Are you telling me that if I bought an iPod and plugged it into my Mac and put all my stuff on it, and then went and plugged it into my Windows machine, the iPod would have to be reformatted!?
If that's so, I've been mislead by Apple. I take back my post. iPods aren't nearly as cool as I thought.
You are still missing the point, so let's try again.
Fact: The first generation iPod was only designed to work on the Mac. Fact: In the manual, it says that it should not be used with Windows. Fact: Apple doesn't have to support the first gen. iPods (that are Mac-only) on Windows just because there are hacks available to make it work.
You argue that Apple could have hacked iTunes to make the first gen. iPods work, but iTunes isn't a hack. It's an application that Apple is planning on maintaining. Can you still not see how silly it would be for Apple to hack iTunes years later just so first gen. iPods (which are supposed to work only on Macs anyway) can work on Windows?
Why should finding/reading/writing/indexing a string of bits or grouping a bunch of files in a heirarchy readable to any machine be so troublesome?
It's not a trouble. Current iPods work on both Windows and Mac OS at the same time. The problem is, the first gen. iPods were only made to work on a Mac. That doesn't mean that dealing with file systems was a problem then; it was a design choice, not a technical problem.
Correction: Everything is supposed to "just work" on a Mac. The problem arised when trying to use a Mac iPod on a Windows machine. First gen. iPods only supported Macs, so no, it's not going to "just work."
Informing yourself before you post will save everyone a lot of time in the future.
Not sure what the intuitiveness of a Mac has to do with an iPod manual, but the guy is obviously a Windows user (if not both), so he's probably accustomed to manuals.
I assure you I look quite hard. You must need some suggestions.
I assume you rename the subject to trolls with a "new twist?" It might get read more often, as I don't read trolls I think I've read before.
I've said this before but I still stick by it, the trolls nowadays just aren't very original and they just don't do a good a job as they used to. I'm quite dissaponted.
I think you and your troll friends need to think harder. I know it's in you, just think! One last point, maybe you need to post more often. I find by reading slashdot comments that I get way too many legitimate comments. If I were a troll, I'd be ashamad of myself.
So, that's all. Just remember, resist all temptations to get a life. The nontrollers are winning the fight. Your side needs all the help you can get!!
But certainly the person trolling has less of a life than those reading trolls. Come to think of it, I haven't seen a real good, original troll in a long time.
"Except it will - by definition - have overhead. The more files a user is manipulating, the more overhead it will have."
*sigh* We've already talked about this. Since it only does it with files that really need it (over 8 fragments), it doesn't need to do it every time a file is opened. The speed is saved when the file is defragged and therefore nothing needs to happen. But like I said, for your understanding I was ignoring all the other benefits. You've simply gone and turned one of the benefits into something bad.
My first point was, you think defragging is pointless. This new system doesn't defrag the entire drive, just the files you use, and it does it with practically no loss, so why not?
"I've come to the conclusion that...it's not worth doing."
Good answer. Defragging a 500GB disk really isn't worth it, you got that much. But if the OS is going to do it in the background with practically zero overhead, even without any other benefits I say go for it!
There's an upgrade version? Isn't one of the main gripes from everyone that Mac users have to shell out the $129 each year? I can't find an upgrade version at the Apple Store either...
I get no skips with Virtual PC/Win 2000 on my PMac 800MHz machine. Everything worked fine. But then I just quit Windows and resumed the Mac version. *shrugs*
Why would it cost you $1500 to play with a Mac? Even if you think you need to buy one to play with it (what, you have no friends?) then just get the low-end (a lot less than $1500)
You didn't describe anything special about your situation which you couldn't do with a Mac.
Slashdot Mirror
Are you telling me that if I bought an iPod and plugged it into my Mac and put all my stuff on it, and then went and plugged it into my Windows machine, the iPod would have to be reformatted!?
If that's so, I've been mislead by Apple. I take back my post. iPods aren't nearly as cool as I thought.
You are still missing the point, so let's try again.
Fact: The first generation iPod was only designed to work on the Mac.
Fact: In the manual, it says that it should not be used with Windows.
Fact: Apple doesn't have to support the first gen. iPods (that are Mac-only) on Windows just because there are hacks available to make it work.
You argue that Apple could have hacked iTunes to make the first gen. iPods work, but iTunes isn't a hack. It's an application that Apple is planning on maintaining. Can you still not see how silly it would be for Apple to hack iTunes years later just so first gen. iPods (which are supposed to work only on Macs anyway) can work on Windows?
Why should finding/reading/writing/indexing a string of bits or grouping a bunch of files in a heirarchy readable to any machine be so troublesome?
It's not a trouble. Current iPods work on both Windows and Mac OS at the same time. The problem is, the first gen. iPods were only made to work on a Mac. That doesn't mean that dealing with file systems was a problem then; it was a design choice, not a technical problem.
Correction: Everything is supposed to "just work" on a Mac. The problem arised when trying to use a Mac iPod on a Windows machine. First gen. iPods only supported Macs, so no, it's not going to "just work."
Informing yourself before you post will save everyone a lot of time in the future.
Not sure what the intuitiveness of a Mac has to do with an iPod manual, but the guy is obviously a Windows user (if not both), so he's probably accustomed to manuals.
I assure you I look quite hard. You must need some suggestions.
I assume you rename the subject to trolls with a "new twist?" It might get read more often, as I don't read trolls I think I've read before.
I've said this before but I still stick by it, the trolls nowadays just aren't very original and they just don't do a good a job as they used to. I'm quite dissaponted.
I think you and your troll friends need to think harder. I know it's in you, just think! One last point, maybe you need to post more often. I find by reading slashdot comments that I get way too many legitimate comments. If I were a troll, I'd be ashamad of myself.
So, that's all. Just remember, resist all temptations to get a life. The nontrollers are winning the fight. Your side needs all the help you can get!!
That's cool.
But certainly the person trolling has less of a life than those reading trolls.
Come to think of it, I haven't seen a real good, original troll in a long time.
"Except it will - by definition - have overhead. The more files a user is manipulating, the more overhead it will have."
*sigh* We've already talked about this. Since it only does it with files that really need it (over 8 fragments), it doesn't need to do it every time a file is opened. The speed is saved when the file is defragged and therefore nothing needs to happen. But like I said, for your understanding I was ignoring all the other benefits. You've simply gone and turned one of the benefits into something bad.
My first point was, you think defragging is pointless. This new system doesn't defrag the entire drive, just the files you use, and it does it with practically no loss, so why not?
Did you just say what I think you said?
You are wondering why an operating system in text mode is faster than the same operating system when it has to render a graphical user interface?
Bleh. This is probably a troll because you misspelled Darwin twice. Or you might just be a bit slow, which would be in line with your comment.
"I've come to the conclusion that...it's not worth doing."
Good answer. Defragging a 500GB disk really isn't worth it, you got that much.
But if the OS is going to do it in the background with practically zero overhead, even without any other benefits I say go for it!
Ah hah, it's more obvious than I thought. I don't suppose you can have a toolbar without the brushed metal...
There's an upgrade version? Isn't one of the main gripes from everyone that Mac users have to shell out the $129 each year? I can't find an upgrade version at the Apple Store either...
You can disable the brushed metal? I've looked for such an option but didn't find it.
A million already despite the Microsoft rep trying to discredit the service. I wonder if anyone listens to Microsoft's opinions nowadays anyways.
I get no skips with Virtual PC/Win 2000 on my PMac 800MHz machine. Everything worked fine. But then I just quit Windows and resumed the Mac version. *shrugs*
This post made me laugh. You are raving about how easy it is to burn a CD? Being a Mac user forever, I guess I take basic stuff like that for granted.
iTunes uses Quicktime (obviously). There has been an Ogg Vorbis plugin for OS9, OS X, and Windows for a long time: Click Here
Why you would want a single application to take over the entire screen is beyond me. It must be a Windows-user thing.
Now factor in cost. Then you'll find more magic.
I didn't know that.
On the bright side, at this rate VirtualPC will be able to run Windows (and thus games) as fast as today's PCs in no time. Life is good.
Why would it cost you $1500 to play with a Mac? Even if you think you need to buy one to play with it (what, you have no friends?) then just get the low-end (a lot less than $1500) You didn't describe anything special about your situation which you couldn't do with a Mac.