Mine was one of the late 2001 dual-USB ones. It started having problems after a few months. It ended up going back to Apple for repairs three times in the first year. IIRC, it wasn't until I'd had it for over 1-1/2 years before they even acknowledged there were logic board issues, even though there was more than enough evidence indicating there was. About a year or so after that they finally extended the serial number range to include mine. Taking 2-1/2 years to acknowledge a particular model has a problem, and only doing so under the threat of a class action lawsuit, is not the way to keep customers happy. (I haven't even gone into the nice big scratch they put on my screen after one repair, or that another time they didn't even fully reassemble the machine.)
Actually, taking my past experience with a laptop into account (iBook with the logic board problem), as well as reading everyone else's anecdotes, I've been thinking it might be best just to get a cheapish low-mid range laptop. Yeah it'll be a bit heavier. Yeah, the graphics won't be as nice. But at the same time, when it goes south, it won't be nearly as much of a loss. My cow-orker picked up a decently spec'd year old compaq laptop from craigslist for 500 bucks a few months ago. It probably should've been at least 700 used, but the OS was totally mangled (it didn't help that there were signs that CompUSA had mangled it even further). The original owner just wanted it gone. A wipe and reinstall later (had to use the office's copy of XP since the machine didn't come with any media), and a little futzing with all of the HP-Compaq drivers/value-added software and it was as good as new.
I know that Sony's actions here will make me think twice about buying a Vaio. I'm getting ready to buy a new laptop, and Sony does have some decent ones out there. However, I have no way of knowing that they're not gonna install this crap on the machine at the factory. Well done Sony. The actions of one arm are negatively affecting sales of another...
Actually, since the GP poster couldn't correctly identify how much data can fit on a CD (hint: it's 650 or 700 MB, not 600 as he stated), it wasn't totally obvious that he was being rhetorical about how much audio (in minutes) could fit. As for the "knee jerk much?" part of your response, you should be asking yourself the same question. It's very clear that your response was a knee jerk reaction to my username. Fuckin' ACs.
Wow, congratulations on quoting something that wasn't even said. I never said that I thought it was true that Apple sabotaged it. I merely stated that I wasn't entirely ruling it out. There's a big difference. And for the record, I personally don't think that they did sabotage it.
But this is not an iPod phone. This is a phone with iTunes - big difference.
I haven't seen or used a ROKR, but doesn't the music program it runs have the same menu structure as an iPod, only controlled with a d-pad instead of a scrollwheel? How is that iTunes? I'll concede that it can use the ITMS, but that doesn't make the program the phone runs iTunes any more than saying that the iPod runs iTunes.
You can even download the ROM of each game and emulate it using MAME.
I'm curious to know if they secured the rights to distribute those ROMs. Cool site to poke around, though. I'll hafta look around more when I get home.
I was wondering if anyone else was going to mention this. If by "pioneering" they really mean "horribly designed and barely usable" then they've hit the nail on the head.
Rick (Yeah, I'm expecting a Troll rating for this one)
And you certainly deserve it. Why is it that other companies can prove that it is possible to develop secure and easy to use systems? Why is it that Microsoft itself (albeit, after the fact) has shown that they are capable of securing the very same parts of the OS that many warned them were vectors for viruses and malware?
However, aren't they supposed to have a reason for requesting those documents? For instance, because they have a strong reason to believe that infringing code is in there? I'm curious to know exactly what code SCO believes is contained in a kernel that doesn't exist.
Yes, I'm well aware of what GMT is. Do you not see the problem with the phrase "tomorrow late afternoon today"? If he meant to say "You should begin seeing reviews soon," then he should have simply said that. I take it you're also one of those people who doesn't understand what clean, well written code is or why it's desirable. So long as you can mash a bunch of crap together and sort of get it to do what it should, all is good in your world, right?
I'm not saying anything about the author's knowledge of the subject matter. What I am commenting on, however, is exactly what you say -- the presentation. I would argue that the point of posting text online (and especially via a news site) is to COMMUNICATE information. If the ideas that one is trying to communicate get lost in gibberish like "You should see the first reviews tomorrow late afternoon today, Greenwich Mean Time," (which is it?) then you have failed at the task of communicating. Knowledge of a subject matter means very little if you cannot properly communicate it to others, especially when you are ostensibly in a communications-related business, such as the news.
From your link: Both cases are showing that companies didn't planed things trough and that they had to respond with a new product to stay in the game, it's called bad planning.
The Inquirer showes that they cant proofreaed and that they shouldn publish without edting, it's called bad writing.
You should see the first reviews tomorrow late afternoon today, Greenwich Mean Time.
WTF does that even mean? How can I even take that site seriously?!?
Slashdot Mirror
Mine was one of the late 2001 dual-USB ones. It started having problems after a few months. It ended up going back to Apple for repairs three times in the first year. IIRC, it wasn't until I'd had it for over 1-1/2 years before they even acknowledged there were logic board issues, even though there was more than enough evidence indicating there was. About a year or so after that they finally extended the serial number range to include mine. Taking 2-1/2 years to acknowledge a particular model has a problem, and only doing so under the threat of a class action lawsuit, is not the way to keep customers happy. (I haven't even gone into the nice big scratch they put on my screen after one repair, or that another time they didn't even fully reassemble the machine.)
Actually, taking my past experience with a laptop into account (iBook with the logic board problem), as well as reading everyone else's anecdotes, I've been thinking it might be best just to get a cheapish low-mid range laptop. Yeah it'll be a bit heavier. Yeah, the graphics won't be as nice. But at the same time, when it goes south, it won't be nearly as much of a loss. My cow-orker picked up a decently spec'd year old compaq laptop from craigslist for 500 bucks a few months ago. It probably should've been at least 700 used, but the OS was totally mangled (it didn't help that there were signs that CompUSA had mangled it even further). The original owner just wanted it gone. A wipe and reinstall later (had to use the office's copy of XP since the machine didn't come with any media), and a little futzing with all of the HP-Compaq drivers/value-added software and it was as good as new.
I know that Sony's actions here will make me think twice about buying a Vaio. I'm getting ready to buy a new laptop, and Sony does have some decent ones out there. However, I have no way of knowing that they're not gonna install this crap on the machine at the factory. Well done Sony. The actions of one arm are negatively affecting sales of another...
Reboot yourself!
I'm trying, but I'm having a hard time getting the paperclip in the hole on my backside. Can you give me a hand?
That's lock-and-loll to you...
Actually, since the GP poster couldn't correctly identify how much data can fit on a CD (hint: it's 650 or 700 MB, not 600 as he stated), it wasn't totally obvious that he was being rhetorical about how much audio (in minutes) could fit. As for the "knee jerk much?" part of your response, you should be asking yourself the same question. It's very clear that your response was a knee jerk reaction to my username. Fuckin' ACs.
...you're going to be butting heads with DMA before long.
That's why I use PIO. : p
How much music can get on an audio CD?
See that print on your CD-Rs (or CD-R package) that says "74 minutes" or "80 minutes"? I'll give you five guesses as to what that means...
Exactly the point I was making. Thank you.
Wow, congratulations on quoting something that wasn't even said. I never said that I thought it was true that Apple sabotaged it. I merely stated that I wasn't entirely ruling it out. There's a big difference. And for the record, I personally don't think that they did sabotage it.
But this is not an iPod phone. This is a phone with iTunes - big difference.
I haven't seen or used a ROKR, but doesn't the music program it runs have the same menu structure as an iPod, only controlled with a d-pad instead of a scrollwheel? How is that iTunes? I'll concede that it can use the ITMS, but that doesn't make the program the phone runs iTunes any more than saying that the iPod runs iTunes.
While it's entirely possible that Apple did help sabotage it, I think it's more likely that it was a crappy product that's caused it to fail so far...
You can even download the ROM of each game and emulate it using MAME.
I'm curious to know if they secured the rights to distribute those ROMs. Cool site to poke around, though. I'll hafta look around more when I get home.
Yeah, cos I can't even begin to imagine a company like EA lobbing a lawsuit at a popular machinima producer if there's money to be made doing so...
And you must be from Kansas...
I was wondering if anyone else was going to mention this. If by "pioneering" they really mean "horribly designed and barely usable" then they've hit the nail on the head.
Rick (Yeah, I'm expecting a Troll rating for this one)
And you certainly deserve it. Why is it that other companies can prove that it is possible to develop secure and easy to use systems? Why is it that Microsoft itself (albeit, after the fact) has shown that they are capable of securing the very same parts of the OS that many warned them were vectors for viruses and malware?
However, aren't they supposed to have a reason for requesting those documents? For instance, because they have a strong reason to believe that infringing code is in there? I'm curious to know exactly what code SCO believes is contained in a kernel that doesn't exist.
Your level 60 Forsaken Warrior can wait a day or two.
I read that as "level 60 Foreskin Warrior." Same thing I guess. He can wait a day or two, too...
And for the cost of another 300 shows you can have it activated.
Note: I love my TiVo and think it's worth every penny.
You might be looking at the processor, but I'm looking at the hole the processor goes into... : p
Is this going to include the music that was created with EA's Music Construction Set?
Yes, I'm well aware of what GMT is. Do you not see the problem with the phrase "tomorrow late afternoon today"? If he meant to say "You should begin seeing reviews soon," then he should have simply said that. I take it you're also one of those people who doesn't understand what clean, well written code is or why it's desirable. So long as you can mash a bunch of crap together and sort of get it to do what it should, all is good in your world, right?
I'm not saying anything about the author's knowledge of the subject matter. What I am commenting on, however, is exactly what you say -- the presentation. I would argue that the point of posting text online (and especially via a news site) is to COMMUNICATE information. If the ideas that one is trying to communicate get lost in gibberish like "You should see the first reviews tomorrow late afternoon today, Greenwich Mean Time," (which is it?) then you have failed at the task of communicating. Knowledge of a subject matter means very little if you cannot properly communicate it to others, especially when you are ostensibly in a communications-related business, such as the news.
From your link:
Both cases are showing that companies didn't planed things trough and that they had to respond with a new product to stay in the game, it's called bad planning.
The Inquirer showes that they cant proofreaed and that they shouldn publish without edting, it's called bad writing.
You should see the first reviews tomorrow late afternoon today, Greenwich Mean Time.
WTF does that even mean? How can I even take that site seriously?!?