HDTV Buying advice

I will be purchasing a HDTV in the next couple months. I have narrowed it down to a 40 or 42 inch Sony with 1080p / 120 hz. Can anyone give any advice on which model I should buy? I plan to use it for normal cable w/ some HD channels, and also hooked up to a PS3 for some gaming but mostly for blu ray. Any advice will be greatly appreciated.
-Clay

Hey Crt2169,
I’m sorry for the delay in responding to your initial post. We appreciate your patience as our community forums have only been active for a limited number of weeks. We are trying to provide our customers with a place where they can openly engage in product and policy discussions, hopefully without always needing guidance from one of the forum’s moderators. Of course, we are here to participate in the conversation and help out as much as possible!
One of the largest differences between the W, Z and XBR model lines (aside from pricing) is generally considered to be the contrast ratio offered on each model. The XBR series currently offers dynamic contrast ratios around 50,000:1 on many models, compared to the 30,000:1 typically seen within the W and Z model lines. What this means is that XBR models are normally capable of rendering more subtle lighting differences in the same images than their W and Z counterparts.
Remember though that it’s generally recommended to make first-hand, side-by-side comparisons before you make any kind of TV purchase. Just because one model may appear to have more impressive hardware specifications than another does not necessarily mean that it will work better for you. To give you a specific example, when I purchased my KDL-52W3000 earlier this year, I compared it to a similar XBR model available at the same store. While the XBR may have had top-of-the-line specifications, it was two minor details – speaker placement and the coloration of the case itself - that ultimately helped me decide which to purchase.
Were there two or three specific models that you were looking at? Does anyone else have any recommendations for Crt2169?
Thanks,
Agent Aaron
Geek Squad® Community Connector
Go Ahead. Use Us.
Aaron|Social Media Specialist | Best Buy® Corporate
Private Message

Similar Messages

Advice on which Mac laptop to buy / Advice about using WIndows on it.

I'd appreciate some advice on which replacement laptop to get for someone in my family who just needs e-mail, the Internet, and iPhoto--something simple, small, and portable, like the iBook or the MacBook Combo. However, he has just complicated matters by saying that he'd like to be able to use Windows on his new computer (yech).
I don't know anything about using Windows on a Mac, not even whether this feature is now built into all Macs or not. A recent post I found on virtualization (February, 2006) quotes Microsoft as saying that Virtual PC won't run on an Intel-based Mac (MacBook), though it will on the iBook and the Powerbook.
Here are the questions I'm trying to answer: (a) Is running Windows on the MacBook Combo an issue? If Microsoft doesn't make virtualization for the MacBook, are there other companies who do? (b) Are there features/lack of features on a MacBook that mean it makes more sense to get the least-expensive iBook instead or vice-versa? Again, simplicity and ease of use are the goal here, not state-of-the-art technology. (c) Can you even buy a new iBook or Powerbook any more, since the Apple website seems to feature only the MacBook?
Thanks in advance for suggestions about any of this!
Powerbook G4 Mac OS X (10.3.9) 15"

For what your
family member want to do the 1.83GHz MacBook will be
just fine. Just be aware that if they want to write
DVDs at any time they will have to purchase an
external DVD writer.
As for Windows, there are two options for running
Windows on a …
1) Use Apple's software, Boot Camp…
http://www.apple.com/macosx/bootcamp/
… which provides the ability to use you MacBook as a
Windows computer. Please note that a restart will be
required and only one OS will be available at any one
time. Additionally it is suggested that at least a
20GB larger drive be purchased to accomodate the
Windows partition.
2) Use Parallels…
http://www.parallels.com/
… which uses Virtualisation Technology. This allows
Windows to be used under Mac OS X just like Virtual
PC did with the PowerPC Macs. While this is far more
convenient it's performance does not match that of
Boot Camp although it is still rather snappy for more
requirements. It does vost money where Boot Camp is
free. Again, a larger drive is recommended.
For both Parallels and Boot Camp Windows will operate
at native PC speeds so do not consider an iBook or
PowerBook.
Thanks, that's helpful. One more question, now that I've looked at the MacBook more carefully: We use dial-up for e-mail and the Internet; this works very well for us and we have no immediate plans to change. Since the MacBook has no internal modem, would you or anyone else reading this say the Apple USB external modem works as advertised?
I see that the Apple USB modem gets very mixed reviews--some people say it's fine, others seem to find it slower than the internal version, and several think it's a piece of junk.
Would you (or anyone else reading this) have any experience using the Apple USB modem for dial-up connection? [That's not meant to be an insult. :-)] Would we now have to expect our dial-up connections to be slower than before? Or do we just have to be sure we have the right settings, compatible server, etc.? Or is the problem Apple's product, and would a 3rd-party product work better?
Powerbook G4 Mac OS X (10.3.9) 15"

Buying advice for MacMini

I will be buying a new Intel Mac soon and cant work out between iMac, Macbook or Mini and looking for advice.
I am currently using a Mac Power PC tower, 7 years old for design work. It has a top end NVIDIA graphics card installed and maximum RAM used with an expensive Dell 24" Ultra display.
Use is for Photoshop, some video using FCP X, email and web.
Don't need portability it can be the size of a truck
need good performance, I will use plenty extra RAM
I don't understand too much about hardware and trying to decide on what spec I need, specifically the difference between
1- low cost Intel 4000 or the better NVIDEA graphics card
2- i5 (low cost) or i7 (expensive) processor
from reading magazines and Apple discussions the consensus appears to be:
Mac Mini
good reliability, appeals for price and would connect to an existing 24" monitor
unsure about the spec of graphics, the Intel 4000 sounds very poor against the NVIDIA electronics
iMac
has good spec but is expensive for what it is, appears to be unreliable with numerous screen problems discussed in forums. Unsure about using a computer that is built in to a screen.
Macbook
don't need portability but has good reliability and good spec but again uses low end Intel graphics except on the most expensive model. There is a bewildering range in choice of spec.
thanks for reading

Hello, you have it covered pretty well, I'll just add...
Mac Mini
Not that the HD4000 is that slow, but myriad problems, mostly HDMI output, but several using TB port also. I'd never consider a computer with Intel Graphics.
iMac
Besides what you mentioned, the 21.5" is not serviceable even to upgrade RAM. Unacceptable in my eyes.
Macbook
Hmmm, reliability??? Don't they have permanently glued in Batteries that only Apple can Replce, & likely won't even be available 3-5 years from now? Is the Hard drive replaceable?
Both the iMacs & MBs seem like disposable computers to me, but if you can afford to replace them every 3 years I guess that wouldn't matter.
Not that I can afford anything, but If I had to replace my Mac right now, I'd only consider an older used, all be it slower iMac.
http://www.powermax.com/preowned_macs

Buying advice... Mac Pro vs. MacBook Pro

Dear all,
I have been out of the mac market for a while, and find all the new options a bit overwhelming.
Here is my quick question:
To Mac Pro (MP)... or Mac Book Pro (MBP).
Obviously, the best answer is have both.... beyond that:
The MBP for portability is probably the best laptop in the world.
But the 2.8/2.9 highest processor is overpriced versus the 2.6's and the 2.4's.
The last mac laptop i bought was 2002, and i am really impressed how far they have developed.
But, i still worry about some laptop problems... like they heat up and tend to break down faster due to more wear & tear.
MP i always tend to think the computer in the same location, not being moved, etc.. gives them a longer life. Plus, the expandability of the MP is really amazing RAM wise, etc.
I found this benchmark page of MP vs. MBP... it really shows the desktop is still so superior... something you dont much here these days, with most sales being laptops.
http://www.barefeats.com/three08.html
Previously, I had a G5 dual 2.0, so i guess either option will seem faster to me... I guess i just need to weigh how much travel vs. studio time will be in my future...
Even if money was not a factor, seems a good idea to not buy both laptop & desktop at the same time... to get the benefit of later developments in whichever is not picked initially.
If anyone has any other advice, let me know & thanks in advance!

While Kappy says it is not a valid comparison I am going to have to disagree with him.
I faced the same decision as you are looking at right now, but mine was about a year ago now.
I chose the MacBook Pro with the faster processor, faster hard drive, and the high res 17" LED backlit display.
I have the Mac Pro right now.
The MacBook Pro 17" just wasn't what I needed to have in a laptop.
I think that it was too thin for the size it was and I had issues with how hot it was. Temp wise I really think it could get close to causing burns on unprotected skin.
The screen warped due to the hinges being overly tight from the factory (Apple store said that it was normal for them to be really tight so the large display doesn't fall, but not one of the floor models were like that) I returned the customized MacBook Pro to Apple that I had ordered online.
About 2 weeks later I ordered the Mac Pro 2x 2.8ghz Xeon, 2gb ram, 500gb hdd, Nvidia 8800GT. Then ordered more ram from newegg.com
The MBP cost me more than the Mac Pro did, even with student discount.
6 months later still happy with the Mac Pro I decided I wanted a laptop again.
I went out and got a Toshiba Satellite x205-SLI6 for way less than the MBP with system specs that are just as good. It is 2x thicker than the MBP but I think that is a good thing, I don't feel like it is going to break when I pick it up.
My suggestion would be to get a Mac Pro.
They have so much power that you will be set for a long, long time to come.
The laptop world is aimed at more disposable devices and are still at a point where they are starting to get some real power but I would wait for a quad core laptop to be released before I would ever get another one at this point.

Buying advice - use as external hard drive

I have a 250GB MacBook Pro, and - perhaps because it's a laptop with no fixed location - I just don't get round to backing up as much as I should. Also, the hard drive is not that far off full already. I'm wondering whether Time Capsule might be the way to solve both issues. I have a few questions:
- am I right in thinking that Time Capsule, as well as backing up wirelessly, can act as a normal external hard drive (i.e. visible in Finder when connected wirelessly)? If so, I could - for example - save large iMovie projects to it? Or would working off Time Capsule be prohibitively slow? And I guess I'd then have the same issue of backup, although I suppose i could attach another hard drive to the time capsule!
- I already have a wireless router through my ISP, and I only have one computer in the house, so I'm not sure i'm going to benefit from the networking aspects of Time Capsule. Are there any other advantages to having Time Capsule that I'm missing? For example, could i connect a fairly bog standard printer to it and then print wirelessly?
- I've looked into it a bit online, and the summary seems to be 'nice idea but doesn't really work that well at the moment'. Am i best off waiting to see if the technology improves?
Cheers
Jon

If you are using the time capsule only for a print server and as network storage, it's a good tool - too expensive a solution, but a good solution.
However, don't expect to use it for automatic backups at all. It's perhaps the most flawed piece of hardware ever produced by Apple, at least as regards its intended use.
I've had one for six months. I use it for network storage and it's great. They don't tell you, but you can't mix network storage with automatic backup. The disk is supposed to be one or the other, but not both. If you want to partition it, forget that, unless you want to crack it open, which is a ridiculous solution given what the thing costs.
I really wanted it for time machine backups - it is an unmitigated failure, and after trying extensively to get it to work over the six months I've had it, I have yet to get one successful time machine backup to the time capsule. I keep expecting Apple to call and apologize and refund my money, but I haven't heard from them yet.
My advice - use a directly connected external drive (firewire 800). Partition it and do time machine backups and external storage. Buy a network print server for about $60 bucks. You can do all that for less than $200, and not waste the money on this entirely failed appliance.

Server buying advice?

Hey all!
I've been making about two small websites a month for all
over the board purposes, and a lot of my friends would like their
own personal homepages (ie theirname.com). I thought, instead of
paying for servers and domain hosting for all of these sites
through a provider, would it be smarter to buy my own server to
host all of these websites on, since they're very low traffic
anyway?
Is this possible, a good idea, and could anyone give me any
advice on the best ways to do it? (Or, if this is the wrong place
to ask, let me know where I could learn more and ask?)
Thank you!
Alec

letsjumpnow wrote:
> would it be smarter to buy my own server to host all of
these
> websites on, since they're very low traffic anyway?
>
> Is this possible
Yes.
> a good idea
No.
> and could anyone give me any advice on
> the best ways to do it?
Pick a provider and set up a reseller account for yourself;
preferably the
sort of reseller account where you pay the host, the clients
pay you, and
you don't need to pay the host any extra until you reach your
limit of
reseller accounts.
Running your own server is not a good idea unless you want to
spend all your
time maintaining and securing it. A reseller account means
that someone else
does all that for you. Also, depending on where you're
located, you may find
buying enough bandwidth for your server is prohibitively
expensive; you
*can't* run a server on ADSL, because you need maximum
bandwidth in both
directions; SDSL or cable is the minimum.
HTH,
Pete.
Peter Connolly
http://www.acutecomputing.co.uk
Derby
UK
Skype ID: acutecomputing

MBP buying advice

I've had a small windfall and I'm treating myself to a 14" iBook G4 replacement. It's beginning to show it's age and tempted as I am by an iMac, I like the freedom of the portable and I don't have a dedicated computer room/offfice space.
So it's going to be a MacBook Pro in 15" or 17". I can get a useful discount which I'll probably use to upgrade the processor (to an i7), disc (to 7200rpm not SSD), anti-glare + Hi-res screen, maybe the RAM and possibly get a 27" display. My daughter would certainly appreciate the 27" for her 13" MBP.
Questions:
1. 17" with a 27" display - is it overkill? I like my photography and basic DTP/layout for fun but I'm not a TV addict or Pro Business user. Would a 15" + 27" be wiser with the savings spent on other upgrades or even just a 15" or 17" on it's own? Aesthetically, I sometimes think the 17" looks a bit bare with the keyboard stranded in the middle.
2. Practical/performance differences between the 2.66 & 2.8 i7. Is it worth the money for 140Hz and is the difference between the fastest i5 and the i7s worth the upgrade
3. How easy is it to replace the RAM - since I can probably save money by buying separately later.
As it's a treat I don't have to skimp (I could simply fully load it) but there's also no sense in paying for unnecessary upgrades. I've often read that buying the mid-range is often the best bang for buck in the world of Apple.
I'd appreciate some solid, practical advice.
Cheers

The 17" is pretty big and bulky for a portable (even though it's half the size and weight of some Windoze 17" so-called portables), so if portability is a concern and you're going to get a big external monitor for use at home anyway, I'd definitely stick with the 15".
Don't order either the 15" high-res or the 17" before sitting in front of one for a while at an Apple Store or reseller to make sure you can read the non-adjustable user interface elements (menus, dialog boxes, palettes in graphic apps, etc.) comfortably. In a 15" glossy machine you have a choice between standard and high-res screens. In a 17" or a 15" non-glare, there's no choice of display resolution, so unless you're willing to use your screen at a lower-than-native resolution setting and live with the unavoidable blurring that brings, be sure you know what you're getting into before buying.
I agree that the sweet spot in Apple's lineup is usually somewhere in the middle. I think paying $200 for a 5.3% speed bump from 2.66 to 2.8GHz (which would be imperceptible in anything but benchmark testing) would be mildly insane, and there is never any good reason to pay Apple's prices for RAM when OWC's prices are generally about half of Apple's.

Buying Advice Needed! What set-up for 1080P?

Hi. I need some insight from you actual users out there. I am about to upgrade from my nearly 3-year old iMac (which was top of the line at the time). The vast majority of my usage will be for general computing work. I generally keep a lot of applications open so I can easily flip between things I need. So I want to make sure I don't get bogged down on a day-to-day basis at a minimum.
More importantly, though, the key heavy-duty function I want to tackle is editing 1080P video I import from my Canon 5D Mark II. I will mostly use FCE. I also do a fair amount of very high res photo management, although not a ton in Photoshop (use Aperture more).
Initially I had intended to get the top of the line iMac and upgrade to the ATI 4850 card. Then I decided maybe I should take the plunge and go for the Mac Pro to (1) be best prepared to take advantage of Snow Leopard's multi-core capabilities and (2) to be a little more future proof.
Here was the initial setup I thought about:
- Mac Pro 8-core 2.26 (go for octo vs. quad at 2.66 to best take advantage of Snow Leopard's upcoming GCD) and because price sort of washes out if you want to go > 8GB of RAM
- EVGA 850 video card (seems to have much more room for growth, given additional RAM, threads, etc.)
- ACD 30" -- for the real estate and in large part because the 24" Apple LED display will not work with the EVGA card
Key questions for all of you:
1. Is the Mac Pro just way overkill? Again, I will be doing occasional 1080P editing and I worry that even the 8450 top of line iMac might struggle
2. Will the EVGA card be much better for me than the ATI 4870?
3. Views on the 30" ACD? I struggle with the idea that this is a 5-year old model, but love the real estate and the tighter dot pitch. But I also am not sure that the matte effect doesn't feel like it blurs text a bit
4. Should I be wary that I find myself in the middle of a refresh cycle? e.g., should I hold off for a bit because we shouldn't be far from an update and/or price cut?
Thank you all for any input you may have!

Mac pro always. Unless you're only using it for browsing and office apps; anything graphics or video related, go for mac pro. Rather than more power cpu wise, the expansion ability always wins for me.
A lot of people talk about MP being overkill for certain things, well personally the fact that it's overkill makes me feel good. If you're presently overkilling something, it means you're getting the fastest possible speed for what you're doing. Also overkill now, will be standard in like 2 years.
Multi cores, alot of ram, and scratch disks will all help you do video and photography more faster and easier. Also having multiple hard drives gives options like consolidation of apps and user/data; giving a nice clean boot drive. Not to mention ability to install SSDs, which are very in now.
The 30" ACD is pure sickness. I want to buy one everytime I go into the apple store. Also matte display is way better than glossy, for everything. Just my opinion though.
On the issue of 285 vs. 4870, for you, either is ok imo. Do you game a lot in windows? You might though want to check the benchmarks from barefeats when they come out on the 285 with core apps.
http://www.barefeats.com/index.html
If the benchmarks for core apps is good enough for you on the 285, stick with the stock GT 120, and buy the 285. That way you also have the MDP option for newer apple displays in the future. The nvidia cards together will play better with one another.
For the refresh cycle, its up to you really...if you need it soon or not. However 6-core nehalems are coming. Not around the corner...but will be here.
http://www.engadget.com/2009/06/11/six-core-intel-nehalem-processors-in-the-work s/

Mac Pro buying advice for Graphic Design

I am going to be purchasing a Mac Pro and was hoping I could get some advice on the right set-up for what I do. I use CS4 heavily on the Mac for graphic design spending a good amount of time in Photoshop working with files that can easily go over a few gigs (when working on convention booth displays, etc.). I also use my Mac for casual video editing in iMovie, and use Apple's other great offerings like iWeb, iPhoto, etc.
My main questions are:
- I'm leaning towards the Quad. I keep my Macs for at least 5 years. Is that a good decision?
- If I do go with the Quad should I opt for the 2.66 or 2.93?
- At the moment I am running 8 Gig on my current Mac, should I configure this new one with 8 Gig?
- Is the Radeon the correct card choice for a heavy Photoshop user?
I hope these questions aren't ones that have been asked a thousand times. It's a lot of money to spend (especially right now) and I want to make sure I configure it correctly for what I do.
Thank you in advance for your input.

Hi hatter,
Thank you again for your responses. That really helps clear up the RAM situation. I think that is part of what swayed me towards the 8-Core as opposed to the Quad. Please correct me if I am wrong, but looking at prices of RAM on Crucial I see that if I wanted today to put 16 Gigs of RAM in a Quad-Core it would cost me $1200 (for 4 4-Gig chips using all slots). However if I was going to put 16 in the 8-Core I could do it for $400 (8 2-Gig chips using all slots. Actually it would only be $200 more since I configured my Mac with 4 2-Gig chips from Apple for an extra $100). Seems like having more slots open will save me money when I want to upgrade ram since I don't have to go for the 4-Gig chips. That coupled with the theory that Snow Leopard is around the corner and will take advantage of the 8-Core it seems like opting for a low end 8-Core vs a high end Quad is worth the $300 difference.
Side note: Are there any reports that say running more 2GB chips is worse than running fewer 4GB chips? Just curious.
Even though I understand that the processor speed makes a difference I am hoping that the advantages of more RAM slots and future benefits of Snow Leopard, CS5 and other apps that will take advantage of the 8-Core in the near future will make it the right decision. If I could afford a faster 8-Core obviously I would opt for that but with a jump of $1,400 to the next processor speed I am afraid it is out of my reach.
Regardless I'm sure I will feel very spoiled as soon as I unwrap this beast and get it up and running. Then in a year I'll give into the temptation of slipping a SSD in for the boot drive and I'll have to find a way to contain my excitement. I have a SSD on my laptop and WOW what an amazing difference it really is.
Wow, these forums are great. I can't believe how helpful all of your responses have been. I feel much more informed and was able to order my Mac today not feeling like I was shopping in the dark.
Thank you all again!

Buying advice: 13" Haswell MBA vs. a 15" rMBP

I figured I'd submit the question here because the new Haswell Airs just announced definitely piqued my interest.
Some background on what I do: I am a storm chaser, and do some medium photography work on the road (mainly light editing, and lots of imports from my iPhone.) Photography is an interest of mine, as my pictures have made it on broadcast television in one of the largest media markets in the country. The other major heavy use I have for my typical machines has been dictation – I've been using Dragon Dictate and its predecessor since 2004, and regularly write term papers, compose email, and generally answer discussion forum questions using the software. (My needs for that type of software are far above and beyond what Apple's built-in solution provides with the operating system – even what was announced with Mavericks.)
I am in the market for a new machine in the next two months, and am trying to decide between the following configurations:
1) a stock $2799 15 inch Retina MacBook Pro, with 16 gigs of memory and 512 gigs SSD space; or
2) a top-of-the-line 13 inch MacBook Air (Haswell), with upgraded processor to the i7, 8GB memory, and 512GB storage.
If it helps, I currently page out on 8 GB of memory, but this is rather infrequent – as Safari has been known to be a memory hog and will use up to 2 GB at one time. The question I have – and this is where I thought I'd throw it open to the community in terms of real-world usage models – is who has a 15 inch retina MacBook Pro with 16 gigs and what do they use it for? The supposed 12 hour battery life on the new Haswell Airs is very appealing to me – given my typical workloads that's probably closer to nine hours of usage, but it beats the "up to seven hours" – closer to four hours in reality – that I would typically get currently. (I am studying accounting, and frequently have long days and nights meeting clients and/or using spreadsheets.)
I was leaning toward the retina for the memory upgrades, but I'm wondering whether the new processors in the MacBook Air combined with the memory management improvements coming in 10.9 make it worth getting a top-of-the-line MacBook Air instead.
If I could, I'd wait significantly longer – but I want to be buying the machine before August.
Thoughts?

If you intend to get the top of the line 13" Air with i7, large storage and 8GB of RAM; your demonstrating your needs are still clearly heavy duty in nature that are better served on the 15" still, or when it's updated which will obviously occur.
Right now 10.9 isn't ready for release or they would have, so perhaps your best choice is to live with what you have until the two are released together.
The 13" screen is small, heck the 15" is small after using a nice glorious 17" anti-glare that I have now, which is a shame Apple killed it.
So save your eyes from glare efffects and forcing your eyes closer to the screen to see things and if they offer a 15" antiglare model with the newer processsors and energy savings, then grab it.

IMac Intel 17" 1.83Ghz *BUYING ADVICE*

Mac users,
I'm about to purchase an Intel iMac 17" 1.83Ghz with 1MB of RAM (DVD-R, X1600) - primarily for the iLife suite, especially Garageband and iMovie / iDVD. But BEFORE I purchase, I wondered if anyone might have any kindly advice, such as:
iDVD crashes ... audio in and out is fuzzy ... fan noise is too loud etc. etc.
I'm more than happy if it runs as smooth as butter, but given my knowledge of computers, I'm more wary than ever before. For example, I purchased a single processor G5 iMac a couple of years ago and the fans can be heard almost 300 miles away.
Cheers!

I bought the Core Duo version a year ago this month. It is the best Mac I have ever had! No issues. Quiet as a mouse.
But, I think you are describing the 2.0 GHz model. The 1.83 GHz is the stripped down basic.

Uk buying advice?

Hi,
I'm just about to pull the trigger on an X300 in the Uk, but a few things keep stopping me. Am I being silly? I know you must get this sort of thing all the time. Anyway, my worries are:
1. Is the screen THAT bad? I know it's all realtive, and I currently have an 18month year old macbook pro (so the LCD is a bit faded). If the X300 screen is as good I'll be happy - i'm not expecting macbook air screen quality and I know the problems with tn screens, but all the other laptops with better screens fail (to me) on build quality and keyboards (for example the air and sony sz's).
2. Is the trackpad that bad? I really like the trackpoint, but dunno if my wife will appreciate it (and this is as much for her) so I'm worried by the trackpad horror stories! .
3 This is the biggie...
If I am buying one now am I choosing bad time? I have looked at the rumours of the x200 and it seems FAR better specced (bar the screen) so I have this worry that I'm buying a comp that will be seriously obsolete in a short space of time. Indeed, it seems to be the x200 is potentially better in every way?
I know the worry about instant obsolescence is always the problem with new PC's (espeically going from a mac laptop to a PC and windows - but I have my reasons). One thing I do like about the X300 is the relative expandability; i'm sure new drives will turn up eventually and at least you can get at some of the parts unlike macs.
But at the same time I have this fear of getting an x300 then some montevina version crops up six months later with all the bells and whistles (and a better screen). Oh for insider info!
Help!!
by the way - does anyone know which uk model supports gps? The UK site isn't very clear. Thanks!
Message Edited by jonnyr78 on 07-01-2008 07:03 AM

Buy the "AT&T" model iPad, not the Verizon one (which does not support SIM cards used most everywhere in the world). The ATT model comes with a SIM card, but you can then get one from a UK provider. Be sure it's a "microSIM" card, not the larger kind when back in the UK.

Buying advice

Its been six years since I bought my 2 GHz 512 MB 667 MHz DDR2 Imac. Thanks to the holidays and a bday, I have a stack of apple gift cards ready to go. My old mac is slow, video editing takes forever, I'm out of room on my hard drive, etc. However, it works and isn't usb 3 and built in blu ray just around the corner. I don't mind waiting a few months if I will get two great upgrades in the new mac (usb 3/bluray). However, if we are a year or so away, I'd rather not wait that long (I'm assuming I can never add usb 3 to an Imac like you could to a tower pc, am I wrong?) Also, If i buy now, would any body recommend uping the ram, memory, etc on the basic 27 inch imac? Our computer is used for editing home movies, pictures and the net. Nothing major but we do want the computer to be "state of the art" for as long as possible without overkill. Thank you.

The core 2 duo has 3.06 ghz processor and the core i5 has a 2.66 ghz processor. Is the core 2 better because is has more ghz or is the i5 better even with the less ghz? Or should someone upgrade to the i7 which is in between both, ghz-wise?
You can no longer go just by clock speed with modern processors. Newer processors are often more efficient, and/or have more processing cores (as with the i5 and i7 which have four processing cores versus the Core 2 Duo's two cores). As with any such comparisons, it somewhat depends on what you're doing, but overall the i5 performs better than the Core 2 Duo, and the i7 performs better than the i5, even though going strictly by clock speed it wouldn't seem like that would be the case.
You can see benchmarks of the various systems at these sites, among others:
http://barefeats.com
http://gizmodo.com/5405506/27+inch-imac-benchmarks-core-i7-vs-core-i5
Regards.

Camera buying advice

I''m not sure where else to turn for advice on my camera purchase so, I hope you all don't mind..
I have been eyeballing a couple of cameras and, I think I have it narrowed down to the final two.
I am looking at Sony DSCF717 5MP Digital Still Camera
http://www.amazon.com/Sony-DSCF717-Digital-Camera-Optical/dp/B00006JU62/ref=sr1512?ie=UTF8&s=electronics&qid=1241486992&sr=1-512
And the Minolta Dimage 7i 5MP Digital Camera
http://www.amazon.com/Minolta-Dimage-Digital-Camera-Optical/dp/B000067DKI/ref=sr113?ie=UTF8&s=electronics&qid=1241778161&sr=1-13
I'm looking for more of a pro-entry level camera, that will not brake the bank.
Thank you for any and all advise you have to offer

With respect, neither of these would qualify as "pro-entry level camera". For that you need to look at dSLR cameras, and at "pro-entry level" you'll be talking about something along the lines of the Nikon D40, D40x or D60 or the Canon Digital Rebel series.
As to the quality of these cameras, well it rather depends on what you're trying to do with them.
http://www.steves-digicams.com/
and
http://www.dpreview.com/
are two very good camera review sites. They also include forums where folks can offer more advice and hands on experience with the cameras themselves.
A couple of comments: I seem to recall that Minolta no longer actually make cameras - http://ca.konicaminolta.com/ suggests that they got out camera business in 2006. Also both of these models are quite old, and I suspect that you'll get a higher spec from a more recent model around the same price.
Regards
TD

Landscape Camera Buying Advice

I am in the market for a Canon DSLR for shooting landscapes exclusively. My goal is to shoot photos I can professionally enlarge to use as wall hangings in my home. In the "old" days I had a passion for amateur photography with a Nikon F1 and an old automatic focus Canon EF. I've been away from the hobby, but now want to jump back in with both feet. I'm relearning the features and specs in the DSLR world. I have a budget between $1,000 to $2,000 for the body (I'll work on lenses later). I would appreciate you pointing me in the right direction so I can better focus my buying research. It appears the Canon EOS D6 is a worthy body for the serious landscape photographer within my budget, but there are so many models to chooose from. Let me know if you agree or disagree and why. Thanks!

I think most people will agree for landscape photography a full frame camera is the better choice. If you buy full frame and you only shoot landscapes you won't necessarily need the focusing capabilities of the 5Diii so the 6D would suit you just fine. However don't discount the APS-C, crop body cameras. You can buy a 60D body for about $700 and a 70D body for about $1200. Either body coupled with a Canon 10-22 EFS lens would work well for landscapes if you want ultra wide angle.
Check out some Canon forums that have a landscape gallery and you will be hard pressed to tell the difference between pictures from the APS-C bodies and FF bodies. I have a 20x30 picture I took from a helicopter with my 7D and a 24-105L that has amazing detail and I cropped that file about another 20% to get the framing I wanted and to get the horizon straight. Any of the Canon DSLRs will make a good landscape camera but again, the FF bodies are better suited to landscape if your budget can stand the price difference.
Joe

HDTV Buying advice

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for