Then they should do something against all the PC makers and the erroneous claims about gigs of storage!!!!

It's nice to see Apple losing is sheen it's built up. I won't beat on them too bad. All I'll say is companies are in it for the money and you should NEVER fall in love with any one company. If you do, you stand to be ripped off the rest of your life.

First, I thought the lawsuit was over the MacBooks and MacBook pros. Is this part of that suit or separate? And what about the Apple Cinema displays? Does connecting one to a MacBook or iMac actually show Millions of Colors?

do any displays show millions of colors?

"Then they should do something against all the PC makers and the erroneous claims about gigs of storage!!!!"

Huh??? What are you talking about dude. Can you name a PC (including macs) that don't have gigs of storage??? Last I checked the smallest hard drive even offered in laptops is at least 20 GB. 20 GIGS is the storage capacity.

Anyway no surprise Apple continues to rape their customers. It's good to know there are still people in the world that like to take it up the... That way no rest stop is left untouched by some lon wanting to get his jollies.

I'm glad someone is taking action against bullshit claims that big companies make. These types of suits need to happen much more often. Apple is, obviously, not the only culprit here and it goes much further than LCD screens. For example, the brand Pioneer severely overrates their products by making claims that their amplifiers can produce 1000 Watts when in fact they're much closer to 150 Watts.

Do you know how many different companies make this very same claim? This is a ridiculous lawsuit.

I am far from an Apple fan, but working in education I have to use them on a regular basis, and ever since osx 10.4 along with the Core 2 duo, they really are nice little machines. Not to mention the fact that you can run XP (or Vista..) if you desire.

Seriously... April fools?

I believe it was in OS8 (maybe 9?) when mac started using the color settings of "Thousands of colors" and "Millions of colors" rather than 16 bit color and 24 or 32 bit color. at 16bit you have approx 65,535 different combinations, or colors/shades and thus about 64 "thousands" of colors. then the 24 bit jumps up to a max of 16,777,215 or 16 "millions" of colors/shades. One would think then that 32bit color would then be 4.2 "Billions" of colors, but I dont recall ever seeing that option on a mac (granted I havent used one in quite some time). So yes, technically, the signal alows for billions, and deffenately millions of colors. It is just that they use crappy displays (with the exception of the mighty cinema display) on most of their laptops which are riddeled with issues of light splotches, dead pixels, and gradual dimming all to keep their 50% income margin while still making things "affordable".

Not april fools, or several wires are picking up the same fool.
But, a more substantive story I read actually made this not sound like BS... the real meat of the claim is that Apple is making it appear in their advertising and specs that the 20" and 24" are very similar except in size. The suit is claiming that that the 20" is actually a far inferior display in not only color depth, but also just about every other way that counts.

He means that when a company says you are getting 250 gigs, you actually get like 237 or something. I'm pretty sure most people here know its the base 2 and base 10 thing, but why do companies get to market it incorrectly.

They can't go against them because, kodi, if you took the time to read the box it actually says that when they say GB they use 1GB = 1000000000 bytes. So their claim is entirely true, and since all HDD manufacturers do it you can't single one out and say they're trying to mislead consumers.

Why is base 10 wrong and base 2 right? It's just two different conventions for the same information. I think hard disk makers are well within their rights to market a 250 billion byte drive as having 250GB. The IEEE says that 250 * 2^30 bytes should be written as 250GiB (or gibibytes). check out

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byte#Names_for_different_units

GB's are different than GiB's. Wikipedia has a nice listing on this, it has to do with SI units.

"Millions of Colors" isn't exactly pin point accuracy anyway. The error is probably that Apple says "Millions of Colors" as that's what their video cards can output, some screens (like the iMac's included one) are only 6 bit displays. And such is the error of having non-computer savvy marketing departments. Hook a good LCD or CRT up to the card and you'll get millions of colors, but that's not what they're selling.

"Huh??? What are you talking about dude. Can you name a PC (including macs) that don't have gigs of storage???"

Nice one numb-nuts... I've seen heaps of computers claiming to have, for example 250 gigs of storage but only have around 240. It's quite common I think you'll find.

"Nice one numb-nuts... I've seen heaps of computers claiming to have, for example 250 gigs of storage but only have around 240. It's quite common I think you'll find."

Dude you have to understand something that 10gb of storage is used for OS and for FALSE RAM (windows XP has 2gb ob that if you don't change). So They do have 250gb of storage OK not that much in reality it does have 249,7gb.

Here's an explanation of why the lawyer says Apple's notebook LCDs only have 262,144 colors.

http://lowendmac.com/musings/07/0521.html

Quoting the article:

However, there's a catch. An LCD pixel isn't a single spot. It's a square composed of three side-by-side red, blue, and green crystals. By using adjacent crystals on the right and/or left (sort of borrowing them from the pixel next door), we can effectively display 7 bits per channel. That's 21-bit color, which means that using clever programming these "6-bit" LCDs can actually display 2,097,152 colors.

That qualifies as "millions" in my book.

By using the pixels above and below, we've got 8 bits of color per channel and the 16 million plus that Apple claims.

Well, in school and professionally, a kilobyte was always 1024 (2^10) bytes, not 1000. So a megabyte is about 1.05 million bytes (not 1.00 million) and a gigabyte is 1.074 billion bytes (1.00 billion).

When you get into the tens and hundreds of gigabytes, those fractions really start to add up. So on an advertised 500 GB HDD, once formatted (with no OS installed), you lose about 40 GB. That's a huge chunk of memory.

The difference being that the hard disk companies are actually offering that amount of storage, they are just using a different metric to measure than your OS happens to. You are still able to reliably compare two hard drives by their disk size since they both use the same metric to measure storage. 120 GB of storage will always be more than 100 GB, even if they both show up as less than marked in your OS.

about vista using some of the HDD space for ram is somewhat true, but that's a separate file, so it is not taken away from the overall HDD size. linux uses a swap partition, which takes away from the overall HDD size, and uses that as a "paging file" to clear ram. And the paging file is normally not supposed to be set at a specific size. ideally it's size is 150% of the actual memory installed. which makes it 3GB if you have 2gb of ram installed.
Furthermore, if you buy an HP or other pre-manufactured PC's you normally get an invisible recovery partition that can take away 6-10 GB of the HDD space.

Yes I understand that... But have if you no OS installed and it's an external harddrive? Then you buy a 250gb harddrive but the actually formatted capacity is around 237gb. It really has nothing to do with what software is installed.

10gb for an OS!? that's just crazy.

There are 10 kinds of people in this world. Those that understand binary and those that do not.

hahaha... I love Nerd humour

http://hardware.slashdot.org/a...01/1710221

First off, how did they get that number?
Seriously, did they count out all 262,144 colors?
And second, is there any obvious difference between 262,144 and 1 million colors?