mashinhead
Aug 11, 10:06 AM
MacBook and MacBook Pro are soldered. So no, you can't change it.
The iMac and MacMini are socketed.
will there be a third party company that offers these upgrades to consumers?
The iMac and MacMini are socketed.
will there be a third party company that offers these upgrades to consumers?
BC2009
Apr 26, 04:14 PM
Boy, you are sniffing a serious amount of glue.:rolleyes: His motivation is to make brainwashed fanboys BELIEVE Apple is making the best darn tech gadgets in the world, such that Apple can make the most darn profits and he can get the biggest darn bonus. And with THAT, he is a genious.
Tony
Tony had better check the fumes in his own house. The "brainwashed fanboy" argument just keeps sounding more and more like self-deluding denial and some kind of insecurity or envy. How he could read my entire post and somehow have that sentence be the one that strikes a chord makes me think that Tony might in fact be insecure about some decision he has made. Maybe Tony is afraid that others have a different opinion than him and that somehow might diminish his opinion. Better lash out now before more people disagree -- try your best to belittle them and maybe they might agree with you instead, right? I know... accuse them of sniffing glue and being brainwashed -- that just might work..... :rolleyes:
I am truly amazed that the wider the audience becomes for Apple products the bigger the argument for "brainwashed fanboys" gets . It's really hard to have over 200 million "fanboys" and even harder to brainwash them. If Steve Jobs could in fact accomplish that then he could rule the world. I don't think he is that good of a marketer.
Apple's target audience is not the fans, fanatics, and fanboys who post on this and other websites -- its the everyday folks who just want their tech gadgets to work without them having to think about it. It just so happens that many of the tech-savvy professionals who do real work with their computers and tech devices also like the technology to just get out of the way.
When 200 million or more people feel that your expensive tech products are the ones they want to spend their money on, then you must be doing something right -- and I don't think it is some kind of Jedi mind trick.
Clearly, Jobs wants the world to think his products are the best, but I don't think it has anything to do with money -- I think he would be done by now if it was all about money -- unless he saving up to buy something really big :D. There is something more personal about it to the guy -- he is way to invested in being CEO of Apple -- its seems more than a job to him, he takes things way too personally.
Personally, I think that Apple products can be beat on specific features, but when comparing the whole product (hardware, OS, software availability, ecosystem, support, ease-of-use, and integration across product-line), they get my tech-allowance money almost every time. When somebody rises up and offers me a suite of components that work better than Apple's do together then they will likely start getting my money instead -- it wouldn't be the first time I switched platforms, but currently Apple is my platform of choice.
Tony
Tony had better check the fumes in his own house. The "brainwashed fanboy" argument just keeps sounding more and more like self-deluding denial and some kind of insecurity or envy. How he could read my entire post and somehow have that sentence be the one that strikes a chord makes me think that Tony might in fact be insecure about some decision he has made. Maybe Tony is afraid that others have a different opinion than him and that somehow might diminish his opinion. Better lash out now before more people disagree -- try your best to belittle them and maybe they might agree with you instead, right? I know... accuse them of sniffing glue and being brainwashed -- that just might work..... :rolleyes:
I am truly amazed that the wider the audience becomes for Apple products the bigger the argument for "brainwashed fanboys" gets . It's really hard to have over 200 million "fanboys" and even harder to brainwash them. If Steve Jobs could in fact accomplish that then he could rule the world. I don't think he is that good of a marketer.
Apple's target audience is not the fans, fanatics, and fanboys who post on this and other websites -- its the everyday folks who just want their tech gadgets to work without them having to think about it. It just so happens that many of the tech-savvy professionals who do real work with their computers and tech devices also like the technology to just get out of the way.
When 200 million or more people feel that your expensive tech products are the ones they want to spend their money on, then you must be doing something right -- and I don't think it is some kind of Jedi mind trick.
Clearly, Jobs wants the world to think his products are the best, but I don't think it has anything to do with money -- I think he would be done by now if it was all about money -- unless he saving up to buy something really big :D. There is something more personal about it to the guy -- he is way to invested in being CEO of Apple -- its seems more than a job to him, he takes things way too personally.
Personally, I think that Apple products can be beat on specific features, but when comparing the whole product (hardware, OS, software availability, ecosystem, support, ease-of-use, and integration across product-line), they get my tech-allowance money almost every time. When somebody rises up and offers me a suite of components that work better than Apple's do together then they will likely start getting my money instead -- it wouldn't be the first time I switched platforms, but currently Apple is my platform of choice.
JollyJoeJoe
Apr 22, 03:08 AM
doubtful, this is a key switcher market... it would be crazy to axe the very thing that will continue to switch the PC builders/gamers over the next 5 years... this is a key ingredient to apple taking the industry over with time.
Apple will not take the desktop industry over, at least not whilst it's using intel processors and chipsets and charging far more for them than other vendors.
You are essentially now using a PC with EFI firmware and OSX operating system. The only advantage over a hackintosh is that it's all fine tuned, modified and tested under one roof together with Apples software and of course styled with a modern, warm, minimalist form using quality materials but which does not leave any room for custom modding, water cooling, tri-quad SLI\X-Fire etc that PC modders crave.
In my opinion with virtualization age starting and conventions/standards now being more robust we are coming to a time where it's going to be all "same ****, different logo and GUI" and the cheaper, more feature rich option will win out.
The desktop market has been exhausted and its time passed anywhere, so now it's all about mobile and portable computing.
Nokia is partnering with Ms, those are two big, strong boys right there and will give everyone a run for their money. Add to that Microsofts kinect technology and you have new ways of controlling PC's, HTPC's and even mobiles. I have a feeling we're in for a surprise. Apple had/has its prime time with the ipod, iphone, ipad but now the innovation chip has changed it seems.
Apple will not take the desktop industry over, at least not whilst it's using intel processors and chipsets and charging far more for them than other vendors.
You are essentially now using a PC with EFI firmware and OSX operating system. The only advantage over a hackintosh is that it's all fine tuned, modified and tested under one roof together with Apples software and of course styled with a modern, warm, minimalist form using quality materials but which does not leave any room for custom modding, water cooling, tri-quad SLI\X-Fire etc that PC modders crave.
In my opinion with virtualization age starting and conventions/standards now being more robust we are coming to a time where it's going to be all "same ****, different logo and GUI" and the cheaper, more feature rich option will win out.
The desktop market has been exhausted and its time passed anywhere, so now it's all about mobile and portable computing.
Nokia is partnering with Ms, those are two big, strong boys right there and will give everyone a run for their money. Add to that Microsofts kinect technology and you have new ways of controlling PC's, HTPC's and even mobiles. I have a feeling we're in for a surprise. Apple had/has its prime time with the ipod, iphone, ipad but now the innovation chip has changed it seems.
Chris Blount
Apr 18, 02:48 PM
Samsung will simply pay a hefty amount to Apple and we will never hear anything about this again.
strider42
Apr 18, 03:51 PM
They have patents but they HAVE to pursue infringers or they can lose the rights to the patents. That's why you see so many patent lawsuits. Unfortunately, that's just how the system works (in very basic terms).
You're thinking of trademark law. Patents are awarded for a specific period of time. You can't lose them just because you don't defend them. You can sue at any time.
Its only trademarks that you have to protect in order to keep them.
You see so many patent lawsuits because there's money in it and to stifle competition. There is no other reason.
You're thinking of trademark law. Patents are awarded for a specific period of time. You can't lose them just because you don't defend them. You can sue at any time.
Its only trademarks that you have to protect in order to keep them.
You see so many patent lawsuits because there's money in it and to stifle competition. There is no other reason.
thertrain
Mar 30, 06:56 PM
The iTunes scroll bars? They are much worse, what they need is either iOS scroll bars or a complete new design for them
If you spent anytime whatsoever with the 1st Developer build, you'll know they did away with both the Snow Leopard and iTunes scroll bars. They have adopted the vanishing iOS scrolls.
If you spent anytime whatsoever with the 1st Developer build, you'll know they did away with both the Snow Leopard and iTunes scroll bars. They have adopted the vanishing iOS scrolls.
Eraserhead
Apr 22, 12:18 PM
You just overlooked an elephant. Why would you want to discourage consumer spending? In today's economy, the government and markets are working hard to get people interested in buying again. A VAT tax would only discourage that. A VAT and no income tax would only encourage people to save more than to spend. We need people to spend or no jobs will be created.
Saving money does allow for investment - which also creates jobs ;).
Saving money does allow for investment - which also creates jobs ;).
Multimedia
Aug 7, 06:57 PM
That isn't a heatsinked FB-DIMM.
RAM is truly the dealbreaker here. EDU prices bring the 2.0 model down to a reasonable price, but I want 4GB - I'd like to scan my 4x5 film, so the more RAM the better - thanks to Xeon and the need for the ECC heatsinked stuff, I'm looking at $800 from Crucial. No way, man, not gonna do it.
The more I look at it, the more I believe a reasonable mid-tower option has to be in the pipeline.Yeah I know what you mean. I fixed my post #188 to reflect that higher price. How About $770 From Kingston Technology? (http://www.wiredzone.com/itemdesc.asp?ic=32003196&source=froogle)
RAM is truly the dealbreaker here. EDU prices bring the 2.0 model down to a reasonable price, but I want 4GB - I'd like to scan my 4x5 film, so the more RAM the better - thanks to Xeon and the need for the ECC heatsinked stuff, I'm looking at $800 from Crucial. No way, man, not gonna do it.
The more I look at it, the more I believe a reasonable mid-tower option has to be in the pipeline.Yeah I know what you mean. I fixed my post #188 to reflect that higher price. How About $770 From Kingston Technology? (http://www.wiredzone.com/itemdesc.asp?ic=32003196&source=froogle)
gnasher729
Apr 7, 11:55 AM
And just how could Apple be found to be absuing its position by buying what it needs to supply its customers whith product? Maybe if the iPad wasn't selling all that well but Apple can't keep up with demand as it is. Arguments like yours don't even make sense and I'll bet you some serious money that no one can produce a single instance of a company "found to be abusing its position" by buying what its needs to produce and sell its products. It would appear people like you are just angry that Apple is successful and want to take it down somehow. Stupid, just stupid.
The critical question would be: In the contract between Apple and the manufacturer, is there any clause that stops the manufacturer from selling to other companies? That would be anti-competitive. If a manufacturer says "RIM offered us $100 a piece for one million screens", and Apple says "We'll give you $110 for each" and RIM can't get the screens, that would be fine. If the manufacturer says "we can make 2 million screens a month" and Apple says "Ok, we'll buy 2 million screens a month", that is fine. If Apple says "Ok, we'll buy all you can build up to 3 million screens a month", that is fine. If Apple says "We'll buy 2 million screens a month, and you must not sell any screens to anyone else", that is anti-competitive.
I see people still don�t understand what a monopoly is. Apple would only be considered a monopoly if they used their power & influence to force the component supplier to cancel or move Apple�s orders ahead of RIM�s or any other.
You confuse "monopoly" and "anti-competitive". Being a monopoly is in itself just fine. It just means that you have to be more careful what you do than other companies, because what you do could be anti-competitive. For example, Microsoft has a monopoly in the operating system market. They can't refuse to sell Windows to Dell without getting into lots of trouble. Apple can refuse to sell MacOS X to Dell without getting any trouble. And people often confuse "competitive" and "anti-competitive". Being better than the competition is competitive. If company X makes a product that is a lot better than Y's product, and Y doesn't sell anything, that is competitive. "Anti-competitive" is when X does things so that Y couldn't sell their product even if it was better. For example, if the Windows license said that you are not allowed to use any word processor other than Microsoft Word, that would be anti-competitive, because even if I had a word processor that was better and cheaper than Microsoft Word, nobody would buy it.
The critical question would be: In the contract between Apple and the manufacturer, is there any clause that stops the manufacturer from selling to other companies? That would be anti-competitive. If a manufacturer says "RIM offered us $100 a piece for one million screens", and Apple says "We'll give you $110 for each" and RIM can't get the screens, that would be fine. If the manufacturer says "we can make 2 million screens a month" and Apple says "Ok, we'll buy 2 million screens a month", that is fine. If Apple says "Ok, we'll buy all you can build up to 3 million screens a month", that is fine. If Apple says "We'll buy 2 million screens a month, and you must not sell any screens to anyone else", that is anti-competitive.
I see people still don�t understand what a monopoly is. Apple would only be considered a monopoly if they used their power & influence to force the component supplier to cancel or move Apple�s orders ahead of RIM�s or any other.
You confuse "monopoly" and "anti-competitive". Being a monopoly is in itself just fine. It just means that you have to be more careful what you do than other companies, because what you do could be anti-competitive. For example, Microsoft has a monopoly in the operating system market. They can't refuse to sell Windows to Dell without getting into lots of trouble. Apple can refuse to sell MacOS X to Dell without getting any trouble. And people often confuse "competitive" and "anti-competitive". Being better than the competition is competitive. If company X makes a product that is a lot better than Y's product, and Y doesn't sell anything, that is competitive. "Anti-competitive" is when X does things so that Y couldn't sell their product even if it was better. For example, if the Windows license said that you are not allowed to use any word processor other than Microsoft Word, that would be anti-competitive, because even if I had a word processor that was better and cheaper than Microsoft Word, nobody would buy it.
SchneiderMan
Mar 30, 01:18 AM
Who cares? There are greater things to worry about than iPods at the moment..
logandzwon
Apr 5, 02:32 PM
Interesting. I wonder if Apple offered Toyota something to get them to cancel their campaign. I don't have a problem with Apple giving them positive incentive to avoid the jailbreak scene; I pretty much see it as a competing market/ecosystem. However, I would be upset if strong arming tactics were used, ie; "remove it or else we'll wont let you make your car radios ios compatible."
Old Smuggler
Sep 11, 01:56 AM
just posted about airport extreme base station shipping delayed at apple store 1-3 weeks here maybe something is changing/happening
http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?p=2818557#post2818557
http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?p=2818557#post2818557
milo
Aug 11, 03:17 PM
I wouldn't say it would be anything noticable!
Probably make the low end one a 1.66 Duo and the top one a 1.8 or 2.0 Duo
Doubling the cores would certianly be noticable on the low end! And even a modest bump is better than no bump for a year. But I still think a bigger bump than that is likely, chances of something like a merom on the high end are pretty good.
Probably make the low end one a 1.66 Duo and the top one a 1.8 or 2.0 Duo
Doubling the cores would certianly be noticable on the low end! And even a modest bump is better than no bump for a year. But I still think a bigger bump than that is likely, chances of something like a merom on the high end are pretty good.
GCRoberts
Apr 7, 01:25 PM
I see the short sighted Apple pom-pom shakers are once again giddy with excitement. The juvenile remarks are embarrassing.
For some strange reason you think monopolies are good for consumers.
I think there is more going on here with many of us Apple supporters. We have already watched Apple lose out to Microsoft in the 80's when Apple clearly had the better products. Thirty years later we still suffer through a Microsoft dominated world while Apple STILL has better products. Yes, we can buy Macs for home, but we go to the office and have to sit in front of MicroCrap software. You have to suspect that there will be a huge winner in this new market as well and we desperately want it to be Apple this time around! Will this mean that Apple will become the company that makes crappy products while the little guys create genius.....possibly.....but with decades of a pretty damn good track record.....our money is on Apple to continue to innovate no matter how much market share they own.
For some strange reason you think monopolies are good for consumers.
I think there is more going on here with many of us Apple supporters. We have already watched Apple lose out to Microsoft in the 80's when Apple clearly had the better products. Thirty years later we still suffer through a Microsoft dominated world while Apple STILL has better products. Yes, we can buy Macs for home, but we go to the office and have to sit in front of MicroCrap software. You have to suspect that there will be a huge winner in this new market as well and we desperately want it to be Apple this time around! Will this mean that Apple will become the company that makes crappy products while the little guys create genius.....possibly.....but with decades of a pretty damn good track record.....our money is on Apple to continue to innovate no matter how much market share they own.
macnews
Apr 25, 09:31 AM
Android is funded by target advertising? I didnt know that, can you provide a link that backs this up?
Android costs money to develop. Android from what has been put out there is free for companies to use with no licensing fee. So how is Google able to generate money to pay people to code and maintain the software?
1. Google is generating money through it's normal search business which is well documented to know where you are at (physically and on the web) and where you have been (on the web).
2. Google is generating money through advertising generated via the Android platform. If this is the case, it would seem very like they would employ the same tactics used in standard desktop web advertising in the mobile spectrum. So logic and past actions would dictate but if that isn't enough then how about the patent Google was awarded for advertising on the mobile platform based on location? http://www.gomonews.com/google-and-the-art-of-self-defense-location-based-mobile-advertising-patent-is-probably-anti-apple-weaponry/
Android costs money to develop. Android from what has been put out there is free for companies to use with no licensing fee. So how is Google able to generate money to pay people to code and maintain the software?
1. Google is generating money through it's normal search business which is well documented to know where you are at (physically and on the web) and where you have been (on the web).
2. Google is generating money through advertising generated via the Android platform. If this is the case, it would seem very like they would employ the same tactics used in standard desktop web advertising in the mobile spectrum. So logic and past actions would dictate but if that isn't enough then how about the patent Google was awarded for advertising on the mobile platform based on location? http://www.gomonews.com/google-and-the-art-of-self-defense-location-based-mobile-advertising-patent-is-probably-anti-apple-weaponry/
Riemann Zeta
Mar 27, 11:40 AM
Yay let us all surrender our privacy to the cloud... Sometimes I feel like the only one that understands the long term implications cloud based computer has when we allow our content and log files on others' servers. Thankfully I know I'm not the only one though.
Nope, not the only one. Boo to the cloud and everything related to it. I'd rather not have all of my data on a massive public server, available to Apple, advertisers and any government agency at all times. Those claiming that "it's encrypted" are not fully appreciating the security implications of not having control over the implementation of said encryption. For example, SSL/HTTPS is "encrypted" as well, but since Certificate Authorities give signed master-key certificates to all government intelligence and law enforcement agencies, it isn't technically 100% secure (despite mathematically unbreakable encryption).
Taking off the tin-foil hat and simply thinking about economics: I still don't understand how cloud computing is actually going to become a dominant market force. There are now only 3 wireless providers in the US, forming a tight oligopoly, and all of them are incredibly stingy with data caps and limitations. Moreover, there are only a handful of unique internet providers in the US and all are cutting client bandwidth, raising prices and instituting throttling or monthly data caps. So it would seem that big software companies like Apple, Microsoft and Google are pushing the idea of streaming everything; but internet providers only want to supply bandwidth for their own cable TV services. Something just doesn't add up. How is one supposed to have no local storage and just stream music and video when their wireless connection only allows for 2GB/month and their home ISP throttles everything other than its own cable TV service?
Nope, not the only one. Boo to the cloud and everything related to it. I'd rather not have all of my data on a massive public server, available to Apple, advertisers and any government agency at all times. Those claiming that "it's encrypted" are not fully appreciating the security implications of not having control over the implementation of said encryption. For example, SSL/HTTPS is "encrypted" as well, but since Certificate Authorities give signed master-key certificates to all government intelligence and law enforcement agencies, it isn't technically 100% secure (despite mathematically unbreakable encryption).
Taking off the tin-foil hat and simply thinking about economics: I still don't understand how cloud computing is actually going to become a dominant market force. There are now only 3 wireless providers in the US, forming a tight oligopoly, and all of them are incredibly stingy with data caps and limitations. Moreover, there are only a handful of unique internet providers in the US and all are cutting client bandwidth, raising prices and instituting throttling or monthly data caps. So it would seem that big software companies like Apple, Microsoft and Google are pushing the idea of streaming everything; but internet providers only want to supply bandwidth for their own cable TV services. Something just doesn't add up. How is one supposed to have no local storage and just stream music and video when their wireless connection only allows for 2GB/month and their home ISP throttles everything other than its own cable TV service?
spicyapple
Aug 7, 03:30 PM
� Weak graphics card standard (GeForce 7300, ugh)
Is the GeForce 7300 better than the GeForce 6800 that was the high-end option with the PowerMac when Steve introduced the 30" Cinema Display?
If so, I'm really behind on the times. :o
Is the GeForce 7300 better than the GeForce 6800 that was the high-end option with the PowerMac when Steve introduced the 30" Cinema Display?
If so, I'm really behind on the times. :o
tigress666
May 4, 02:58 PM
Anyway, what happens if you whole hard drive dies?
What if you want to reinstall everything from scratch?
There is just too many what ifs
I thought about this and while I think having a CD is better for these reasons, I don't think it would leave you up a creek without a paddle.
Either you have an OS that supports Mac App store so you'd have a CD that would at least install that OS (and therefore you could install old OS and go back to Mac app store and reinstall Lion) or you'd have to buy the Lion CD anyways (but in this case if you lose the Lion CD you may be w/out Lion).
So, while the app store does have the advantage that if you buy through them, long as you have the CD from the previous OS (and probably not too expensive to buy a CD off of ebay, don't know, haven't checked) you can re install Lion. WHere as if you buy the CD and lose it, you'll have to buy Lion all over again (and I am betting Lion won't be as "cheap" as Snow Leopard as it isn't considered an incremental upgrade).
But... it also means more hassle if your hard drive does crash cause you'll have to install an OS twice.
What if you want to reinstall everything from scratch?
There is just too many what ifs
I thought about this and while I think having a CD is better for these reasons, I don't think it would leave you up a creek without a paddle.
Either you have an OS that supports Mac App store so you'd have a CD that would at least install that OS (and therefore you could install old OS and go back to Mac app store and reinstall Lion) or you'd have to buy the Lion CD anyways (but in this case if you lose the Lion CD you may be w/out Lion).
So, while the app store does have the advantage that if you buy through them, long as you have the CD from the previous OS (and probably not too expensive to buy a CD off of ebay, don't know, haven't checked) you can re install Lion. WHere as if you buy the CD and lose it, you'll have to buy Lion all over again (and I am betting Lion won't be as "cheap" as Snow Leopard as it isn't considered an incremental upgrade).
But... it also means more hassle if your hard drive does crash cause you'll have to install an OS twice.
shadowx
Sep 16, 05:00 PM
Looks like Kamino (http://www.deviantart.com/deviation/15249612/)
YEP :)
YEP :)
GGJstudios
Dec 15, 08:56 AM
whats better sophos or kaspersky for mac?
Neither.
Will this scan for windows viri too?
Most scan only for Windows threats, since there are no viruses in the wild that run on current Mac OS X. Some will scan for outdated Mac viruses and trojans, but those are unnecessary, as long as the user exercises common sense in where they get software.
Neither.
Will this scan for windows viri too?
Most scan only for Windows threats, since there are no viruses in the wild that run on current Mac OS X. Some will scan for outdated Mac viruses and trojans, but those are unnecessary, as long as the user exercises common sense in where they get software.
chrmjenkins
May 4, 04:30 PM
Also, if it isn't clear, we'll be alternating narratives. I'll finish up the heroes' second action here, and then it will be ravenvii's turn. He'll also track stat keeping. These duties may shift/change but if either of us posts a narrative, don't be surprised.
BRLawyer
Sep 11, 01:20 PM
What we are gonna see tomorrow:
- iTMS Movie Store;
- new Nanos 6 and 8Gb in anodized metal;
- slightly updated iPod with 80Gb;
- Airport Express Video.
And NOTHING ELSE...don't dare dream about updated MBs or MBPs...these have NOTHING to do with a special event on movies and multimedia...sorry to burst your bubble...SJ told me that already... :rolleyes:
- iTMS Movie Store;
- new Nanos 6 and 8Gb in anodized metal;
- slightly updated iPod with 80Gb;
- Airport Express Video.
And NOTHING ELSE...don't dare dream about updated MBs or MBPs...these have NOTHING to do with a special event on movies and multimedia...sorry to burst your bubble...SJ told me that already... :rolleyes:
Number 41
Mar 29, 07:49 PM
Oh do shut up. America doesn't have the technology. Furthermore, I am sure prices of your beloved Apple products would increase almost tenfold if Apple didn't have to pay Chinese peasants to make your shiny toys.
I guarantee America has all the technology required to make components for a phone battery.
And yes, I'd pay more for EVERYTHING I buy if I knew that an American was making it here in America. That means more people working fair-wage jobs, paying taxes, and contributing to the economy by spending THEIR money in the economy as well.
I guarantee America has all the technology required to make components for a phone battery.
And yes, I'd pay more for EVERYTHING I buy if I knew that an American was making it here in America. That means more people working fair-wage jobs, paying taxes, and contributing to the economy by spending THEIR money in the economy as well.
-aggie-
May 6, 09:38 PM
I'm not sure I want to take *any* of your suggestions, seeing how your sole goal is to lead us to hell.
As for the separate groups moving through rooms, I don't see how the larger group can enter one room, then proceed into another room without setting off a trap before tail-end charlie follows along to explore the room. Are you assuming that constant "moving" turns keeps one from falling into a trap?
I'm a bit confused :confused::confused: It's easy to be confused when your swill serving wench of a wife won't even make you a fookin sammich for gawds sake!
That�s just it. DP�s messed up, unless I�ve totally misread the rules. If you don�t explore the room, you set off the trap. This is why I couldn�t figure out this splitting and speeding things up junk.
As for the separate groups moving through rooms, I don't see how the larger group can enter one room, then proceed into another room without setting off a trap before tail-end charlie follows along to explore the room. Are you assuming that constant "moving" turns keeps one from falling into a trap?
I'm a bit confused :confused::confused: It's easy to be confused when your swill serving wench of a wife won't even make you a fookin sammich for gawds sake!
That�s just it. DP�s messed up, unless I�ve totally misread the rules. If you don�t explore the room, you set off the trap. This is why I couldn�t figure out this splitting and speeding things up junk.