Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Hardware - Troubleshooting and Discussion > Mac Desktops > 23" iMac on Sept. 12?

23" iMac on Sept. 12?
Thread Tools
Eug
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Caught in a web of deceit.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 1, 2006, 01:55 PM
 
Rumours of a 23-inch iMac Core 2 Duo

Take the above with a grain of salt obviously, but I would buy a 23" Core 2 Duo iMac to replace my current G5 iMac. However, I'd want HDCP support.
     
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Cambridge, UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 1, 2006, 02:15 PM
 
So this would make it 17, 20 and 23? Or would they get rid of the 17?

Sounds interesting, and I want it! It would probably well out of my price range though (if it exists/materialises)
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Near Antietam Creek
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 1, 2006, 02:17 PM
 
AppleInsider | Intel's Merom to power Apple's next-gen iMacs

Second 23" iMac story...

Merom inside - no Conroe
I am stupidest when I try to be funny.
     
Eug  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Caught in a web of deceit.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 1, 2006, 02:19 PM
 
I dunno if they'd keep the 17", if the 23" appeared.

My guess is that they would keep the 17" for price reasons, but then again, I thought they were going to keep the 15" for longer than they did.
     
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Cambridge, UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 1, 2006, 02:20 PM
 
Maybe it is true then. We can hope
     
Eug  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Caught in a web of deceit.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 1, 2006, 02:23 PM
 
Originally Posted by seanc
Maybe it is true then. We can hope
I wonder if AI is just repeating the MOSXR (not MOSR) rumour. According to Macrumors, MOSXR also said it was going to be Core 2 Duo Merom. (I can't access MOSXR at the moment. They must be getting hit hard.)
     
Mac Elite
Join Date: Aug 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 1, 2006, 03:05 PM
 
This makes me sort of annoyed. Are they saying that my brand new 23" ACD is going to be only as big as the iMac's screen now?
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Los Angeles of the East
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 1, 2006, 03:08 PM
 
and? does that make youre 23" any smaller or less productive?
NOW YOU SEE ME! 2.4 MBP and 2.0 MBP (running ubuntu)
     
Mac Elite
Join Date: Aug 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 1, 2006, 03:09 PM
 
Originally Posted by iREZ
and? does that make youre 23" any smaller or less productive?
It makes it feel like a consumer monitor... But yeah, you're right.
     
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 1, 2006, 03:30 PM
 
i bet it still won't be big enough to put a modem in it.
     
Eug  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Caught in a web of deceit.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 1, 2006, 03:43 PM
 
Originally Posted by macgeek2005
It makes it feel like a consumer monitor... But yeah, you're right.
Well, it's certainly progressing that way. When the iMac went to 20 inches, a 20 inch monitor wasn't truly a "consumer" monitor, but it was dropping quickly in price so that it became feasible. I have seen the same thing happening with the 23" as well. In fact the 20 inch monitors are practically disposable these days. Just a quick check shows that you can get a new 2nd tier brand 20 inch monitor for under US$300. (This might be a reason for Apple to drop the 17" iMac actually.)

Plus "consumers" like me have been pining for a 23 incher for years now.


Originally Posted by gooser
i bet it still won't be big enough to put a modem in it.
I bet you're right.
     
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Cambridge, UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 1, 2006, 03:47 PM
 
The only use I'd have for dial up is when my broadband goes out. Very few people use it these days, the only ones I know that do are old people who see no point in upgrading or people who can't get it in their areas.
     
Mac Elite
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Anywhere but here.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 1, 2006, 06:02 PM
 
I hope it's true, I would be all over this! It would be nice it was 24" As I use my current iMac as my digital hub (watch moves, tv shows, etc...) I only wish the screen was a little larger even though the current 20" suits me well.
     
Mac Elite
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 1, 2006, 06:05 PM
 
Originally Posted by the_glassman
I hope it's true, I would be all over this! It would be nice it was 24" As I use my current iMac as my digital hub (watch moves, tv shows, etc...) I only wish the screen was a little larger even though the current 20" suits me well.
Wow, who would want a 24", anyway? My dad has a 30" Cinema Display and that beast is too big as far as I'm concerned. The whole desk is in its shadow! The 20" on my new iMac Core Duo is fabulous, but even it is a little too big for my needs.

That said, if I did the kind of work that required a lot of space, a 20" iMac with a 20" Cinema Display alongside it sounds better to me. You don't have to use the other screen when you don't need it, and if you're working on say, a comic-book spread or a catalog or a newspaper or something, you can turn the other one on. My kind of setup!
     
Eug  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Caught in a web of deceit.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 1, 2006, 06:10 PM
 
I find the 20" iMac too small, and dual 20" screens takes up too much space.

I have been wanting a 23" iMac ever since before I even bought my 20" G5 iMac. A dual-core 2.0 GHz iMac Core 2 Duo Merom would rawk. I still say a 2.33 GHz Conroe would probably be OK in an iMac, especally at 23", but according to these rumour site, Apple thinks otherwise.

I'm thinking that if Apple does release a 23" iMac (with HDCP support), then I may get it for home, and bring the 20" iMac I have now to work.

So, what am I gonna do with my Cube then?
     
Mac Elite
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 1, 2006, 06:11 PM
 
Originally Posted by Eug
So, what am I gonna do with my Cube then?
Install Ubuntu Server on it.
     
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Cambridge, UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 1, 2006, 06:12 PM
 
Make it a file server. Leave OS X on there, SO much simpler than Ubuntu.
     
Mac Elite
Join Date: Aug 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 1, 2006, 06:14 PM
 
Originally Posted by Eug
I find the 20" iMac too small, and dual 20" screens takes up too much space.

I have been wanting a 23" iMac ever since before I even bought my 20" G5 iMac. A dual-core 2.0 GHz iMac Core 2 Duo Merom would rawk. I still say a 2.33 GHz Conroe would probably be OK in an iMac, especally at 23", but according to these rumour site, Apple thinks otherwise.

I'm thinking that if Apple does release a 23" iMac (with HDCP support), then I may get it for home, and bring the 20" iMac I have now to work.

So, what am I gonna do with my Cube then?
Why would apple have HDCP support in the iMac and not in the Cinema Displays???
     
Eug  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Caught in a web of deceit.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 1, 2006, 06:15 PM
 
Originally Posted by seanc
Make it a file server.
I serve files from my iMac. 400 GB drive.

Originally Posted by macgeek2005
Why would apple have HDCP support in the iMac and not in the Cinema Displays???
I expect the Cinema Displays to get HDCP support very soon. They were last updated in October 2005. (I'm not counting the minor panel spec changes in August.)

If Apple doesn't update the iMacs to include HDCP support, then I'm willing to wait another generation.
     
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Cambridge, UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 1, 2006, 06:20 PM
 
You can never have too many backup solutions.
     
Eug  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Caught in a web of deceit.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 1, 2006, 06:27 PM
 
Originally Posted by seanc
You can never have too many backup solutions.
Well, the max drive size in a Cube is only 120 GB. Plus I have several Firewire hard drives for backup. Furthermore, I backup all my important documents to DVD.

I can't wait for Blu-ray/HD-DVD to become reasonably priced though. Backing up 35 GB of music is a pain on DVD. (I like having secondary backups on non-magnetic media.)
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Seattle, Washington
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 1, 2006, 06:32 PM
 
I don't think that I would buy a 23 inch iMac. That would be too big, and I don't really think that there is a market for it. People who buy a large screen buy a Power Mac or Mac Pro to go with it since they are pros. Also the iMac is a consumer computer.
     
Eug  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Caught in a web of deceit.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 1, 2006, 06:36 PM
 
Originally Posted by imitchellg5
I don't think that I would buy a 23 inch iMac. That would be too big, and I don't really think that there is a market for it. People who buy a large screen buy a Power Mac or Mac Pro to go with it since they are pros. Also the iMac is a consumer computer.
That's exactly what people said about a 20" iMac before the 20" iMac came out.

BTW, as has already been mentioned, I am a "consumer" and I most definitely want a 23" iMac. I have zero desire to buy a tower. In my case, it'd just be a waste of space and money.
     
Forum Regular
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Berlin, Germany
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 1, 2006, 06:43 PM
 
If they make a 23", can they please make the chin smaller? or make it disappear? Or something like that. that would look amazing.
2,4GHz iMac | 320GB Passport | BT Keyboard | MX Revolution | 4GB iPod nano
Blog | Flickr | deviantART
     
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Seattle
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 1, 2006, 07:06 PM
 
I agree with grinder in the hopes that any new iMac will be more svelte. Speaking of wishes... doesnt anyone else here wish for eSata and/or ExpressCard (should a manufacture start making real cards and not just readers)
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Near Antietam Creek
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 1, 2006, 07:06 PM
 
Let the pricing-is-right guessing begin:

23"/2.33Ghz = $1899

20"/2.16Ghz = $1499

17"/2.0Ghz = $1199 (I don't believe it will be dropped)
I am stupidest when I try to be funny.
     
Mac Elite
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 1, 2006, 07:16 PM
 
Originally Posted by seanc
Make it a file server. Leave OS X on there, SO much simpler than Ubuntu.
True. But at least it beats Windows.
     
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Cambridge, UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 1, 2006, 07:46 PM
 
Originally Posted by selowitch
True. But at least it beats Windows.
I'd actually rather use Windows than try and configure my computer via the command line or change values in a text file to make my graphics adapter work. Ubuntu is going places, but it needs to get better.
     
Mac Elite
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 1, 2006, 07:54 PM
 
Originally Posted by seanc
I'd actually rather use Windows than try and configure my computer via the command line or change values in a text file to make my graphics adapter work. Ubuntu is going places, but it needs to get better.
Ssssshhhh!
You know that's heresy around here. Not that I disagree with you, of course. I have a WinXP partition on my new Core Duo. I hate it, but it sure comes in handy when I have to test my web pages against Internet Explorer for Windows. Also, it's nice to play games that aren't available for MacOS. Star Wars: Empire at War, anyone?
     
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Cambridge, UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 1, 2006, 07:58 PM
 
Blech IE, if it restores your faith in me, I'm using a 400mhz PowerMac G3 with 384mb Ram and Tiger over a 2.66ghz Dual Core Pentium D with 1gb of Ram and XP.
     
Mac Elite
Join Date: Aug 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 1, 2006, 08:16 PM
 
Originally Posted by Eug
I serve files from my iMac. 400 GB drive.


I expect the Cinema Displays to get HDCP support very soon. They were last updated in October 2005. (I'm not counting the minor panel spec changes in August.)

If Apple doesn't update the iMacs to include HDCP support, then I'm willing to wait another generation.
NOOOOOO!!! Please don't say that! I JUST BOUGHT a 23" ACD!
     
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 1, 2006, 08:58 PM
 
Personally, I think the 20" iMac is pretty unattractive compared to the 17". My 17 looks so cute, whereas the 20s I've used look bloated and too big. When working on the 20s at school, setting them up, there were a few comments along the lines of... whooa, thats way too big, and not very pretty'.

I think a 23" would just be plain fugly. but thats my opinion. I also hate the way the 20" is thicker than the 17, even though theres more space inside due to the larger width & height of the enclosure
iMac Core Duo 1.83 Ghz | 1.25GB RAM | 160HD, MacBook Core Duo 1.83 Ghz | 13.3" | 60HD | 1.0GB RAM
     
Mac Elite
Join Date: Aug 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 1, 2006, 09:02 PM
 
How much would a current 23" ACD be worth after HDCP ACD's are released?
     
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Durham, NC
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 1, 2006, 09:35 PM
 
Good grief, I've still been kicking around whether to complement my iMac G5 with a MacBook, but if a 23" iMac comes out, I'm gonna seriously want to donate the G5 to my girlfriend and get a bigger iMac. I do mostly e-mail, web browsing, and homework on my 20" screen, but it seems no matter how much resolution I get, I figure out ways to clutter it.

Which of course might make me go crazy if I get a low-res laptop..

Anyway, yeah. 23" might be too big for some folks, but I think plenty of people would love it. I still think Apple would do better to put out that Headless Wonder Mac, but I'd probably rather by a Jumbo iMac.
     
Mac Elite
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Home in front of my computer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 1, 2006, 09:47 PM
 
If they released a 23" at the price of the 20" and dropped the 20" to the price of the 17", I would get a 20". Ecstatically.
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Seattle, Washington
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 1, 2006, 11:17 PM
 
Originally Posted by Jasoco
If they released a 23" at the price of the 20" and dropped the 20" to the price of the 17", I would get a 20". Ecstatically.
That is the only way I would buy a 23 inch iMac is if it would be at the current 20" iMac price. Then I could see it being a hit. But I also would hate to see the 17 go away, it is a beautiful computer. Maybe make the 17 inch $899.
     
Eug  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Caught in a web of deceit.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 1, 2006, 11:39 PM
 
The current 20" iMac is US$1699/CAD$1899.

I'd pay US$1999/CAD$2249 for a 23 incher (minus the educational discount).
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: in front of my Mac
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 2, 2006, 02:29 AM
 
Originally Posted by Eug
So, what am I gonna do with my Cube then?
Toss it. Too young to be a vintage Mac, to old to be useful.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: BFE
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 2, 2006, 11:15 AM
 
23? I'd move up from my 20" in a heartbeat! The Mac Pros are too "pro" for me.

I'm a bird. I am the 1% (of pets).
     
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Cambridge, UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 2, 2006, 11:43 AM
 
Originally Posted by Simon
Toss it. Too young to be a vintage Mac, to old to be useful.
Definitely. Eug's Cube runs at 0 mhz
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: brooklyn ny
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 2, 2006, 12:51 PM
 
Originally Posted by harrisjamieh
Personally, I think the 20" iMac is pretty unattractive compared to the 17". My 17 looks so cute, whereas the 20s I've used look bloated and too big. When working on the 20s at school, setting them up, there were a few comments along the lines of... whooa, thats way too big, and not very pretty'.

I think a 23" would just be plain fugly. but thats my opinion. I also hate the way the 20" is thicker than the 17, even though theres more space inside due to the larger width & height of the enclosure

hmmm...
guy i work with has several 20" imacs in his office.
we think they look better than the 17"...

the 20" seems to be about the screen (with a computer tucked inside)
the 17" looks like a computer with a screen added...

true, all a matter of opinion.
but i'm thinking of getting one this fall (and keeping my 12" powerbook).

guess we'll have to see what they look like: a thinner imac, 23" would be amazing...
"At first, there was Nothing. Then Nothing inverted itself and became Something.
And that is what you all are: inverted Nothings...with potential" (Sun Ra)
     
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Feb 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 2, 2006, 02:06 PM
 
I have a 17-inch iMac G5. I was thinking of getting the Merom MacBook Pro when it comes out, but things have changed a little bit for me.

The talk of a 23-inch iMac appeals to me.

Before this rumor actually surfaced as now being somewhat plausible, I was thinking of getting a Mac mini. I would use a 23-inch iMac as a TV too if it came with that feature (or I could add those features 3rd party). I don't know, I guess I would have to see it first then decide on what I want to do.

After all, it is a rumor, and like every Mac rumor, you can't really get a good idea about the product until Apple unleashes it (along with the marketing RDF).
Dave Hagan | Apple Certified Technical Coordinator | iMac G5 1.9GHz | PowerBook G4 1.5GHz | Power Mac G4 933 MHz
     
Eug  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Caught in a web of deceit.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 2, 2006, 04:15 PM
 
Originally Posted by grinder
If they make a 23", can they please make the chin smaller? or make it disappear? Or something like that. that would look amazing.
I don't mind the chin look at all.


Originally Posted by fisherKing
hmmm...
guy i work with has several 20" imacs in his office.
we think they look better than the 17"...
I think they both look good, but I too prefer the 20".


Originally Posted by fisherKing
guess we'll have to see what they look like: a thinner imac, 23" would be amazing...
The thickness/thinness doesn't concern me that much for a desktop. In fact, I'd prefer it to be thicker if it meant I could put a second hard drive in it. Yeah, I know that's what the towers are for, but I have no desire to buy a humungous tower, and don't need quad either.

I do wonder how realistic it is though to hope for HDCP support. GPUs suitable for the iMac are already available with HDCP support, but it does add cost for something many people won't use, esp. since this coming iteration of the iMac won't come with an HD-DVD or Blu-ray drive.

It'd also be nice if Apple would incorporate H.264 & VC-1 GPU-assist functionality into the OS, but I suspect Apple is simply relying on the CPU to take care of that. (A dual-core Merom 2.0 is more than sufficient for 1080p24. Still, it'd be nice not to have to use 150% of your dual-core CPU just to play back video.)
     
Mac Elite
Join Date: Aug 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 2, 2006, 04:26 PM
 
Originally Posted by Eug
I don't mind the chin look at all.



I think they both look good, but I too prefer the 20".



The thickness/thinness doesn't concern me that much for a desktop. In fact, I'd prefer it to be thicker if it meant I could put a second hard drive in it. Yeah, I know that's what the towers are for, but I have no desire to buy a humungous tower, and don't need quad either.

I do wonder how realistic it is though to hope for HDCP support. GPUs suitable for the iMac are already available with HDCP support, but it does add cost for something many people won't use, esp. since this coming iteration of the iMac won't come with an HD-DVD or Blu-ray drive.

It'd also be nice if Apple would incorporate H.264 & VC-1 GPU-assist functionality into the OS, but I suspect Apple is simply relying on the CPU to take care of that. (A dual-core Merom 2.0 is more than sufficient for 1080p24. Still, it'd be nice not to have to use 150% of your dual-core CPU just to play back video.)
I was just playing a 1080dpi HD trailer on a 2.0Ghz iMac, and it played flawlessly at 24fps.

I didn't check how much CPU it was using up though, but there were backround tasks going on.

But if what you say is true, a Quad 3.0Ghz CPU should be able to handle HD video just fine even without HDCP support...
     
Mac Elite
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Home in front of my computer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 3, 2006, 12:18 AM
 
Glad to know 1080i runs well on an Intel Mac. 720 runs like crap on my current G4 Mac mini. (BTW, how about the Intel Mac mini. How does 1080 work there?)
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Dangling something in the water… of the Arabian Sea
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 3, 2006, 12:27 AM
 
Originally Posted by macgeek2005
I was just playing a 1080dpi HD trailer on a 2.0Ghz iMac, and it played flawlessly at 24fps.

I didn't check how much CPU it was using up though, but there were backround tasks going on.
It's up to about 150% on my MacBook Core Duo 2.0 for movie trailers (Batman Begins) at 1080p. Other videos will use more.


Originally Posted by macgeek2005
But if what you say is true, a Quad 3.0Ghz CPU should be able to handle HD video just fine even without HDCP support...
What does that have to do with a consumer oriented desktop Mac?

Anyways, HDCP has nothing to do with CPU usage. It's a DRM requirement for commercial HD content.


Originally Posted by Jasoco
Glad to know 1080i runs well on an Intel Mac. 720 runs like crap on my current G4 Mac mini. (BTW, how about the Intel Mac mini. How does 1080 work there?)
Works OK, if you have a Core Duo.
( Last edited by Eug Wanker; Sep 3, 2006 at 12:36 AM. )
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: in front of my Mac
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 3, 2006, 03:23 AM
 
Originally Posted by Eug Wanker
It's up to about 150% on my MacBook Core Duo 2.0 for movie trailers (Batman Begins) at 1080p.
How do you do that? Shrink the window so it fits the MB screen? The 1080p trailers I just tried didn't even fit on my 23" ACD and the MB won't drive a 30" ACD.
     
Mac Elite
Join Date: Aug 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 3, 2006, 03:29 AM
 
Originally Posted by Simon
How do you do that? Shrink the window so it fits the MB screen? The 1080p trailers I just tried didn't even fit on my 23" ACD and the MB won't drive a 30" ACD.
1080p almost fits on a 20" ACD. It definetaly fits on a 23" ACD.
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: in front of my Mac
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 3, 2006, 04:01 AM
 
Weird. I went to Apple.com and wanted to try the Driving Lessons trailer to see how much load it puts on my MBP.

Apple - Trailers - Driving Lessons - HD

The 1080p wouldn't fit on my 23" ACD. That's why I'm wondering how you do the testing.

Are there different aspect ratios making some 1080p clips wider than others?
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: eating kernel
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 3, 2006, 04:11 AM
 
Originally Posted by EugSo
, what am I gonna do with my Cube then?
Give it to me, please!?
Signature depreciated.
     
 
Thread Tools
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:36 AM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2015 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd., Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.3.2