PSE8 - Any Real Improvement over PSE3?

I have been using PSE3 for several years but my new scanner came with PSE8 which I installed. But now regretting it cos it looks so different and I will have to waste time learning the new user interface. Before I uninstall PSE8, does anyone know how I can find out the IMPORTANT improvements that PSE8 made over PSE3?
I use Adobe Lightroom 3.6 so dont need to do any photo developing work in PSE. I also have Adobe Illustrator so dont need PSE for text etc.

Why not set-up the PSE8 Editor as your external editing app in Lightroom preferences. Most of the tools are the same as PSE3 and you don't need to use quick fix or guided edits.
You can then work right from the Lightroom Library.
You normally make the round trip from Lightroom as follows:
1) Ctrl+E in the Library to export selected image with develop settings
2) Edit in Elements; then Ctrl+S to overwrite Lightroom export copy
3) Ctrl+W to close in Elements and update Lightroom thumbnail.

Similar Messages

Does TM have any real functional advantages over other solutions?

Hi All
Looking at possible network backup solutions. Does TM have any real functional advantages over something like SuperDuper? I'm not really looking for an "archive" solution, which is I think how a lot of people perhaps incorrectly view TM, but just something that will allow me to easily recover from corrupt/crashed system - TM seems rather overkill and complex for that?
Any advice/views appreciated...jeremy

Jeremy Trask wrote:
Hi All
Looking at possible network backup solutions. Does TM have any real functional advantages over something like SuperDuper? I'm not really looking for an "archive" solution, which is I think how a lot of people perhaps incorrectly view TM, but just something that will allow me to easily recover from corrupt/crashed system - TM seems rather overkill and complex for that?
Officially, TM does not work over a network, except via Time Capsule or to another Mac running Leopard on the same local network: http://support.apple.com/kb/HT1733
Some of us are able to use a USB drive attached to an Airport Extreme, or a shared drive on a Mac running Leopard or Snow Leopard on the same local network. Some others are using various NAS devices that claim to be TM-compatible, but often with various difficulties.
So if you're set on a network solution, your options with TM are limited.
CarbonCopyCloner does not work to any network destination, and I don't think SD does, either.
Other than that, TM has two main advantages over the "clones:"
Being able to do hourly incremental backups of new and changed items very quickly, it gives you an excellent chance of recovering something that was changed or deleted in error, or that got corrupted. Most other apps, especially CCC and SD, if they're backing-up your entire system, in most cases just aren't practical to run more than once or twice a day.
Second, since every TM backup is, in effect, a full one, you can restore your entire system to the exact state it was in at the time of any backup, even if it was a previous version of Leopard or Snow Leopard. Many folks have, for example, successfully and easily downgraded from SL back to Leopard when they found they had incompatible apps or other problems.

Any real-world e-commerce application using HTMLDB?

Hi,
Any real-world e-commerce application using HTMLDB?
If yes, can you please provide the web links?
Thanks!
Steve

That's why I said "depends on your definition"
According to the Wikipedia, the definition of e-commerce is -
"Electronic commerce, e-commerce or ecommerce consists primarily of the distributing, buying, selling, marketing,
and servicing of products or services over electronic systems such as the Internet and other computer networks."So nothing mentioned there about the size/number of transactions ;)
So, is your question "Has anybody built a site in HTMLDB that handles the number of transactions that Amazon handles?"
I'd be surprised if the answer were Yes, however HTMLDB (depending on your architecture) is capable of scaling to a huge number of users.
Do you have a particular application/project in mind, or is it just a hypothetical question?

Any real gain from installing ios6?

There seem to be more real complaints and issues about this upgrade than previous ones, maps being the obvious one. Is ios6 going to give me any positive improvements on an iPhone 4 or does keeping Google maps outweigh any benefits from the upgrade?

I think ios5 was better than ios6. No youtube in ios6. Map is worst in ios6. you can get lost if you follow apple map in ios6. Hope Apple can tell us any improvement or better features available in ios6.

Will there performance improvement over separate tables vs single table with multiple partitions?

Will there performance improvement over separate tables vs single table with multiple partitions? Is advisable to have separate tables than having a single big table with partitions? Can we expect same performance having single big table with partitions? What is the recommendation approach in HANA?

Suren,
first off a friendly reminder: SCN is a public forum and for you as an SAP employee there are multiple internal forums/communities/JAM groups available. You may want to consider this.
Concerning your question:
You didn't tell us what you want to do with your table or your set of tables.
As tables are not only storage units but usually bear semantics - read: if data is stored in one table it means something else than the same data in a different table - partitioned tables cannot simply be substituted by multiple tables.
Looked at it on a storage technology level, table partitions are practically the same as tables. Each partition has got its own delta store & can be loaded and displaced to/from memory independent from the others.
Generally speaking there shouldn't be too many performance differences between a partitioned table and multiple tables.
However, when dealing with partitioned tables, the additional step of determining the partition to work on is always required. If computing the result of the partitioning function takes a major share in your total runtime (which is unlikely) then partitioned tables could have a negative performance impact.
Having said this: as with all performance related questions, to get a conclusive answer you need to measure the times required for both alternatives.
- Lars

Any posablity of over clocking on a k9agm2

Hey any way of over clock my amd 4800+ on the msi k9agm2 at all i know i picked a low end board cos i dont have the cash and it dosent have any voltage settings and what not in the bios so any ideas or work arounds would greatly be appreciated

Quote from: Teflon on 14-October-07, 23:36:39
thanks boss killer well the vcore i vould cvhnge nother wy but multiplyers and stuff i wouldent no how to go abotyuu isn memset ram timing?? sorry i was sure memset was ram tiing no proceesor stuff
yes its for mem. timings, not for CPU... try with clockgen

Having a hell of a time attempting to cancel this crap! Any real advice will be appreciated ASAP

How the heck can I cancel the subscription I just purhased as this program just ain't working for me! Any real help will be appreciated ASAP.

Hi ENERGY CONSULT,
Please contact our customer care (http://helpx.adobe.com/contact.html ) to cancel the subscription and process a refund.
You can also reach our chat support at http://adobe.ly/yxj0t6

On an IMac will a 4GB graphics card give a noticeable speed improvement over a 2GB card?

On an IMac will a 4GB graphics card give a noticeable speed improvement over a 2GB card?

In terms of Lightroom I'm pretty sure the answer would be "no".

Any real reason for logical partitioning over physical?

Hi!
I have seen a number of scenarios where SAP BI (assuming BI 7.0 for the rest of the discussion), running in high volume scenarios, have been cluttered by a lot of logically partitioned cubes joined by multi providers....
Obviously the disadvantage of using logical partitions is that it increases maintenance efforts: you need a new update rule for each logical partition (cube) , then you need to manually add/delte cubes from the multiprovider, filtering data in the update rules to reach the correct cube based on time characteristic etc etc...
I have seen one clear advantage which is the parallelization of queries run against a multiprovider - assuming you wan't to all underlying cubes ... but are there any other advantages which overcome the mainenance overhead?
For me it feels like using physical database partitions in the same cube would be the correct decision in 90% of the cases. It seems to me that the underlying RDBMS should be able to handle itself to:
1) Parallellize a query over several physical partitions if needed.
2) Be smart enough to only query the needed partition if the query is restricted based on the partitioning characteristic.
Please correct me anyone? - When is logical partitions really motivated?
Best regards,
Christian
Edited by: Christian on May 15, 2008 3:55 PM

Hi,
This is a great question. Generally it is very difficult to understand the real motivation for the physical partioning - multiple cubes. You are right, it definitely increases the maintenance overhead. And you have already pointed out both the advantages and disadvantages.
Physical Partitioning is more useful where we have huge amounts of data. Imagine a cube with 3 or 4 GB of data - which are not usual - but possible. The Table Partioning is useful with small infocubes, less than 1 GB. With bigger Infocubes, Table level partitioning may not provide the required level of performance. If we have too many small partitions, that would also reduce the perfomance. If we have too few partitions, the query performance will not be as much as we want. In this scenario, we can use Physical partitioning (Multiple Cubes) combined with Table Level Partitioning to achieve the required performance levels. On top, we can even think of using Aggregates for further betterment of the performance.
While all the above seems to be relevant for older versions of BW (upto 3.5), BI 7.0 has the BIA (BI Accelerator), which works on the Blade Server with all the data cached directly on the main memory. I am not sure how much this would impact the data modeling - I have not started working on the BIA as yet.
rgds
naga

Z Series Cards - Any Improvements over XFi?

I am looking to upgrade my PCI XFi to a PCIe solution.
Any one have any input on whether one of the Z series cards would be a worthwhile choice over an XFi card? Looking at the specs I'm not seeing any tangible benefits.
For one there is no 7.1 audio support. I know that 7.1 is becoming rare, but there are still 7.1 Blurays releasing and I think it's a worthwhile upgrade over 5.1. Especially if game developers can be convinced in supporting it. So I'm confused as to why a high end audio card is limited to 5.1
As for the rest of the features I'm guessing that the SBX suite is the same tech that was on the XFi cards, just renamed. SBX Surround = CMSS3D for example. Have any improvements been made?

You can Google or Bing the Z series for specs to get an idea of how those cards differ from the X-Fi family. I think the X-Fi cards host more processes in hardware but take this with a grain of salt.

Any real difference between a 1.83 and 2.0 MacBook Pro?

Hi all,
I have recently bought a MacBook Pro 1.83 GHz model. It was on sale at my local computer store and I thought it was a good find, as it was brand new and was selling for £1099, a £300 saving on the 2.0 GHz model. Before I start using it, I just wanted to know if anyone knew if there was a real performance difference between the two and should I have paid the extra £300 to get the 2.0 GHz machine?
I only ask this, as I know that over time Apple sometimes tweak the machine to improve it and (after talking with someone at Apple), I've been told that there have been 5 or 6 changes to the inner workings (or revisions as they called them), and I wondered if this changed the performance or if it was just minor improvements regarding heat and noise and so on.
To finish, does anyone have any speculation as if this is a good time to buy a MacBook Pro with the introduction of the Core 2 Duo chips in the new iMacs?
Many thanks.
MacBook Pro Mac OS X (10.4.7) 1.83GHz Core Duo / 512MB / 80GB

So what you are saying is that the 170 MHZ difference between the 1.83 and the 2.0 is noticeable, but the 160 MHZ difference between the 2.0 and the 2.16 is not?
I thought we were passed the marketing gimmicks and the clock speed race, but I guess not.
Clock speed doesn't tell you anything about the performance of a CPU. Intel almost ran themselves into the ground by trying to pump up their clock speeds and feeding that tripe to the masses. AMD focused on a solid architecture that created a robust chip. As a result AMD took the lead in performance and stability.
Intel's greatest achievement to date has been the PIII Coppermine. So good was this architecture that they have gone back to it. The Centrinos are based off the Coppermines as are the dual cores.
The point of the story is that clock speed means nothing. Save your cash and put it to better use by getting a 7200 rpm drive or more RAM.

Are any usability improvements in the works?

Hi,
It's been a while since Windows 8 has come out but there are still a lot of issues with UI/UX issues witn Windows 8 or 8.1 as far as I can see.
Here are some of the issues I see and struggle with. These issues are all related to using Windows 8 or 8.1 in tablet mode:
It's very difficult - sometimes impossible - to select text. I just tried selecting someone's name on a Wikipedia page which was in the article title. I just couldn't do it. I could select one word by double tapping it but I could not get the little handles
to appear so that I could select both the person's first and last name. I have this problem quite often.
Another related issue here is that there's no smart help in Windows 8.x. For example, in iOS, when user holds his finger on a particular area of text, iOS will magnify just that section, making it easier to see and select the desired text. I don't understand
why such a feature has not been implemented in Windows 8.x.
I also find the behavior of the on-screen keyboard very unfriendly. My biggest issue is that in some cases, it just covers and does not get out of the way of a section of the screen. For example, I may be filling out a short form on a web page. If there's
not a lot of stuff below the form section on the page, the keyboard simply sits on the bottom section of the screen - even if the textbox I'm trying to type into is directly underneath.
Again, in iOS, the screen will shift upwards to show the user what he/she is interacting with.
I find it very surprising that these basic usability improvements haven't been made yet. I don't want to be a critic who only brings out the negative. Windows 8 is my primary platform and ever since I got my Lenovo Yoga 2 Pro, I seem to prefer it over my
iPad, primarily because I get to create content on my Yoga Pro, rather than only consume on my iPad.
I really like my Yoga Pro in tablet mode because it's only slightly larger and heavier than my iPad but it gives me the full power of a Windows machine which I believe is the real promise of having Windows 8 in tablets.
Having said that I get very frustrated with Windows 8 in the above mentioned scenarios.
Wanted to see if these issues are being addressed.
Thanks, Sam

There are no plans to change, However there are modders working on these issues. The biggest problem is Metro. Metro has to go, for a PC, it is not working. Most of the time it is broken. Update comes and fixes the first problem, the udate actually
broke what was not broken. Then someone realized jeez that update broke the app, so an store update comes to fix what the update did. What bothers me is, we don't have a clue what we just updated.
I do not understand why Microsoft is trying to hide everything, help is broken, the metro UI is like scrambled eggs. Hardware compatibility sucks big time, Defender is the worst protection you could ever install. Defender has allowed users to be infected
without even knowing it. Defender has breached millions of users data, and Microsoft lab staff here are telling people it is safe to use because no other security system works with windows 8.1, The UI is not very friendly towards other security software. This
list go's on. The main issue is their security software is not trustworthy and that is a big mistake on Microsoft part. How do we trust our business with that.
Saying all that, I do like the OS over previous and the nags one gets takes sometime to sink in. We do eventually adapt to the nags. Metro for a pc sucks.
MICROSOFT PLEASE IN YOUR NEXT VERSION WIN 8.2 OR 9 PLEASE ALLOW US THE CHOICE TO INSATLL METRO OR CLASSIC
I Hate Windows 8
http://answers.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/forum/windows_8-windows_install/i-hate-windows-8/cd2d9fec-9d95-42ba-9e41-727419459465
The Metro hater's guide to Windows 8.1
http://www.zdnet.com/the-metro-haters-guide-to-the-windows-8-1-preview-7000018398/
I’m not sure Microsoft appreciates how much some users hate Windows 8
http://bgr.com/2013/12/04/windows-8-hatred-explained/
https://twitter.com/WeHateMetro
If You Already Hate Windows 8 Then You Hate Technology
http://gizmodo.com/5840704/if-you-already-hate-windows-8-then-you-hate-technology
Microsoft Really Wants Desktop Users To Hate Windows 8
http://www.webpronews.com/microsoft-really-wants-desktop-users-to-hate-windows-8-2012-08
I do not see many people saying good things. SO WHY DOES MICROSOFT STAFF NOT LISTEN TO THE PUBLIC.

My sudoku program, any comments, improvements appreciated

Hi all,
So I've been refining my amateur-ish programming skills for around a month, and have been writing a C++ program that solves sudoku. (My background is in physics.) I realize there are a lot of mathematical sides in sudoku, but I'm concentrating on the programming side and not too much on the math/brain side. Now the program is basically finished (I hope!) and I just thought the hackers here can have a look and see if there are any things I can improve.
The link is here: http://ifile.it/jkr56v8/Sudoku.tar
Basically, a sudoku is an instance of Board, an abstract base class with the pure abstract function Go(). Any concrete class derived from it is essentially a strategy. I think this design pattern is called strategy?
I've implemented two basic strategies, BruteForce and Priority. BruteForce does the good old sudoku brute force algorithm, which use trial-and-error from the top left box to the bottom right box all possibilitiies until the correct one is found. Priority does basically the same as BruteForce, except instead of trying from top left to bottom right, it plugs numbers in the box that has the most filled "associated" boxes.
To accommodate "composite strategies," I implemented the prototype pattern, so for example, I can write
void HyperBF::Go(void)
BruteForce::Go();
When a solution is found, I throw an exception to notify the main program, am I correct in that this is a clear and elegant use? Or is it a misuse and an alternative should be considered?
To actually choose a strategy, I created an abstract factory, a singleton. I'm aware there are all the advice out there that says don't use a singleton unless absolutely necessary? So, should I use a singleton in this case? Also, I think my implementation of the singleton leads to a bug, which is the only known bug: when I put a completed sudoku as input, it gives the output as usual, but gives a segmentation fault afterwards:
./Sudoku Puzzle/test_1_Basic.psv BruteForce | tail -n 12 | head -n9 | tee completed
|5|1|8|2|9|6|7|3|4|
|3|9|7|8|4|1|2|6|5|
|6|4|2|5|7|3|1|9|8|
|1|5|6|4|2|7|3|8|9|
|4|7|9|3|6|8|5|1|2|
|8|2|3|9|1|5|6|4|7|
|7|8|4|1|3|2|9|5|6|
|2|3|5|6|8|9|4|7|1|
|9|6|1|7|5|4|8|2|3|
./Sudoku completed BruteForce
Starting configuration:
|5|1|8|2|9|6|7|3|4|
|3|9|7|8|4|1|2|6|5|
|6|4|2|5|7|3|1|9|8|
|1|5|6|4|2|7|3|8|9|
|4|7|9|3|6|8|5|1|2|
|8|2|3|9|1|5|6|4|7|
|7|8|4|1|3|2|9|5|6|
|2|3|5|6|8|9|4|7|1|
|9|6|1|7|5|4|8|2|3|
Final configuration:
|5|1|8|2|9|6|7|3|4|
|3|9|7|8|4|1|2|6|5|
|6|4|2|5|7|3|1|9|8|
|1|5|6|4|2|7|3|8|9|
|4|7|9|3|6|8|5|1|2|
|8|2|3|9|1|5|6|4|7|
|7|8|4|1|3|2|9|5|6|
|2|3|5|6|8|9|4|7|1|
|9|6|1|7|5|4|8|2|3|
Number of attempts: 0.
Time elapsed: 0.00 s.
Segmentation fault
So what's wrong here?
Having implemented the basic functionalities, I tried to play around and gain some simple experience in some optimization. I looked at the Go() function and saw probably the expensive operation is IsConsistent(), so I optimized it by only checking the consistency of changed boxes. By doing so, I reduced the computational time to around 1/3 the original time. Is this the right move, or bad move, or are there better moves?
As a last question, I defined the number of attempts as a global variable. My reason is that, although it is possible to put it in class Board, I just think it doesn't "naturally belong" there, and putting it in a restricted scope would mean a lot of passing of parameters, slowing the program down unnecessarily. So, is this global variable fine?
Lastly, please have a look at my Makefile. This is the first Makefile I wrote, and it took me 3 solid days to get all the .o files in Release/ ! Are there things I've left out?
I realize the Generator is a joke, but at this moment I don't care too much about that, unless anyone has some good ideas.
Any comments would be greatly appreciated! Thanks in advance!

Grazz256 wrote:
Just looking over your code a little I have a couple of comments about your coding style. Please keep in mind that these are just comments...
I think you need to comment your code more. I know its a pain and I'm horrible about it as well but it really does help when/if you go back to read your code in a couple of years.
I try to avoid lines like these:
fprintf( stdout, "Starting configuration:\n" ); a->Write(stdout);
start = clock(); a->Go();
by putting two commands on one line it makes the code harder to read. with one command on each line I can quickly scan through and know
generally what each line does, with two I have to actually read each line fully so that I don't miss anything.
Descriptive variable names can also help with readability, I've always been taught the convention of using the first character to indicate type then
using a short descriptive name. For instance you have a function that returns a long value, the value would be decalred like this:
long lRetVal;
so looking through the code I would know thats a long value that represents a return value.
This is an area I'm all over the place with, I always try to stick to one convention but never seem manage it...
As far as your problem goes, where are the boards normally deleted? ie if an incomplete sudoku is inputed?
One possible solution is to run an IsComplete check before you start processing the board. so you would have...
if (a->IsConsistent()) {
if (a->IsComplete()) {
a->Go()
I'll be honest in that I don't really understand the flow of your code, but instead of having the board deleted within strategy or within win why not just delete it on the next line... eg:
start = clock(); a->Go();
delete a;
the downside to this approach is that you would have to delete it within each exception as well but this is relatively minor.
Cheers
Thanks for your comments. At my present level of programming skills, any comments will help.
I thought all my code was basically concise and self-explanatory, and each function is small enough that a quick skim through the definition and declaration would be enough to understand. As the project grew, however, things got slightly more complicated. I have added more comments in my source files, trying to comment why rather than how. I thought the flow of the code was fairly obvious though, by inspecting the main loop. It takes care of the input, bark if anything's wrong, trigger a.Go(), and try to catch a Win. Do you mean the flow within Go()? Anyway, it is very true I need clearer coding style.
Yeah I now solved the segfault problem. The reason a completed sudoku was deleted twice is because the original sudoku is meant to be deleted by the abstract factory, while the solved sudoku is meant to be deleted by Win. When a solved sudoku is inputted it would be deleted twice. Due to lack of programming experience, I failed to see the obvious way is to, as Grazz256 said, check in the beginning whether the inputted sudoku is already solved. If it is, then I duplicate the inputted sudoku and throw the win exception.
By the way, I think I'm beginning to understand why some people are obsessed wtih optimization. I did 3 optimization techniques in my program. First, I thought the most expensive procedure is the IsConsistent() method. By evaluating it lazily I reduced the time to 1/3 the original time. Then following http://www.acm.org/crossroads/xrds1-4/ovp.html, I used initialized the 2D vector within each sudoku via constructor rather than as statements. Doing so gave a 20% time boost. Using a friend procedure while copying sudokus boost another 5%. Doing a right move and getting positive feedback through better performance can be so satisfying.
EDIT:
I found out there was memory leak after all, which I finally solved.
What happens is with all my brute force algorithms I keep creating new Board's and call the Board's Go() recursively. To delete all Board's in the heap I need to have, within each Board::Go(), instead of
Board* a = Clone(); // return new derived Board(*this);
a->Put(x,y,'0'+k);
a->Go();
delete a; // if an exception is thrown this line never gets executed
this
Board* a = Clone();
a->Put(x,y,'0'+k);
try {a->Go(); }
catch( const Win& e) {
delete a;
throw(e);
delete a;
But this deletes the winning sudoku too. This means I have to keep the result in Win, either by duplicating the winning sudoku or storing the string. In the end I overloaded Board::Write(File* f) to also have Board::Write(std::string& p) to sprintf on the reference of a string, so Win just stores the solution in string format. Finally, no memory leak, no need to do a first check to see if the inputted sudoku is already solved, and no pointer deleted twice.
So in the end, to manage pointers I recursively threw exceptions. That made me ask, is using exceptions worth it, or should I stick to the more conventional methods, such as have Go() return a boolean value, then deleting pointers which would give an implementation that is essentially the same as recursive exceptions?
I still think exceptions is the way to go, the reasons being:
1) Exception mechanism provide a natural place to hold the result. Throwing exceptions recursively and the traditional way is essentially the same, but where should the result be stored in the latter case?
2) Arguing over the dictionary, an exception is not necessarily an "error." Winning is an exception in this algorithm, because failure is the norm (as in life).
3) Exception arguably gives better presentation in the main loop, to my "unbiased" eyes at least. Board* a->Go() is triggered in the try block in the main(), with all (foreseeable) possible results caught as exceptions. It is true that this might be a bit unconventional, but given proper comments I still think it is at least as good as the conventional way, in terms of presentation.
So what do you think?
Last edited by dumas (2009-12-21 12:37:47)

Any real-life experience using SSD yet?

In my mind playing around with a demo unit in an Apple store isn't all that useful, and the benchmarks don't provide a real-life story. Anyone have an SSD they've used - at home, or office, in a real-life situation - yet?
What're your impressions re: speed? Is there a noticeable boost over the standard HD unit? Does it seem MacBook zippy?
Any feedback - good or bad - would really help!

Think of SSD as a grown-up version of those flash memory sticks you slip into your Mac’s USB ports. Instead of storing data on spinning platters, as a standard hard drive does, SSDs store data in solid-state memory—either NAND flash memory or SDRAM. Increase that USB stick’s capacity and add an ATA or SATA interface, and you’ve got an SSD. SSDs seem like the perfect mass storage devices for a notebook. They have no moving parts, so they’re less susceptible to damage from the shocks and jolts of travel. SSDs can withstand 10 times as much impact as a standard hard drive. They also deal well with vibration. Then there’s an SSD’s parsimonious power consumption. Powered down, SSDs consume virtually no juice—somewhere around 0.05 watts. Even when operational, an SSD draws only 1w or so—about a third the consumption of a comparable hard drive. In terms of seek times and throughput, SSD performance is about equal to that of a standard hard drive. But SSDs turn on instantly: They don’t have to spin up platters as hard drives do, so they reduce computer boot, restart, and wake-up times substantially. In addition to being sturdier, more power efficient, and faster than standard hard drives, SSDs are also slightly lighter and can, if necessary, be molded into different form factors to fit tight spaces. The circular platters of a hard drive don’t allow for that kind of design flexibility.

Any REAL news on when Apple will be sending out second shipments

Jacob,
is there any new news this afternoon to offer. I am 27th in line at my bestbuy in Hoover, AL and the guy John that they have handling all the preorders is doing great with what he has to offer but just figure i would see if you had anything to offer.
I am ready to have my iphone 4 so i can start complaining about its short comings like everyone else ha. but no seriously i am so anxious
thanks for whatever you can offer!!!!

Well, I imagine many stores will get some today and tomorrow. Basically, Apple will keep shipping until we reach allotment. Then, Best Buy® logistics will take over.
I don't have specific info since we're not the ones shipping. I'm sorry! But, your store should call as soon as they have a phone for you.
Jacob|Web Planner | Best Buy® Corporate

PSE8 - Any Real Improvement over PSE3?

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for