I love the search capabilities. I love the 'smart playlist' which can filter songs by number of times played, last played, ID tags, and ratings. I love not needing to worry about organization. It's like not caring which track, sector, and platter my data is on; there's no need to care when the OS takes care of that detail. All I need to know is enough meta-data for the OS to find the file.
Sharing is cool, streaming is cool, and so is the music store!
The iPod is 100% just a firewire/usb FAT/HFS+ hard drive.
I own one.
The music files are stored in a hidden (but otherwise normal) directory. I can browse it easily enough using the CLI of Finder as I like.
The files are raw; you can play them in iTunes if you so wish. Or any other music player.
The database, which I mentioned before, is how the iPod navigates this hidden directory; if they do not match, you won't find your music. So, as I said before, to preserve battery life and reduce hits to the disk, the iPod only browses the 11mb database file in memory to display album/artist/playlist/ID3 info until you actually hit 'play', and then the disk seeks, sucks data into memory, and plays.
You know that the iPod is a mass storage device (FIrewire and USB) as well?
It's just a hard drive when you plug it in. When iTunes uploads music, it's via straight hard drive transfer. The *only* reason you need iTunes is to optimize the battery performance of the iPod. It writes an index file for every song uploaded into the iPod so that when you are browsing, seeking, and viewing title/album/artist info, you aren't killing battery life by thrashing the hard drive. Instead you are reading a roughly 11mb database.
If roommate A has iTunes running under his account connected to his AE, and roommate B has iTunes running under his account connected to his AE, haven't we just accomplished what you wish?
Of course the problem is, does multiple copies of iTunes run with FUS?
Yes it does.
Then the next problem: Will multiple copies of iTunes recognize different AE units?
This indicates that multiple copies of iTunes WILL play different songs simultaneously... so the possibility definitely exists that multiple AE units can be supported on one machine.
When did I ever try to convince you the iPod was an "awesome" PDA?
I merely stated the features of the iPod that make it suitable as a data presentation device. It is an excellent music player. That it has secondary useful characteristics do not make it pointless... merely flexible.
iPods have phenomenal battery life compared to a notebook. Most* notebooks also take a long time to become useful. The iPod suffers none of those issues.
The same functionality would allow for a database of, say, gas stations, fast food restaurants, grocery stores, and convenience stores... all without opening a notebook.
* Apple notebooks are exceptional in this instance, powering up from sleep in less than three seconds... but still slower than an iPod.
So why would a marsbase be a worthy goal in of itself? You throw in the word 'useful' all of a sudden. Apollo wasn't 'useful' in any strict sense either, and you hold that up as an example as well.
Your argument can be equally applied to any research science.
"My beef is that all the nuclear science and atomic research was established with the Manhattan Project and the first A-Bomb. Further development would have been done as part of a Mars mission or further Moon ones. Nuclear power stations were done right because they had a clear goal and had to figure out the details in between. Randomly developing technologies is very inefficient if your mindset is 'this will be useful for something someday'. That was the justification for nuclear fusion for the most part."
Except as part of funding nuclear fusion, we have grade A laser technologies. We now have laser accelerated fission technologies, and smaller, faster, more efficient lasers. LASIK, anyone? We have aircraft mounted lasers, and laser diodes too.
Yes, ISS is expensive. Yes it has no value TODAY. Yes it's political. Yes it draws flak. But it isn't useless. It isn't worthless. It will have ramifications in 100 years we can't predict today. Yes, so would a Moon base or Mars base; but that is why we need to go forward.
My question is if we had a Moon base instead of the ISS, would you be the kind to complain,
"My beef is all the low-G and survivability stuff was established with Apollo and Mercury missions. Further development would have been done as part of a space station. Apollo was done right because they had a clear goal and had to figure out the details in between. Randomly developing technologies is very inefficient if your mindset is "this will be useful for something someday". That was the justification for the Moonbase for the most part."
Hehe, he lost the iPod market though, didn't he? If CDs are starting to be obsolete now, it's not because of Microsoft...
And I'm willing to bet that if, in 10 years, DVDs are obsolete, it won't be because of anything Microsoft makes either. Apple is pretty high on my list for a video on demand (ala iTunes) system with a 400 movie jukebox on a hard drive and the ability to watch 10 movies on a single charge...
Slashdot Mirror
Well, if you don't need it, you don't need it.
I love the search capabilities.
I love the 'smart playlist' which can filter songs by number of times played, last played, ID tags, and ratings.
I love not needing to worry about organization. It's like not caring which track, sector, and platter my data is on; there's no need to care when the OS takes care of that detail. All I need to know is enough meta-data for the OS to find the file.
Sharing is cool, streaming is cool, and so is the music store!
Um, isn't that EXACTLY what I wrote?
The iPod is 100% just a firewire/usb FAT/HFS+ hard drive.
I own one.
The music files are stored in a hidden (but otherwise normal) directory. I can browse it easily enough using the CLI of Finder as I like.
The files are raw; you can play them in iTunes if you so wish. Or any other music player.
The database, which I mentioned before, is how the iPod navigates this hidden directory; if they do not match, you won't find your music. So, as I said before, to preserve battery life and reduce hits to the disk, the iPod only browses the 11mb database file in memory to display album/artist/playlist/ID3 info until you actually hit 'play', and then the disk seeks, sucks data into memory, and plays.
You know that the iPod is a mass storage device (FIrewire and USB) as well?
It's just a hard drive when you plug it in. When iTunes uploads music, it's via straight hard drive transfer. The *only* reason you need iTunes is to optimize the battery performance of the iPod. It writes an index file for every song uploaded into the iPod so that when you are browsing, seeking, and viewing title/album/artist info, you aren't killing battery life by thrashing the hard drive. Instead you are reading a roughly 11mb database.
Agreed, if low end processor with limited application ability means Doom3 and Half Life 2.
Yes, but a Silver Yugo will still sell for higher than a brown, beige, or blue Yugo :P
Why shouldn't someone buy a car based on color?
Black cars get hotter in the summer
Brightly colored cars get into less accidents
Red cars get more tickets
Silver cars have the higher resale values
What about MS pull a Sony and bundle a 'free' HD-DVD player with their game console?
Well, there's always Bluetooth phones.
Besides which, even without AE, you can't listen to two different songs at the same time.. it just sounds bad. So AE doesn't do any worse at least...
I mean, how can one AE, hooked up to one sound system, receive two different streams of music and play them both without sounding horrible?
If you want two streams streaming to two different AEs, well, that's possible as I just outlined.
If you don't care about AAC and want to pull mp3s from your computer for only $129, there's also the Airport Express Base Station. Small surprise!
Of course if you want a remote, you'll need a bluetooth capable cell phone... and a Mac, unless Windows supports bluetooth already?
If roommate A has iTunes running under his account connected to his AE, and roommate B has iTunes running under his account connected to his AE, haven't we just accomplished what you wish?
Of course the problem is, does multiple copies of iTunes run with FUS?
Yes it does.
Then the next problem: Will multiple copies of iTunes recognize different AE units?
This indicates that multiple copies of iTunes WILL play different songs simultaneously... so the possibility definitely exists that multiple AE units can be supported on one machine.
Uh, how?
Unless they sell the real CD below the price of iTunes normal $9.99 per album price... and the fans win either way?
Uh... you mean the 802.11b/g protocol? WDS? RTS? TCP/IP? All the protocols are non proprietary here.
Did you know that Macs use the same OpenFirmware that Sun does?
Forth interpreter on boot time!
I dunno, I would think:
Radeon
Radeon 7500
Radeon 9200
GeForce3
GeForce4
GeForce4MX
Those are 'widely in use'.
Essentially anything released before this year, and spanning the past three years since Doom3 was announced!
Solitaire is already on the iPods :)
The only thing missing then is maps of campus... and I'm sure Apple can remedy that too!
When did I ever try to convince you the iPod was an "awesome" PDA?
I merely stated the features of the iPod that make it suitable as a data presentation device. It is an excellent music player. That it has secondary useful characteristics do not make it pointless... merely flexible.
iPods have phenomenal battery life compared to a notebook. Most* notebooks also take a long time to become useful. The iPod suffers none of those issues.
The same functionality would allow for a database of, say, gas stations, fast food restaurants, grocery stores, and convenience stores... all without opening a notebook.
* Apple notebooks are exceptional in this instance, powering up from sleep in less than three seconds... but still slower than an iPod.
Hmm, 3 million people don't seem to agree with you, sorry :)
The hoopla is from several things:
:)
UI improvement
Interface improvement
50% more battery life
$100 less
And it isn't a 'modernized walkman', it's a miniaturized/portable 600 disc CD changer
It costs $29-$49 to replace
More here and here.
50% increased battery life
removed 4 buttons
thinner
revised UI
So why would a marsbase be a worthy goal in of itself? You throw in the word 'useful' all of a sudden. Apollo wasn't 'useful' in any strict sense either, and you hold that up as an example as well.
Your argument can be equally applied to any research science.
"My beef is that all the nuclear science and atomic research was established with the Manhattan Project and the first A-Bomb. Further development would have been done as part of a Mars mission or further Moon ones. Nuclear power stations were done right because they had a clear goal and had to figure out the details in between. Randomly developing technologies is very inefficient if your mindset is 'this will be useful for something someday'. That was the justification for nuclear fusion for the most part."
Except as part of funding nuclear fusion, we have grade A laser technologies. We now have laser accelerated fission technologies, and smaller, faster, more efficient lasers. LASIK, anyone? We have aircraft mounted lasers, and laser diodes too.
Yes, ISS is expensive. Yes it has no value TODAY. Yes it's political. Yes it draws flak. But it isn't useless. It isn't worthless. It will have ramifications in 100 years we can't predict today. Yes, so would a Moon base or Mars base; but that is why we need to go forward.
My question is if we had a Moon base instead of the ISS, would you be the kind to complain,
"My beef is all the low-G and survivability stuff was established with Apollo and Mercury missions. Further development would have been done as part of a space station. Apollo was done right because they had a clear goal and had to figure out the details in between. Randomly developing technologies is very inefficient if your mindset is "this will be useful for something someday". That was the justification for the Moonbase for the most part."
Wonder at what? Staying in business for over 25 years?
Hehe, he lost the iPod market though, didn't he? If CDs are starting to be obsolete now, it's not because of Microsoft...
And I'm willing to bet that if, in 10 years, DVDs are obsolete, it won't be because of anything Microsoft makes either. Apple is pretty high on my list for a video on demand (ala iTunes) system with a 400 movie jukebox on a hard drive and the ability to watch 10 movies on a single charge...