User Name
Password
AppleNova Forums » Speculation and Rumors »

Mac Pro - 2011 and beyond


Register Members List Calendar Search FAQ Posting Guidelines
Mac Pro - 2011 and beyond
Page 3 of 20 Previous 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7  Next Last Thread Tools
nikstar101
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Send a message via Yahoo to nikstar101  
2011-10-31, 17:29

Well it looks like Apple may not go ahead with an updated Mac Pro! I would be very sad to see the Mac Pro canned, but from the statistics i can certainly understand why Apple would. And i have a worrying feeling that this new Apple (OK over the last 5 years) will make radical changes to suit its profitability.

http://www.macrumors.com/2011/10/31/...-mac-pro-line/
 
drewprops
Space Pirate
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Atlanta
 
2011-10-31, 17:52

It has become more and more evident that it might be time for a Hackintosh.

Having read the Steve Jobs biography it seems to me that YES, they're working on rumored device X at any given moment in time, and YES they're killing the pro line, and YES they're committed only to producing consumables, and YES they (Steve) held his customers in contempt if they didn't relinquish certain controls.

Final Cut X being prime example, I chide you all now in your withering wait for a device that has become increasingly unlikely to see the light of an Apple Store.

Too bad, if true.


...
 
Dave
Ninja Editor
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Bay Area, CA
 
2011-10-31, 19:18

Quote:
Originally Posted by Matsu View Post
Hi Dave, which version of the OS are you running. After OSX 10.5, lots of folks reported problems booting apps from those hybrid drives. Did it ever get fixed, either from Maxtor or in the OS? I don't want to risk any failures.
Sorry, didn't see this until now... I'm running 10.6.8, and it hasn't given me a single problem. I got it maybe a year ago? I dunno, somewhere in that neighborhood. I think there've been two or three 10.6 updates since I put in that drive. I would think based on my experiences that they've gotten their issues ironed out. Alternately, I suppose it could be a 32bit vs 64bit thing, but I don't see how the drive could care (or even know) what CPU architecture is being used.

When I was a kid, people who did wrong were punished, restricted, and forbidden. Now, when someone does wrong, all of the rest of us are punished, restricted, and forbidden... and the one who did the wrong is counselled and "understood" and fed ice cream.
 
ezkcdude
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
 
2011-10-31, 20:19

Just as Apple is finally gaining some traction in the workplace, they would kill off the Mac Pro? I would think this is the time to re-boot it and make it better than ever. Oh wellz.
 
hmurchison
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: LV 426
Send a message via ICQ to hmurchison  
2011-10-31, 20:37

As much as I don't want the Mac Pro go away I realize the possibility exists. A well specc'd iMac 27 has more than enough horsepower for all but say 5% of Professionals. It can run two additional monitors and RAID storage at incredible speeds.

At some point it's just going to make sense to kill the Mac Pro.

But what about the Server market?

Focus more on Grid computing and a fast fabric that can tie a bunch of Mac mini together delivering more speed and flexibility than a megawatt behemoth.

Companies are already doing this with Intel Atom and ARM processors.

"Apple would never do that!"

Some of you may say that but look at what Apple snuck into OS X Lion. Core Storage a volume manager

http://blog.fosketts.net/2011/06/06/...c-os-107-lion/

http://blog.fosketts.net/2011/08/05/...rage-commands/

Thunderbolt allows EVERYTHING to be external. Storage, GPU, Networking. Why stuff it all in a huge and expensive box?

omgwtfbbq
 
Dave
Ninja Editor
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Bay Area, CA
 
2011-10-31, 23:01

Quote:
Originally Posted by hmurchison View Post
Thunderbolt allows EVERYTHING to be external. Storage, GPU, Networking. Why stuff it all in a huge and expensive box?
It doesn't allow for multiple CPUs... Like what the Mac Pro has...
 
PB PM
Sneaky Punk
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Vancouver, BC
Send a message via Skype™ to PB PM 
2011-10-31, 23:17

Sure, but how many people really need 8-16 cores? My guess is less than 10% of all users, not enough for Apple to justify the R&D of a product line.
 
hmurchison
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: LV 426
Send a message via ICQ to hmurchison  
2011-10-31, 23:33

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave View Post
It doesn't allow for multiple CPUs... Like what the Mac Pro has...
Most applications don't thread that well beyond 4-8 cores anyways. You may as well do Grid Computing
 
Jason
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
 
2011-11-01, 01:01

I'm quite alarmed if this development turns out to be true. I' m saving right now for my first Mac Pro. I'm not interested in an iMac because I already have a large professional monitor. 
I realize that Thunderbolt is helping ease the problems of external storage but the last thing I want to buy is a MacBook pro where I have to run cables and have to keep powering up external devices. 
The Mac pro allows me to have up to 8 TB of internal storage. 

Standing back a little from all the sensationalist rumours that different sites keep reporting, what do people on here think will really happen?

If Apple don't keep the Mac Pro, will they replace it with something else?

I love the idea of the power and convenience of the Mac Pro and it's upgradable options. 
 
Jason
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
 
2011-11-01, 01:03

With third-party storage as an option, the Mac Pro will now run to 12 TB.

You can never have enough storage!
 
Eugene
careful with axes
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Hillsborough, CA
 
2011-11-01, 06:34

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave View Post
It doesn't allow for multiple CPUs... Like what the Mac Pro has...
More importantly, why would I want any of that to be external anyway? I'd rather have one large box than cables strewn everywhere. And if we're talking about putting everything in one box, attached to a single Thunderbolt connector, then what's the point? Thunderbolt can't handle the bandwidth required for all our port replication needs plus graphics hardware anyway...
 
thegeriatric
geri to my friends
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Heaven
 
2011-11-01, 06:48

Maybe now we can get a mini tower/larger Mac mini!

Fingers crossed.
 
drewprops
Space Pirate
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Atlanta
 
2011-11-01, 09:22

Agreed.
I hope that it's untrue as well. The dream of owning a badass Mac workstation lingers within me, even though my wallet is weak.

...
 
709
¡Damned!
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Purgatory
 
2011-11-01, 15:43

I moved from a tower last year to the Quad 2.93 iMac, and it's been a delight, but I do long for the option of adding USB3, Thunderbolt and multiple eSATA ports - which I could easily do in a tower via PCI-E (when available, as far as TB). So I was thinking about switching back next year when the new towers came out.

IMO, if Apple doesn't continue with the towers, they're going to lose their "top 5%" or whatever that spend real money on their kit (massive amounts of RAM, internal RAID, etc.) I would love a half-height box that allowed for a couple/few cards, but I'm not holding my breath. Expansion boxes are not fucking cheap either, and I haven't even sen a TB box yet. When I do I expect they'll cost as much as a MacPro.

So it goes.
 
Matsu
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
 
2011-11-02, 07:09

I don't think they'll drop their pro towers. They're never going to bring them into the realm of affordability for consumers, but as you rightly mention, there's a high profile customer that needs them. I'm sure that on some level, Apple would rather have creative, research, and scientific professionals using iMacs and Macbook Pro solutions, but at the same time if there's no top line solution, they may run the risk of losing some iMac and MacBook Pro sales to departments and/or users that would rather only deal with one platform.

.........................................
 
Xaqtly
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
 
2011-11-02, 13:06

My studio is full of people who still need actual workstations. Hoping Apple doesn't kill the towers entirely.
 
Moogs
Hates the Infotainment
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: NSA Archives
 
2011-11-03, 09:56

I'd like to believe Apple values the high-profile testimonials and free advertising they get from Hollywood and scientific types who use Mac Pros, that they want to continue to be perceived as a "professional platform" by continuing the Mac Pro. If you abstract the numbers from sales of other units, I don't think you can't make the argument the Mac Pro is no longer profitable. It is. I think the margins are pretty big for one thing (especially for users that buy extra RAM and HD from Apple rather than buying from 3rd parties), and for another the actual number of units sold has increased more or less year-over-year since the middle of the decade AFAIK. The real question then is one of opportunity cost - what else could they sell instead if they weren't selling Mac Pros?

Being a long-time Power Mac / Mac Pro user, I fear as laptops and iMacs get more processors (likely we'll have them with a single 6 core CPU at some point in the next year or so), and the cost of high capacity SSDs come down (allowing for high speed and high volume storage in a small space), that the Mac Pro will EOL'd at some point. Apple will probably spin the top-end model of every iMac and MacBook Pro line as "the choice for big compute and high bandwidth workflows", maybe tweaking the innards (better input/output options for AV, etc) and jacking up the price some (but still well below a tricked out Mac Pro).

OTOH they did turn around a pretty quick update for all those Final Cut users who didn't like Final Cut Pro X 1.0, so maybe the do still care about what pros want. Or maybe that's a software thing and the hardware isn't as big a deal to them.

There's no getting around the PCI limitation of closed-case models like iMac or laptops, but I think it's likely GPUs themselves will start providing capabilities for high bandwidth video workflows in the future, so the need for special cards might disappear eventually there as well. IOW all of the Macbook Pros and iMac Pros (maybe they'll add that instead of xMac?) will sport 4 or 5 input / output ports for handling video, audio, etc. Basically, everything is getting smaller as processing power increases, providing future opportunity for powerful chipsets being added to small enclosures without causing big heat issues.

It's fair to think we're in the twilight of the Mac Pro era. The next update, if there is one, will probably be the last one.

...into the light of a dark black night.
 
Dave
Ninja Editor
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Bay Area, CA
 
2011-11-03, 12:39

Quote:
Originally Posted by Moogs View Post
There's no getting around the PCI limitation of closed-case models like iMac or laptops, but I think it's likely GPUs themselves will start providing capabilities for high bandwidth video workflows in the future, so the need for special cards might disappear eventually there as well. IOW all of the Macbook Pros and iMac Pros (maybe they'll add that instead of xMac?) will sport 4 or 5 input / output ports for handling video, audio, etc.
ProTools runs on proprietary I/O cards. UAD Plugins run on custom DSP cards -- that's cards, plural -- each one providing up to 9.6 GFLOPS of DSP. I just benched my Mac Pro's CPU (the 3,1 model), and it says my Floating Point Basic score is 3.1 GFLOPS; less than a third of what one of those cards can do. The current iMac has half the maximum RAM capacity as my nearly four-year-old tower, and a quarter as much as the current version. Mac Pros can have five internal hard drives before you've gotta start using expansion ports/slots or FW/USB vs the iMac's one. The list of features that the Mac Pro has over the iMac goes on and on...

I accept that little of this is necessary for office work, browsing the web, or writing letters to grandma, but there are professionals out there who need these features if they want to stay competitive with people using PCs. Thunderbolt is great and wonderful, but it can't replace the 18GB/s of available PCIe bandwidth that's in the current Mac Pros (incidentally, the PCIe 3.0 spec is out now, so if Apple updates their motherboards that number will get bigger).

When I was a kid, people who did wrong were punished, restricted, and forbidden. Now, when someone does wrong, all of the rest of us are punished, restricted, and forbidden... and the one who did the wrong is counselled and "understood" and fed ice cream.
 
Dorian Gray
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Paris, France
 
2011-11-03, 13:10

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave View Post
I accept that little of this is necessary for office work, browsing the web, or writing letters to grandma, but there are professionals out there who need these features if they want to stay competitive with people using PCs.
Need and want are separated by a blurry line, though. For every user who really needs something only the Mac Pro can provide, there are probably five who merely think it might be nice to have, and who have enough money to satisfy their whim. Not that Apple cares, of course, as long as people keep buying high-margin Macs.

And that's the crux of the matter: how many Mac Pro owners will switch to PCs rather than, say, a six-core iMac, if the Mac Pro is abandoned? Even the Mac mini can replace a Mac Pro for lots of users (e.g. photographers who have an EIZO/NEC/LaCie display but don't need a lot of processing power).

Another thing to keep in mind is that "creative" types by and large don't need a tower anymore. These are the users who brought a certain panache to Apple in the past, and these people are now using MacBook Pros and even MacBook Airs. Most of them won't be lost if Apple ditches the Mac Pro. I think most people who really would switch to PCs work in labs of one kind or another. These users are not sexy enough for Apple to particularly care about, beyond the sales they directly represent.
 
Dave
Ninja Editor
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Bay Area, CA
 
2011-11-03, 17:19

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dorian Gray View Post
Need and want are separated by a blurry line, though. For every user who really needs something only the Mac Pro can provide, there are probably five who merely think it might be nice to have, and who have enough money to satisfy their whim. [...] And that's the crux of the matter: how many Mac Pro owners will switch to PCs rather than, say, a six-core iMac, if the Mac Pro is abandoned?
A lot, because the ones who do need it will switch PCs, and the rest will follow. Pick a market, any market. Whichever tools that the icons of that industry use, they're the most popular. That's the whole basis for celebrity endorsements. Of all the musicians I know who have a home studio (and I know a lot), the majority of the ones with Macs only use them because "that's what the pros use". The effect even goes further than that... People buy things because they might need it. If Bobby needs a new computer and he's thinking about getting into a photography hobby, he might buy a Mac instead of a PC because his buddy who's "in the industry" says that Macs are all over the place. What do you think he'll pick when his friend says that the big-leaguers switched to PCs because Macs don't support enough RAM to do all the heavy lifting without resorting to huge & slow VM swap files?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dorian Gray View Post
Another thing to keep in mind is that "creative" types by and large don't need a tower anymore. These are the users who brought a certain panache to Apple in the past, and these people are now using MacBook Pros and even MacBook Airs. Most of them won't be lost if Apple ditches the Mac Pro. I think most people who really would switch to PCs work in labs of one kind or another. These users are not sexy enough for Apple to particularly care about, beyond the sales they directly represent.
I know more creative professionals than I can even count, and not a single one uses an iMac, Mac Mini, MacBook Pro, MacBook, or MacBook Air as their primary work computer by choice. There are some, I'll even admit many, who make an iMac or Mac Mini work, but they always say that they'd rather have a Mac Pro and just couldn't afford it in one way or another. Similarly, there are many people who choose a laptop as their main computer, but at least of the ones I know, it's only because they do a lot of work "on the go" and can't justify the expense or square footage of a dedicated workstation as long as their laptop will eventually get the job done.

Someone's patience (or lack thereof) aside, it all comes down to "time is money". If you're not busy enough to have the next project waiting on you to complete the current one, then yeah, sure, a Mac Pro might be overkill for you. But if you, like several of my friends, are that busy, then a computer that has enough RAM to prevent frequent VM paging and enough processing power to keep everything running smoothly will pay for itself long before it's time to replace it. I am not suggesting that every audio engineer, photo editor, or video editor needs a Mac Pro, I'm not even saying that I really needed one, but the people whose gear choices decide what everyone else lusts after do often need a Mac Pro. If Apple is unwilling to help them, they'll find a company that is and take their industry's yearnings with them.

When I was a kid, people who did wrong were punished, restricted, and forbidden. Now, when someone does wrong, all of the rest of us are punished, restricted, and forbidden... and the one who did the wrong is counselled and "understood" and fed ice cream.
 
Xaqtly
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
 
2011-11-03, 17:38

Yeah, just looking at it from my perspective, my aforementioned studio is an ad design studio. So we create ads, counter cards, taxi toppers, bus sides, things that need to be printed, so we have to work with high resolution photos and files. And then we also do large pieces like the bus sides and full size billboards that are print rez.

So we do very processor intensive work, and then we have an incredibly fast paced and tightly packed workflow. In a given day we usually crank out anywhere between 200 and 300 jobs every single day, with about 20-25 people doing the actual design work.

iMacs are not sufficient for our needs at this point in time. We create anywhere between 20-30GB of new work every single day, and that's just the finished product. It doesn't include the hundreds of GBs of bandwidth used shuffling photos and previous reference jobs around, not to mention the CPU power it takes to open and manipulate everything, combine it, resize it, touch it up, whatever to get the finished product in the first place.

Even on Mac Pros we have people sitting around waiting 3-5 minutes for files to open, for changes or effects to render etc., and when we have to do hundreds of jobs a day literally every second counts.

I don't really care if Apple keeps the tower form factor since memory is getting denser and very high speed external storage is feasible, making an all in one type of unit a possibility - but I need the memory bandwidth and raw processing chutzpah of the Mac Pros, not to mention the expanded memory capacity. If they can do that in an iMac, I won't mind switching everybody to iMacs. But I can't take a processing power/speed/mem bandwidth hit anywhere along the line.
 
Dorian Gray
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Paris, France
 
2011-11-03, 18:07

I take your points, Dave and Xaqtly, but we should keep in mind that Apple will almost certainly add higher-performance models or configurations of other products if they ditch the Mac Pro. So comparing the Mac Pro to today's iMac isn't all that useful.

Personally, I doubt we've seen the last of the Mac Pro just yet, but it's hard to imagine it being around in five years.
 
Matsu
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
 
2011-11-03, 23:47

So perhaps an "iMac Pro" makes sense? At first as something between an iMac and a Mac Pro, basically taking the place of a low end Mac Pro configuration and price point, with traditional multi-CPU boxen above it.

What would this iMac look like? Would probably need a very fast 6 core CPU at a minimum, maybe 8 cores. Potentially a slightly thicker case for cooling. Display? Probably a matte screen option, maybe with a wider aRGB colour space? A fast standard SSD, more thunderbolt ports, and cheaper/larger standard and upgrade RAM options.

.........................................
 
Eugene
careful with axes
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Hillsborough, CA
 
2011-11-04, 00:57

The iMac is already upspec enough for most pros. The defining factor of the Mac Pro is its ridiculous expandability. Think of the basic Mac Pro as the building block...it's the catch-all for everyone who needs something more than the iMac. These people don't care about the cost. The Mac Pro starts out with a basic configuration, but can also hold 64GB of RAM and 4 HDDs. It has 4 expansion slots and plenty of airflow to hold it all in one clean, clutterless enclosure. You have the option of mating any display you want to it. There is no way an "iMac Pro" can do all of these things right now.

Last edited by Eugene : 2011-11-04 at 06:55.
 
Frank777
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Toronto
 
2011-11-08, 11:34

I don't think Apple is trying to "kill" the Mac Pro, per se.

They do realize, however, that an iMac with a Thunderbolt port means it is essentially a Pro machine.

The Pro lineup must therefore change.
 
Moogs
Hates the Infotainment
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: NSA Archives
 
2011-11-08, 23:40

Dave, I understand all your points and remember I am a Mac Pro guy. I am typing this on one just expanded with a USB 3 card to run my external RAID backup, etc... I just suspect that over time, a lot of bandwidth will open up and compute-intensive stuff may be offloaded somewhat to GPUs. There will always be specialized tasks that need the mega-ports, etc... but is that enough to keep a product line open if 97% of the user base gets by without the Mac Pro equivalent?

...into the light of a dark black night.
 
Dave
Ninja Editor
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Bay Area, CA
 
2011-11-09, 00:59

Quote:
Originally Posted by Moogs View Post
Dave, I understand all your points and remember I am a Mac Pro guy. I am typing this on one just expanded with a USB 3 card to run my external RAID backup, etc... I just suspect that over time, a lot of bandwidth will open up and compute-intensive stuff may be offloaded somewhat to GPUs.
Yes, over time bandwidth will open up and compute-intensive stuff will be offloaded... and by then the really advanced stuff will need more bandwidth and more computing power than what the then-current consumer stuff will be able to offer. How much will RAM will always be enough for everybody again?

The first race car only had 4HP and could only average 7.5MPH; today's consumer cars have much more power and speed (and climate control). But tell me, if you were to go down to the Indianapolis 500, would they be driving right-off-the-lot Kias because those are better than what race cars used to be, or would they pick something a bit more cutting edge because then they can get it done faster and go home sooner?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Moogs View Post
There will always be specialized tasks that need the mega-ports, etc... but is that enough to keep a product line open if 97% of the user base gets by without the Mac Pro equivalent?
Yes, it is. As soon as Apple drops its profession-level offerings, they go back to being seen as expensive toys. I've seen it happen first-hand when Apple discontinued the Xserve. My IT buddies immediately lost most or all of what little respect for Apple that they'd gained (though my understanding is that the Xserve wasn't nearly as competitive as the Mac Pro is, so that might have something to do with Apple's decision to pull it).

When I was a kid, people who did wrong were punished, restricted, and forbidden. Now, when someone does wrong, all of the rest of us are punished, restricted, and forbidden... and the one who did the wrong is counselled and "understood" and fed ice cream.
 
Escher
Sub-PowerBook Lobbyist
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Washington, DC
 
2011-11-09, 03:47

Has anybody brought up the iMac's built-in display, i.e. the all-in-one design, as a significant downside for Pro users? At least some pro users upgrade their CPUs much more often than they upgrade their displays. With an iMac, even if it is sufficiently powerful to do everything you need, you'll still be forced to get a new display at the same time as you get a new processor.

Even as a consumer, I hate the idea that I will have to get rid of a perfectly good 24" LCD when the family's iMac stops being powerful enough to run whatever software or games the kids will be running in a couple of years.

IMO, Thunderbold isn't just a great prospect for (formerly internal) expansion. Thunderbold makes a "prosumer" or "headless" iMac an excellent proposition. One wire to connect your display (incl. USB, FireWire, built-in speakers and network camera) to your headless iMac or Mac mini certainly won't clutter your desktop like an old PC with a bazillion wires used to...

I've been waiting for a true sub-PowerBook for more than 10 years. The 11-inch MacBook Air finally delivers on all counts! It beats the hell out of both my PowerBook 2400c and my 12-inch PowerBook G4 -- no contest whatsoever.
 
Moogs
Hates the Infotainment
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: NSA Archives
 
2011-11-10, 17:56

Yah iMac displays are crap for professional purposes other than audio. That's one thing that always bugged me about MBPs too... they'd spin them as video pro machines and it's like... no video pro in their right mind is going to try to color grade clips on a laptop screen. Similarly professional photo editing isn't likely to be done on laptop screens either unless user isn't aware of color mgmt principles.

Hopefully one day all screens are 10 bit, 100+% Adobe RGB and we can just forget about worrying about that part of the equation.

...into the light of a dark black night.
 
Dorian Gray
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Paris, France
 
2011-11-11, 04:43

Quote:
Originally Posted by Moogs View Post
Hopefully one day all screens are 10 bit, 100+% Adobe RGB and we can just forget about worrying about that part of the equation.
That'll be the day! The PC industry is making very slow progress on the integration of wide-gamut displays, 10-bit support, and software. Confusion reigns about the merits, downsides, true costs, and practices of a wide-gamut workflow. Frankly, I think Apple will put a wide-gamut 10-bit display in the iMac before the world starts begging for it. Apple will spin it as the next big thing, and we'll finally get some movement from software developers, GPU manufacturers, etc.

I have an EIZO CG223W, a relatively cheap ColorEdge model that's perfect for my needs. It's a beautiful thing: covers 95% of the Adobe RGB colour space, has hardware calibration via a 16-bit lookup-table, supports 10-bit input (not that I can use it on my Mac mini), also has built-in brightness and colour uniformity correction, brightness stabilisation for time and temperature changes, etc. You just don't get these perks on an iMac.

The point remains, though, that I use the EIZO with a Mac mini and have no earthly purpose for a Mac Pro.
 
Posting Rules Navigation
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Page 3 of 20 Previous 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7  Next Last

Closed

Forum Jump
Thread Tools
Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Baseball 2011 kieran AppleOutsider 84 2011-10-11 11:35
iPhone 2011 Robo Speculation and Rumors 727 2011-10-04 14:26
PCT: Out Of The Box (January 2011) PB PM Creative Endeavors 22 2011-02-06 21:51


« Previous Thread | Next Thread »

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:02.


Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2024, AppleNova