Scottsdale
Apr 22, 12:43 PM
You don't think ? Seriously people, we had 1440x900 displays 10 years ago, on GPUs that had about 1% the graphics processing power of today and about a tenth of the RAM.
Heck, the 9400M could power external 30" monitors at their native resolution of 2560x1600 at the same time it powered in the laptop's internal display of 1280x800 without breaking a sweet.
What's so hard to grasp that the MBP's resolution staying at 1280x800 has nothing to do with the GPU in SB ? :confused:
Have you guys never used computers 10 years ago ? CRT monitors at 1600x1200 ring a bell to anyone but me here ?
Because part of releasing a new, backwards approaching, IGP in the 13" MBP required saving face for both its MacBook "PRO" name and Intel's IGP capabilities itself.
If the resolution is upgraded to 1440x900, the IGP is going to perform worse in comparison to the prior 13" MBP...
I also fear Apple's ridiculous 10.6.7 downgrade was somehow to show the MBA's IGP isn't as bad as it is going to be with SB IGP. Look at OpenGL performance on it, as it dropped 30% from 10.6.6. Now, we have seen Apple screw these things up before, but they also market their new products based upon prior products and list an OS X version tested on the prior gen. If they reverse course with 10.6.8 or 10.7, in the new MBA, then they might show only a 20% loss in IGP performance vs. the prior Nvidia 320m... when in reality, it might be more like a 50% plus loss in performance.
The big thing here, that NOBODY likes to think about is the 13" MBP uses a standard voltage CPU, while the MBA will use either ULV and LV or just ULV depending on who we believe. The ULV SB IGP operates at a greater than 50% loss than the Nvidia 320m. We can see this from competing products, that yes are running Windows but still have better OpenGL capabilities in the first place.
I think the big advantage to this downgrade will be buying clearance and refurbished Nvidia-based MBAs for 25% discounts... Unless Apple somehow fits a standard voltage SB CPU in the 13" MBA, I think most will be better off with C2D and Nvidia 320m at discounts.
Apple has been down the path of using a low voltage Intel CPU and IGP in the MBA before, and it was the worst Mac created since the Intel transition. It wasn't until Nvidia 9400m that the MBA became even usable. Yes, the SB IGP is better than prior Intel IGPs, but it's still utterly disappointing in LV/ULV variants. I guess the smart buyers will be buying clearance MBAs with Nvidia 320m and skip Sandy Bridge for a more reliable Ivy Bridge model. It depends on how each person uses the MBA, but I believe the vast majority are much better off with Nvidia and C2D. I just hope Apple doesn't destroy the MBA brand to try to make Intel's inferior IGP work... especially in LV and ULV variants.
Heck, the 9400M could power external 30" monitors at their native resolution of 2560x1600 at the same time it powered in the laptop's internal display of 1280x800 without breaking a sweet.
What's so hard to grasp that the MBP's resolution staying at 1280x800 has nothing to do with the GPU in SB ? :confused:
Have you guys never used computers 10 years ago ? CRT monitors at 1600x1200 ring a bell to anyone but me here ?
Because part of releasing a new, backwards approaching, IGP in the 13" MBP required saving face for both its MacBook "PRO" name and Intel's IGP capabilities itself.
If the resolution is upgraded to 1440x900, the IGP is going to perform worse in comparison to the prior 13" MBP...
I also fear Apple's ridiculous 10.6.7 downgrade was somehow to show the MBA's IGP isn't as bad as it is going to be with SB IGP. Look at OpenGL performance on it, as it dropped 30% from 10.6.6. Now, we have seen Apple screw these things up before, but they also market their new products based upon prior products and list an OS X version tested on the prior gen. If they reverse course with 10.6.8 or 10.7, in the new MBA, then they might show only a 20% loss in IGP performance vs. the prior Nvidia 320m... when in reality, it might be more like a 50% plus loss in performance.
The big thing here, that NOBODY likes to think about is the 13" MBP uses a standard voltage CPU, while the MBA will use either ULV and LV or just ULV depending on who we believe. The ULV SB IGP operates at a greater than 50% loss than the Nvidia 320m. We can see this from competing products, that yes are running Windows but still have better OpenGL capabilities in the first place.
I think the big advantage to this downgrade will be buying clearance and refurbished Nvidia-based MBAs for 25% discounts... Unless Apple somehow fits a standard voltage SB CPU in the 13" MBA, I think most will be better off with C2D and Nvidia 320m at discounts.
Apple has been down the path of using a low voltage Intel CPU and IGP in the MBA before, and it was the worst Mac created since the Intel transition. It wasn't until Nvidia 9400m that the MBA became even usable. Yes, the SB IGP is better than prior Intel IGPs, but it's still utterly disappointing in LV/ULV variants. I guess the smart buyers will be buying clearance MBAs with Nvidia 320m and skip Sandy Bridge for a more reliable Ivy Bridge model. It depends on how each person uses the MBA, but I believe the vast majority are much better off with Nvidia and C2D. I just hope Apple doesn't destroy the MBA brand to try to make Intel's inferior IGP work... especially in LV and ULV variants.
Evangelion
Sep 5, 09:06 AM
Store is back up. Can't see anything new
gugy
Aug 31, 09:28 PM
The fact that it isn't a "format," for starters.
$10 ~ $15, if that is the price for anything below a 720p encoding of a movie, would be the stupidest thing that Apple has done. (Well, at least in the last 10 years or so.)
If they do 720p encodes - and that would have to be the minimum, as they really should be 1080p - then they might have something worthwhile. The problem is, this will totally clash with the move to Blu-Ray and HD-DVD, so being realistic, my guess would be 480p encodes. Which, of course, then makes purchasing movies this way versus DVD a really stupid decision (IMHO).
I'd love to see Apple get this right, but... I'm really not holding my breath.
Very true, I just can't see Apple doing this. That will kill the Movie store from the start.
IMHO they might do the rental of movies that was speculate before.
If they decide to sell it, it has to be cheaper than the current DVD offerings, unless the quality and resolution are higher. If not, I would not even waste my time going there to buy it.
$10 ~ $15, if that is the price for anything below a 720p encoding of a movie, would be the stupidest thing that Apple has done. (Well, at least in the last 10 years or so.)
If they do 720p encodes - and that would have to be the minimum, as they really should be 1080p - then they might have something worthwhile. The problem is, this will totally clash with the move to Blu-Ray and HD-DVD, so being realistic, my guess would be 480p encodes. Which, of course, then makes purchasing movies this way versus DVD a really stupid decision (IMHO).
I'd love to see Apple get this right, but... I'm really not holding my breath.
Very true, I just can't see Apple doing this. That will kill the Movie store from the start.
IMHO they might do the rental of movies that was speculate before.
If they decide to sell it, it has to be cheaper than the current DVD offerings, unless the quality and resolution are higher. If not, I would not even waste my time going there to buy it.
TangoCharlie
Jul 14, 09:34 AM
Woohoo! 3GHz here we come. As was mentioned before, though, a mid-sized tower priced at the iMac level (but upgradable) would be the final logical step in the Apple product line. That would leave Woodcrest to the high end MacPro with its quad configuration.
The fasted Core 2 Extreme at launch will be 2.93 (ok, that's pretty close to 3GHz).... however, if we're going QUAD, then we're looking at Xeon 5100 series
and the 5050, 5060 and 5080 will be 3GHz and above!
What about a a Mac Pro with dual 3.73 GHz Xeon 5080's?? :D
We might need an enclosure the size of the G5 for those!! :eek:
I agree, there's space int he Apple line-up for a single cpu (Conroe) system which is aimed to business and people who want the upgradeability of a "box" but don't want to splash out on dual Xeons!!
The fasted Core 2 Extreme at launch will be 2.93 (ok, that's pretty close to 3GHz).... however, if we're going QUAD, then we're looking at Xeon 5100 series
and the 5050, 5060 and 5080 will be 3GHz and above!
What about a a Mac Pro with dual 3.73 GHz Xeon 5080's?? :D
We might need an enclosure the size of the G5 for those!! :eek:
I agree, there's space int he Apple line-up for a single cpu (Conroe) system which is aimed to business and people who want the upgradeability of a "box" but don't want to splash out on dual Xeons!!
DeathChill
Apr 30, 01:24 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_2 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8H7 Safari/6533.18.5)
Neither will be redesigned next year. Look at the length of time Apple stuck with the previous design. There are still a few years left to this "look."
Except there are multiple sources saying that MacBook Pro's will indeed be redesigned next year.
Neither will be redesigned next year. Look at the length of time Apple stuck with the previous design. There are still a few years left to this "look."
Except there are multiple sources saying that MacBook Pro's will indeed be redesigned next year.
KnightWRX
Mar 30, 01:45 PM
I guess the counter argument would be that an application is a type of program, not a part of a program. (which I personally would disagree with. As I understand, the individual binary is an application, where the program is the sum of the binaries, libraries, resource files, etc...)
Actually, the individual binary is an executable.
Web Apps are complex, contain client side code, server side code, datasets, data models, etc..
Applications and Programs are pretty much interchangeable and describe the whole. MS actually got it wrong in that Explorer screenshot, .EXE should simply say Executable and .DLL should simply say dynamically linked library.
Actually, the individual binary is an executable.
Web Apps are complex, contain client side code, server side code, datasets, data models, etc..
Applications and Programs are pretty much interchangeable and describe the whole. MS actually got it wrong in that Explorer screenshot, .EXE should simply say Executable and .DLL should simply say dynamically linked library.
evilgEEk
Sep 5, 10:18 PM
My Guess:
Just think if that Data Center Apple bought was acctually a place to store alll the studios movies. Then you pay 9.99 for the rights to what ever movie and it is streamed Slingbox style to your Airport Extreme that has HDMI, Component, Composite etc outlets for your TV. Then you have your movie you bought anytime all the time but never have to take storage of your own, and never have to deal with downloading or anything.
You heard it hear first!
Actually, that idea has been pitched before. ;)
I'm not sure if I would care for that sort of service though. I'm thinking I would most likely just burn off a purchased movie to DVD, as long as it's possible of course.
Having it remotely hosted would be nice if you're going somewhere else to watch the movie, but that's dependant upon the fact that this "somewhere else" would most likely need this device as well.
It's a solid idea, I just don't see Apple doing it.
Just think if that Data Center Apple bought was acctually a place to store alll the studios movies. Then you pay 9.99 for the rights to what ever movie and it is streamed Slingbox style to your Airport Extreme that has HDMI, Component, Composite etc outlets for your TV. Then you have your movie you bought anytime all the time but never have to take storage of your own, and never have to deal with downloading or anything.
You heard it hear first!
Actually, that idea has been pitched before. ;)
I'm not sure if I would care for that sort of service though. I'm thinking I would most likely just burn off a purchased movie to DVD, as long as it's possible of course.
Having it remotely hosted would be nice if you're going somewhere else to watch the movie, but that's dependant upon the fact that this "somewhere else" would most likely need this device as well.
It's a solid idea, I just don't see Apple doing it.
guet
Nov 14, 01:53 AM
You can go to church and pray instead of going to court, if you'd like, but for those of us that believe in the legal system, we take solace in the fact that things really aren't black and white, and yet there is a framework in place that let's us try and figure these things out.
Congratulations on responding cogently to the trollish insults from 'aristotle' (a strange choice of name given his beliefs and style of argument).
It is not "streaming" the icon data, it is copied over and displayed superimposed on another icon which is presumably an internal OS X bundle.
You clearly have no idea what you're talking about here, and I see you've now shifted the argument over to app icons rather than computer images. App icons are also used in many many places outside of an app - if they are used to portray that app in some way, most people see that as fair.
Following your argument to its logical conclusion, Apple is infringing by using icons in the dock, or the display of running applications, and many other desktop apps which use the icon of another program for informational purposes are also infringing other people's copyright. I'd call that fair use, and useful for the customer as well, most developers would agree.
It's possible some copyright troll could try to sue someone for it, as in spite of your protestations, it is a grey area, however I feel as a customer and developer that it is wrong for Apple to abuse their position of power and try to dictate petty little rules like this to developers. The development experience on the iPhone is great, but having experienced the approval process for iPhone, I can say it is an unmitigated failure, on its own terms. That is all.
PS Please stop trying to argue about law with a lawyer, and trying to claim the English legal system (which has nothing to do with this judgment) is based on 'Judeo-christian' law - it is not.
I'm not going to defend Apple because NO BODY on this forum knows the exact circumstances of the situation.
Given the myriad other examples of Apple's woeful treatment of app store developers, I think it's fair to discuss this one as yet another example of them messing their developers around. It also has important consequences for Apple and iPhone users.
Congratulations on responding cogently to the trollish insults from 'aristotle' (a strange choice of name given his beliefs and style of argument).
It is not "streaming" the icon data, it is copied over and displayed superimposed on another icon which is presumably an internal OS X bundle.
You clearly have no idea what you're talking about here, and I see you've now shifted the argument over to app icons rather than computer images. App icons are also used in many many places outside of an app - if they are used to portray that app in some way, most people see that as fair.
Following your argument to its logical conclusion, Apple is infringing by using icons in the dock, or the display of running applications, and many other desktop apps which use the icon of another program for informational purposes are also infringing other people's copyright. I'd call that fair use, and useful for the customer as well, most developers would agree.
It's possible some copyright troll could try to sue someone for it, as in spite of your protestations, it is a grey area, however I feel as a customer and developer that it is wrong for Apple to abuse their position of power and try to dictate petty little rules like this to developers. The development experience on the iPhone is great, but having experienced the approval process for iPhone, I can say it is an unmitigated failure, on its own terms. That is all.
PS Please stop trying to argue about law with a lawyer, and trying to claim the English legal system (which has nothing to do with this judgment) is based on 'Judeo-christian' law - it is not.
I'm not going to defend Apple because NO BODY on this forum knows the exact circumstances of the situation.
Given the myriad other examples of Apple's woeful treatment of app store developers, I think it's fair to discuss this one as yet another example of them messing their developers around. It also has important consequences for Apple and iPhone users.
organerito
Apr 30, 06:05 PM
Because that huge base of thunderbolt based devices is overwhelming! :p
Or, Thunderbolt people must feel very special. There are about 10 of them in the world.:D
Or, Thunderbolt people must feel very special. There are about 10 of them in the world.:D
jaw04005
Nov 23, 12:34 PM
Airfoil Speakers Touch 1.0.2 is out. It restores the computer artwork. Apple finally did the right thing.
http://www.rogueamoeba.com/utm/2009/11/23/airfoil-speakers-touch-1-0-2-is-now-available/
Looks like Apple admitted it was in the wrong.
http://www.rogueamoeba.com/utm/2009/11/23/airfoil-speakers-touch-1-0-2-is-now-available/
Looks like Apple admitted it was in the wrong.
DeaconGraves
Apr 11, 07:50 AM
That's nice.
::Goes back to listening to podcasts streaming from his iPhone to his AppleTV::
::Goes back to listening to podcasts streaming from his iPhone to his AppleTV::
rstansby
Mar 29, 12:49 PM
Exactly. You should be able to CUT a file and move it. I bought an app in the Mac App Store that does just that...
Should be built in.
That other thing that sucks in the folder view. I want folders first in A to Z, then files A to Z like in Windows... Not a default option....
So in other words it is a very minor missing feature, easily eclipsed by dozens of important features that are only found on a Mac.
Should be built in.
That other thing that sucks in the folder view. I want folders first in A to Z, then files A to Z like in Windows... Not a default option....
So in other words it is a very minor missing feature, easily eclipsed by dozens of important features that are only found on a Mac.
MattyMac
Sep 14, 11:42 AM
I wish I was more into photography...I would probably be excited about this:rolleyes:
cwt1nospam
Apr 11, 05:16 AM
Yeah, let's all waste time worrying about a "possible" threat that hasn't proved to be any significant danger in the wild. It's even better that we can worry about it in an obsolete version of the OS!
:rolleyes:
:rolleyes:
Macnoviz
Sep 19, 02:55 PM
Looks like Unbox is getting slammed by CNN
Those things really make me feel warm inside, I can't wait until Zune is trashed for the same reasons (doesn't work as promised, DRM, and who knows, overpricing?)
Those things really make me feel warm inside, I can't wait until Zune is trashed for the same reasons (doesn't work as promised, DRM, and who knows, overpricing?)
CorvusCamenarum
Apr 20, 03:03 AM
I don't mean the parents, I meant those who run McDonalds.
Yes, murder them all. Just tonight as I was driving by a McDonalds, three corporate execs ran out, caught me at a red light, and forced a Big Mac down my throat. Thank god I didn't drive by the Krystal's, too - those soggy little gut bombers would have put a hurting on me.
Not you, the poster you were quoting was being sarcastic. I was drawing your attention to his sarcasism.
I wasn't being sarcastic. I was making his post(s) seem even more ridiculous than they come off as being, considering I don't think anyone in the history of time has ever been forced to eat at burger joints morning, noon, and night.
Yes, murder them all. Just tonight as I was driving by a McDonalds, three corporate execs ran out, caught me at a red light, and forced a Big Mac down my throat. Thank god I didn't drive by the Krystal's, too - those soggy little gut bombers would have put a hurting on me.
Not you, the poster you were quoting was being sarcastic. I was drawing your attention to his sarcasism.
I wasn't being sarcastic. I was making his post(s) seem even more ridiculous than they come off as being, considering I don't think anyone in the history of time has ever been forced to eat at burger joints morning, noon, and night.
AidenShaw
Sep 9, 10:56 AM
I just assumed that being 64-bit or 32-bit was a system wide principle, either or.
A 64-bit operating system is one that provides 64-bit virtual addresses to its processes. It requires a CPU that supports 64-bit virtual addressing. The C2D is such a CPU, and runs 64-bit code and O/S.
These humongous 64-bit virtual addresses need to be translated to a physical address to reach the actual memory. The 64-bit CPU has a list of pages of physical memory, and tables to map a program's virtual address to a physical page. Once that mapping is done, the 64-bit virtual address can be used as a "synonym" for the actual physical address. The mapping is per process - two processes can use the same virtual address without interference - the same virtual address refers to different physical pages depending on the process which is using it.
In the case of the Napa(32) chipset, the chipset only has 32 address lines, and cannot physically handle more than 4 GiB of RAM. Some of those addresses are reserved for I/O purposes (such as the 256 MiB that is mapped to the VRAM of the video card).
If you plug 4 GiB of RAM into a Napa(32) system, you'll "lose" the memory that is over-mapped by I/O space. For example, right now I'm typing from a dual-Xeon (32-bit Netburst) with 4 GiB of RAM installed. Windows reports that I have 3520 MiB of memory. I've "lost" a half GiB due to these I/O space mappings. (My 4 GiB Yonah laptop reports 3.1 GiB available - PCIe systems seem to reserve a lot more memory for I/O than PCI-X systems.)
Apple is apparently saying that 3 GiB is the limit, so that they don't have to explain PCIe I/O bus mapping to people calling to complain that OSX isn't using all 4 GiB.
____________
This virtual-to-physical mapping has some other implications:
may and june calendar 2011.
april may calendar 2011. april
A 64-bit operating system is one that provides 64-bit virtual addresses to its processes. It requires a CPU that supports 64-bit virtual addressing. The C2D is such a CPU, and runs 64-bit code and O/S.
These humongous 64-bit virtual addresses need to be translated to a physical address to reach the actual memory. The 64-bit CPU has a list of pages of physical memory, and tables to map a program's virtual address to a physical page. Once that mapping is done, the 64-bit virtual address can be used as a "synonym" for the actual physical address. The mapping is per process - two processes can use the same virtual address without interference - the same virtual address refers to different physical pages depending on the process which is using it.
In the case of the Napa(32) chipset, the chipset only has 32 address lines, and cannot physically handle more than 4 GiB of RAM. Some of those addresses are reserved for I/O purposes (such as the 256 MiB that is mapped to the VRAM of the video card).
If you plug 4 GiB of RAM into a Napa(32) system, you'll "lose" the memory that is over-mapped by I/O space. For example, right now I'm typing from a dual-Xeon (32-bit Netburst) with 4 GiB of RAM installed. Windows reports that I have 3520 MiB of memory. I've "lost" a half GiB due to these I/O space mappings. (My 4 GiB Yonah laptop reports 3.1 GiB available - PCIe systems seem to reserve a lot more memory for I/O than PCI-X systems.)
Apple is apparently saying that 3 GiB is the limit, so that they don't have to explain PCIe I/O bus mapping to people calling to complain that OSX isn't using all 4 GiB.
____________
This virtual-to-physical mapping has some other implications:
caspersoong
Apr 23, 12:18 AM
Just don't throw away any USB ports for the Thunderbolt port. 2 is little enough. If this is true, it is finally time to get a Mac.
Chris Bangle
Sep 1, 03:55 AM
It had better do. The British public (those who pay license, which like 99% do) has the legal right to every single piece of footage, news story, radio recording etc. etc. the BBC has ever produced, but we have access to about 1% of it.
It's a big point of controversy here. Partly it's been due to technology limitations, but pretty soon there'll be no excuse, and the BBC should be right off the bat finding new ways to deliver what belongs to us.
Thats why I download top gear!!!!
It's a big point of controversy here. Partly it's been due to technology limitations, but pretty soon there'll be no excuse, and the BBC should be right off the bat finding new ways to deliver what belongs to us.
Thats why I download top gear!!!!
DeeEss
Mar 30, 01:03 PM
What a cunning linguist he or she would be.
:)
:)
Lepton
Sep 13, 10:11 PM
Take a PSP. Chop the two ends off that hold the game controls. You have about a 3"x4"x.75 16:9 unit, all screen. User replaceable battery, openable back. quad GSM. Bluetooth. Touch screen, pressure sensitive to sense clicks. Touch brings up on-screen controls, translucent. Can bring up traditional number buttons, or a contacts list with a click wheel scroller. Speaker makes subtle click sounds like Mighty Mouse. Internet browser. EMail. The usual phone PDA stuff. *nix OS.
Apple starts a virtual carrier in its huge new data center. Does perfect syncing, has all you can eat Internet at 3G speeds.
It's also an iPod. Hard disk. Virtual click wheel. Stereo Bluetooth. iPod dock port. Headphone jack. Hold switch. No WiFi. Bluetooth will be extended soon to have more range and speed.
It's also a video iPod. Wide screen. Virtual click wheel. Plays movies.
It's also an IR remote for CE stuff and Macs. Interface ala Harmony Remote. IR port.
It's also an Apple Remote Desktop. Links to any Mac, puts 2nd Mac screen on the device. Controls your Mac through touch guestures, Apple Speech Recognition, Apple Text to Speech, through phone mik/spkr or Bluetooth headset. Hooks over Bluetooth if Mac is close, GPRS/3G connection of Mac is distant. File transfer too.
$500.
Apple starts a virtual carrier in its huge new data center. Does perfect syncing, has all you can eat Internet at 3G speeds.
It's also an iPod. Hard disk. Virtual click wheel. Stereo Bluetooth. iPod dock port. Headphone jack. Hold switch. No WiFi. Bluetooth will be extended soon to have more range and speed.
It's also a video iPod. Wide screen. Virtual click wheel. Plays movies.
It's also an IR remote for CE stuff and Macs. Interface ala Harmony Remote. IR port.
It's also an Apple Remote Desktop. Links to any Mac, puts 2nd Mac screen on the device. Controls your Mac through touch guestures, Apple Speech Recognition, Apple Text to Speech, through phone mik/spkr or Bluetooth headset. Hooks over Bluetooth if Mac is close, GPRS/3G connection of Mac is distant. File transfer too.
$500.
Saladin
Sep 14, 09:59 PM
2. Apple's announcement a few days ago about the new iTunes store: (to quote Page 1) "TV shows will now be sold at 640x480 px h264. While the updated 5G iPods announced today will be able to play the new format, there has not been any indication from Apple of yet that the new shows will be playable on older 5G iPods. Apple's official knowledge-base article still states that h264-encoded movies must be 320 x 240 at 30 fps."
That's false information. I already downloaded Sacred Planet (640*480 h.264) from the iTunes Movie Store and loaded it onto my newly updated 5G iPod. The movie works perfectly. Since that would have been the strongest point in your argument for a multiple use device, I would now say your conclusion lacks weight. I'm not saying that they won't release one soon, just use better proofs to support your conclusion next time.
That's false information. I already downloaded Sacred Planet (640*480 h.264) from the iTunes Movie Store and loaded it onto my newly updated 5G iPod. The movie works perfectly. Since that would have been the strongest point in your argument for a multiple use device, I would now say your conclusion lacks weight. I'm not saying that they won't release one soon, just use better proofs to support your conclusion next time.
Gem�tlichkeit
Mar 22, 02:30 PM
Please please please let them release Sandy Bridge for the MacBook Air :)
davede70
Sep 11, 09:32 PM
Could the combo of the update on the airport extreme and the update to the video ipod = a way to wirelessly update your ipod?
No comments:
Post a Comment