Are you disappointed with the new iMac, this might be an option.

[iFanboy]

Originally Posted by mchoffa

if I absolutely HAD to buy a windows AIO, at least this one looks decent... though I'm not a fan of HP's hardware

http://www.engadget.com/2012/09/10/h...3-pavilion-20/

Have you seen how underpowered that thing is? They want £1200 for it aswell!

Windows 8, 4GB ram, 1TB HDD, low end graphics card.

Seriously, some Windows laptops even kill that thing.

HP is currently producing mid range specs for high end prices. Avoid.

[ratsg]

I thought not.

If it doesn't run OS X, it really isn't a contender and shouldn't be up on the list.

given the choice, I would take a Psystar box over this thing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psystar

at least I would know it could run OS X.

Originally Posted by ratsg

and you have OS X installed on this ASUS box?

[spyguy10709]

Originally Posted by yebubbleman

alright, if we're talking about a fair comparison, then for $2000, the cost of a base high-end 27" imac, i can build a maxed out high-end imac. And yes, with the gtx 670, which, unless i'm mistaken does blow the gtx 680mx away as desktop components perform better than mobile components. I still don't know where you get the idea that the bang for buck on an imac is better than a tower or even comparable because that math isn't adding up the way you say it is.



Nope, the thread is about alternatives to the imac; nowhere in the title of the original post is there any "aio" or "all-in-one" written. The example shown is an asus all-in-one. My stance on towers versus all-in-ones is no less valid or appropriate.

tl/dr

[Lambros]

OMG GUYS, Asus put the computer in the base, instead of in the screen...this way they can...wait for it...REDUCE THE SCREEN'S DEPTH...also, they just put the hardware in the base, so now we can call it an AIO!! The COMPROMISE, you ask? Well, instead you'll just have some ugly piece of s!@# sitting on your desk, which people look at and thing, OMG MY CHILD COULD HAVE DESIGNED SOMETHING BETTER!

10 point multi touch...it's awesome...for people who play the piano app instead of an actual piano. So many uses for a vertical display!

Firstly, if you're going to get Windows 8 (the biggest mistake since MobileMe), then at least buy a decent product...http://www.asus.com/Notebooks/Superi...SUS_TAICHI_21/

Secondly, the iMac, which we are all speaking of individually, instead of comparing it to the COMPETITIOn is a masterpiece next to this rubbish. The iMac's screen is thinner, and it you don't need to have a brick as your computer's base.

There are two uses for bricks: Construction and throwing at trolls. Don't put this ugly thing on your desk. You're better off not using a computer at all.

THEN there are the health issues:

"Many all-in-one desktop solutions are also integrating touch screens these days and the study warns that these vertically oriented touchscreens are even more ergonomically inferior. They cause more muscle strain over a shorter period of time, and lead to an unnatural bending of the wrist that anatomists call dorsiflexion. The ideal angle for touch taps, according to the study, is about 30 degrees."

Source: http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2398991,00.asp

Which M$FT was kind enough to consider...thank you again Microsoft!

Q.E.D.

PS for those who don't know what Q.E.D. is (I have to say this, because to support a Windows computer such as the one mentioned, you must be uneducated), then please see here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Q.E.D.

[dubels]

Originally Posted by garpen

ASUS has a reputation for high quality.

Really... Try using my netbook with a trackpad that was replace three times and still sucks. I had to open it up and modify it so it would work for my trip. Once back from my trip plastic covers started to fall off. It's the main reason I got an Air. After two weeks of use I was sick of that plastic crap and malfunctioning track pad. I gave it to my mom and she mailed it back to me after a week instead opting to use a 6 yr old thinkpad. Never again will I buy an ASUS product.

[throAU]

Originally Posted by garpen

This is a Macforum so you'll have to wait a lot of complaints on Windows but the fact is that your computer will look like this in the future with touch screen

No. iMac has already looked like that for almost a decade, but it doesn't and won't be touch screen.


Just because microsoft is doing it, doesn't make it a good idea. Touch screens on a vertical surface sucks.

Don't forget, Microsoft put out the UI wonder called DOS, along with edlin and command.com. Even amongst their peers (command line unix, vi, korn shell, etc), they sucked hard.

----------

Originally Posted by G51989

Why do looks matter?

Because I spend several hours per day looking at it (while i'm ... you know... using it), and it lives in my house?

If you're cool living with ugly pieces of crap in your life, fine. Some aren't.

[Nishi100]

I think there's too many compromises :
No CD drive
No audio in
Non-Replaceable RAM in 21.5 inch
(all of which the 'older' iMac has)

and apple haven't really added anything useful:
No HDMI
No blu ray

(being thinner isn't useful)

But the faster graphics, CPU and hard drive options are nice; but even with that there's a compromise, if you get the 3TB HDD you can't dual boot, without losing 1TB. Hopefully apple will fix this issue, allowing >2TB hard drives to be used for boot camp when they release the update with windows 8 drivers.

It doesn't look like this computer has as good as screen as the iMac or a blu ray driver, but then again it doesn't cost £1100.

[Yebubbleman]

Originally Posted by spyguy10709

tl/dr

Cool story, bro.

[Omne666]

Originally Posted by throAU

No. .
Don't forget, Microsoft put out the UI wonder called DOS, along with edlin and command.com. Even amongst their peers (command line unix, vi, korn shell, etc), they sucked hard.[COLOR="#808080"]
.

Not to bat for the other team, but ever head of ProDOS? Used it on my first Apple IIc. Plus it ran on everything Apple pre mac days.

Kudos to Microsoft for possibly bringing the most fragmented, disfunctional hardware market to a unified GUI interface. Having said that, would I go for the machine in question? .....Shoot me now!

[leman]

Originally Posted by Yebubbleman

...

Hey Yebubbleman, I think we both made our points clear and yet we still disagree on the topic, so I think I'd better stop arguing - this is just wasting bandwidth. However, I'd like to comment on all that price comparison stuff, because I think that we might have a fundamental misunderstanding here (or rather, a radical difference in our approach).

When I talk about tower vs. iMac price comparison, I am talking about matching features 1 to 1 precisely. It is absolutely clear to me that a tower is more customisable, offers more opportunities to save money or tweak performance, lets you reuse your old monitor and peripherals. However, the iMac is a tiered machine. It comes in some specific configurations (and let's for the sake of the argument, not talk whether these configurations makes sense or not). So when I try to evaluate whether its price is reasonable, I must look up the price of specifically these components. In another words, I try to see how much a tower with exactly the specs of the iMac would cost.

This is why I am including a 1440p IPS monitor (because the iMac comes with one of these thing), a designer aluminium case (because the iMac is one of those things), at least an 80 Plus Bronze PSU, a 3x3 WiFi chip, Thunderbolt, Bluetooth 4.0, wireless peripherals etc. - because they are included in the iMac either you want them or not. The result is that the price of the components themselves is more or less equivalent to what Apple charges (btw., I have a 560 Ti in my list because I think this is what most closely matches the performance of 675MX. Surely, both 660 series and 670 will be faster - but they also cost more).

Now, I completely agree with you that a custom built tower will offer you better bang for buck if you customise it to your needs/skip on some of the components or simply reuse what you already own. But my entire point was that matching the iMac spec-by-spec from scratch does not save you money (and it is entirely possible that you still do not agree, but I've kind of given up to try to convince you). Ergo, if I a) have to build a machine from scratch, b) don't want to bother with assembly/setup/maintenance, c) don't care for upgrades , d) want to have a good-looking and pleasant to work with machine, the iMac provides me (and her I am talking specifically about myself) a better user experience for comparable price.

----------

Originally Posted by G51989

Aesthetics are meaningless in a desktop computer. Or any computer. If you have to show off your computer, you got issues. Why not buy a nice car or house? Then show that off, if thats what matters to you.

I never had the urge to show off with anything

If you think that owning nice things is only for showing off, then I am sorry for you. Some of us like to own nice things because they are, uhm... well, nice. When I spend 14 hours a day in from of the computer it must be something that gives me pleasure to work with it.

[tech4all]

Originally Posted by cocky jeremy

What's to be disappointed with? It's faster than the already fast 2011 models, has new options for BTO, and thinner/lighter.

I find it funny that a lighter desktop computer being lighter is seen as a 'plus.' I mean it is a plus, but it's a desktop not a laptop. You're not going to be carrying an iMac all the time.

Originally Posted by cocky jeremy

I get the first two, somewhat.. but no ODD? It's 2012. There's no need for disks.

I'll give you four:

• Ripping music from CDs. (not everyone buys music online)
• Watching movies on DVDs. (not everyone streams/buys from Netflix/iTunes)
• Installing software (not everyone downloads apps nor have a broadband connection.)
• Reading discs from family members, photo labs, and clients.

Originally Posted by G51989

Aesthetics are meaningless in a desktop computer. Or any computer. If you have to show off your computer, you got issues. Why not buy a nice car or house? Then show that off, if thats what matters to you.

Ummmm no. There's nothing wrong with wanting some nice style for a computer. You don't need to show it off to be able to enjoy it yourself.

Now this if of course it's not like the iPad mini; $80 more than the competition which gets you nice style, less RAM, less storage, inferior screen. Style doesn't justify lack of specs at a greater price IMO.

[Yebubbleman]

Originally Posted by leman

Hey Yebubbleman, I think we both made our points clear and yet we still disagree on the topic, so I think I'd better stop arguing - this is just wasting bandwidth. However, I'd like to comment on all that price comparison stuff, because I think that we might have a fundamental misunderstanding here (or rather, a radical difference in our approach).

When I talk about tower vs. iMac price comparison, I am talking about matching features 1 to 1 precisely. It is absolutely clear to me that a tower is more customisable, offers more opportunities to save money or tweak performance, lets you reuse your old monitor and peripherals. However, the iMac is a tiered machine. It comes in some specific configurations (and let's for the sake of the argument, not talk whether these configurations makes sense or not). So when I try to evaluate whether its price is reasonable, I must look up the price of specifically these components. In another words, I try to see how much a tower with exactly the specs of the iMac would cost.

This is why I am including a 1440p IPS monitor (because the iMac comes with one of these thing), a designer aluminium case (because the iMac is one of those things), at least an 80 Plus Bronze PSU, a 3x3 WiFi chip, Thunderbolt, Bluetooth 4.0, wireless peripherals etc. - because they are included in the iMac either you want them or not. The result is that the price of the components themselves is more or less equivalent to what Apple charges (btw., I have a 560 Ti in my list because I think this is what most closely matches the performance of 675MX. Surely, both 660 series and 670 will be faster - but they also cost more).

Now, I completely agree with you that a custom built tower will offer you better bang for buck if you customise it to your needs/skip on some of the components or simply reuse what you already own. But my entire point was that matching the iMac spec-by-spec from scratch does not save you money (and it is entirely possible that you still do not agree, but I've kind of given up to try to convince you). Ergo, if I a) have to build a machine from scratch, b) don't want to bother with assembly/setup/maintenance, c) don't care for upgrades , d) want to have a good-looking and pleasant to work with machine, the iMac provides me (and her I am talking specifically about myself) a better user experience for comparable price.

I appreciate the "let's just agree to disagree" sentiment, but no, my findings didn't conclude a $200 difference, it concluded a much larger difference. Even if we're talking spec for spec (which would be impractical to do in real life), I'm still not finding that, but really, you're right, that's a pointless debate. The fundamental issue is that with an iMac, you have less choice, less freedom and much more needless compromise in exchange for a mid-range Apple-branded desktop running a version of OS X that you don't have to research how to get working (with custom KEXTs, patches, drivers, and bootloaders). Unfortunately, that's Apple's ransom and many who can't afford the legwork to build a hackintosh but still want a desktop running OS X have to pay that price. Frankly, given that even on an identically priced tower, you can upgrade parts as needed, an iMac ultimately costs way more down the line as you can't give it a larger hard drive later on. In the case of the 21.5", you can't even give it more RAM if you were unable to afford the 16GB upgrade at the time of purchase. That ends up costing way more down the road. The annoying thing is that on the 27" iMac (as well as earlier 27" iMacs, earlier 24" iMacs and, I think, earlier 21.5" iMacs) the GPU is slotted and thusly, a replacable part; but unlike a tower, and even gamer laptop PCs where said slotted GPUs are found, you can't replace that card later on.

Yes, it's a designer computer. But I'm sorry, being able to upgrade parts is a premium feature, and that computer is anything but premium, for a desktop. Being able to upgrade and easily service your computer is a HUGE feature to lose on nothing but aesthetics. Were it done that way for functionality, you'd hear me praising that design decision. Alas, I see no benefit other than looks. And again, My PC tower is no uglier than any iMac I've ever seen.

Originally Posted by leman

I never had the urge to show off with anything

If you think that owning nice things is only for showing off, then I am sorry for you. Some of us like to own nice things because they are, uhm... well, nice. When I spend 14 hours a day in from of the computer it must be something that gives me pleasure to work with it.

Fair enough. But there is such a thing as being beatiful internally as well as externally. The non-retina MacBook Pro is a fantastic example of this. It is both practical, easy to service and upgrade, and externally beautiful. That's a machine I can get behind. A machine that is only superficially beautiful is impractical, and at more than $1000, I can't afford to buy something impractical.

Originally Posted by tech4all

Ummmm no. There's nothing wrong with wanting some nice style for a computer. You don't need to show it off to be able to enjoy it yourself.

There is if that style overrides functionality. In paying for thinness, power, expandability, longevity, upgradeability, durability, and reliability are all sacrificed. If the machine cost as much as an entry-level Mac mini, then I would be accepting those sacrifices. But at $1299+? No way. Nice style for a computer isn't worth THAT much.

Originally Posted by tech4all

Now this if of course it's not like the iPad mini; $80 more than the competition which gets you nice style, less RAM, less storage, inferior screen. Style doesn't justify lack of specs at a greater price IMO.

The iMacs kind of are though. Paying for weaker graphics, weaker drives, no optical drive, no audio-input connectivity, and all for what? Style? Aesthetics? Why? What's the benefit other than enjoying it when it's turned off? It's not like most people using a computer look at anything surrounding the LCD panel while they're using it.

[Lambros]

Originally Posted by tech4all

I find it funny that a lighter desktop computer being lighter is seen as a 'plus.' I mean it is a plus, but it's a desktop not a laptop. You're not going to be carrying an iMac all the time.



I'll give you four:

• Ripping music from CDs. (not everyone buys music online)
• Watching movies on DVDs. (not everyone streams/buys from Netflix/iTunes)
• Installing software (not everyone downloads apps nor have a broadband connection.)
• Reading discs from family members, photo labs, and clients.

Ummmm no. There's nothing wrong with wanting some nice style for a computer. You don't need to show it off to be able to enjoy it yourself.

Now this if of course it's not like the iPad mini; $80 more than the competition which gets you nice style, less RAM, less storage, inferior screen. Style doesn't justify lack of specs at a greater price IMO.

The vast majority don't use CD/DVD anymore. Hence, the external superdrive. People need to stop complaining about this sort of thing...

[cocky jeremy]

Originally Posted by tech4all

I find it funny that a lighter desktop computer being lighter is seen as a 'plus.' I mean it is a plus, but it's a desktop not a laptop. You're not going to be carrying an iMac all the time.

"I don't see how it being lighter is a plus, i mean it is a plus,"

Um, ok.

[Mac2133]

Originally Posted by leman

Hey Yebubbleman, I think we both made our points clear and yet we still disagree on the topic, so I think I'd better stop arguing - this is just wasting bandwidth.

Yes, seriously. No - I'm not being sarcastic. The exchange between you two on this thread is one of the most useful and informative debate that I've come across on this site (or for that matter, on this topic). What's more, your posts show that you folks are insightful and you've put thought into your replies. And refreshing to see that you both are civil and have not resorted to name-calling, etc.

As a reader, I see both your view-points.... but lean slightly (very slightly) to LeBubbleman's side - why make a desktop thinner and better looking at the cost of making some compromises.

Thanks to both of you...

[Yebubbleman]

Originally Posted by Mac2133

Yes, seriously. No - I'm not being sarcastic. The exchange between you two on this thread is one of the most useful and informative debate that I've come across on this site (or for that matter, on this topic). What's more, your posts show that you folks are insightful and you've put thought into your replies. And refreshing to see that you both are civil and have not resorted to name-calling, etc.

As a reader, I see both your view-points.... but lean slightly (very slightly) to LeBubbleman's side - why make a desktop thinner and better looking at the cost of making some compromises.

Thanks to both of you...

He's kind of right though, we're kind of out of steam and it's pretty much a "I like this better" vs. "why that's not sensible" debate, which doesn't serve much. Kind of silly since neither of us are iMac users (anymore) and are now using MacBook Pros.

Really, as someone who serves as a Mac consultant (and thusly is shopping for every Mac, not just the one I prefer for myself), I want to be able to recommend the iMac with confidence and I don't want the "build a Hackintosh" option to be the most practical Mac desktop option for those that have the technical competency. The thermal issues of the previous iMacs as well as the poor internal design gives me great pause in doing so. Similarly the lack of ability to change out the hard drive is also extremely disappointing. I think the 21.5" iMac will be an improvement in the former regard, though the requirement to max out its RAM at the time of purchase is irritating. Still though, as an Apple-branded Mac desktop (read: for those who are not technically competent enough to build their own Hackintosh), I'm hopeful that the machine's switch to 2.5" laptop hard drives will result in an iMac that is ultimately much more reliable for how needlessly thin it is. Because I know many people for whom a 21.5" iMac is perfect but for whom I recommend a Mac mini instead, purely for increased reliability reasons.

[Rich2Putt]

Originally Posted by Lambros

The vast majority don't use CD/DVD anymore. Hence, the external superdrive. People need to stop complaining about this sort of thing...

Here we go again with the "vast majority". I and many others still use cd/dvd's. The disk isn't going away anytime soon. Why do people on this site state vast majority without statistical facts. Why would it be an issue to continue with an optical drive for the users who use them? There is certainly enough room inside a desktop to accommodate one. Screw this "thin/lighter crap.

I've vented enough............

[xgman]

Originally Posted by Rich2Putt

Here we go again with the "vast majority". I and many others still use cd/dvd's. The disk isn't going away anytime soon. Why do people on this site state vast majority without statistical facts. Why would it be an issue to continue with an optical drive for the users who use them? There is certainly enough room inside a desktop to accommodate one. Screw this "thin/lighter crap.

I've vented enough............

Because Apple is trying to get rid of them regardless. When they're done, they're apparently done. There will me more "still used" tech that ends up hitting the Apple chopping block down the line. They are going to march to their own on this..... Quite frankly it doesn't seem to be effecting their bottom line. They decide flash has to go for instance, and flash goes. Then the rest of the industry starts to follow. No difference with internal optical drives.

[DoctorYuyi]

The only thing that I don't like about the new iMac is that they made a big deal about it being thin. It's a desktop, it doesn't need to be thin - no one should care at this point since the iMac was already thin.

[Yebubbleman]

Originally Posted by Lambros

The vast majority don't use CD/DVD anymore. Hence, the external superdrive. People need to stop complaining about this sort of thing...

Originally Posted by xgman

Because Apple is trying to get rid of them regardless. When they're done, they're apparently done. There will me more "still used" tech that ends up hitting the Apple chopping block down the line. They are going to march to their own on this..... Quite frankly it doesn't seem to be effecting their bottom line. They decide flash has to go for instance, and flash goes. Then the rest of the industry starts to follow. No difference with internal optical drives.

To the both of you, the key difference between Apple's push to remove optical drives and Apple's push to remove floppy drives is that optical drives accomplished everything that was needed of floppy drives. It was a perfect replacement. 1.4MB vs. 650MB/700MB/4.7GB/8.5GB is a no-brainer, especially as software gets bigger. Installing tons of software via download, especially on machines that either lack internal Gigabit Ethernet (MacBook Air, and retina MacBook Pro), or on machines that have it, but lack a convenient way of connecting via Ethernet, is WAY WAY WAY more inconvenient than doing so via popping in a DVD and waiting for the files to install. I have gigabytes upon gigabytes of apps on the App Store and on Steam that have taken me a waking week to download and install on my new non-retina MBP that I unfortunately can't place near the router for a wired connection. Similarly, sharing a dual-layer DVD's worth of stuff on a cloud service isn't cheap and it certainly isn't fast or efficient. Also, DVDs and Blu-Ray is still the primary form of movie distribution. I'm sorry, but Netflix, Amazon VOD, and iTunes do not hold a candle to them by comparison.

If bandwidth and online storage capacities and cost would all improve, then yes, I'd say that optical media is dead and that there's really no reason to mourn its loss. But that's just not the case.

Originally Posted by DoctorYuyi

The only thing that I don't like about the new iMac is that they made a big deal about it being thin. It's a desktop, it doesn't need to be thin - no one should care at this point since the iMac was already thin.

THIS!

That issue is (and if it isn't, then it really ought to be) at the crux of complaints with this machine. It being thinner made for some really user-unfriendly compromises that assume disposability and sacrificed features for no reason other than aesthetics. It's not like you couldn't outfit the 2011 chassis with Ivy Bridge and Kepler. Though, if making it thicker is out of the question, I'm at least happy that they switched to 2.5" drives on the 21.5" iMac as I'm sure that will reduce thermal problems and at least make that machine actually reliable for once.

[Lambros]

Originally Posted by Yebubbleman

To the both of you, the key difference between Apple's push to remove optical drives and Apple's push to remove floppy drives is that optical drives accomplished everything that was needed of floppy drives. It was a perfect replacement. 1.4MB vs. 650MB/700MB/4.7GB/8.5GB is a no-brainer, especially as software gets bigger. Installing tons of software via download, especially on machines that either lack internal Gigabit Ethernet (MacBook Air, and retina MacBook Pro), or on machines that have it, but lack a convenient way of connecting via Ethernet, is WAY WAY WAY more inconvenient than doing so via popping in a DVD and waiting for the files to install. I have gigabytes upon gigabytes of apps on the App Store and on Steam that have taken me a waking week to download and install on my new non-retina MBP that I unfortunately can't place near the router for a wired connection. Similarly, sharing a dual-layer DVD's worth of stuff on a cloud service isn't cheap and it certainly isn't fast or efficient. Also, DVDs and Blu-Ray is still the primary form of movie distribution. I'm sorry, but Netflix, Amazon VOD, and iTunes do not hold a candle to them by comparison.

If bandwidth and online storage capacities and cost would all improve, then yes, I'd say that optical media is dead and that there's really no reason to mourn its loss. But that's just not the case.



THIS!

That issue is (and if it isn't, then it really ought to be) at the crux of complaints with this machine. It being thinner made for some really user-unfriendly compromises that assume disposability and sacrificed features for no reason other than aesthetics. It's not like you couldn't outfit the 2011 chassis with Ivy Bridge and Kepler. Though, if making it thicker is out of the question, I'm at least happy that they switched to 2.5" drives on the 21.5" iMac as I'm sure that will reduce thermal problems and at least make that machine actually reliable for once.

Do you have evidence supporting your claim that DVD/BluRay are "the primary" of movie distribution? If you do, then you have an argument...otherwise you're simply making false claims.

[Yebubbleman]

Originally Posted by Lambros

Do you have evidence supporting your claim that DVD/BluRay are "the primary" of movie distribution? If you do, then you have an argument...otherwise you're simply making false claims.

Yes. If iTunes were the #1 video distributer, that would've been publicized in an Apple keynote and we wouldn't be having this discussion. Amazon is doing very well, but I know for a fact that they aren't doing quite as well as iTunes is. No other digital distributor is holding a candle to iTunes or Amazon, and that leaves DVDs (which are still selling) and Blu-Rays (which are picking up in popularity as evidenced by Blu-Ray sections of stores, both online and brick and mortar, getting larger over time).

And no, if I had no evidence that wouldn't be a FALSE claim, it'd be an unsubstantiated claim. There is a difference between the two of those, you know.

[Lambros]

Originally Posted by Yebubbleman

Yes. If iTunes were the #1 video distributer, that would've been publicized in an Apple keynote and we wouldn't be having this discussion. Amazon is doing very well, but I know for a fact that they aren't doing quite as well as iTunes is. No other digital distributor is holding a candle to iTunes or Amazon, and that leaves DVDs (which are still selling) and Blu-Rays (which are picking up in popularity as evidenced by Blu-Ray sections of stores, both online and brick and mortar, getting larger over time).

And no, if I had no evidence that wouldn't be a FALSE claim, it'd be an unsubstantiated claim. There is a difference between the two of those, you know.

That's not official evidence.

Oh and just for the record, your claim is "unsubstantiated". You mad?

[Yebubbleman]

Originally Posted by Lambros

That's not official evidence.

Oh and just for the record, your claim is "unsubstantiated". You mad?

It's substantiated, you just don't believe it. Whatever. Frankly, I'm much more overjoyed that you are at least using the correct word. Proper employment of the English language is a wonderful thing. I have no problem with you not believing what is otherwise obvious to everyone else. I'm not mad at all. In fact today is rather pleasant, though traffic to work sucked more today than yesterday, but I don't at all attribute that to you.

[forty2j]

Originally Posted by Yebubbleman

It's substantiated, you just don't believe it.

I agree with you in that I believe that physical media is a far larger percentage of sales than some people here give it credit for. But to substantiate your claim you're going to need to cite some sales figures broken down by medium. Without that all you have is speculation and assumption.