[LinuxGuyFromRI]

Based on your spelling and grammar, you're not intelligent enough to buy one either.

[snorg]

LinuxGuyFromRI said:

Based on your spelling and grammar, you're not intelligent enough to buy one either.

byte me

[ibooklover123]

What is so great about a docking station? apple has the
ports in accessible positions and they have made the decision to not build a
docking station because they don’t feel they need one. Most things are done through networks today
anyways. They did at one point make a docking station, then realized it served no
purpose. I have (myself) changed the internal harddrives on both my macbook and
my dell inspiron…. Which were about equally difficult to swap. My macbook has
also never overheated and I tend to have more lag problems on my dell or hp than
my mac. My other dell actually had a similar problem to your macbook and would
not boot past dos, randomly losing the system and then failing to recognize the
optical drive, making re-installation impossible and resulting in me having to move the harddrive
to an enclosure to save files. Most of us mac users know what is out there in
the pc world, considering the fact that so much is done on pcs we are often
forced to get to know them to maintain our efficiency. There is almost nothing
a pc can do that a mac cannot. Mac users are not ignorant as you suggest, they
know better, they know enough to realize that a mac is the right choice.

[edayres]

People who like Macs do so for a variety of reasons other than some latest chip upgrade. It's a silly and off point question to ask if some latest chip upgrade will convince people who like Windows to switch to a Mac. You either want to be part of the Mac culture or not.

[themashby]

It used to be that processor speeds were the main constraining factor in what engineers could develop but now its broadband. PowerPC vs Intel was an interesting debate....but those days are done and gone. The differences between a Mac and a PC are mostly look and feel (UX) issues. Kids today, at least my nephews, don't know and don't care about what a "PC" is. They just want to do things with their friends on-line. Nobody cares about micro-kernel architecture differences with Windows. And that is a good thing.

The critical issues for the computer industry are broadband and why we have the least regulated market in the US but we have some of the worst and slowest service in the world. That is what is killing the industry from moving forward. AT&T and the other telecoms are major threat to the future of the US software industry. Their goal is to minimize costs to increase profits...they have no incentive to improve. The more they slow things down the more the competition will also slow down so they too can increase profits. Its the classic capitalist race to the bottom. We must have regulation to push the industry forward. I guess what people don't realize is that capital intensive industries with physically constrained markets (you can only have 1-2 telecoms in a neighborhood otherwise we would have wires everywhere and wireless is constrained by available bandwidth) must be carefully regulated. Either that or there should be no regulation which would mean the airwaves would be nearly useless and there would be wires all over the place.

[blarghonk]

You certainly are poorly informed, for someone so opinionated.

DVI, HDMI, and DisplayPort are ALL readily interchangeable. Go to the Macbook's tech specs, you'll see that DVI out is an option with a mini DisplayPort to DVI adapter. It will be $19 when it ships, like all of Apple's other video adapters.

DisplayPort is not proprietary, it is an industry standard. A newer industry standard, to be sure, but a standard nonetheless.

DisplayPort can also carry higher resolutions than either HDMI or standard single-link DVI. Along with dual-link DVI, it is the only other interface with the bandwidth necessary to display 2560x1600, like Apple's own 30" monitor. It's also the reason Dell offers the interface on their 30" monitor.

[chrispc88]

Wow, I don't think I've ever heard such a backwards argument. So, given your logic - processor speeds should be getting slower, RAM quality and or size should be getting worse, and I guess the fact that my cable company boosts the speed on my broadband every year or so (while maintaining the same cost) is just an anomaly? I guess I'm just stupid to think that competition in a free market is an obvious explanation for the technological strides that America has had over the past 150+ years. God knows, it wasn't competition that brought the IBM PC into the market against the Apple II - obviously I was asleep that day, when government stepped in and regulated that market. Free market couldn't possibly explain why the Apple II or for that matter the Altair was invented - I'm sure your correct that government must have regulated that as well - maybe the truth is that a government official mandated that Woz invent a computer for the average person to use. Competition is absolutely no factor in why video cards become more powerful every few months - congress is funding that, not ATI/Intel or Nvidia/AMD. Tiger Direct is lying to all of us, claiming to sell bigger and faster hard drives at the same or lowering price all the time. Man, I can't believe I missed all of this!!! Could you please provide links to these regulations by our government that proves that progress is only made through government regulation? Or is it all a conspiracy?

Perhaps you should take off your aluminum foil hat and join reality! Maybe you didn't grow up in the good ol' USA, but competition and a free market ALWAYS produces a better end product that any government bureaucracy can do. How many senators do you think really know a thing about packet switching, or ANYTHING beyond how to use the text and email on their blackberry or iPod? The telecoms are in competition for broadband speeds, and if they don't know it yet, they soon will. The ONLY reason that broadband nationwide wireless has yet to be HUGE is directly DUE to government (specifically FCC) restrictions and regulations. Do you honestly think that Google, or possibly SUN or Microsoft wouldn't JUMP at the chance to provide internet service directly to their customers? Now that portions of the analog signal spectrum have been opened up, as soon as the bureaucracy gets out of the way, the US will see an explosion in cheap, fast, nationwide - wireless.

I will grant you, that your last sentence had almost a glimmer of intelligence. Yes, the FCC is in place to regulate what signals are allowed at certain amplitudes and so on and so forth. And I agree that the original purpose of the FCC doing that job is needed. But at the same time, it is the FCC that slows down progress on things like this very subject. I could be wrong, but I believe it was the FCC who stated that Color TV had to be backwards compatible to Black and White sets, setting back Color TV broadcasts by several years. If it wasn't the FCC then it was some other government BS. They also have been holding back digital signal for YEARS while coming up with new rules and regulations for HD broadcasts.

Whenever government sticks it's nose into ANYTHING it always turns to crap because people who are elected to office are not experts in anything but shaking hands and talking out of both sides of their mouths!

[LinuxGuyFromRI]

While I agree with what your are saying about free markets, it's not so cut and dry. Take the health insurance industry. While they are regulated in some ways, they are not when it comes to competing with other health insurance providers to provide you insurance. They purposely manipulate the market to keep their profits high and limit the care you can get. Allergy medications are a good example of this. My doctor prescribes me allergy medicine "A" that is the best drug for my allergies, but the insurance company says they won't cover it because they can't get a deal on it and tells me I have to get allergy medication "B" that I know doesn't work. I have had four different health plans and they do exactly the same thing, usually with the same drugs. There's definitely collusion going on in that industry and I think it's an area the government can help in if we can eliminate the special interests in Washington.

Car companies are another good example. They use government regulation to justify why they can't produce more fuel efficient vehicles. Which is crap because if you look around the world, the same companies are making cars that get 50+ miles a gallon. The foreign car companies have cars all ready to come here to solve our issues, but through American car company special interests, we have tariffs that keep them from bringing them here.

So it's not all tin foil hat. Free market is definitely the way to go, but only if the market cooperates and doesn't try to cheat the system.

[chrispc88]

Finally an intelligent response! :) OK, you're points are very valid - and I do agree. However, I maintain that if the choice is between government regulation or free market (albeit not perfect) I'll take free market solutions every time. For example, your health care issue. My mother has had MANY health related issues starting when I was 15. She had just started a new job and was a couple weeks from getting health care, when she collapsed at work and was taken to the hospital. She had cancer and other complications due to the cancer. Long story short she is now disabled, and lives off of SSI (it you don't know what that is, you're lucky). Her medical is government sponsored medicaid/medicare. It's absolutely horrible the regulations that she has to put up with. The most recent example is last year she fell and started having massive back pains. The only doctor in the area that even takes medicare never told her that the fall actually broke her back (multiple fractures). She has lived with the pain, and with minimal medication to help - with a doctor telling her that she just needs to 'suck it up'. It was only two months ago that she finally took my advise and threw a fit for an MRI to take a look at her back - and when they did, the doctor who read the results told Mom about the fractures - which having been left untreated have gotten worse and cause yet more complications with her discs. Mom then confronted her doctor who took an X-Ray when the fall first happened, and said yes he saw the breaks - but medicare wouldn't cover treatment he 'didn't think' and so he saw no reason to tell mom, hoping the problem would just heal itself!

Is this all governments fault? No! However, medicare has had a LONG history at least with my mother and a couple others in my family of forcing them to doctors that are either sub-standard or simply don't care. My health insurance isn't perfect, and it keeps getting more expensive... but I would GLADLY pay for it than to put myself through all that my mom has been through with a government regulated health care.

As for your example about fuel mileage in cars - I must simply dis-agree. American car companies have had very fuel efficient cars, the Geo Metro, or the Ford Festiva. The market (us consumers) didn't want them. WE demanded that efforts be placed into other luxuries. Now, due to fuel costs, we are demanding fuel efficiency - and the car companies are responding - faster than any government could... hybrid SUV's, the Chevy Volt, etc... As for the point of tariffs, I honestly can't speak intelligently about that - but no, I wouldn't be surprised if our home companies have paid some money under the table to get GOVERNMENT to make things a bit harder for the competition, to give themselves time to bring a vehicle to market. No matter what system is in place there is always going to be a certain level of imperfection - and given that, I think the argument can always be made in the favor of free market.

Car insurance - if government didn't MANDATE that we all have insurance, then the insurance companies would have to provide incentives to get us to buy such insurance. Best incentive of all is to lower price and offer more coverage - and if one company does that, others do as well - or go out of business. Our insurance problems are again, directly due to government involvement.

The beauty of a free market is that if you as an individual see something, a product or a service, that you see as being inefficient or corrupt or sub-standard in any way, then you are free to 'build a better mouse trap'. The system isn't always perfect, sometimes the little guy with the better idea gets squashed by the big company - and if the squashing was done so in an obviously unfair way, then I agree that government should step in and help the little guy (case in point, Microsoft's anti trust suit). But I'm sure you know this already, as most of us do. I just couldn't help but nearly explode when I read the comment that government should regulate broadband - that is so shortsighted and unbelievable that it's scares me.

[LinuxGuyFromRI]

Thanks. The way I would position myself, is that regulation that promotes competition is good. The government running things is bad. I think this agrees with your comments about your mother's health care. Regulation that would make insurance companies cover all needed procedures - obviously plastic surgery for vanity reasons, and similar treatments should not be covered or at most be 50/50 - can only help the health care system and creates and even playing field for all providers. Such a regulation in place would of prevented your mother from going through what she did. However, a regulation that forces you to choose a single national provider is a BAD idea. Cost does have to be considered though, and I think a government-subsidized (not run) national plan should be established for those who can't afford privately run insurance plans. The cost of which can be recovered partially through patient premiums, partially through government subsidies, and partially from fees on private insurers who won't provide an equivalent plan. I feel this is a fair approach, and private insurers don't get taxed if they make available a plan equivalent to the nationally subsidized plan, so whether they get taxed or not is in their control.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on American auto manufacturers. Sure the public is partially at fault, but right now the public is clamoring for fuel efficient cars which the American automakers have available over in Europe, and refuse to bring here. Look at all the 50+ mile a gallon clean-diesel cars that GM makes under the Opel brand. Your telling me no one here would buy them? The only thing the American automakers need to work on technically is trucks which are not common over in Europe. A switch to diesel would go a long way to fixing the fuel economy issues with them. At the same time, I agree that America needs to suck it up and realize that we don't all need to be driving Chevy Suburbans and Ford F150 trucks. There's no excuse there as I hardly ever see more than one person driving in those rigs. It's a waste of our energy resources. Large SUVs and full size trucks registered for non-commercial use should be subject to a green energy recovery fee. To close a possible loophole, you should be required to show a business license that justifies the need of having a truck or large SUV if you are a business. Jan's daycare doesn't need a Suburban, but Joe's construction certainly qualifies for a truck. It can be that clear cut, and the businesses get help with R&D from the green energy recovery fee, which makes us more competitive in the global market.

[joeplummer]

I think many of you miss the point. Absolutely, PCs are cheaper, have more options, infinite configurations, tons of power etc. All these things are great for those of you into computers and tweeking, and configuring and whatever else you do with your computers to obtain maximum performance. But you know something? To the vast majority of us, that means very little. We want computers that are easy to manage. When we buy a printer we want to plug it in and have it work. No wizzards, no hardware detection, no drivers to find - we want to plug it in and have it work. Same with faxing, scanning, digital cameras, video, external hardware and DVDs. We want wireless networking that connects seemlessly and easily or networking that starts functioning the moment an ethernet cable is attached.. We want an elegant UI that's stable, without a lot of viruses, and spyware, and is easy to use. MS Office works wonderfully on a Mac. As does Quicken or Quickbooks. And work done on a Mac can be opened and used on other platforms.

Absolutely, PCs are wonderful platforms for those of you really into computers. Those of you into sheer power or maximum flexibility. But most of us aren't like that. We just want to get our work done, with the minimum amount of hassel - and I'm sorry - Mac has that hands down. For all this ease of use, I'm willing to pay a premium.

[chrispc88]

I don't know - I think I can come to agree with your point on the health care insurance. However, I still disagree with any taxation on what a person chooses to drive. I hesitate, because I assume the root of your argument stems from not just the fact that a truck is a truck or an SUV is an SUV - but from your perception of a waste of energy. I have 3 vehicles. 1) 1965 Chevy pickup 2) 1987 Pontiac Firebird and 3) 1976 Corvette. Now, I don't feel I should ever have to explain to a government entity my reasons for driving these vehicles - but I'll explain here just for the purpose of this small sub discussion (off of the original topic - please excuse us everyone else! :) )

The 1965 truck was purchased in 1965 by my grandfather. He bought 2. 1 for the family farm and 1 for vacations. The vacation truck has all options (including dealer installed air conditioning) and an over-cab camper was placed on it within a week of buying it (granddad still has it and has willed it to me when he passes away). About 1982 or so, the farm truck was given to my Dad, who drove it everyday to work until the motor finally blew at somewhere around 300,000 miles. When I turned 15, I was given the truck by my Dad early so that he and I could restore it and have it ready when I turned 16. So, there is family history with that vehicle. I maintain it and drive it at least once a week. Once in a while it actually gets used for 'work' - but rarely these days. I do play music in a local band, and it does come in handy when our guitar players truck breaks down - the 65 gets recruited to tow the trailer. Also, I should mention - the truck is no longer stock. It today sports a 350 Small Block - 400 auto tranny and a disc break posi rear end from an '88 IROC (all put together by Dad and myself in 2002). I like my truck, I have fun driving it - and I'm willing to pay for the lack of gas mileage for that fun, I should not be further taxed to pursue my hobbies.

The 1987 Firebird. This is my daily driver, and the MAIN reason I bought this one is because it had a standard carb on it. I quickly removed the original carb, intake and replaced it with edelbrock parts. The reason I like this car is that it is extremely easy to work on and parts are very cheap. I have had it now for 3 years and have only had 2 problems with it. The starter went out about 6 months after I bought the car, which cast about $35.00 and about an hour to replace. Last year the water pump went out, I believe it was about $25.00 and again took about an hour to replace. I have owned newer cars both foreign and domestic (87 Nissan 300Z, 97 Grand Prix, etc). My experience on most newer cars are that parts are generally more expensive (price a coil pack against and old distributor) and many parts are much more difficult to replace (compare replacing the water pump on an 87 V8 Firebird against a 94 4Cyl Grand Am). I have the knowledge to repair my own vehicles, and thus I choose cars that make that job easier for me. Again, I don't think that I should have to answer to anyone for my choice of vehicle.

The 1976 Corvette. Plain and simple - I take it out about once a month and blow the doors off some kids wanna be "fast and the furious" car. I have wanted a C3 style vette ever since the first time I saw one when I was very young. I finally found one a few years back, and worked very hard to restore it 100% myself (including the paint job) until it was finished about a year ago and is absolutely beautiful IMHO. One more time - I pay for the fuel costs because it's the vehicle I want, I should not have to explain to people why. Last I checked, it's called freedom.

My only other point about vehicles here is that, just because you see someone driving a truck with no load and only one person - don't automatically assume that person simply is just wasteful. The guitar player in my band, he has a brand new (well compared to my vehicles) Ford Truck. He has to have the truck so that he can pull the trailer with our music equipment. So, about 10% of the time it's getting used for it's purpose. But he can not afford to have 2 vehicles. 1 daily driver for better gas mileage while the other sets 90% of the time only to be used for hauling a trailer. It's a simple matter of economics for what he can afford. My dad drives a smaller truck - does he need a 'truck' every day? Nope. But he does need a truck to haul various machine parts for his job (he is an electrician) at least once a month. Should he feel pressured by the government or any one else to purchase another vehicle and maintain 2 vehicles just because others might not realize that he does have a need for a truck from time to time? That doesn't sound very American to me... just plain rude. Now are there people who purchase a vehicle that is totally inefficient for their needs? Absolutely (case in point, my vette)! Should it be your business or mine what someone else chooses to drive? Nope!

BTW - I'm not rich by any means. I make about 50k per year between my job as a Software Developer and Playing Music on the side. I actually had an insurance company raise my rates from $100 liability per month on the 3 vehicles (full coverage insurance is a joke for a classic car or truck) to $1300 per month. Obviously I did not pay, and did get very mad - and went to the office to find out what happened (I haven't had a ticket since '99 and I've never been in a wreck or a DUI or anything like that). The reason they gave me was that anyone who could afford maintenance on such old vehicles should make enough money to afford that kind of coverage. Their point being that average perception, that maintaining an old chevy is somehow expensive. After calling them many various names, I closed my coverage with them and got another insurance company that day - that turned out only cost me $80 per month for all 3 vehicles - so it was all better in the end anyway! :) Paying an extra 'green' tax for driving these older vehicles defeats the purpose of why I drive them. They are all paid for - the vette was the most expensive, but since I did all of the work myself - I only have $6000 in it total. The Firebird cost $1200. I bought them with money I had saved. If you consider the payment of a new vehicle, plus (around here at least) you are required to carry full coverage insurance - then the savings in miles per gallon doesn't come close to saving money in the long run against any of the vehicles that I already own. I spend a total of about $100 in gas per month on vehicles that get about an average of 18mpg. At 50 miles per gallon, I'd probably only spend say $40 (keep in mind this is with todays gas prices) on gas - but I'd have to have a payment of probably around $200-$250 per month (I don't know, could be more - I've never bought a car on payments) plus the added cost of full coverage insurance. For me, that's just plain crazy. And as for being 'green' those 50mpg cars still have to be manufactured - and I would bet that throughout the 'lifetime' of the vehicle that the carbon footprint of the car is about the same - when you factor it's manufacturing carbon footprint in. At least, I read an article about that a few months ago, comparing a classic car with a new car.

[chrispc88]

Don't forget there are those few (yes very few of us indeed) Mac people who do like to tweek and upgrade our machine! I like the challenge on some of them. I've got a goal now of getting a Lombard Powerbook to run 10.5. I'll probably fail (so far 10.4 is all I can get working), but I do think it's fun to try. I have had success in the past of getting ridiculously old Macs to run much newer version of Mac OS - such as a PowerPC 6400 running 10.2 and pretty well. I like to do things like that partly for the challenge, and as well - to go show my PC friends that yes YOU CAN upgrade a Mac! lol

Also, I must apologize- my previous post was totally off subject and way too long! Sorry everyone!

[rgreen4]

Read the Wikipedia reports on both. They are incompatible without some conversion. That is why the Displayport adapter is not a nice short adapter like the DVI to HDMI. HDMI v1.3 which has been out for a while DOES support 2560x1600.

[LinuxGuyFromRI]

I'll stop with this reply because we are way off topic now.

I have nothing against having an old sports car, truck, whatever. I own three cars myself, a VW Jetta, a Chevy Equinox (small SUV), and a Mazdaspeed Miata (limited edition only 2000 of them made). The worst gas mileage of the three (predictably) is the SUV at 24 MPG. The other two get 30 MPG. So my wife and I try to do our part and I think that is my point. Oil is a limited resource, someone has to pay for excessive use. I don't want to deny anyone the right or privledge of owning and driving what they want, but if everyone in the world drove a V8, we'd be out of gas in 5 years. Then what? Should everyone else in the world be unable to drive because there is no oil for gas because a few chose to be irresponsible? Part of the world's issues is no one wants to take responsiblity for their actions. If you want to drive your fuel inefficient cars, I have no problem with that, but take the responsibility and pay for your excess use by contributing to a fund that will get us technology that will power our cars on something other than oil so we all can keep driving. Technology that we can export and and rebuild our economy and create new jobs for Americans. I'm not saying throw in thousands of extra dollars, but $200 a year (for all three vehicles) would be more than fair for the 1000s of barrels of extra fuel that you would consume. It seems very popular today to call a plan that would help everyone - socialist. I call it being a friendly neighbor. The idea that I should be able to do whatever I want is nothing but greed that gets us no where as a society. In your example you talk about having a truck to use it as a truck only 10% of the time. Have you ever heard of a rental truck? How about a trailer? It makes no sense to use excess gas 355 days of the year, for 10 days a year of actual use. Fun is not free, for Americans of today, its time to pay the piper, so that Americans of the future can enjoy the American lifestyle we have become used to.

[chrispc88]

All I can say is I could not possibly disagree more - with each and every point. As for using a 'rental' to haul the music equipment. It is used every weekend, Friday and Saturday. The vast amount of miles are put on by daily driving. If you think it is sensible to rent a vehicle every week and yet still have payments on another car - just for the gas mileage, that's fine - I just don't agree. Yes I do think it's socialist many of the things you mention. If gas runs out, it runs out. Your saying 5 years - well my point being, that if true, assuming that the average gas mileage of vehilces is 20 - then even at 60mpg, gas would still run out in 15 years and that's only assuming cars are the one and only thing using oil (which we all know is not the case). So again, don't see the point in adding $200 per person say per year - which would be a total drop in the bucket. It would and will take far more than that (private industry anyone?) to make that work. And oil companies are greedy - but if the one thing they use to make money is going to be gone within the next 20 years say, I'm pretty sure they'll find an alternative for us - they don't want to loose their pay checks.

[blarghonk]

Here's your nice, small adapter.

http://store.apple.c...?mco=MTkzODk0NQ

[LinuxGuyFromRI]

Well now your changing your story, is it 10% of the time or is it that it's being used as a truck everyday? It makes a difference.


Of course it doesn't make sense if your using it everyday - as a truck - to get a rental but that's not what you said. You tried to turn my words around when I made a very reasonable point about waste that doesn't work in your friend's advantage. If you got stuff to haul on the weekend, get a small truck or SUV that gets 20 something a gallon, you don't need a full size pickup that gets 16 to 18 miles a gallon at best. I gave up my full size Dodge, so I've done my part. Your hauling band music equipment, not a 100 piece orchestra. My friends band does that with a VW wagon.


I can't believe the attitude, if gas runs out, gas runs out? One, that's pretty selfish, and two, so if I can't drive to work and feed my family because you and people like you used up all the gas drag racing around in your gas hog vehicles, you really think that's reasonable or fair? I'm not trying to make this personal, but do you see my point, if everyone did as you do, we'd all be screwed. And yes, transportation uses 60% of the oil in this country, so it makes a difference. Maybe 5 years is a little extreme, but the truth is we don't have a lot of time, I'm 33 now, and I'm pretty much assured to see oil run out in my lifetime. That's a scary thought, and something everyone should be worried about, and willing to do something about. After all, our soldiers are dying for this stuff, don't you think we owe it to them to make sure nobody has to die for it in the future?


What makes you think oil companies will bail us out? Their all 60 years old, rich and ready to retire, you really think they care what the future brings for the rest of us. Your pretty naive if you do. $200 will make a difference, if you figure 5 million Americans drive V8s, which is probably on the low side, that's 1.2 billion dollars a year towards finding a new source of power to power our vehicles. We only spend 25 million now. If their successful, you can put an electric motor and hyper efficient batteries in your old car and keep driving them forever. I think that's a great deal.

[chrispc88]

Well obviously we will never agree on this issue - and it is off topic. I will say, I appologize, I did say 10% of 'time' when I should have been more clear - 10% of miles, we do play every weekend. That requires a trip from his (the quitar player) house to the gig pulling the trailer, then we play Friday and Saturday and on Saturday night we pack the equipment back up. We do from time to time play a weeknight or a Sunday gig, but that is fairly rare, and if that's all we did a rental may be an option. A small vehicle simply will not cut hauling our equipment. If you want to take the time to look everything up as for weight feel free. This isn't a complete list, but get's the point. We have 2 Peavey SP7 (each cabinet has 2 15" speakers and a 2" horn), 4 Yamaha 118CV cabinets, 3 yamaha 15" with 1" horn monitors (4 piece band). A total of 1 24 channel yamaha board for front of house and 1 peavey 24 channel monitor board. 10 2400 watt QSC power amps, 2 stereo 15 channel peavey eq's for monitors and 1 32 channel eq for mains. Various rack mount effects units (all together probably weigh around 20 or 30 pounds). Then there is my keyboard amp, Roland KC500 and my boards 1 Roland RD700SX and one Juno D, as well as a backup amp (never know when something is going to blow) an old Peavey KB300. The guitar players amp, a 1966 Fender Twin - and 3 guitars. The bass players amp, I forget the model, it's a full Ampeg stack with 2 15's. And his guitar. There are also lighting, and power distribution. As well as all of these things have various cases to hold everything. The drummer has his set in the trailer wich is a 5 piece Tama, and his monitors (2 Peavey SP5's - that's why we only have 3 yamaha monitors - he just HAAAD to be different). The only other thing I can think of off the top of my head are 2 large cases for chords and mics.



In my aread, the clubs provide nothing but a stage and are quite large (the smallest we play seats about 250 and the largest about 600) with large dance floors and such. We provide all the music and our own lighting. If you can fit that in a VW bus - you're a better packer than me! :) I'd like to see a VW pull that much weight! lol Even if you managed to get a VW to haul that much, just wait to see what happens when you try to stop going down hill with that much weight pushing you.



Sorry - I enjoy the conversation - but since this is so far off topic and I'm leaving to play now, I gotta go for the night.
Later,

Chris

[gybognarjr]

For those who don't care what they eat, only what they pay, menu with prices and without the name of the dish will do. PC and Mac is not identical, not directly comparable and $100.00-$1,000.00 price difference will disappear when a productive person loses hours at times, when their computer does not work. This happens to WinPC more often than to Macs, not even mentioning the experience Vista can bring to the PC user.