Re: Firewire dead? Not at all.
- From: "Edwin" <thorne25@xxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2006 18:37:36 GMT
Snit wrote:
"Edwin" <thorne25@xxxxxxxx> stated in post
aXcpg.75900$4L1.30886@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx on 6/30/06 10:11 AM:
http://www.mcelhearn.com/article.php?story=20050227175953120
FireWire R.I.P.
Edwin, if you look at the top of the first article you referenced
(above the article title, written in orange), you will see that it
is dated December 8, 2005, as JIm and Alan stated. The 2nd
reference (the Mcelhearn.com article) is dated February, 2005. They
are quite out of date.
That's not old enough to be "quite out of date." Especially not
amongst you guys who will dig up a ten year old TCO study and wave
it around as if it proved the Mac has lower TCO today.
Couple questions:
1) At the time of the TCO studies do you think they are accurate?
Irrelevant in the time they were quoted.
2) Do you think the predictions of the Firewire articles came true?
Whether they will come true is the issue.
.
- References:
- Firewire dead? Not at all.
- From: Jim Polaski
- Re: Firewire dead? Not at all.
- From: Edwin
- Re: Firewire dead? Not at all.
- From: Dave Fritzinger
- Re: Firewire dead? Not at all.
- From: Edwin
- Firewire dead? Not at all.
- Prev by Date: Re: kinda fun for itunes...
- Next by Date: Re: Firewire dead? Not at all.
- Previous by thread: Re: Firewire dead? Not at all.
- Next by thread: Re: Firewire dead? Not at all.
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|