Backtothemac
Oct 9, 02:50 PM
Dude, I am a microsoft certified professional and spend all day dealing with PC problems. I have worked on the slowest ones and the fastest ones. The dual power macs fly! On top of that they do not run winblows. PC's suck because of the OS period. My mind will never be changed on that because I have almost 2 decades of dealing with Microsoft's crap!
RawBert
Mar 11, 10:07 AM
the tsunami videos are horrifying. :(
TheRealTVGuy
Mar 18, 01:47 AM
Poor thing... he doesn't realize napster and limewire are history. Also, once the data hits my device, it's mine to do with as I please. Thank you very much.
>laughing_girls.jpg.tiff.
Yeah, because ever since the iTunes store opened, I haven't had the need...
Unless it's Metallica, then I'm all for ripping those guys off, just to mess with them!
>laughing_girls.jpg.tiff.
Yeah, because ever since the iTunes store opened, I haven't had the need...
Unless it's Metallica, then I'm all for ripping those guys off, just to mess with them!
gauriemma
Sep 20, 01:48 PM
This must be a US-centric view. Here (UK) PVRs with twin Freeview (DTT) tuners and 80GB HDs are everywhere. And they are very cheap now (120 quid upwards).
I'm thinking of ditching my cable provider (NTL, I only get it for Sky One, which is just Simpsons repeats) and going with something like this:
http://www.topfield.co.uk/terrestrialequipment.htm
Apparently you can DL what you record to your Mac (USB). I suspect you'll then be able to play that on iTV.
That's what we need here in the US. I have a Comcast DVR and I have no way to save any of the programs to my Mac's hard drive. It's getting kind of pointless. The DVR's drive is constantly filled to 85% or more of capacity, and I'm starting to have to delete things that I really would like to have been able to keep. I can't even get the damned programs onto a VHS.
Does anyone know how to save Comcast DVR 'files' to an iBook?
I'm thinking of ditching my cable provider (NTL, I only get it for Sky One, which is just Simpsons repeats) and going with something like this:
http://www.topfield.co.uk/terrestrialequipment.htm
Apparently you can DL what you record to your Mac (USB). I suspect you'll then be able to play that on iTV.
That's what we need here in the US. I have a Comcast DVR and I have no way to save any of the programs to my Mac's hard drive. It's getting kind of pointless. The DVR's drive is constantly filled to 85% or more of capacity, and I'm starting to have to delete things that I really would like to have been able to keep. I can't even get the damned programs onto a VHS.
Does anyone know how to save Comcast DVR 'files' to an iBook?
caspersoong
Apr 29, 04:17 AM
Apple should expand their market and get more units here in Southeast Asia.
auero
Mar 18, 07:59 AM
I don't understand the ranting of why AT&T charges more to tether. Sprint and Verizon do it too? Just because your jailbreak method doesn't work anymore shouldn't make you mad. The system caught up to you. Yes it's stupid to pay for extra data but that's just how it is and people are still going to pay for it so complaining won't do anything.
I'm glad those people who are abusing the service and using 6+ gb of data so they can tether are finally getting the boot. It bogs down the network. Unlimited doesn't mean unlimited in the fine print either. It's the same on every network so don't blame AT&T.
I'm glad those people who are abusing the service and using 6+ gb of data so they can tether are finally getting the boot. It bogs down the network. Unlimited doesn't mean unlimited in the fine print either. It's the same on every network so don't blame AT&T.
peharri
Sep 24, 05:18 PM
Mac Mini? I suspect that's exactly what Apple wants to drive sales of.
I know, they need to be cheaper.
Well, my view is that the $300 iTV will not work if it needs $600 worth of computer attached to it, especially if the sole role of the computer is as some kind of file server. Even more especially (!) if the $600 computer doesn't come with that much storage anyway, and the even even even more if viewing content on your TV means going into the bedroom to download the program onto the computer, and then walking back into the livingroom to watch it.
Now a $200 server might make some sense, but ultimately I can't help but think anything that adds to the start-up cost of the iTV will sink it.
Ultimately, I'm of the opinion Apple isn't suicidal. It does intend the iTV to be desirable. It plans to use it to ensure the iTS remains relevent. It plans to expand, not retract, its online media business. It doesn't consider the Mac to be so important it needs to be pushed to the detriment of the rest of the business. It is worried about the post-iPod future. It does need to find a way of selling online movie downloads to sceptical studio executives. For all of these reasons and more, I'm finding the notion Apple would release a $300 TV adapter and announce it at a movies download event a little... well, does it make sense to you?
You know who's fault this is? It's Apple's. If they hadn't done that stupid "Fun products" presentation back in February, with those stupid leather iPod cases and the overpriced speaker system, I think people would be a whole lot more positive!
I know, they need to be cheaper.
Well, my view is that the $300 iTV will not work if it needs $600 worth of computer attached to it, especially if the sole role of the computer is as some kind of file server. Even more especially (!) if the $600 computer doesn't come with that much storage anyway, and the even even even more if viewing content on your TV means going into the bedroom to download the program onto the computer, and then walking back into the livingroom to watch it.
Now a $200 server might make some sense, but ultimately I can't help but think anything that adds to the start-up cost of the iTV will sink it.
Ultimately, I'm of the opinion Apple isn't suicidal. It does intend the iTV to be desirable. It plans to use it to ensure the iTS remains relevent. It plans to expand, not retract, its online media business. It doesn't consider the Mac to be so important it needs to be pushed to the detriment of the rest of the business. It is worried about the post-iPod future. It does need to find a way of selling online movie downloads to sceptical studio executives. For all of these reasons and more, I'm finding the notion Apple would release a $300 TV adapter and announce it at a movies download event a little... well, does it make sense to you?
You know who's fault this is? It's Apple's. If they hadn't done that stupid "Fun products" presentation back in February, with those stupid leather iPod cases and the overpriced speaker system, I think people would be a whole lot more positive!
weitzner
Sep 20, 01:42 PM
I think it's pretty obvious that iTV will NOT have DVR functionality- The iTunes store is a competitor to DVR. This thing is a means of connecting your computer (iTunes) to your TV- not about connecting your TV to your computer. It's a completely different take on watch-your-show-whenever-you-feel-like-it mentality.
OllyW
Apr 21, 07:06 AM
I struggle with the LTE angle mainly due to the fact in the UK we haven't even got visual voicemail working on the iPhone 4
Speak for yourself, it works on mine. :p
Speak for yourself, it works on mine. :p
Plymouthbreezer
Apr 12, 10:15 PM
For $299, sounds like a great deal. However, folks who have just dropped $999 on FCS are going to be angry! Wonder if there will be any sort of refund issued...
I guess I'll stick with FCS for now, since Color is great, and I know the interface. DVD Studio Pro is also quite useful, and I'm unsure how this update will affect those products.
I guess I'll stick with FCS for now, since Color is great, and I know the interface. DVD Studio Pro is also quite useful, and I'm unsure how this update will affect those products.
GGJstudios
May 4, 10:33 AM
Did you read about this solution on Apple web site? Not everybody reads MacRumors.
If you Google "Mac Defender" you'll run across any number of sites that will tell you the same thing: Don't install it and remove it from your system. You don't need to be a MR forums reader to find that out. After all, the information about the threat didn't originate from this site, and neither did the solution.
If you Google "Mac Defender" you'll run across any number of sites that will tell you the same thing: Don't install it and remove it from your system. You don't need to be a MR forums reader to find that out. After all, the information about the threat didn't originate from this site, and neither did the solution.
Tundraboy
Apr 28, 07:28 AM
No surprise the iPad is just a fad and people are starting to realize how limited it is. Its frustrating on a lot of cool websites and no file system makes it very limited.
Evangelion
Jul 13, 08:19 AM
Like I said, my laptop has a hotter CPU in it. I've yet to hear a good argument as to why a Conroe is too hot to put in an iMac when they had G5's in them not so long ago. If a Macbook can handle 35W then the much much bigger and thicker iMac can handle 65W.
Well, MacBook can barely handle that 35W CPU. Everyone is complaining how hot the MBP runs. 65W is a lot hotter, and while iMac is thicker, remember that some of that thickness is taken by the screen. So the actual space for components might not be that much bigger in the end.
Personally, being a consumer and not Steve Jobs, I couldn't care less if it's more work for them to design a new MoBo for Conroe. I put my money where the best performance is, not what's easiest for Apple.
More work = higher price.
Like I said, Conroes are cheaper than Meroms for the performance you can get. It would be sheer stupidity of Apple to put meroms in their desktop because it would cost them just as much to put them in there and they'd be getting lower performance. Which means iMacs would be over-priced and under-performing compared to any other desktop.
iMacs are using mobile processors as we speak. Are they "overpriced" and "underperforming"? According to you, they are.
The current iMac isn't competitive, and you'd be mad not to admit that. 512Mb RAM standard? Underclocked X1600 128Mb?
Sure it's competetive. It's selling very well, and you actually get quite a lot for your money.
It's also less powerful and more expensive (per Mhz) than Conroe. So it's logical for Apple to put a less powerful, more expensive CPU in their computers? Funny deffinition of logic.
you sound like performance is the only thing that matters. There's also the design-effort (substantial with Conroe, minimal with Merom) and power-consumption and heat-output (both which Merom excel at).
If it's possible for apple to put Conroe in the iMac (and it is) then they will, because it makes economic sense to pay the same and get a better product for both Apple and consumers. I think the effort of designing a new MoBo would be more than worth that.
What makes you think that it would be better? "because it's faster!". There are more to "goodness" of the design than performance. Merom will offer more than enough performance, while running cool and quietly.
And when there are cheaper desktops with 2.4 and 2.6Ghz Conroes in them what will consumers buy? It doesn't make sense to pay more and get less, no matter how pretty the packaging is.
You can't really compare iMac to some generic tower-PC from Dell. Those tower-PC's will always be more versatile and cheaper than the iMac is, while being faster. That is a fact.
I intend to buy an iMac when I can get a 2.4Ghz Conroe in it. If they get Merom I simply will not buy one and buy a PC instead
Go right ahead. And if you onloy care for raw performance, you should have switched to PC's long ago.
You aren't really making any sense with your arguments. In fact, you only argument is that "Conroe is faster!". Well whoop-de-doo! Merom is almost as fast, and it's a drop-in replacement for their current CPU, and it runs cooler than Conroe does. I would rather have a good Merom in iMac than underclocked Conroe.
Well, MacBook can barely handle that 35W CPU. Everyone is complaining how hot the MBP runs. 65W is a lot hotter, and while iMac is thicker, remember that some of that thickness is taken by the screen. So the actual space for components might not be that much bigger in the end.
Personally, being a consumer and not Steve Jobs, I couldn't care less if it's more work for them to design a new MoBo for Conroe. I put my money where the best performance is, not what's easiest for Apple.
More work = higher price.
Like I said, Conroes are cheaper than Meroms for the performance you can get. It would be sheer stupidity of Apple to put meroms in their desktop because it would cost them just as much to put them in there and they'd be getting lower performance. Which means iMacs would be over-priced and under-performing compared to any other desktop.
iMacs are using mobile processors as we speak. Are they "overpriced" and "underperforming"? According to you, they are.
The current iMac isn't competitive, and you'd be mad not to admit that. 512Mb RAM standard? Underclocked X1600 128Mb?
Sure it's competetive. It's selling very well, and you actually get quite a lot for your money.
It's also less powerful and more expensive (per Mhz) than Conroe. So it's logical for Apple to put a less powerful, more expensive CPU in their computers? Funny deffinition of logic.
you sound like performance is the only thing that matters. There's also the design-effort (substantial with Conroe, minimal with Merom) and power-consumption and heat-output (both which Merom excel at).
If it's possible for apple to put Conroe in the iMac (and it is) then they will, because it makes economic sense to pay the same and get a better product for both Apple and consumers. I think the effort of designing a new MoBo would be more than worth that.
What makes you think that it would be better? "because it's faster!". There are more to "goodness" of the design than performance. Merom will offer more than enough performance, while running cool and quietly.
And when there are cheaper desktops with 2.4 and 2.6Ghz Conroes in them what will consumers buy? It doesn't make sense to pay more and get less, no matter how pretty the packaging is.
You can't really compare iMac to some generic tower-PC from Dell. Those tower-PC's will always be more versatile and cheaper than the iMac is, while being faster. That is a fact.
I intend to buy an iMac when I can get a 2.4Ghz Conroe in it. If they get Merom I simply will not buy one and buy a PC instead
Go right ahead. And if you onloy care for raw performance, you should have switched to PC's long ago.
You aren't really making any sense with your arguments. In fact, you only argument is that "Conroe is faster!". Well whoop-de-doo! Merom is almost as fast, and it's a drop-in replacement for their current CPU, and it runs cooler than Conroe does. I would rather have a good Merom in iMac than underclocked Conroe.
gnasher729
Oct 31, 08:15 PM
Yeah I know. So are you thinking the Dual Clovertown may be a dog 'cause both sets of four cores have to share one bus each? If it won't really run faster what's the point? I hope that isn't going to be a problem for "simple" video compression work which is all I want it for.
FBDIMMs are designed for maximum bandwidth, not for best possible latency, so they cope with this better than any other kind of memory. You may read that bandwidth is the bottleneck for these processors. However, that is only the case for pure copying operations. Code that calls memcpy () on all eight cores simultaneously will run out of steam quite quickly. However, most code does actually do some work with that data (like video compression), and the bandwidth won't be that big a problem.
Lets say you compress a two hour dual layer DVD with Handbrake at 1 Megabit per second. DVD = 9.5 GB takes ages to read from DVD, takes about two seconds to copy in memory. Copying the 1 Megabit takes two dozen microseconds. Most of the action will happen in L2 cache, so you should be fine.
FBDIMMs are designed for maximum bandwidth, not for best possible latency, so they cope with this better than any other kind of memory. You may read that bandwidth is the bottleneck for these processors. However, that is only the case for pure copying operations. Code that calls memcpy () on all eight cores simultaneously will run out of steam quite quickly. However, most code does actually do some work with that data (like video compression), and the bandwidth won't be that big a problem.
Lets say you compress a two hour dual layer DVD with Handbrake at 1 Megabit per second. DVD = 9.5 GB takes ages to read from DVD, takes about two seconds to copy in memory. Copying the 1 Megabit takes two dozen microseconds. Most of the action will happen in L2 cache, so you should be fine.
%25252Bwallpapers%25252BHQ%25252BHD%25252BWide%25252Bscreen%25252Bwallpapers%25252Bmicrosoft%25252Bsurface%25252Bwallpapers.jpg "Vista wallpapers xp wallpapers")
sisyphus
Sep 25, 11:59 PM
http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com)
Kentsfield/Core 2 Quadro is also unlikely to see an inclusion in any current models.
Which of course leads to the missing piece! :D
We can't just go from 2 Cores on the iMac to 8 Cores on the Mac Pro without a handy dandy 4 core prosumer model in the middle. ;)
(Somebody around here has to keep the "Mac" computer around in the rumor threads). :rolleyes:
I had thought Apple was going to release a Conroe based computer, but now seeing that Intel is releasing the Kentsfield as early as Late October/Early November it would make no sense. Apple would release the machine in September, be unable to meet demand then replace it less than 2 months later? Not very Appleish (ignore the November/January iMac occurence last year ;) ).
But now that would make a hot item for the Christmas shopping season wouldn't it? This is the reason Apple didn't release a Conroe based system... too short of a time in the pipeline.
This now gives us the perfect differentiated lineup going into Christmas:
Mac Mini - Core Duo
iMac - Core 2 Duo
Mac - Core 2 Quattro
Mac Pro - Dual Cloverton (May not arrive until MWSF)
I'd buy myself a Mac Quattro for Christmas! :D
Kentsfield/Core 2 Quadro is also unlikely to see an inclusion in any current models.
Which of course leads to the missing piece! :D
We can't just go from 2 Cores on the iMac to 8 Cores on the Mac Pro without a handy dandy 4 core prosumer model in the middle. ;)
(Somebody around here has to keep the "Mac" computer around in the rumor threads). :rolleyes:
I had thought Apple was going to release a Conroe based computer, but now seeing that Intel is releasing the Kentsfield as early as Late October/Early November it would make no sense. Apple would release the machine in September, be unable to meet demand then replace it less than 2 months later? Not very Appleish (ignore the November/January iMac occurence last year ;) ).
But now that would make a hot item for the Christmas shopping season wouldn't it? This is the reason Apple didn't release a Conroe based system... too short of a time in the pipeline.
This now gives us the perfect differentiated lineup going into Christmas:
Mac Mini - Core Duo
iMac - Core 2 Duo
Mac - Core 2 Quattro
Mac Pro - Dual Cloverton (May not arrive until MWSF)
I'd buy myself a Mac Quattro for Christmas! :D
Speedy2
Oct 7, 04:12 PM
Flash in the independant operator here, not the full SDK.
And how is this relevant? If Adobe makes it possible to use the entire range of the iPhone's hardware it makes no difference.
-> New development platform, available for other OSs
Exactly what you wanted, right?
Oh the whining will go on I suppose...
And how is this relevant? If Adobe makes it possible to use the entire range of the iPhone's hardware it makes no difference.
-> New development platform, available for other OSs
Exactly what you wanted, right?
Oh the whining will go on I suppose...
BJNY
Nov 1, 04:08 AM
Clovertons to run hot until 2007 according to:
http://www.reghardware.co.uk/2006/11/01/intel_fwives_core/
http://www.reghardware.co.uk/2006/11/01/intel_fwives_core/
edifyingGerbil
Apr 23, 01:25 PM
I haven't seen that in my experience. Most atheists put a great deal of deliberative thought into their position. "Casual" atheists are more commonly, in my experience, agnostics with a poor vocabulary. In fact, the very idea of holding a position without substantiation is an anathema to what atheists hold above all else: the triumph of reason over "intuition."
I realize the capricious nature of something like this since people are free to label themselves however they please. However, I think you'll find that those who affirmatively state what they don't believe will have a thought out answer, much like the self-described atheists in this thread. Granted there are some who have a reduced grasp of science and the scientific method, but that's no different than a Catholic who has doesn't know the Eighth Commandment. There are always going to be better prepared members of any sub-group.
I also don't think there is an atheist who isn't challenged all the time about their beliefs. People (especially in the US) have a deep distrust of atheists and it isn't something people usually wear on their sleeves; it's a scarlet letter that always needs to be "justified."
I'm not even sure you can use pure reason to establish any deity. What would be the logical construction of that argument?
I don't think many people say they're Catholic to fit in or be trendy... Maybe Jewish, but definitely not Catholic.
I've concluded American Atheists who are continually challenged on their beliefs and "surrounded by enemies" are more likely to read into atheism and all it entails, rather like a convert to a religion knows the religion better than people who were born into it. Europe is very secular, compared to the US at least, and thus a lot of people are "born into" atheism/secularism.
You can use pure reason, that's what many of the early church fathers did to try and prove God's existence, via the various famous arguments, and of course later philosophers too. Sometimes the nature of God changes to help him fit into a scheme, like Spinoza's pantheism where he argues God and nature are one and the same, and we exist in God as we exist in nature. For Spinoza God is like a force rather than a sentient being.
A lot of people seem to entertain this notion that theists don't use any sort of logic or reason to ground their faith but they do. God has to fit a framework (the Judaeo-Christian God, not the God of islam which the qur'an itself says is arbitrary and unknowable because it can do whatever it wants). The problem is that faith is required to take those extra few steps into fully fledged belief because there can't, at the moment, be any conclusive proof one way or another (although theists are getting more clever and appropriating physical principles to try and help them explain God, such as Entropy and thermodynamics).
If someone told us a hundred or so years ago that photons can communicate with one another despite being thousands of miles apart we would call that supernatural, but as time goes on the goal posts are moved ever further.
I realize the capricious nature of something like this since people are free to label themselves however they please. However, I think you'll find that those who affirmatively state what they don't believe will have a thought out answer, much like the self-described atheists in this thread. Granted there are some who have a reduced grasp of science and the scientific method, but that's no different than a Catholic who has doesn't know the Eighth Commandment. There are always going to be better prepared members of any sub-group.
I also don't think there is an atheist who isn't challenged all the time about their beliefs. People (especially in the US) have a deep distrust of atheists and it isn't something people usually wear on their sleeves; it's a scarlet letter that always needs to be "justified."
I'm not even sure you can use pure reason to establish any deity. What would be the logical construction of that argument?
I don't think many people say they're Catholic to fit in or be trendy... Maybe Jewish, but definitely not Catholic.
I've concluded American Atheists who are continually challenged on their beliefs and "surrounded by enemies" are more likely to read into atheism and all it entails, rather like a convert to a religion knows the religion better than people who were born into it. Europe is very secular, compared to the US at least, and thus a lot of people are "born into" atheism/secularism.
You can use pure reason, that's what many of the early church fathers did to try and prove God's existence, via the various famous arguments, and of course later philosophers too. Sometimes the nature of God changes to help him fit into a scheme, like Spinoza's pantheism where he argues God and nature are one and the same, and we exist in God as we exist in nature. For Spinoza God is like a force rather than a sentient being.
A lot of people seem to entertain this notion that theists don't use any sort of logic or reason to ground their faith but they do. God has to fit a framework (the Judaeo-Christian God, not the God of islam which the qur'an itself says is arbitrary and unknowable because it can do whatever it wants). The problem is that faith is required to take those extra few steps into fully fledged belief because there can't, at the moment, be any conclusive proof one way or another (although theists are getting more clever and appropriating physical principles to try and help them explain God, such as Entropy and thermodynamics).
If someone told us a hundred or so years ago that photons can communicate with one another despite being thousands of miles apart we would call that supernatural, but as time goes on the goal posts are moved ever further.
edifyingGerbil
Apr 27, 03:04 PM
I'm afraid you are.
The Hebrew god is the same god as in polytheistic days, but once he had conquered all his fellow gods, he was left with unrivalled power. The Hebrew religion became monotheistic, and their new old god acquired sole power, but the root of the deity was no more or less than a shared and ancient mythology.
But these arguments don't refer to God as being derived from El, the arguments can only work if "God" is shorthand for "the entity described in the Judaeo-Christian Biblical texts".
The fact he is described on tablets in Ugarit doesn't matter for the purposes of ontological arguments that try to answer does "God" (the Judaeo-Christian God) exist?
This was my point, waaay back, about why I use the Judaeo-Christian God as opposed to god. Someone took umbrage at my use of Judaeo-Christian.
The Hebrew god is the same god as in polytheistic days, but once he had conquered all his fellow gods, he was left with unrivalled power. The Hebrew religion became monotheistic, and their new old god acquired sole power, but the root of the deity was no more or less than a shared and ancient mythology.
But these arguments don't refer to God as being derived from El, the arguments can only work if "God" is shorthand for "the entity described in the Judaeo-Christian Biblical texts".
The fact he is described on tablets in Ugarit doesn't matter for the purposes of ontological arguments that try to answer does "God" (the Judaeo-Christian God) exist?
This was my point, waaay back, about why I use the Judaeo-Christian God as opposed to god. Someone took umbrage at my use of Judaeo-Christian.
LQYoshi
Apr 11, 10:48 AM
I'm getting the 2010 mac mini Monday (and switching to OSX) but kinda worried what my dad will say about me getting one... I guess he can't do anything about it since it's my money
MACRUS
Apr 12, 10:45 PM
I think you missed the color correction on ingest, non-destructive color correction, and one-click color correction feature announcements. Color is not dead, it is just no longer a separate app. The entire app is re-written with color matching integrate to the app, and color correction as well, it sounds like.
HAHAHA One-click CC. you are funny or... well you know what.
HAHAHA One-click CC. you are funny or... well you know what.
skunk
Apr 25, 12:48 PM
I know that there is no chance whatever that the gods espoused by any religion are anything but contemporary imaginations of forces to be explained or propitiated, either in the natural world or in the psychology of homo sapiens. To claim that any one is real, or more real than any other, is blindly to ignore their obvious common derivation.
toddybody
Apr 15, 10:11 AM
Hahaha, if I doubted your gayness for one second, you really convinced me with that last part..."self-hate". (very standard, piss-poor rebuttal I get from every butt-hurt gay (no pun intended!) that feels MY views don't align with theirs)
Sorry, kiddo, I do not hate myself or my fellow gays and lesbians. AT ALL. Go ahead and step outta the glittered box you live in and learn to understand that one does NOT have to support every single aspect of this lifestyle. Are you effing crazy, dude!??
We're all quick to criticize the Apple fanboys who drink Steve's kool-aid, but guess what, I'm no "fanboy". I'm a gay male. Not an uber fan of the gay agenda that supports every bit of it. I don't. DEAL WITH IT.
How dare you say I hate myself just because I have a entirely different point of view.
Theres ways to express your opinion (even if its pretty unpopular) without stooping to this. Not Cool
Sorry, kiddo, I do not hate myself or my fellow gays and lesbians. AT ALL. Go ahead and step outta the glittered box you live in and learn to understand that one does NOT have to support every single aspect of this lifestyle. Are you effing crazy, dude!??
We're all quick to criticize the Apple fanboys who drink Steve's kool-aid, but guess what, I'm no "fanboy". I'm a gay male. Not an uber fan of the gay agenda that supports every bit of it. I don't. DEAL WITH IT.
How dare you say I hate myself just because I have a entirely different point of view.
Theres ways to express your opinion (even if its pretty unpopular) without stooping to this. Not Cool
geezusfreeek
Mar 18, 06:31 PM
All this is just a more convenient way to get the same result as running your purchased music through Hymn or JHymn. It's not quite the same as burning and ripping a CD though, since that is lossy.