead and speculate on theoretical 16:9 variants of existing models, too.
MacBook Air 11.6": Currently 1366x768, 135 ppi, retina at 25.4" - would be 2732x1536, 270 ppi, retina at 12.7"
MacBook Air 13.3": Currently 1440x900, 128 ppi, retina at 26.9" - would be 2880x1800, 255 ppi, retina at 13.5"
MacBook and MacBook Pro 13.3": Currently 1280x800, 113 ppi, retina at 30.3" - would be 2560x1600, 227 ppi, retina at 15.1"
MacBook Pro 15.4" low-res: Currently 1440x900, 110 ppi, retina at 31.2" - would be 2880x1800, 221 ppi, retina at 15.6"
MacBook Pro 15.4" high-res: Currently 1680x1050, 129 ppi, retina at 26.7" - would be 3360x2100, 257 ppi, retina at 13.4"
MacBook Pro 17.0": Currently 1920x1200, 133 ppi, retina at 25.8" - would be 3840x2400, 266 ppi, retina at 12.9"
iMac 21.5": Currently 1920x1080, 102 ppi, retina at 33.6" - would be 3840x2160, 205 ppi, retina at 16.8"
iMac/Cinema Display 27": Currently 2560x1440, 109 ppi, retina at 31.6" - would be 5120x2880, 218 ppi, retina at 15.8"
Theoretical 13.3" 16:9 low-res: 1366x768, 118 ppi, retina at 29.2" - would be 2732x1536, 236 ppi, retina at 14.6"
Theoretical 13.3" 16:9 high-res: 1600x900, 138 ppi, retina at 24.9" - would be 3200x1800, 276 ppi, retina at 12.4"
Theoretical 15.6" 16:9: 1600x900, 118 ppi, retina at 29.2" - would be 3200x1800, 235 ppi, retina at 14.6"
Theoretical 17.1" 16:9: 1920x1080, 129 ppi, retina at 26.7" - would be 3840x2160, 258 ppi, retina at 13.3"
Hrm. I am noticing a problem here for getting consistent resolutions when getting 16:9 into the mix... and, interestingly, Apple stayed on 16:10 for the 13.3" MBA. So, I wonder if this could even be a red herring of some kind? Because 3200x2000 doesn't really match up with any expected 16:10 resolution...
(Current lineup can do 255-270 ppi, which is fairly tight, ignoring the 13.3" MB(P) and the low-res 15.4" MBP, but going to 16:9, either desktop area would shrink for many users (and even then, the 11.6" and 17.1" wouldn't fit in well), or there would be a wide variance in ppi.)
Another thing to consider is the $3.9 billion that Apple pumped into LCD makers... possibly to secure a supply of retina panels?
(In case you can't tell, I'm SERIOUS about my high ppi displays. Looking at a IDTech IAQX10N, a 2048x1536 15.0" 171 ppi IPS display right now, and I'm stuck on a 5 year old machine because of it. Whoever makes something roughly equivalent or better gets my business, unless they're Sony.)
zivilist
Apr 21, 05:05 PM
Max 2 SSDs or 2 HDDs?
infidel69
Mar 29, 05:37 PM
Are you willing to pay more for your Mac gadgets so they can be made here?
You're god damn right I am and not just for Mac gadgets either.
You're god damn right I am and not just for Mac gadgets either.
Mjmar
Mar 26, 10:00 PM
Fall iPhone 5?
gnasher729
Aug 12, 05:34 AM
I also think Apple will leave the MB with Yonah. They will want product differentiation and price differentiation.
So I think they will drop the price to <$1000.00 for MB and re-design MBP to provide enhancements similar to MB but with faster Merom CPU's and higher price than MB.
To be honest, I bought a MacBook and I am happy with it; it has best price/performance ratio of all the Mac notebooks and I didn't want to spend too much money (just bought it for fun). But if Apple tried to sell a MacBook with Yonah while selling MacBook Pro with Merom, where I know exactly that they could get Merom chips at the same price as Yonahs, just for "product differentiation", I would tell them to stuff it.
So I think they will drop the price to <$1000.00 for MB and re-design MBP to provide enhancements similar to MB but with faster Merom CPU's and higher price than MB.
To be honest, I bought a MacBook and I am happy with it; it has best price/performance ratio of all the Mac notebooks and I didn't want to spend too much money (just bought it for fun). But if Apple tried to sell a MacBook with Yonah while selling MacBook Pro with Merom, where I know exactly that they could get Merom chips at the same price as Yonahs, just for "product differentiation", I would tell them to stuff it.
JAT
Apr 20, 09:42 AM
Not a summer update? Surprising.
September is summer.
September is summer.
ender land
Apr 10, 01:19 PM
using Pemdas or the correct order of operations in the first problem
we first add whats in the parentheses (9+3)= 12
second step we multiply 2(12) =24
final step 48/24 = 2
the people who are getting 288
are adding (9+3) =12
then they are skipping an order of operations and going straight to division 48/2 =24
24 * 12 = 288
Does division come after multiplication in order of operations? I had always thought you treated both multiplication and division the same and executed those operations sequentially, reading left to right.
I'm calling BS on you being a math teacher.
McGiord - "Mac OS X cannot be wrong on this: [refering to picture showing 2 as answer]." Perhaps you do not remember saying this? What about "Mac OS X cannot be wrong"? I know reading your posts results in fail, but associating that fail with someone else failing at reading is a bit of a stretch.
And for what it's worth, I guess I am quite happy if my current position is "failing at math" considering I make a fair bit of money for "failing at math" in a technical field.
we first add whats in the parentheses (9+3)= 12
second step we multiply 2(12) =24
final step 48/24 = 2
the people who are getting 288
are adding (9+3) =12
then they are skipping an order of operations and going straight to division 48/2 =24
24 * 12 = 288
Does division come after multiplication in order of operations? I had always thought you treated both multiplication and division the same and executed those operations sequentially, reading left to right.
I'm calling BS on you being a math teacher.
McGiord - "Mac OS X cannot be wrong on this: [refering to picture showing 2 as answer]." Perhaps you do not remember saying this? What about "Mac OS X cannot be wrong"? I know reading your posts results in fail, but associating that fail with someone else failing at reading is a bit of a stretch.
And for what it's worth, I guess I am quite happy if my current position is "failing at math" considering I make a fair bit of money for "failing at math" in a technical field.
nmrrjw66
Apr 15, 07:17 PM
:mad::mad::mad: I am seriously starting to get pissed.
9 Things the Rich Don't Want You To Know About Taxes (http://www.wweek.com/portland/print-article-17350-print.html)
It's a long article so here are some excerpts;
3. In fact, the wealthy are paying less taxes.
The Internal Revenue Service issues an annual report on the 400 highest income-tax payers. In 1961, there were 398 taxpayers who made $1 million or more, so I compared their income tax burdens from that year to 2007.
Despite skyrocketing incomes, the federal tax burden on the richest 400 has been slashed, thanks to a variety of loopholes, allowable deductions and other tools. The actual share of their income paid in taxes, according to the IRS, is 16.6 percent. Adding payroll taxes barely nudges that number.
Compare that to the vast majority of Americans, whose share of their income going to federal taxes increased from 13.1 percent in 1961 to 22.5 percent in 2007.
(By the way, during seven of the eight George W. Bush years, the IRS report on the top 400 taxpayers was labeled a state secret, a policy that the Obama administration overturned almost instantly after his inauguration.)
4. Many of the very richest pay no current income taxes at all.
John Paulson, the most successful hedge-fund manager of all, bet against the mortgage market one year and then bet with Glenn Beck in the gold market the next. Paulson made himself $9 billion in fees in just two years. His current tax bill on that $9 billion? Zero.
Congress lets hedge-fund managers earn all they can now and pay their taxes years from now.
In Congress debated whether hedge-fund managers should pay the top tax rate that applies to wages, bonuses and other compensation for their labors, which is 35 percent. That tax rate starts at about $300,000 of taxable income�not even pocket change to Paulson, but almost 12 years of gross pay to the median-wage worker.
WTF does someone even do with 9 billion dollars?
9 Things the Rich Don't Want You To Know About Taxes (http://www.wweek.com/portland/print-article-17350-print.html)
It's a long article so here are some excerpts;
3. In fact, the wealthy are paying less taxes.
The Internal Revenue Service issues an annual report on the 400 highest income-tax payers. In 1961, there were 398 taxpayers who made $1 million or more, so I compared their income tax burdens from that year to 2007.
Despite skyrocketing incomes, the federal tax burden on the richest 400 has been slashed, thanks to a variety of loopholes, allowable deductions and other tools. The actual share of their income paid in taxes, according to the IRS, is 16.6 percent. Adding payroll taxes barely nudges that number.
Compare that to the vast majority of Americans, whose share of their income going to federal taxes increased from 13.1 percent in 1961 to 22.5 percent in 2007.
(By the way, during seven of the eight George W. Bush years, the IRS report on the top 400 taxpayers was labeled a state secret, a policy that the Obama administration overturned almost instantly after his inauguration.)
4. Many of the very richest pay no current income taxes at all.
John Paulson, the most successful hedge-fund manager of all, bet against the mortgage market one year and then bet with Glenn Beck in the gold market the next. Paulson made himself $9 billion in fees in just two years. His current tax bill on that $9 billion? Zero.
Congress lets hedge-fund managers earn all they can now and pay their taxes years from now.
In Congress debated whether hedge-fund managers should pay the top tax rate that applies to wages, bonuses and other compensation for their labors, which is 35 percent. That tax rate starts at about $300,000 of taxable income�not even pocket change to Paulson, but almost 12 years of gross pay to the median-wage worker.
WTF does someone even do with 9 billion dollars?
wordoflife
May 2, 08:57 PM
In school we do stuff in metrics because its "the international system" but anyways, it would be too hard/annoying to just start using it. People in the US are more familiar with a foot rather than a metre, and thats just gonna throw everyone off.
z3r0
Apr 21, 08:29 PM
Reducing the Mac Pro's size is a huge step backwards! It will reduce space for storage, ram, heat fans, cpu, heat sinks, PCI-X/gpu slots, and optical drives!
The only thing that will increase is HEAT! That will lead to reliability problems as more stress will be put on internal components with the increase in HEAT!
Not to mention if you do plan on using a Mac Pro as a server, redundant power supplies are a must! That means more space is needed!
What about raid cards and gpu's? Will they need to be redesigned to fit in the Mac Pro? Please don't tell me Apple will put in an integrated Intel GPU that would epitome of stupid! The Mac Pro is a workhorse! A beast! If anything go bigger!
Apple should just apologize and release a new Xserve! :D
That or make a deal with Oracle to get Lion Server on Sun Fire servers. Another option is to open source/port their server software to FreeBSD!
The only thing that will increase is HEAT! That will lead to reliability problems as more stress will be put on internal components with the increase in HEAT!
Not to mention if you do plan on using a Mac Pro as a server, redundant power supplies are a must! That means more space is needed!
What about raid cards and gpu's? Will they need to be redesigned to fit in the Mac Pro? Please don't tell me Apple will put in an integrated Intel GPU that would epitome of stupid! The Mac Pro is a workhorse! A beast! If anything go bigger!
Apple should just apologize and release a new Xserve! :D
That or make a deal with Oracle to get Lion Server on Sun Fire servers. Another option is to open source/port their server software to FreeBSD!
wclyffe
Nov 28, 03:37 PM
There is absolutely no room for any case to work with the TomTom car kit.
I'm guessing you could have a clear protector application like Invisible Shield to prevent scratches and that would fit fine.
I'm guessing you could have a clear protector application like Invisible Shield to prevent scratches and that would fit fine.
poppe
Jul 22, 02:32 PM
I'd like to see Mac Minis start at $499, MacBooks & iMacs start at $999, MacBook Pro start out at $1499 and the Mac Pro at $1999. Maybe add a midtower mac at $1499. Don't know how likely this is, but just a thought
Or other wise keep the prices and go 1 gig RAM all up and down the system
Or other wise keep the prices and go 1 gig RAM all up and down the system
blazinz
Apr 20, 12:27 AM
Springing for just a faster processor. Dont't think thats gonna happen. I'll just stick with my iP4 until the following year...
dba7dba
Apr 7, 02:43 PM
This is what Sammy, HP, LG, Moto, et al need to be competing against. They've already lost to the iPad. The war is over. Don't lose the next war against Apple's next big thing.
I can say CONFIDENTLY that the war is NOT over. It's been what 2 years? No way. Apple may have the upper hand in the battle but has NOT won the war.
I can say CONFIDENTLY that the war is NOT over. It's been what 2 years? No way. Apple may have the upper hand in the battle but has NOT won the war.
Small White Car
Apr 26, 02:39 PM
Can the iPhone succeed when devs start to divert resources to Android development? Will the "cool" factor of owning an iPhone save it when the next "Angry Birds" type game is only available on Android?
That's a funny example you've got there since Angry Birds (one of the biggest success stories on any platform) has had extreme trouble figuring out how to earn money directly from Android users.
If THEY can't even do it easily then what does that mean for other Android developers?
That's a funny example you've got there since Angry Birds (one of the biggest success stories on any platform) has had extreme trouble figuring out how to earn money directly from Android users.
If THEY can't even do it easily then what does that mean for other Android developers?
phatpat88
Jul 30, 02:12 AM
Frankly, I don't buy engaget's report.. a "tech-unsavvy friend" sounds like complete BS. All the pros that would do something like that for apple would certainly be tech savvy, they have to now...
Hairball
Mar 26, 09:54 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)
I hope I can upgrade as soon as the iPhone 5 is released. This 3GS is getting old.
I hope I can upgrade as soon as the iPhone 5 is released. This 3GS is getting old.
-aggie-
Apr 9, 06:34 PM
48.
No comments:
Post a Comment