Slashdot Log In
Apple Updates iMac, iLife, .Mac
Posted by
kdawson
on Tue Aug 07, 2007 01:04 PM
from the more-goodies dept.
from the more-goodies dept.
Apple just announced new iMacs. They are aluminum and come in 20" (two models) and 24". There's a new view called "Events" in iPhoto that should make it easier to deal with large photo libraries. Apple's .Mac service is enhanced with .Mac Web Gallery, which integrates with the new iTunes and also the iPhone. It's a Web 2.0 app now. And iMovie is being replaced by a completely new app of the same name. Steve Jobs claimed that with it you can put together a 5-minute movie in 30 minutes, and he demo'ed that from the stage. iWeb, iDVD, and GarageBand get new features too. And .Mac subscribers get 10 GB of storage. Here is Engadget's blow-by-blow coverage, and Wired's.
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Why is this here now? (Score:1, Offtopic)
Re:No kidding (Score:4, Interesting)
(http://somethingstirring.blogspot.com/ | Last Journal: Monday October 01, @05:09PM)
Is it just me, or did he not say, "Boom!" once during this presentation?
Apple's website not updated? (Score:2)
(http://monogon.org/)
Finally (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Finally (Score:4, Interesting)
(Last Journal: Monday November 21 2005, @12:45PM)
The wireless keyboard IS FOR the Apple TV. They just haven't announced it yet.
The wired keyboard is for when you're sitting right in front of your iMac.
That time of the year again (Score:5, Funny)
(from the Apple Product Life Cycle) [misterbg.org]
New iMac keyboard (Score:1)
Geez (Score:5, Funny)
(http://itsbeenconfirmed.com/ | Last Journal: Sunday May 04 2003, @02:33AM)
Re:Geez (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Geez (Score:5, Funny)
(Last Journal: Monday June 05 2006, @10:46AM)
Goths.
Software's the name of the game (Score:2, Interesting)
It's a Web 2.0 app now... (Score:5, Funny)
Some of us Luddites are a bit slow to upgrade.
iphone update? (Score:2)
(http://www.jonaskaplan.com/ | Last Journal: Friday April 09 2004, @03:10AM)
I got a small chuckle from.... (Score:4, Funny)
Video Coverage? (Score:2)
Mac mini refreshed today too (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Mac mini refreshed today too (Score:5, Informative)
1.83GHz Intel Core 2 Duo
1GB memory
80GB hard drive1
Ships: Within 24 hours
Free Shipping
$599.00
---------
2.0GHz Intel Core 2 Duo
1GB memory
120GB hard drive1
Ships: Within 24 hours
Free Shipping
$799.00
Wow, does he really talk like that? (Score:5, Funny)
(http://www.tringali.org/ | Last Journal: Thursday July 12, @03:10PM)
Re:Wow, does he really talk like that? (Score:4, Informative)
Unless, of course, you can read/write stenographer's shorthand. Otherwise, I see no other way of of relaying the Stevenote, given that live audio and video wasn't an option.
"Blow-by-blow" coverage? (Score:1, Funny)
(http://goldspider.blogspot.com/ | Last Journal: Friday March 18 2005, @10:54AM)
Do we really need that kind of visual, considering fanbois' well-documented oral fixation with everything Apple?
*ducks*
A few thoughts (Score:4, Interesting)
Steve: "We use Intel chips"
hehehe, sounded a li'l like the intel chip implanted into his head kicked in there.
second, why is the imac so underpowered in the RAM department, I mean the specs in one of the pictures showed the iMacs, all the way up to the biggest $1800 version only has 1gig- with all the RAM you get in normal PCs now days (4gigabytes not unusual) is this not a little strange?
Finally, is it just me, or have they slighyl repackaged everything, made no huge advances, like for example, why did they bother to minimize a keyboard, which for someone like me, would just be annoying. iLife? It's had nothing added, they just repackaged every single feature, and when asked why
Re:A few thoughts (Score:4, Insightful)
(http://web.mac.com/eurobar)
Complicated as in disassembling the shell, depending on the model, but not complicated as in having to use special equipment, as all you need are a screwdriver (preferably magnetic), maybe a Leatherman toolkit (specifically the pincers), precautions to avoid static electricity, as well as a visual guide: http://www.xlr8yourmac.com/ [xlr8yourmac.com].
Going one notch further, when I upgraded the hard disk on my Indigo G3 http://www.faqintosh.com/risorse/en/guides/hw/ima
As for RAM chips and the new Macs? I'd guess it takes less than five minutes to do it, just open a little hatch, fit the chip in the slot and you're good to go!
Re:A few thoughts (Score:4, Interesting)
Then I found out third-party companies were selling it for the same absurd price.
So I told myself I'd wait a few months for the price to drop, since it would inevitably fall like a rock when more companies started shipping the Core 2 Extreme with chipsets requiring FB-DIMMs. Then it was announced that the FB-DIMM wasn't going to be on Intel's future roadmap.. d'oh!
Prices haven't dropped like a rock, but slowly declined instead.. now I can get 4GB for around $300.
But the thing is, the system doesn't really need it. I admit that it's already total overkill for what I use it for, but I was rewarding myself for using my 600Mhz iBook G3 for 5 years, including all thru college, and that maxed out at 640MB. With Tiger, and a bunch of widgets running, yeah, I can feel when it starts swapping -- usually at about the 15th Safari window or so. However, the system is so damn fast -- and I'm running RAID 0 on my main volume -- that the swapping is really just a minor annoyance. I keep finding better things to spend money on than more memory for my already blazing fast computer.
So, to make a long story short, 1GB is plenty for a "desktop" Mac. Most users would be much better served by 2GB, but most users would ALSO be much better served by Apple bundling as little possible so that the buyer can choose whether they want to install the RAM themselves, or have Apple do it.
Re:A few thoughts (Score:5, Informative)
(Last Journal: Friday June 29, @03:09PM)
AFAIK, Window's PC manaufacturers usually put in 1 GB now with an option to get 2 GB or more. Usually 2GB costs you an extra $100-200 and 4GB cost you an extra arm, leg, and testicle.
Even if you give up a 'nad for the 4GB, Windows PC's will only use 3 GB when 4 GB is installed unless you're willing to do a lot of extra configuration and you buy the correct hardware. We got a bunch of new Dells at work a couple months ago. All of them came with 4 GB. But when you boot into Windows XP Pro, only 3 GB is visible. I tried all the hacks to get more -- with certain MB and hardware configs, it is possible to get up to 3.5GB with a bit of hacking your OS configuration but 3GB is the most you can get unless you know all your hardware components will memory map into the top 0.5 GB (and unfortunately the Dells we got only do 3GB on 32-bit Windows). There is no way to get an ACTUAL USABLE 4GB in Windows without going to one of the 64-bit versions of Windows and with all the memory and driver issues there, you're not gaining anything on a consumer machine.
The Dumbest Question I've Ever Heard (Score:4, Interesting)
(http://www.lkmc.ch/)
Apropos Intel, via Daringfireball.net [daringfireball.net]:
"We like our own stickers better," Jobs said. "Don't get me wrong. We love working with Intel. We're proud to ship Intel products in Macs. They're screamers, and combined with our OS, we've tuned them well. It's just that everyone knows we use Intel processors. We'd rather not tell them about the product that's inside the box."
Re:The Dumbest Question I've Ever Heard (Score:5, Insightful)
"Because we want our computers to look classy and not like a cheap whore".
Brushed metal (Score:2, Interesting)
(Last Journal: Monday October 08, @07:57PM)
I like the change, but...how? Some auto-negation bug in the intra-office memo software? "!brushed_metal = brushed_metal....SENT"
Can we please kill off "Web X.Y"? (Score:2, Insightful)
It's a Web 2.0 app now
No it's not, because there's no such thing as a "version" of the Internet OR the World Wide Web.
Just because O'Reilly and a bunch of bloggers like it, doesn't mean you should use it.
BUMMER! "You can't be to thin ... (Score:2)
But your integrated screen can still be to high!
This is what annoys me the most about the iMac and they didn't fix it. I'm using a 20" iMac at my current client and the screen is about 8-10cm to high for my tast. And you can only pivot it on the iMacs, not raise or lower it. I'd've thought they'd've fixed that with this release. Shame they didn't.
iWork - Numbers! (Score:5, Interesting)
(http://www.starlight-systems.com/)
Re:iWork - Numbers! (Score:5, Interesting)
Agreed. The feature list and Excel compatibility are a big win for some of us. I'm tired of using MS Office for the Mac, because it is slow and bloated, and prone to crash. A lighter, more nimble competitor is very welcome for my light spreadsheet needs. I avoid OpenOffice on the Mac as well, since it is likewise not really there yet.
The improvements to Pages also seem significant, with some real layout power (and separate layout and word processing modes). Hopefully this will make for a lightweight Framemaker/InDesign replacement for smaller jobs. In fact, the main thing missing from iWork for my needs is ODF support.
Re:iWork - Numbers! (Score:5, Informative)
Re:iWork - Numbers! (Score:5, Interesting)
(http://www.smileystation.com/)
Balloons (Score:2, Funny)
They could make the iMac more expandable (Score:2, Interesting)
(Last Journal: Saturday February 11 2006, @09:16AM)
iMac and VMWare (Score:4, Interesting)
I've been considering a Mac desktop for a while, and now that a new one is out, perhaps I'll buy it.
One thing I need, though, is to be able to run Linux and OpenBSD in virtual machines on my desktop. Does anyone have any experience with how the new VMWare Fusion compares to VMWare Workstation? Is there any difference between the two (aside from the price, and that unity view for Windows, which does not affect me)? I mean, in terms of features and running other OSes?
Attack of the clones. (Score:4, Insightful)
(http://designelement.us/)
Seeing these new Macs, however, I can't help but wonder why in the hell PC makers don't actually start putting some damn effort into the manufacture and design of their machines. Instead they go for quick, cheap gimmicks like Dell and the goofy interchangeable color covers for their laptops. Even worse are the third party case manufacturers.
There are a million ideas out there for very elegant designs that could be just as impressive, if not more so, than anything Apple has designed. But instead what are we going to see? Dozens of crappy clones of the Apple design. Either that or half-hearted attempts that scream of cost-cutting over thoughtful design. Even Nintendo couldn't help but cloning the MacBook design with the DS and to a lesser extent the Wii.
Apple has nice design, but they are far from being the pinnacle of high design. If only other companies weren't cheap and unimaginative.
Re:Attack of the clones. (Score:5, Insightful)
(1) I need this to get work done and it has to run forever: Lenovo (formerly IBM) and high-end HP. Ugly is fine, as long as it's bullet-proof ugly
(2) I'm cheap and have no taste: Dell. Absolutely rock-bottom prices, and it has to match my velvet Elvis or corporate posters from Inspiration.com.
(3) It's a lifestyle choice, and I'm willing to pay for polish: Apple. They're not that much more expensive (especially the laptops), but getting people to overlook the price on the quad-core monsters is going to take better marketing. Tasteful, unobtrusive, and just let you get whatever it is you do done. Should be offered in Latte.
Besides, 94%, give or take a Linux box or two run Windows of some flavor. Why shouldn't the look of the machine remind you of the experience you're about to have?
iMac design (Score:2)
(http://www.geocities...atepower_gangsta.htm)
Am I the only one out there who thinks that the iMac's design has never been better than in its 1998-2001 (or so) version, before it started involving flat screens? I think it has never looked better than that, but that they couldn't keep it cause :
-They had to move on to a different design for the sake that it was a few years old because people don't like "old" stuff
-They had to put a flat screen in it because that's what people want
-They had to make it increasingly slimer and such because that's what people expect from futuristic computers
-Later they couldn't go back to it anyways so they have to move on into the forced design futurism
?
What's the videocard like? (Score:2)
(http://www.tjerkstra.org/)
Start a poll for/against aluminum (Score:2)
Ah... if only... (Score:1)
(http://hub.jonathan-rothwell.co.uk/ | Last Journal: Thursday August 24 2006, @09:13AM)
Apple's UK website hasn't updated to show the new iMacs yet (either because there'll be a few-week delay in getting it over here or because the webmaster had already packed up and gone home).
But isn't the new machine just gorgeous?
The problem I have with propietary lock-ins is when they're badly made (think Vista). I really can't fault Macs in anything but the price, and that's why they're such an attractive option - they're functional and decorative, which is something Micro$oft seems not to have grasped the concept with yet (at least with Windows and certain horribly-designed personal music players).
And TBH, Macs will run quite a lot of stuff. They'll run most UNIX apps, they can dual-boot with Windows if you want and triple boot with Windows and Linux if you want. They automatically recognise and install most hardware without fail. They'll link up with your WiFi network, talk to Windows (even if Windows isn't in the mood to talk to it) and I fully expect that Leopard will be compatible with the upcoming iToaster element2.
Now, if I can find £900 to spare, as soon as Leopard appears I'll be scooting off to Southampton to buy one.
Is .Mac (Score:2, Funny)
(http://www.nullprogram.com/)
Leopard? (Score:1)
Dropped prices? (Score:2)
(http://www.valerieandevi.be/)
Why didn't they go wireless on the keyboard/mouse? (Score:2)
(http://www.smileystation.com/)
They did. (Score:4, Informative)
(http://www.scarydevil.com/~peter/ | Last Journal: Monday September 26 2005, @06:53PM)
Mac mini/Macbook Core 2 Duo. *snore* (Score:2)
(http://www.scarydevil.com/~peter/ | Last Journal: Monday September 26 2005, @06:53PM)
Just bumping the processor to Core 2 Duo doesn't cut it. That's not the bottleneck. That's not what you need to speed up.
iMac: Now with built in DRM! (Score:3, Funny)
Try to look at it from any angle other than straight on, and you just see your own reflection. Finally, those damned thieves will pay for their own iMacs and their own movies rather than participate in any of that group thievery people do!
The MPAA must love this.
Function keys remapped (Score:1)
(http://www.szegedi.org/ | Last Journal: Monday February 16 2004, @05:20PM)
That's all nice and dandy, but I wonder how does it interoperates with factory settings in Mac OS X. I mean, if I install Mac OS X from scratch and look at System Preferences, Expose All Windows will be F9 and Dashboard will be F12 by default. Of course, it's perfectly possible that there are "secret" key codes for those somewhere, and this new keyboard emits those...
Review of Keynote '08 (Score:1)
(http://people.freebsd.org/~znerd/)
http://ernstdehaan.blogspot.com/2007/08/keynote-0
Pages still a poor copy of Word? (Score:2)
(http://www.scarydevil.com/~peter/ | Last Journal: Monday September 26 2005, @06:53PM)
Re:I, for one, welcome our... (Score:1)
New iMac looks pretty sweet, though not yet convinced by that keyboard.
Re:I, for one, welcome our... (Score:5, Insightful)
You know, I was thinking the same thing.
A lot of people dislike the MacBook keyboards. They look nice, but the keys don't travel far enough for some people, which messes up the tactile feedback. And these new keyboards look very similar to the MacBook keyboards, plus they're extremely thin, which would also suggest a short travel distance for the keys.
But of course, until I check them out next week at the Apple store, it's all speculation.
Re:I, for one, welcome our... (Score:4, Insightful)
(http://www.pobox.com/~meta/ | Last Journal: Sunday February 29 2004, @09:19AM)
Funny, I love mine, and previously I was a diehard Model M user.
Switch on right-click support in the System Preferences or use the Ctrl key.
Personally, I use Ctrl for right-click even when I'm using Linux on a system with a 4-button trackball.
Re:I, for one, welcome our... (Score:4, Informative)
(http://www.lkmc.ch/)
No.
I take it you've never done phone support, then. In my opinion, the second mouse button is one of the single worst physical interfaces ever invented for computers. Your main input device has two unlabelled buttons which can only be discerned by whether they are on the right or on the left of the device? This is just stupid. An astonishing number of people aren't even capable of reliably telling you which side right is, and which side left is (as I find out time and time again when telling somebody where to drive - "to the right. no, the other right").
Not to mention the bad influence the right mouse button has on UI design.
Yes, as I've said, it would be, but it would still make it worse for the majority of all users.
Re:I, for one, welcome our... (Score:4, Insightful)
Tada, you've made life better for people who like 2-button mice and you have not hurt the 1-button mouse people in the slightest!
Re:I, for one, welcome our... (Score:5, Insightful)
As a point of reference, at home and at work I use a Microsoft Natural Ergonomic 4000 keyboard and a trackball (logitech marble mouse at work, Kensington Expert mouse at home).
Re:I, for one, welcome our... (Score:5, Informative)
(http://www.wavenger.com/)
And a lot of people, on the other hand, love laptop keyboards in general for the very reasons you listed. Furthermore, a lot of people spend much of their young life with a laptop as their primary rig, so they're actually more used to it than a traditional keyboard. It's kind of a moot point. Some people will be excited by the keyboards. Some people will hate them. And for many, the keyboard will not have a large net effect on their purchasing decisions.
I do give them props for doing something different (or, if it's been done already, making it standard). I just wish they'd also have an option which brings ergonomics into play, even if it might end up looking like Gaudi made it.
Dovetails nicely with iPhone. (Score:5, Funny)
(Last Journal: Saturday March 08 2003, @03:00PM)
Apple is slowly phasing tactile response out of their input devices. Started with mice, then the iPhone, and now with keyboards. Soon, we will live in a polished world where nothing lets us know we touched it! I hope Apple never enters the sex industry.
Re:I disagree (Score:4, Funny)
Re:I disagree (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Dovetails nicely with iPhone. (Score:5, Insightful)
(Last Journal: Sunday November 27 2005, @02:29PM)
There's also the Slow Keys setting in the Universal Access pref pane. I just turned it on now for the first time, and it's friggin' annoying. If you try this, be sure to set acceptance delay to short. Yeah, this is really annoying.
Yeah, typing that last paragraph pretty much sucked.
There was also a drop in keyboard replacement for the Ti books that was just like a touch sensitive pad. There was a keyboard printed on it I think. Oh, here it is. The TouchStream MacNTouch. Never used one, but it seems interesting because of some of the other input possibilities (chording, gestures, etc.). [fingerworks.com]
Ah, well. You were making a joke and I got all esoteric on you. Sorry. =)
Re:I know I say this every time, but... (Score:1)
(Last Journal: Monday June 14 2004, @06:43PM)
Re:I'll wait for an updated mini (Score:2)
(Last Journal: Tuesday May 29, @09:14PM)
I'm not really into all-in-ones either, but you can plug your screen into an iMac and use both at once (up to 1920x1200).
Re:Down with the Apple monopoly (Score:3, Informative)
(Last Journal: Tuesday February 06 2007, @09:13AM)
Check out Newegg and Microcenter. You can buy Macs at both places. Dunno if there are others, I don't go looking to buy Macs typically.
Come to the PC side! (Score:2, Informative)
(Last Journal: Tuesday October 30, @10:59AM)
But here's the best part...
We don't have to beg for anything! In fact, they beg us to buy their products, because PC manufacturers actually have something called "competition"! What a novel concept!
Re:Down with the Apple monopoly (Score:4, Informative)
(http://itsbeenconfirmed.com/ | Last Journal: Sunday May 04 2003, @02:33AM)
Re:Down with the Apple monopoly (Score:4, Funny)
(http://thewaxwingslain.com/)
For some reason, I think of her whenever I see the people who work at the Apple store. They look like someone cuts the crust off their sandwiches for them, and they're proud of it.
But anyway, if you want to buy Apple in Chicago and don't want to pay 18 bucks to park downtown (and get skeeved out by the people who work in the Apple Store), MicroCenter has a nice big parking lot, and there's a PetSmart next door so you can buy kibble for you ferret when you're done.
Re:Down with the Apple monopoly (Score:2)
(Last Journal: Tuesday April 20 2004, @05:02PM)
Re:Down with the Apple monopoly (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Down with the Apple monopoly (Score:5, Informative)
(http://philwelch.net/)
Well, first, Apple isn't a monopoly. They have viable competitors in every market in which they compete, and insofar as that is the case, the behaviors you describe (which are called "vertical integration", or "anti-competitive practices" if and only if you already have a monopoly) aren't "brutal" so much as "a business and design choice".
They destroyed the Mac clone market and reseller market because those things were destroying Apple. At that time (the late 90's), Linux wasn't nearly as mature or widely-adopted as it is today and the destruction of Apple would have, as far as almost everyone could predict, led to a total Microsoft monopoly. Microsoft was already starting to displace commercial UNIX in some segments. Other companies had licenses to manufacture Apple hardware designs with Apple software, including the Apple ROM that (at the time) was necessary for the OS to run. Those license payments weren't enough to allow Apple to continue existing and developing their OS, so Apple refused to extend those licenses to future technology (the CHRP common hardware platform, Mac OS 8) and purchased back the licenses it had already granted.
The real question is whether it's acceptable to sell integrated systems that are capable of working together above and beyond the interoperability offered by open standards. When I look across the fence at the hardware support issues Linux and Windows are struggling with, I'm pretty happy with how green the grass is over here. And if I wasn't, I'm still perfectly able to get a new OS and new hardware. That's the difference between a monopoly and a competitor who offers a significantly different solution.
Re:Down with the Apple monopoly (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't like Microsoft because they make shit products and force them down our throats. I use them regularly, as I now have an XP laptop at my current job as a Unix SA. I am willing to pay for Microsoft products when I think they are worthwhile -- I have an XBox 360 Elite -- but usually they are not worth paying for. The XBox is the first Microsoft product I have bought
For my own computer, I am happy to pay the extra few bucks for an Apple product that does exactly what it is designed to do, and does it extremely well. It's just not worth hassling with a Linux desktop machine anymore. OS X has the Windows advantages of being "mainstream" and playing all that fancy DVD and audio content with no fuss, no muss, but without the disadvantages of being utter crap. I definitely spent more money on my Mac Pro than I needed to spend on a computer, but mostly that was me buying an overkill machine, and very little of it was the Apple tax. Of course, if they had a mid-range headless system, maybe I would have bought that instead... But the low-end laptops are very competitive with PC offerings, and to some of us it is worth paying money for stuff that works.
By the way, I register all of the shareware I use and enjoy in OS X, something that is far more true of the Mac community than the Windows community. Why? Because we feel the products are worth paying for, rather than Windows users who feel that they use what they use out of necessity, not choice.
I like the idea of free software, but I'm not devoting my life to the cause. If it works best, I'll use it. If not, I'll pay to use whatever works best. Unfortunately for Microsoft, it is almost never their product.
Re:Down with the Apple monopoly (Score:2)
iWork uses XML to save files. The whole OS is laden with OSS sofware, including Bash and Apache and Ruby and Python and Perl. Chages to Webkit are published and synced back into other browsers. iPods can be used with all sorts of software, not just iTunes - why do you demand iTunes be able to work out of the box with other players?
I'm not sure I understand where the whole "brutal monopoly" idea comes from.
Re:I'll wait for an updated mini (Score:2, Informative)
http://www.apple.com/macmini/specs.html [apple.com]
I'm waiting for Leopard in october, so I hope to see if the Core-2-Duo processor bugs will be problematic with the updated mini before I buy it.
'stuck with a g4' kl
Apple is NOT a monopoly (Score:1, Informative)
Other than that, the subject of this post answers any remaining salient points you made. The rest are mere trolling drivel.
Re:Down with the Apple monopoly (Score:1, Troll)
wow... iTunes doesn't sync with any MP3 player besides an iPod.
Damn! You mean iTunes only works on 80% of the music players out there? How limiting!
Where are you getting your assertions from? They're very far off the mark about brutal monopolies but fair enough... I've seen this in people too young to remember the last 15 years of computerdom. For everyone else, it's a given. Find some of the DOJ testimonials of what Microsoft did to countless other companies. These weren't Microsoft resellers doing a shitty job that got killed, these were either business "partners" or competitors with something Microsoft wanted. They wanted it so bad they went on a lawbreaking spree for years. There are also fairly large Apple resellers out there of a serious nature, just no Walmart types.
Re:Down with the Apple monopoly (Score:2)
Re:Down with the Apple monopoly (Score:2)
So there was a bit of reasoning behind that decision, though there still are many other resellers that carry Apple products. The 'big box' stores just got the most press-time.
It continues to annoy me how folks assert that Apple nefariously 'killed' the clone market, when the clone market is what almost killed Apple. I claim self-defense, like cutting the head off of a python before it strangulates you. You claim what you wish.
There's plenty other defensive positions regarding the rest of your arguments, but I'm pretty sure that folks here can spot the inaccuracies in your arguments, so I won't bother.
Re:Down with the Apple monopoly (Score:4, Informative)
(http://slashdot.org/)
iTunes Compatible Players [apple.com]
Chances are that most USB MP3 players will work with iTunes if they follow the standards set for such devices. If you have an MP3 player give it a try and see if it works with iTunes, it probably will.
You might want to do a bit more research the next time you make false, blanket statements like that.
Re:I'll wait for an updated mini (Score:4, Informative)
(Last Journal: Sunday November 05 2006, @05:31AM)
-jcr
Re:I'll wait for an updated mini (Score:4, Informative)
*COUGH*AppleTV*COUGH*
Re:Free leopard upgrade? (Score:1)
(http://www.hoowop.com/)
don't know if they still do this but they did last year
Re:iPhoto Events - Brilliant... (Score:1)
BTW. I tried out Vista on my MBP for a few months before and after the official release but I decided that I needed the harddrive space for my media and opted to recombine the partitions into one OS X partition.
also getting it out of the way... (Score:1, Interesting)
Shut up astroturfer (Score:2)
Re:But... (Score:1)
(http://www.notfud.com/)
Big deal.
Do check out Blendtec's site someday.
Re:iPhoto Events - Brilliant... (Score:1)
(http://www.aedanmcg....ch/win_switcher.html)
Search for text within a document was in pre OS X version of the Macintosh OS. Spotlight made it better but it was already there. I can't find a reference to when it came in but it was pre Sherlock as well. There was no index, you just sent it to search inside documents. In those days I had a 40 mb drive so there weren't many docs on there. It took a while but it worked.
Here is the oldest reference I can find to this kind of technology http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AppleSearch [wikipedia.org] but that was not what I was using. This did use an index, as did Sherlock.
Down with the former Apple reseller whining (Score:2)
(http://intrinsicsecurity.com/ | Last Journal: Sunday August 28 2005, @11:11AM)