asiayeah
Sep 6, 09:24 AM
I am a little bit disappointed that it still does not have any built-in TV tuner.
PowerFullMac
Jan 12, 11:35 AM
You never know. The same thing happened with the fat Nano rumor:
True! People can spectulate all they like, but no one knows what Apple are planning! The "daft" Nano rocks! And so will this MacBook Air if it comes out, Apple NEVER fails to amaze! :D
True! People can spectulate all they like, but no one knows what Apple are planning! The "daft" Nano rocks! And so will this MacBook Air if it comes out, Apple NEVER fails to amaze! :D
clj7
Jan 7, 04:02 AM
Is that a Vauxhall Corsa i see there? great little car, not very cool i admit but it just keeps on going =)
Yes, it's a Vauxhall Corsa. Brilliant car to start in, never broken down either. Except I did brake the hand-break once :D Pulled it to hard I think, had to park the car in gear over night.
Yes, it's a Vauxhall Corsa. Brilliant car to start in, never broken down either. Except I did brake the hand-break once :D Pulled it to hard I think, had to park the car in gear over night.
portishead
Apr 21, 12:34 PM
At least he's got a birth certificate. You and Full of Win must be related. Or married. Or both.
Hellhammer
Apr 21, 03:50 PM
I'd welcome HellHammer's thoughts on this as he generally has a well informed perspective on these things.
I have made my predictions and I still stand behind them. I don't really follow this thread though so if someone has me a question, you may be better off PMing me.
1199$ 21.5" iMac
Intel Core i3-2100 (3.1GHz)
AMD 6490M with 256MB GDDR5
500GB HD
2x2GB RAM; option for 4x2GB
1499$ 21.5" iMac
Intel Core i5-2400S (2.5/3.3GHz); option for Core i5-2500S (2.7/3.7GHz)
AMD 6750M with 512MB GDDR5
1TB HD; option for 2TB
2x2GB RAM: option for 4x2GB
1699$ 27" iMac
Intel Core i5-2400 (3.1/3.4GHz)
AMD 6750M with 512MB GDDR5; option for AMD 6950M with 1024MB GDDR5
1TB HD; option for 2TB
2x2GB RAM; options for 4x2GB, 2x4GB and 4x4GB
1999$ 27" iMac
Intel Core i7-2600 (3.4/3.8GHz)
AMD 6950M with 1024MB GDDR5
1TB HD; option for 2TB
2x4GB RAM; option for 4x4GB
http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=11688279&postcount=26
I'm sure it's been done to death, but I spent some time actually thinking about realistic-ish speculations of what the new line could look like. I think they're going to get rid of one SKU ( the step up 27" without the quad i7), because it's kind of redundant, and for the $100 price difference, I can't imagine anyone NOT spending the extra modey to get the quad core). The only spec that is more of a wishful thinking piece is the inclusion of the HD6800M 1GB card in the 27" quad i7. THAT would be a beast!
Common Upgrades
1. Thunderbolt port
2. HDMI out
3. Sandybridge
Now, here's the model breakdown:
21.5" (1920x1080) display
3.2 GHz i3 processor
4 GB RAM
500 GB HD
Thunderbolt
ATI Radeon HD 4870 (256MB)
HDMI out
$1199.99
21.5" (1920x1080) display
3.5 GHz i3 processor
8 GB RAM
1 TB HD
Thunderbolt
ATI Radeon HD 4870 (256MB)
HDMI out
$1499.99
27" (2560x1440) display
2.8 GHz i5 processor
4 GB RAM
1 TB HD
Thunderbolt
ATI Radeon HD 5870 (512MB)
HDMI out
$1699.99
27" (2560x1440) display
3.2 GHz quad i7 processor
8 GB RAM
2 TB HD
Thunderbolt
ATI Radeon HD 6970 (1 GB)
HDMI out
$1999.99
ATI 4870M has TDP of 65W, there is no way it is going to fit in 21.5". Also, it makes absolutely no sense to use three different generations as that, if something, would confuse consumers a big time. The only possibility I see is that the low-end gets ATI 5670 (aka 5730M) like Apple did in previous update. Other models will very likely feature AMD 6000M-series graphics.
I also doubt that Apple will use i3 in other than the low-end iMac. All MBPs have i5 or better, even the 1199$ one. Using i3 in 1499$ iMac sounds stupid because in the end, the consumer thinks that i5 is better because 5 is greater than 3, even though that doesn't really mean that when comparing desktop and mobile CPUs. Moreover, there is no 3.5GHz i3 either.
HDMI doesn't sound too likely, seeing that only Mac Mini has it. Thunderbolt or mDP can provide the same functionality and much more.
I have made my predictions and I still stand behind them. I don't really follow this thread though so if someone has me a question, you may be better off PMing me.
1199$ 21.5" iMac
Intel Core i3-2100 (3.1GHz)
AMD 6490M with 256MB GDDR5
500GB HD
2x2GB RAM; option for 4x2GB
1499$ 21.5" iMac
Intel Core i5-2400S (2.5/3.3GHz); option for Core i5-2500S (2.7/3.7GHz)
AMD 6750M with 512MB GDDR5
1TB HD; option for 2TB
2x2GB RAM: option for 4x2GB
1699$ 27" iMac
Intel Core i5-2400 (3.1/3.4GHz)
AMD 6750M with 512MB GDDR5; option for AMD 6950M with 1024MB GDDR5
1TB HD; option for 2TB
2x2GB RAM; options for 4x2GB, 2x4GB and 4x4GB
1999$ 27" iMac
Intel Core i7-2600 (3.4/3.8GHz)
AMD 6950M with 1024MB GDDR5
1TB HD; option for 2TB
2x4GB RAM; option for 4x4GB
http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=11688279&postcount=26
I'm sure it's been done to death, but I spent some time actually thinking about realistic-ish speculations of what the new line could look like. I think they're going to get rid of one SKU ( the step up 27" without the quad i7), because it's kind of redundant, and for the $100 price difference, I can't imagine anyone NOT spending the extra modey to get the quad core). The only spec that is more of a wishful thinking piece is the inclusion of the HD6800M 1GB card in the 27" quad i7. THAT would be a beast!
Common Upgrades
1. Thunderbolt port
2. HDMI out
3. Sandybridge
Now, here's the model breakdown:
21.5" (1920x1080) display
3.2 GHz i3 processor
4 GB RAM
500 GB HD
Thunderbolt
ATI Radeon HD 4870 (256MB)
HDMI out
$1199.99
21.5" (1920x1080) display
3.5 GHz i3 processor
8 GB RAM
1 TB HD
Thunderbolt
ATI Radeon HD 4870 (256MB)
HDMI out
$1499.99
27" (2560x1440) display
2.8 GHz i5 processor
4 GB RAM
1 TB HD
Thunderbolt
ATI Radeon HD 5870 (512MB)
HDMI out
$1699.99
27" (2560x1440) display
3.2 GHz quad i7 processor
8 GB RAM
2 TB HD
Thunderbolt
ATI Radeon HD 6970 (1 GB)
HDMI out
$1999.99
ATI 4870M has TDP of 65W, there is no way it is going to fit in 21.5". Also, it makes absolutely no sense to use three different generations as that, if something, would confuse consumers a big time. The only possibility I see is that the low-end gets ATI 5670 (aka 5730M) like Apple did in previous update. Other models will very likely feature AMD 6000M-series graphics.
I also doubt that Apple will use i3 in other than the low-end iMac. All MBPs have i5 or better, even the 1199$ one. Using i3 in 1499$ iMac sounds stupid because in the end, the consumer thinks that i5 is better because 5 is greater than 3, even though that doesn't really mean that when comparing desktop and mobile CPUs. Moreover, there is no 3.5GHz i3 either.
HDMI doesn't sound too likely, seeing that only Mac Mini has it. Thunderbolt or mDP can provide the same functionality and much more.
thejadedmonkey
Mar 24, 01:32 PM
*Children Screaming in background
Im no snob against AMD GPUS...but their CPU's are nearly 2 generations behind intel. I dont think Bulldozer is going to match the 1155 SB, much less the upcoming 2011 socket chips.
What I want to see is a 27inch iMac with an HD 6970 2GB...Whoa whoa wee wow:eek:
But for something like the MBA, where your options are a C2D or iX CPU, and a GPU that's runs like it's 2+ years old, vs a new GPU and a newish CPU, I'll choose AMD over Intel any day of the week.
Im no snob against AMD GPUS...but their CPU's are nearly 2 generations behind intel. I dont think Bulldozer is going to match the 1155 SB, much less the upcoming 2011 socket chips.
What I want to see is a 27inch iMac with an HD 6970 2GB...Whoa whoa wee wow:eek:
But for something like the MBA, where your options are a C2D or iX CPU, and a GPU that's runs like it's 2+ years old, vs a new GPU and a newish CPU, I'll choose AMD over Intel any day of the week.
yukio
Apr 12, 10:11 PM
Supposedly the guy behind this new version is also the criminal that destroyed iMovie a few years back.
Randy Ubillos is brilliant, and a really good guy to boot.
Seriously.
Randy Ubillos is brilliant, and a really good guy to boot.
Seriously.
shecky
Nov 15, 08:22 AM
[incredibly naive question]
is there any way to tell what software is multithreaded and will take advantage of the quad cores? (on the tech specs, etc...)
[/incredibly naive question]
is there any way to tell what software is multithreaded and will take advantage of the quad cores? (on the tech specs, etc...)
[/incredibly naive question]
.jpg "hayley williams cosmo article.")
AppleScruff1
Apr 22, 08:53 PM
Wouldn't it be funny if they put Steve in jail?
GoKyu
Apr 13, 08:52 AM
I'm pretty sure I'm the only one that really likes the look of the new ical
After using the iPad version of iCal, I really like the new interface too.
After using the iPad version of iCal, I really like the new interface too.
h'biki
Apr 16, 02:30 AM
For example, Apple had to make Safari due to Microsoft pulling out of the mac - this is just one example where Apple is starting to make software because companies are leaving the platform.
.
One of the *few* examples of companies pulling out. Premiere was another high profile example. But over the last 3 years has seen companies companies porting their Windows/Linux/Unix software to OS X as well as a flood of original development -- which to me indicate that the platform is healthy.
(Examples include Maya, the return of MatLab to the platform, Absofts C++ Complier, Combustion, Shake [when it was with Nothing Real]... as well as original progs like iView, Proteus, SpamSieve etc]
.
One of the *few* examples of companies pulling out. Premiere was another high profile example. But over the last 3 years has seen companies companies porting their Windows/Linux/Unix software to OS X as well as a flood of original development -- which to me indicate that the platform is healthy.
(Examples include Maya, the return of MatLab to the platform, Absofts C++ Complier, Combustion, Shake [when it was with Nothing Real]... as well as original progs like iView, Proteus, SpamSieve etc]
spillproof
Apr 12, 08:20 PM
Is there going to be a keynote video like WWDC or the September iPod events? I want to go spoiler free if possible!
Earendil
Nov 27, 03:24 PM
It all comes down to how much extra you are willing to pay for the increased monitor specification. Most will pay 20% very few will pay 75%.
So you didn't mean their target audience was shrinking, what you meant was their target audience wasn't buying?
What you say is true for any consumer vs prosumer market.
The prosumers get more quality, to meet their requirements, and pay for those specifications + more because they are the best. Also a lower volume of products to a smaller prosumer base means you have to charge more per product.
If Apple wasn't satisfied with the number of units they were moving, and had a markup far above their (real) competitors, I would think Apple would lower it's prices, don't you? That would be the only way to make money if they weren't actually selling the monitors.
So you didn't mean their target audience was shrinking, what you meant was their target audience wasn't buying?
What you say is true for any consumer vs prosumer market.
The prosumers get more quality, to meet their requirements, and pay for those specifications + more because they are the best. Also a lower volume of products to a smaller prosumer base means you have to charge more per product.
If Apple wasn't satisfied with the number of units they were moving, and had a markup far above their (real) competitors, I would think Apple would lower it's prices, don't you? That would be the only way to make money if they weren't actually selling the monitors.
mi5moav
Sep 7, 09:57 PM
This sure is starting to sound like MOVIEBEAM... and who owns that???
So, we can que up 10-12 movies we want to watch for the month and in the background my mac downloads them and then either stores them on this yet to be anounced product or onto my mac... Then this new Airport(now, available in 1-3 weeks) can then stream it to my TV. This does make a lot more sense now.
So, we can que up 10-12 movies we want to watch for the month and in the background my mac downloads them and then either stores them on this yet to be anounced product or onto my mac... Then this new Airport(now, available in 1-3 weeks) can then stream it to my TV. This does make a lot more sense now.
Musubi
Feb 27, 03:20 PM
The sucky part about the 22" LCD was that it had a really high defect rate.
I recall paying the same price for mine as the Mac Pro currently costs. Sheesh!
Yeesh... don't remind me. The inverter board in mine started doing the blink on blink off starting around late 2003. It was really intermittent at first and happened maybe once a month. Then in the thing really went crazy and was off more than it was on. Back then, the company that sold parts rarely had the board for the 22" model (the inverter board went bad in my 17" Studio Display in 2003 and they had tons of those in stock) and I really needed a monitor so I just ended up buying the 20" Cinema Display (Aluminum). I bought the 22" along with my G4 Cube back in July 2000; the Cube was $1800 and the display around $2200... ouch!!!
Stupid me. I should've put that money into Apple stock! If I had put the $7k I blew on my Dual 800/22" into Apple shares I could afford a Ferrari right now :(
The amount of money I've spent on Apple products since I first started buying them in 1992-1993 (previously, had been a CP/M, DOS, OS/2 and unix gearhead) is hitting close to six figures now. :eek: If all that had been invested..... But back in 97, I did purchase several thousand bucks worth of AAPL when it was around $16 per share (pre split price basis) and accumulated a bunch between 1998-2000. Sold a quarter of my holdings after the internet bubble burst and let the rest ride even through the market doldrums that existed between 2001-2003 (didn't even considering dumping them back in 2003 when the stock had lost almost 80% of its value from its 2000 high as that for sure would have been locking in those paper losses). Those are now my core shares sitting in a Roth-IRA for retirement. Bought more between 2007 to mid-2010 (iPhone and iPad spurred those new positions) and seeing nice returns on that.
Just to bring this back on topic, the following pic was back in 2006 when I had just gotten the Mac Pro and I connected my QS G4 to the 22" ACD. It miraculously worked without having the case of the blinkies (that lasted for nearly two weeks before it went crazy again).
I recall paying the same price for mine as the Mac Pro currently costs. Sheesh!
Yeesh... don't remind me. The inverter board in mine started doing the blink on blink off starting around late 2003. It was really intermittent at first and happened maybe once a month. Then in the thing really went crazy and was off more than it was on. Back then, the company that sold parts rarely had the board for the 22" model (the inverter board went bad in my 17" Studio Display in 2003 and they had tons of those in stock) and I really needed a monitor so I just ended up buying the 20" Cinema Display (Aluminum). I bought the 22" along with my G4 Cube back in July 2000; the Cube was $1800 and the display around $2200... ouch!!!
Stupid me. I should've put that money into Apple stock! If I had put the $7k I blew on my Dual 800/22" into Apple shares I could afford a Ferrari right now :(
The amount of money I've spent on Apple products since I first started buying them in 1992-1993 (previously, had been a CP/M, DOS, OS/2 and unix gearhead) is hitting close to six figures now. :eek: If all that had been invested..... But back in 97, I did purchase several thousand bucks worth of AAPL when it was around $16 per share (pre split price basis) and accumulated a bunch between 1998-2000. Sold a quarter of my holdings after the internet bubble burst and let the rest ride even through the market doldrums that existed between 2001-2003 (didn't even considering dumping them back in 2003 when the stock had lost almost 80% of its value from its 2000 high as that for sure would have been locking in those paper losses). Those are now my core shares sitting in a Roth-IRA for retirement. Bought more between 2007 to mid-2010 (iPhone and iPad spurred those new positions) and seeing nice returns on that.
Just to bring this back on topic, the following pic was back in 2006 when I had just gotten the Mac Pro and I connected my QS G4 to the 22" ACD. It miraculously worked without having the case of the blinkies (that lasted for nearly two weeks before it went crazy again).
iJohnHenry
Mar 21, 07:28 PM
... however that may not happen if he tries to all of a sudden play ball a bit.
Simple posturing.
His time has come.
He had his time in the Sun, now it's time to switch the lights off.
Simple posturing.
His time has come.
He had his time in the Sun, now it's time to switch the lights off.
zin
Apr 16, 05:15 PM
I'm currently learning how to drive a stick-shift. Rather easy after a few weeks.
Apple Expert
May 2, 04:44 PM
They are making it sure look alot like the iOS. I hope they can put this OS on the iPad. :D
iJohnHenry
Mar 20, 06:06 PM
Homeopathy does at least have the placebo effect.
True, and no one has yet to explain the miraculous 'cures' by the patients themselves.
Some call it positive thinking. I choose to call it misdiagnosis.
True, and no one has yet to explain the miraculous 'cures' by the patients themselves.
Some call it positive thinking. I choose to call it misdiagnosis.
bigpics
Mar 23, 11:37 PM
One more vote to keep the old gal around.
And another to keep giving it facelifts that:
a) Improve what it already does (without destroying its core philosophy),
b) Add new functions extending those functions (e.g., people have mentioned updating the DAC, allowing bluetooth and HD video out, etc. and faster syncing if TB will accomplish that (FW sustained transfer rates are faster than USB, but agree the FW port's not coming back on its own).
Plus etc., etc. and so forth as (generally) eloquently already laid down elsewhere.
c) Keep it a part of the modern Apple ecosystem via serving iDevices and ATV's as others have suggested and in many other clever, not unfeasible ways.
d) Keep it looking fresh and up-to-date. It does appear that the screen could be made larger without compromising the click-wheel functionality.
Another reason to have a lot of music/media BTW is not that you're a "hoarder" as someone suggested, but to include music that's not your fave but may be perfect when you have guest riders in your car - people of different ages and backgrounds and tastes so you can DJ for all (and at parties too). Call me a people pleaser but, hey.....
And if I have an 16 or even 32GB iPhone, I have little use for a Touch, but just as much a need for a Classic. My iPod Photo 60 is still looking/running like new and has been my car music server for years. But it's too low in capacity for me, so breaking 200GB + some of the above refinements would likely tip me.
There's also an aspect that hasn't been in this thread - and the "tech specs" on Apple.com no longer mention either target disk mode - nor using it to load up general files, but I remember an earlier gen being usable as an external hard drive that was also an iPod in the bargain!
One that a photographer, e.g., could have in a pocket to download pics from a DSLR to free up an SD card for more shooting in the field. Or today, back up an entire maxxed out MBAir for that matter. Voila: A mini Time Machine + all of the above.
If it does still allow that, add it to the marketing. It's an iPod. It's a mini-media server. It's an external HD. Music, Movies, Videos, Podcasts, Photos, Games, Storage, Backup. In less than 5 ounces.
What's not to like for 2 and a half Ben Franks??
Finally I get a kick out of the people dissing people who prefer uncompressed music. The ONLY advantage of compression is to store more files/GB and it ALWAYS degrades the quality of the recording. Always. And you're championing this as preferable because......?????
Apple already has algorithms for optimizing file size on the Mac side when maxxing out files to be placed on an iDevice. With our multi-terabyte setups, why wouldn't we want the best originals available?
And most who want uncompressed music (and those who want better than CD's already dumbed-down wave forms) actually CAN discern the diff (tho' some only think they can, as tests have shown, to be frank).
But seriously, guys, you remind me of people who've been conditioned to think a McDouble is a gastronomic improvement on the T-bone steak. Sheesh.
:rolleyes:
And another to keep giving it facelifts that:
a) Improve what it already does (without destroying its core philosophy),
b) Add new functions extending those functions (e.g., people have mentioned updating the DAC, allowing bluetooth and HD video out, etc. and faster syncing if TB will accomplish that (FW sustained transfer rates are faster than USB, but agree the FW port's not coming back on its own).
Plus etc., etc. and so forth as (generally) eloquently already laid down elsewhere.
c) Keep it a part of the modern Apple ecosystem via serving iDevices and ATV's as others have suggested and in many other clever, not unfeasible ways.
d) Keep it looking fresh and up-to-date. It does appear that the screen could be made larger without compromising the click-wheel functionality.
Another reason to have a lot of music/media BTW is not that you're a "hoarder" as someone suggested, but to include music that's not your fave but may be perfect when you have guest riders in your car - people of different ages and backgrounds and tastes so you can DJ for all (and at parties too). Call me a people pleaser but, hey.....
And if I have an 16 or even 32GB iPhone, I have little use for a Touch, but just as much a need for a Classic. My iPod Photo 60 is still looking/running like new and has been my car music server for years. But it's too low in capacity for me, so breaking 200GB + some of the above refinements would likely tip me.
There's also an aspect that hasn't been in this thread - and the "tech specs" on Apple.com no longer mention either target disk mode - nor using it to load up general files, but I remember an earlier gen being usable as an external hard drive that was also an iPod in the bargain!
One that a photographer, e.g., could have in a pocket to download pics from a DSLR to free up an SD card for more shooting in the field. Or today, back up an entire maxxed out MBAir for that matter. Voila: A mini Time Machine + all of the above.
If it does still allow that, add it to the marketing. It's an iPod. It's a mini-media server. It's an external HD. Music, Movies, Videos, Podcasts, Photos, Games, Storage, Backup. In less than 5 ounces.
What's not to like for 2 and a half Ben Franks??
Finally I get a kick out of the people dissing people who prefer uncompressed music. The ONLY advantage of compression is to store more files/GB and it ALWAYS degrades the quality of the recording. Always. And you're championing this as preferable because......?????
Apple already has algorithms for optimizing file size on the Mac side when maxxing out files to be placed on an iDevice. With our multi-terabyte setups, why wouldn't we want the best originals available?
And most who want uncompressed music (and those who want better than CD's already dumbed-down wave forms) actually CAN discern the diff (tho' some only think they can, as tests have shown, to be frank).
But seriously, guys, you remind me of people who've been conditioned to think a McDouble is a gastronomic improvement on the T-bone steak. Sheesh.
:rolleyes:
iSax1234
Mar 24, 12:43 PM
I don't even know where to start.
macthetiger85
Apr 26, 05:04 PM
And for all the non-legal "experts" out there.
Windows can be trademarked because while it is a generic term, it is not a generic term that describes the product or service.
If "Windows" was a window company, it could not be trademarked because it is a generic terms that describes the product or service.
A huge difference.
that's innacurate
Windows can be trademarked because while it is a generic term, it is not a generic term that describes the product or service.
If "Windows" was a window company, it could not be trademarked because it is a generic terms that describes the product or service.
A huge difference.
that's innacurate
diamond.g
Mar 24, 01:54 PM
It would be very well possible. Remember, Thunderbolt is derived from LightPeak. One of the reasons to develop LightPeak was to transmit data at very fast rates over a distance. Essentially, not have everything so closed together.
In other words, you can the CPU in room A and the RAM in room B which is 20 feet away and get the same result. This is one of the reasons Intel developed LightPeak. There are many other reasons for development obviously.
However, Thunderbolt in its current stage is not suited for such lengthy exchange due to its copper nature. However, say you have a GFX cradle on your desk, you could well use Thunderbolt's current implementation to feed data. However, you'd need multiple implementations of Thunderbolt in order for it to work great. Currently, many GFX solutions use PCIe x16 interface which pretty much uses 8 GB/s bandwidth so one Thunderbolt interface will do fine and still have a nice 2GB/s overhead. However, the newer PCIe 3.0 interface pushes 16GB/s now so you'd need two Thunderbolt interfaces.
The one thing I wonder about is DRM. As it is now the connection to the display (and through DP) are protected (with either HDCP or DPCP). Do we know if LP/TB supports that protection (especially since the DP stream is actually separate from the PCIe stream)?
In other words, you can the CPU in room A and the RAM in room B which is 20 feet away and get the same result. This is one of the reasons Intel developed LightPeak. There are many other reasons for development obviously.
However, Thunderbolt in its current stage is not suited for such lengthy exchange due to its copper nature. However, say you have a GFX cradle on your desk, you could well use Thunderbolt's current implementation to feed data. However, you'd need multiple implementations of Thunderbolt in order for it to work great. Currently, many GFX solutions use PCIe x16 interface which pretty much uses 8 GB/s bandwidth so one Thunderbolt interface will do fine and still have a nice 2GB/s overhead. However, the newer PCIe 3.0 interface pushes 16GB/s now so you'd need two Thunderbolt interfaces.
The one thing I wonder about is DRM. As it is now the connection to the display (and through DP) are protected (with either HDCP or DPCP). Do we know if LP/TB supports that protection (especially since the DP stream is actually separate from the PCIe stream)?
Macky-Mac
Mar 19, 04:59 PM
....What's so "unsucessful" about the "War on Terror" in Afghanistan?....
it's still going on with no end in sight and at great expense to the tax payer....that's what you consider a success?
You said;
it's still going on with no end in sight and at great expense to the tax payer....that's what you consider a success?
You said;