Eidorian
Jul 19, 07:59 PM
http://news.com.com/2100-1006_3-6096192.html?part=rss&tag=6096192&subj=news
Cloverton and Kentsfield coming 4th quarter 2006Stop tempting me. I need a new Mac NOW as it is.
Cloverton and Kentsfield coming 4th quarter 2006Stop tempting me. I need a new Mac NOW as it is.
kingtj
Oct 27, 10:33 AM
More and more devices come with "non replaceable" batteries, and it's often because this allows for more design flexibility. If your device uses a standard, "off the shelf" rechargeable battery pack, you're limited to certain dimensions for the battery compartment. Newer battery packs can be custom molded into all sorts of odd shapes - and that allows for making thinner or more "shapely" products. However, it also means they'd have to sell MANY more varieties of battery packs if they still made these oddballs "replaceable". Nobody would be able to locate the proper battery when it came time to do a replacement anyway.....
Realistically though, almost any consumer electronics device I've seen has *some* way to open it up. And assuming the internal battery works for at least 2 or 3 years, it's not unreasonable to say "Hey... you still want to keep this device going for another 2-3 years? Ok... go to some extra effort prying it open once and do a battery swap with a custom replacement battery." That's what you're looking at on an iPod. After 5 or 6 years, are you REALLY going to keep using the same product anyway? If so, ok ... you have to hassle with prying it open 2 times in the lifespan of the product then. Doesn't sound horrible to me.
They do build in obsolescence into the ipod as you can't replace the battery (easily). It does become a disposable item, although a pricey one at that. I do love the ipod (even though I don't own one) but this puts me off to the point where I just can't go through with actually buying one. My experience with rechargeable batteries in mobile phones and lap top isn't good.
Realistically though, almost any consumer electronics device I've seen has *some* way to open it up. And assuming the internal battery works for at least 2 or 3 years, it's not unreasonable to say "Hey... you still want to keep this device going for another 2-3 years? Ok... go to some extra effort prying it open once and do a battery swap with a custom replacement battery." That's what you're looking at on an iPod. After 5 or 6 years, are you REALLY going to keep using the same product anyway? If so, ok ... you have to hassle with prying it open 2 times in the lifespan of the product then. Doesn't sound horrible to me.
They do build in obsolescence into the ipod as you can't replace the battery (easily). It does become a disposable item, although a pricey one at that. I do love the ipod (even though I don't own one) but this puts me off to the point where I just can't go through with actually buying one. My experience with rechargeable batteries in mobile phones and lap top isn't good.
caity13cait
Sep 19, 03:09 PM
Didn't Steve say in his keynote how long it would be until Europe got movies? I could have sworn it was October.
israelagm
Mar 30, 01:24 PM
XP shows them with the same names, but it's irrelevant to the discussion at hand. There is no "App Store" in the screenshot.
Shows what with the same names?
And I think it is relevant to the entire discussion. IF they have never used 'applications' in a 'general' or specific way on any type of their OSs then why pick a fight over Apple's use of AppStore, who have been using the term 'Applications' in their OSs and in their ecosystem and brand recognition lingo.
And your right, you don't see an 'App Store' in this screenshot or on any Windows OS or mobile OS.
EDIT: NVM! as noted by logandzwon "Anything ending in .exe will have the same description." Which makes my argument weak and mute.
Shows what with the same names?
And I think it is relevant to the entire discussion. IF they have never used 'applications' in a 'general' or specific way on any type of their OSs then why pick a fight over Apple's use of AppStore, who have been using the term 'Applications' in their OSs and in their ecosystem and brand recognition lingo.
And your right, you don't see an 'App Store' in this screenshot or on any Windows OS or mobile OS.
EDIT: NVM! as noted by logandzwon "Anything ending in .exe will have the same description." Which makes my argument weak and mute.
Bubbasteve
Sep 26, 08:26 AM
I wonder when it will be released? I really hope Apple sells them in there stores and I don't have to go through cingular and get it...but whatever I must do what I must do
boxandrew
Sep 4, 10:11 PM
Have I missed something?
As far as I can tell, we haven't actually seen an invite to this media event, so how do we know it's actually going to happen? If Apple are having trouble with some of the proposed releases, what's to prevent them delaying till later in the month or even early October?
As far as I can tell, we haven't actually seen an invite to this media event, so how do we know it's actually going to happen? If Apple are having trouble with some of the proposed releases, what's to prevent them delaying till later in the month or even early October?
macfan881
Sep 5, 05:26 PM
my predictions for the 12
Video airport express with 8021n
Aiport Basestation 8021n
6 and 10 gig nanos
23 inch imac
maybe 120 gig ipod video
Disney movies for download with all of pixar movies being availble at launch and special preorder for cars
one more thing.... new mac core 2 duo versions of both macbooks and mac mini
Video airport express with 8021n
Aiport Basestation 8021n
6 and 10 gig nanos
23 inch imac
maybe 120 gig ipod video
Disney movies for download with all of pixar movies being availble at launch and special preorder for cars
one more thing.... new mac core 2 duo versions of both macbooks and mac mini
briansolomon
Sep 5, 10:33 AM
I think I speak for most everyone when I say that feeling we used to get, before Intel processors were in the machines, is back.
ciTiger
Apr 11, 07:52 AM
Apple will fix it soon...
Coolerking
Sep 8, 08:35 AM
Because I don't know much about computers- can Leopard run on just Core Duo processors or does it need to be Core 2 Duo?
dr_lha
Sep 26, 03:54 PM
What phone you have? The newer quad band phones get great service in and out of urban areas using Cingular.
Quad band has nothing to do with getting service in the US. A dual band phone will get you all the service you ever need in the USA. The 2 extra bands in "quad band" are ones used outside of the US.
Quad band has nothing to do with getting service in the US. A dual band phone will get you all the service you ever need in the USA. The 2 extra bands in "quad band" are ones used outside of the US.
atari1356
Oct 27, 09:27 AM
They were probably planning on escalating things to get kicked out all along... more press for them. Heck, they made it on the front page of MacRumors.
peharri
Sep 21, 08:10 AM
Finally, someone gets it right.
CDMA is technically superior to GSM just about any way you care to measure it. GSM's widespread adoption in Europe was by fiat as a protectionist measure for European telecom companies, primarily because the European technology providers did not want to license CDMA from an American company. CDMA was basically slandered six ways to Sunday to justify using GSM. It was nothing more than a case of Not Invented Here writ large and turf protection. This early rapid push to standardize on GSM in as many places as possible as a strategic hedge gave them a strong market position in most of the rest of the world. In the US, the various protocols had to fight it out on the open market which took time to sort itself out.
There's a lot of nonsense about IS-95 ("CDMA" as implemented by Qualcomm) that's promoted by Qualcomm shills (some openly, like Steve De Beste) that I'd be very careful about taking claims of "superiority" at face value. The above is so full of the kind mis-representations I've seen posted everywhere I have to respond.
1. CDMA is not "technically superior to GSM just about any way you care to measure". CDMA (by which I assume you mean IS95, because comparing GSM to CDMA air interface technology is like comparing a minivan to a car tire - the conflation of TDMA and GSM has, and the deliberate underplaying of the 95% of IS-95 that has nothing to do with the air-interface, has been a standard tool in the shills toolbox) has an air-interface technology which has better capacity than GSM's TDMA, but the rest of IS-95 really isn't as mature or consumer friendly as GSM. In particular, IS-95 leaves decisions as to support for SIM cards, and network codes, to operators, which means in practice that there's no standardization and few benefits to an end user who chooses it. Most US operators seem to have, surprise surprise, avoided SIM cards and network standardization seems to be based upon US analog dialing star codes (eg *72, etc)
2. "GSM's widespread adoption in Europe was by fiat as a protectionist measure for European telecom companies, primarily because the European technology providers did not want to license CDMA from an American company." is objectively untrue. GSM was developed in the mid-eighties as a method to move towards a standardized mobile phone system for Europe, which at the time had different systems running on different frequencies in pretty much every country (unlike the US where AMPS was available in every state.)
By the time IS-95 was developed, GSM was already an established standard in practically all of Europe. While 900MHz services were mandated as GSM and legacy analogy only by the EC, countries were free to allow other standards on other frequencies until one became dominant on a particular frequency. With 1800MHz, the first operators given the band choose GSM, as it was clearly more advanced than what Qualcomm was offering, and handset makers would have little or no difficulty making multifrequency handsets. (Today GSM is also mandated on 1800MHz, but that wasn't true at the time one2one and Orange, and many that followed, choose GSM.)
The only aspect of IS95 that could be described as "superior" that would require licensing is the CDMA air interface technology. European operators and phone makers have, indeed, licensed that technology (albeit not to Qualcomm's specifications) and it's present in pretty much all implementations of UMTS. So much for that.
3. "CDMA was basically slandered six ways to Sunday to justify using GSM." Funny, I could have sworn I saw the exact opposite.
I came to the US in 1998, GSM wasn't available in my market area at the time, and I picked up an IS-95 phone believing it to be superior based upon what was said on newsgroups, US media, and other sources. I was shocked. IS-95 was better than IS-136 ("D-AMPS"), but not by much, and it was considerably less reliable. At that time, IS-95, as providing by most US operators, didn't support two way text messaging or data. It didn't support - much to my astonishment - SIM cards. ISDN integration was nil. Network services were a jumbled mess. Call drops were common, even when signal strengths were high.
Much of this has been fixed since. But what amazed me looking back on it was the sheer nonsense being directed at GSM by IS-95 advocates. GSM was, according to them, identical to IS-136, which they called TDMA. It had identical problems. Apparently on GSM, calls would drop every time you changed tower. GSM only had a 7km range! It only worked in Europe because everyone lives in cities! And GSM was a government owned standard, imposed by the EU on unwilling mobile phone operators.
Every single one of these facts was completely untrue. IS-136 was closer in form to IS-95 than GSM. IS-136, unlike GSM and like IS-95, was essentially built around the same mobile phone model as AMPS, with little or no network services standardization and an inherent assumption that the all calls would be to POTS or other similarly limited cellphones as itself. Like IS-95 and unlike GSM, in IS-136 your phone was your identifier, you couldn't change phones without your operator's permission. Like IS-95 at the time, messaging and data was barely implemented in IS-136 - when I left the UK I'd been browsing the web and using IRC (via Demon's telnetable IRC client) on my Nokia 9000 on a regular basis.
No TDMA system I'm aware of routinely drops calls when you change towers. In practice, I had far more call drops under Sprint PCS then I had under any other operator, namely because IS-95's capacity improvement was over-exaggerated and operators at the time routinely overloaded their networks.
GSM's range, which is around 20km, while technically a limitation of the air interface technology, isn't much different to what a .25W cellphone's range is in practice. You're not going to find many cellphones capable of getting a signal from a tower that far, regardless of what technology you use. The whole "Everyone lives in cities" thing is a myth, as certain countries, notably Finland, have far more US-like demographics in that respect (but what do they know about cellphones in Finland (http://www.nokia.com)?)
GSM was a standard built by the operators after the EU told them to create at least one standard that would be supported across the continent. Only the concept of "standardization" was forced upon operators, the standard - a development of work being done by France Telecom at the time - was made and agreed to by the operators. Those same operators would have looked at IS-95, or even at CDMA incorporated into GSM at the air interface level - had it been a mature, viable, technology at the time. It wasn't.
The only practical advantage IS-95 had over GSM was better capacity. This in theory meant cheaper minutes. For a time, that was true. Today, most US operators offer close to identical tariffs and close to identical reliability. But I can choose which GSM phone I leave the house with, and I know it'll work consistantly regardless of where I am.
Ultimately, the GSM consortium lost and Qualcomm got the last laugh because the technology does not scale as well as CDMA. Every last telecom equipment provider in Europe has since licensed the CDMA technology, and some version of the technology is part of the next generation cellular infrastructure under a few different names.
This paragraph is bizarrely misleading and I'm wondering if you just worded it poorly. GSM is still the worldwide standard. The newest version, UMTS, uses a CDMA air interface but is otherwise a clear development of GSM. It has virtually nothing in common with IS-95. "The GSM consortium" consists of GSM operators and handset makers. They're doing pretty well. What have they lost? Are you saying that because GSM's latest version includes one aspect of the IS-95 standard that GSM is worse? Or that IS-95 is suddenly better?
While GSM has better interoperability globally, I would make the observation that CDMA works just fine in the US, which is no small region of the planet and the third most populous country. For many people, the better quality is worth it.
Given the choice between 2G IS-95 or GSM, I'd pick GSM every time. Given the choice between 3G IS-95 (CDMA2000) and UMTS, I'd pick UMTS every time. The quality is generally better with the GSM equivalent - you're getting a well designed, digitial, integrated, network with GSM with all the features you'd expect. The advantages of the IS-95 equivalent are harder to come by. Slightly better data rates with 3G seems to be the only major one. Well, maybe the only one. Capacity? That's an operator issue. Indeed, with the move to UMA (presumably there'll be an IS-95 equivalent), it wouldn't surprise me if operators need less towers in the future regardless of which network technology they picked. The only other "advantages" IS-95 brings to the table seem to be imaginary.
CDMA is technically superior to GSM just about any way you care to measure it. GSM's widespread adoption in Europe was by fiat as a protectionist measure for European telecom companies, primarily because the European technology providers did not want to license CDMA from an American company. CDMA was basically slandered six ways to Sunday to justify using GSM. It was nothing more than a case of Not Invented Here writ large and turf protection. This early rapid push to standardize on GSM in as many places as possible as a strategic hedge gave them a strong market position in most of the rest of the world. In the US, the various protocols had to fight it out on the open market which took time to sort itself out.
There's a lot of nonsense about IS-95 ("CDMA" as implemented by Qualcomm) that's promoted by Qualcomm shills (some openly, like Steve De Beste) that I'd be very careful about taking claims of "superiority" at face value. The above is so full of the kind mis-representations I've seen posted everywhere I have to respond.
1. CDMA is not "technically superior to GSM just about any way you care to measure". CDMA (by which I assume you mean IS95, because comparing GSM to CDMA air interface technology is like comparing a minivan to a car tire - the conflation of TDMA and GSM has, and the deliberate underplaying of the 95% of IS-95 that has nothing to do with the air-interface, has been a standard tool in the shills toolbox) has an air-interface technology which has better capacity than GSM's TDMA, but the rest of IS-95 really isn't as mature or consumer friendly as GSM. In particular, IS-95 leaves decisions as to support for SIM cards, and network codes, to operators, which means in practice that there's no standardization and few benefits to an end user who chooses it. Most US operators seem to have, surprise surprise, avoided SIM cards and network standardization seems to be based upon US analog dialing star codes (eg *72, etc)
2. "GSM's widespread adoption in Europe was by fiat as a protectionist measure for European telecom companies, primarily because the European technology providers did not want to license CDMA from an American company." is objectively untrue. GSM was developed in the mid-eighties as a method to move towards a standardized mobile phone system for Europe, which at the time had different systems running on different frequencies in pretty much every country (unlike the US where AMPS was available in every state.)
By the time IS-95 was developed, GSM was already an established standard in practically all of Europe. While 900MHz services were mandated as GSM and legacy analogy only by the EC, countries were free to allow other standards on other frequencies until one became dominant on a particular frequency. With 1800MHz, the first operators given the band choose GSM, as it was clearly more advanced than what Qualcomm was offering, and handset makers would have little or no difficulty making multifrequency handsets. (Today GSM is also mandated on 1800MHz, but that wasn't true at the time one2one and Orange, and many that followed, choose GSM.)
The only aspect of IS95 that could be described as "superior" that would require licensing is the CDMA air interface technology. European operators and phone makers have, indeed, licensed that technology (albeit not to Qualcomm's specifications) and it's present in pretty much all implementations of UMTS. So much for that.
3. "CDMA was basically slandered six ways to Sunday to justify using GSM." Funny, I could have sworn I saw the exact opposite.
I came to the US in 1998, GSM wasn't available in my market area at the time, and I picked up an IS-95 phone believing it to be superior based upon what was said on newsgroups, US media, and other sources. I was shocked. IS-95 was better than IS-136 ("D-AMPS"), but not by much, and it was considerably less reliable. At that time, IS-95, as providing by most US operators, didn't support two way text messaging or data. It didn't support - much to my astonishment - SIM cards. ISDN integration was nil. Network services were a jumbled mess. Call drops were common, even when signal strengths were high.
Much of this has been fixed since. But what amazed me looking back on it was the sheer nonsense being directed at GSM by IS-95 advocates. GSM was, according to them, identical to IS-136, which they called TDMA. It had identical problems. Apparently on GSM, calls would drop every time you changed tower. GSM only had a 7km range! It only worked in Europe because everyone lives in cities! And GSM was a government owned standard, imposed by the EU on unwilling mobile phone operators.
Every single one of these facts was completely untrue. IS-136 was closer in form to IS-95 than GSM. IS-136, unlike GSM and like IS-95, was essentially built around the same mobile phone model as AMPS, with little or no network services standardization and an inherent assumption that the all calls would be to POTS or other similarly limited cellphones as itself. Like IS-95 and unlike GSM, in IS-136 your phone was your identifier, you couldn't change phones without your operator's permission. Like IS-95 at the time, messaging and data was barely implemented in IS-136 - when I left the UK I'd been browsing the web and using IRC (via Demon's telnetable IRC client) on my Nokia 9000 on a regular basis.
No TDMA system I'm aware of routinely drops calls when you change towers. In practice, I had far more call drops under Sprint PCS then I had under any other operator, namely because IS-95's capacity improvement was over-exaggerated and operators at the time routinely overloaded their networks.
GSM's range, which is around 20km, while technically a limitation of the air interface technology, isn't much different to what a .25W cellphone's range is in practice. You're not going to find many cellphones capable of getting a signal from a tower that far, regardless of what technology you use. The whole "Everyone lives in cities" thing is a myth, as certain countries, notably Finland, have far more US-like demographics in that respect (but what do they know about cellphones in Finland (http://www.nokia.com)?)
GSM was a standard built by the operators after the EU told them to create at least one standard that would be supported across the continent. Only the concept of "standardization" was forced upon operators, the standard - a development of work being done by France Telecom at the time - was made and agreed to by the operators. Those same operators would have looked at IS-95, or even at CDMA incorporated into GSM at the air interface level - had it been a mature, viable, technology at the time. It wasn't.
The only practical advantage IS-95 had over GSM was better capacity. This in theory meant cheaper minutes. For a time, that was true. Today, most US operators offer close to identical tariffs and close to identical reliability. But I can choose which GSM phone I leave the house with, and I know it'll work consistantly regardless of where I am.
Ultimately, the GSM consortium lost and Qualcomm got the last laugh because the technology does not scale as well as CDMA. Every last telecom equipment provider in Europe has since licensed the CDMA technology, and some version of the technology is part of the next generation cellular infrastructure under a few different names.
This paragraph is bizarrely misleading and I'm wondering if you just worded it poorly. GSM is still the worldwide standard. The newest version, UMTS, uses a CDMA air interface but is otherwise a clear development of GSM. It has virtually nothing in common with IS-95. "The GSM consortium" consists of GSM operators and handset makers. They're doing pretty well. What have they lost? Are you saying that because GSM's latest version includes one aspect of the IS-95 standard that GSM is worse? Or that IS-95 is suddenly better?
While GSM has better interoperability globally, I would make the observation that CDMA works just fine in the US, which is no small region of the planet and the third most populous country. For many people, the better quality is worth it.
Given the choice between 2G IS-95 or GSM, I'd pick GSM every time. Given the choice between 3G IS-95 (CDMA2000) and UMTS, I'd pick UMTS every time. The quality is generally better with the GSM equivalent - you're getting a well designed, digitial, integrated, network with GSM with all the features you'd expect. The advantages of the IS-95 equivalent are harder to come by. Slightly better data rates with 3G seems to be the only major one. Well, maybe the only one. Capacity? That's an operator issue. Indeed, with the move to UMA (presumably there'll be an IS-95 equivalent), it wouldn't surprise me if operators need less towers in the future regardless of which network technology they picked. The only other "advantages" IS-95 brings to the table seem to be imaginary.
darklich
Apr 4, 11:59 AM
Seems unfair to kill someone for robbery. Yes they're breaking the law, but only deserve a prison sentence. Do you really really think someone should be shot and killed for attempting to steal a few laptops and smash a few windows? If you do then man you have issues.
Read the details of the story. http://www.10news.com/news/27421748/detail.html
They were armed and exchanged fire. Changed your mind?
Read the details of the story. http://www.10news.com/news/27421748/detail.html
They were armed and exchanged fire. Changed your mind?
Mattie Num Nums
Apr 20, 09:10 AM
You're right. Apple doesn't use an Apple for their logo. :rolleyes:
Also the fact that its pretty obvious that Steve Jobs is obsessed with the Beatles.
Also the fact that its pretty obvious that Steve Jobs is obsessed with the Beatles.
TheSailerMan
Oct 12, 08:45 PM
I was wondering when this was going to happen. I'm glad it finally has, though the news has been a bit abrupt, especially for an Apple product.
As much as I like U2's music and how much I'd love to donate money to cure/treat AIDS, I won't be buying one of these.
I like the blue nano too much to buy a red one just because $10 goes to charity, plus... I've been told that red "isn't my color." Seriously.
This morning I was wearing a solid red t-shirt, kind of like the red that the nano is, and my mom told me to change my shirt. There's nothing wrong with the shirt, there's no profane graphics on it (actually, no graphics at all) and it wasn't wrinkled, she just told me that red "isn't my color" (even though she's the one that bought me the shirt)!
Hmmm.... does anyone think this will get Greenpeace off Apple's back?:D
Eh... probably not.:rolleyes:
As much as I like U2's music and how much I'd love to donate money to cure/treat AIDS, I won't be buying one of these.
I like the blue nano too much to buy a red one just because $10 goes to charity, plus... I've been told that red "isn't my color." Seriously.
This morning I was wearing a solid red t-shirt, kind of like the red that the nano is, and my mom told me to change my shirt. There's nothing wrong with the shirt, there's no profane graphics on it (actually, no graphics at all) and it wasn't wrinkled, she just told me that red "isn't my color" (even though she's the one that bought me the shirt)!
Hmmm.... does anyone think this will get Greenpeace off Apple's back?:D
Eh... probably not.:rolleyes:
bchreng
May 3, 01:45 PM
GPU - Are you graphic editing? I don't think any of the games on the Mac really tax the GPU yet. I'd say no.
If allows me to run Starcraft 2 at the insanely high native resolution with all the details set to high at 60 fps, I'd spring for it.
If allows me to run Starcraft 2 at the insanely high native resolution with all the details set to high at 60 fps, I'd spring for it.
musiclover137
Sep 13, 09:34 PM
this is definitely a style over functionality....how da heck do you dial a number with clickwheel?
of course, if this is a slider phone like chocolate, then this is an awesome design.
Um, read the post buddy....
of course, if this is a slider phone like chocolate, then this is an awesome design.
Um, read the post buddy....
LarryC
Apr 22, 06:51 PM
AMD would be producing better CPU's via increased profits if Apple chose them over Intel from the start.
I always thought that if Apple ever went with something other than PPC that they would go with AMD. Better late than never.
I always thought that if Apple ever went with something other than PPC that they would go with AMD. Better late than never.
CaptMurdock
Apr 21, 08:46 AM
Sure is. A hypothetical I like to propose:
Considering that the discrepancies between "rich" and "poor" as far as voting goes are far over blown (http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/10/24/even-more-on-income-and-voting/) (Rich DO vote liberal and poor DO vote conservative) with the top third of white income earners STILL voting liberal, despite their high incomes and the ever-pervasive myth that rich people vote republican.
If this top third of income earners, instead of trying to legislate their charities through democratic votes and the force of law, simply put 50%, 60%, 70%, hell, 90% of their incomes towards charity rather than owning a home, owning multiple vehicles, owning boats, "traveling", shopping at Lunds or Kowalskis, etc, the poverty problem would be fixed, or at the very least, helped significantly without forcing ANYBODY to do ANYTHING.
But then again, these people would rather force everyone to pony up the dough rather than take a hit to their lifestyles.
Charity is a beautiful thing, but forced charity?
Oh, good... I was wondering when the "Screw you, I got mine" crowd would come out of hiding.
Considering that the discrepancies between "rich" and "poor" as far as voting goes are far over blown (http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/10/24/even-more-on-income-and-voting/) (Rich DO vote liberal and poor DO vote conservative) with the top third of white income earners STILL voting liberal, despite their high incomes and the ever-pervasive myth that rich people vote republican.
If this top third of income earners, instead of trying to legislate their charities through democratic votes and the force of law, simply put 50%, 60%, 70%, hell, 90% of their incomes towards charity rather than owning a home, owning multiple vehicles, owning boats, "traveling", shopping at Lunds or Kowalskis, etc, the poverty problem would be fixed, or at the very least, helped significantly without forcing ANYBODY to do ANYTHING.
But then again, these people would rather force everyone to pony up the dough rather than take a hit to their lifestyles.
Charity is a beautiful thing, but forced charity?
Oh, good... I was wondering when the "Screw you, I got mine" crowd would come out of hiding.
sfh
Mar 23, 05:06 PM
There are plenty of websites that do the same thing so therefore they need to petition the websites to censor their sites if they are going to ask apple to censor their app store.
Pavia
Mar 24, 04:46 PM
http://www.9to5mac.com/32948/jobs-no-usb-3-at-this-time/
http://www.macrumors.com/2010/06/30/steve-jobs-suggests-blu-ray-not-coming-to-mac-anytime-soon/
If they did go on and add either USB3 or blu-ray to Macs, they'd be removing it the following year, as it will become obsolete quite rapidly (maybe even more than USB 2.0).
http://www.macrumors.com/2010/06/30/steve-jobs-suggests-blu-ray-not-coming-to-mac-anytime-soon/
If they did go on and add either USB3 or blu-ray to Macs, they'd be removing it the following year, as it will become obsolete quite rapidly (maybe even more than USB 2.0).
LaMerVipere
Oct 12, 04:58 PM
100% confirmed.
via Chicago Tribune:
http://img183.imageshack.us/img183/5016/25865863uz2.jpg
via Chicago Tribune:
http://img183.imageshack.us/img183/5016/25865863uz2.jpg
MacVault
Sep 19, 06:19 PM
...How do they check their email when you take the notebook on the road?
iTunes places content into that folder when you download or rip. But you can put content anywhere, just drag it into iTunes from the new location. I'd like to see them support multiple folders in the future, but you can certainly use content without having it in the folder already.
They don't care about email. They just want to watch the movies I buy from iTunes, etc.
As for where iTunes puts it's content... the original poster had a good point - how to have the content synched between the external/networked storage device and the local machine, for example an laptop, so when one is on the road they can have access to the content on their storage server at home, although limited by the laptops available hard drive space, etc.
iTunes places content into that folder when you download or rip. But you can put content anywhere, just drag it into iTunes from the new location. I'd like to see them support multiple folders in the future, but you can certainly use content without having it in the folder already.
They don't care about email. They just want to watch the movies I buy from iTunes, etc.
As for where iTunes puts it's content... the original poster had a good point - how to have the content synched between the external/networked storage device and the local machine, for example an laptop, so when one is on the road they can have access to the content on their storage server at home, although limited by the laptops available hard drive space, etc.
No comments:
Post a Comment