Could those rumors about new iPod docks be true?
I read somwhere(can`t remember where, sorry) that Apple might release new iPod docks at WWDC, that will have remote and some more add ons. That new dock should help iPods to take the central place for music in the house and replace the cd players (that`s what it said in the article) What do u think if this could be true? And should i wait till the WWDC(new ones have 2 much bugs for my taste and 499euros (that`s the price in my country for 15gb) is a lot of money) or should i buy the new one now?
Thanks
Thanks
Comments
Originally posted by Unbeliever
I read somwhere(can`t remember where, sorry) that Apple might release new iPod docks at WWDC, that will have remote and some more add ons. That new dock should help iPods to take the central place for music in the house and replace the cd players (that`s what it said in the article) What do u think if this could be true? And should i wait till the WWDC(new ones have 2 much bugs for my taste and 499euros (that`s the price in my country for 15gb) is a lot of money) or should i buy the new one now?
Thanks
I was thinking about the new iPod Docs and came up with a bizarre trojan horse-style idea for Apple to build on.
If Apple were to go x86 they would be at a disadvantage... and no, not because Most Mac users would defect to x86... (I think Apple diferentiates their hardware enough now that they would retain Mac users) but rather, because Apple doesn't have the market share on that platform to be a guiding force.
From Apple's viewpoint,
a) x86 is effectively monolithic, in that it is designed to serve a Windows-centric market, regardless of what you can run on it, and,
b) x86 offers Apple no hardware differentiation or integration hooks at all.
This isn't a strategy, it's just a way of surrendering.
All that switching to x86 would accomplish for Apple is to trade two devils it knows (moto and IBM) for two it doesn't know (Intel and MS).
Atacking Microsoft with a software-only strategy is akin to writing the company's own death sentence. Just ask Jean-Louis Gassie of BeOS fame, and he'll back me up on this...
What's needed is a dual hardware/software strategy. What if Apple sold a small $300-$500 PC hardware device that had a semi-large hard drive, fast throughput and be wholy-owned by Apple.
Apple could install Jaguar on the device and have it connect to x86 PCs and run the OS EXTERNALLY without fear of Microsoft introducing internal incompatibilities that would keep the OS from running properly. Just ask Scott McNeally of Sun Microsystems fame, and he'll back me up on this... The PC would operate as it did before, only now the OS would be running on the external device.
This could be a direction where the ipod is going
Such a solution would allow Apple to benefit from the x86 market without canibalizing profit margins (remember, the iPod's profit margin is huge) while also growing OS X's market share.
A more advanced doc could introduce more connectivity options with the PC's hardware such as SCSI, IDE, Gigabit ethernet etc... that would make a connection to the x86 PC fast enough so that its not a hinderance.
On a related note, did anyone notice the extra folders contained in the new ipods?
"Applications"
"Library"
"Desktop Folder"
SCSI for PC users might also require Termination to support older cards
SCSI devices are notorious for cable problems and have limited length (more than 6 feet and errors are introduced)
IDE? um... leave your drive cables hanging out of the case... not elegant.
Gigabit Ethernet is more likely (small port, modern technology, standards compliance), but the dock or network card might need two ports (for passthrough) unless people unjack from the network to get iPod
SATA cables are very small and almost elegant.
Originally posted by COS
Apple could install Jaguar on the device and have it connect to x86 PCs and run the OS EXTERNALLY without fear of Microsoft introducing internal incompatibilities that would keep the OS from running properly. Just ask Scott McNeally of Sun Microsystems fame, and he'll back me up on this... The PC would operate as it did before, only now the OS would be running on the external device.
This could be a direction where the ipod is going
One problem, the iPod dosnt run the Mac OS, in fact Apple didnt write the OS for the iPod, it was contracted out to another company altogether.
that seems to be a more likely situation.
i could see the vaporware tablet as the perfect device for this!
Originally posted by @homenow
One problem, the iPod dosnt run the Mac OS, in fact Apple didnt write the OS for the iPod, it was contracted out to another company altogether.
I don't think you're quite understanding what I'm saying...
The ipod would host the OS... on the machine it is connected to. In essence, it would be running the ipod OS and OS X.
If the computer is an x86, as you suggested, then it would require an x86 version of MacOS X to run *on the computer's CPU*, which doesn't get you around any of the MS induced incompatabilities you hope to avoid.
Sure you could use an iPod to hold the boot files, but it *still* has to run on the computer, or the iPod would have to be a full handheld-ish MacOS X capable computer itself, and the main computer would just be display, input, and peripherals... which is just silly.
Methinks you're confused, or not stating it clearly.
the problem is that iPod's drive is not intended for sustained use
music is read to RAM in bursts, then drive spins down and tunes play from RAM
Apple recommends against using iPod this way "except in emergencies"
because it will wear out your drive from constant spin while in HD mode
requires the cloning of a few critical directories (and permission fixes),
and if you don't know what you're doing you can pooch the music or firmware partitions, so don't go willy nilly prematurely
but yes, you can then boot any FW equipped mac, including XServe, from iPod
in emergencies.
Originally posted by Kickaha
[B]COS, either the OS is running on the iPod, or it is running on the computer's CPU.
No, the ipod OS runs the ipod, the OS on the hard drive runs the PC.
[i]If the computer is an x86, as you suggested, then it would require an x86 version of MacOS X to run *on the computer's CPU*, which doesn't get you around any of the MS induced incompatabilities you hope to avoid.
You're not understanding... the x86 version of OS X isn;t running on the PC, its running on the ipod... an iPod which Microsoft can't touch... see where I'm going with this?
[i]Sure you could use an iPod to hold the boot files, but it *still* has to run on the computer, or the iPod would have to be a full handheld-ish MacOS X capable computer itself, and the main computer would just be display, input, and peripherals
The ipod would run the OS and nothing more. The computer would run the applications and interface with all other things like printers, scanners etc... think of the ipod as the OS and the PC as, well... the PC.
Sorry, what you're proposing makes zero sense from a technical standpoint.
Zero.
And yes, I understand what you're trying to propose... it just doesn't make any sense, from the basics of how a computer works. Sorry.
Originally posted by Kickaha
Yes, but booting an x86 computer, as he suggested, would require an x86 version of MacOS X, and it would still be running on the x86 computer
No, what I was suggesting is that the OS run on the ipod... not on the PC.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Kickaha
and be subject to possible incompatibilities introduced down the road... which he claimed his idea got around. It doesn't.
I never claimed anything of the sort.
If Apple went x86 it would have two major hurdles... Number one, there may need to be some re-working to the API... however, not necesserally... Nextstep as you might remember was designed to be portable and run on multiple processors, including Intel's 80x86... right from the start. To put it simply, the Cocoa API was designed to make system calls to x86 and PPC.
Originally posted by Kickaha
*boggle*
Sorry, what you're proposing makes zero sense from a technical standpoint.
Every reason that you've given as to why has based upon incorrect assumptions of what i was proposing.
And yes, I understand what you're trying to propose...
I don't think you do, everything I've suggested has been misinterpreted thus far
it just doesn't make any sense, from the basics of how a computer works. Sorry.
Then give us a reason why if you feel so strongly about it.
Originally posted by COS
No, what I was suggesting is that the OS run on the ipod... not on the PC.
Right. Which makes zero sense, unless the iPod were a full fledged MacOS X computer. Sorry.
You're using English words, and in the right order, but the technical information is just not there.
I never claimed anything of the sort.
Apple could install Jaguar on the device and have it connect to x86 PCs and run the OS EXTERNALLY without fear of Microsoft introducing internal incompatibilities that would keep the OS from running properly.
If Apple went x86 it would have two major hurdles... Number one, there may need to be some re-working to the API... however, not necesserally... Nextstep as you might remember was designed to be portable and run on multiple processors, including Intel's 80x86... right from the start. To put it simply, the Cocoa API was designed to make system calls to x86 and PPC.
Could I recommend a good introductory textbook on how computers, OSs, applications, APIs, and such interact with each other? It might clear up why your proposal won't work as you've stated it.
Originally posted by COS
Every reason that you've given as to why has based upon incorrect assumptions of what i was proposing.
So... care to explain which CPU the OS is running on? And which CPU the applications are running on? And how the display information transits the system? How about input device data? Drive data? Bus access?
I don't think you do, everything I've suggested has been misinterpreted thus far
Hardly.
If you really think so, try again, from scratch, clearly.
Then give us a reason why if you feel so strongly about it.
Oh fer...
Look, as you've presented it, it's a technical near-impossibility. It'd be easier to just port MacOS X to x86 and be done with it.
Originally posted by Kickaha
[B]Right. Which makes zero sense, unless the iPod were a full fledged MacOS X computer. Sorry.
A Mac OS hardware operating system yes... a full fledged Mac OS computer no.
Originally posted by Kickaha
You're using English words, and in the right order, but the technical information is just not there.
You have yet to give any reason why.
Originally posted by Kickaha
Could I recommend a good introductory textbook on how computers, OSs, applications, APIs, and such interact with each other? It might clear up why your proposal won't work as you've stated it.
I am fully aware of why all of the following interact with each other, and yes, it WOULD work albeit of course with a firmware update, to the ipod.
Obviously teaching computer science to undergrads didn't prepare me enough for this.
Anyone else want to take a crack at it?
COS, I'm not going to explain basic hardware and OS theory to you at nearly 2am, my time. Really. It's not worth my time.
Originally posted by Kickaha
So... care to explain which CPU the OS is running on?
Both the ipod and the PC's processor
Originally posted by Kickaha
And which CPU the applications are running on?
It would have to be on the PC.
Originally posted by Kickaha
And how the display information transits the system?
The fictitious Doc that this thread started with.
Originally posted by Kickaha
How about input device data? Drive data? Bus access?
The PC. You see, you're basing your entire perspective on the notion that I was proposing that the ipod be a Mac OS X computer, but as I said repeatedly, the ipod would simply be a housing for the OS...
Originally posted by Kickaha
Look, as you've presented it, it's a technical near-impossibility. It'd be easier to just port MacOS X to x86 and be done with it.
The way you presented what i presented yes, the way I presented it... no, or at least I don't think so. You haven't given any reason why it wouldn't work yet.
I hope this isn;t just a scenario in which you don't feel PC users should have access to OS X and is the reason why you're putting up brick walls.
Originally posted by Kickaha
I give up.
Anyone else want to take a crack at it?
You could have done it yourself, but you only offered rebuttal to arguments which you proposed (not ones that I did.
Originally posted by Kickaha
COS, I'm not going to explain basic hardware and OS theory to you at nearly 2am, my time. Really. It's not worth my time.
No need to. I'm pretty savvy myself.
Originally posted by COS
Both the ipod and the PC's processor
Stop. Right. There.
See, there's the problem. An OS runs on a CPU. Not two devices. Sorry. Anything else in this is trivial in comparison.
The PC. You see, you're basing your entire perspective on the notion that I was proposing that the ipod be a Mac OS X computer, but as I said repeatedly, the ipod would simply be a housing for the OS...
And yet it's somehow running part of the OS when it's just a housing... oooookay...
The reason I had that odd, silly notion that the iPod would be running (part of) the OS is because I *did* understand what you were getting at... see your answer above. When I asked 'what CPU runs the OS' I get 'iPod and PC'.
Now the reason I thought it would be running the entire OS is because to have it running *part* of the OS is nonsensical. If you can explain how you plan on having *that* work... well, it should be interesting.
The way you presented what i presented yes, the way I presented it... no, or at least I don't think so. You haven't given any reason why it wouldn't work yet.
See above. Those are the simplest ones to draw a bead on.
I hope this isn;t just a scenario in which you don't feel PC users should have access to OS X and is the reason why you're putting up brick walls.
...
BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.....
*hee* Oh, you're just too blasted funny.