How come this hasn't been talked about here?

Todd Allcock wrote:
> At 22 Jul 2008 09:03:19 -0400 Carl wrote:
>>> Now copy a few items back into your normal default calendar folder a
>>> few at at a time, syncing after each few- evenually you should find
>>> the items that stubbornly refuse syncing. Simply retyping the item
>>> and deleting the original fixes the stubborn ones, unless you see a
>>> pattern (like no end
>>> date on recurring items, or unsupported files attached, etc.) you
>>> can correct.
>>
>>>
>> Hey thanks for some reasonably sound advice.
>
> Don't mention it- it's practice. I've got to throw a couple of
> intelligent- sounding troubleshooting posts around the WinMogroups
> from ime to time to maintain my Mobile Device MVP "street cred."
>
>> I actually got started on part
>> of your suggestion yesterday (I created another calendar in
>> Archives) but I didn't have the rest of your suggestions to go along
>> with the move. I'll give them a try, but I don't know that I can (or
>> want) to devote another
> 7
>> or 8 hours to getting this thing to work.
>
> As you've said, you almost don't mind going through the BS if it
> actally works- it's when it doesn't it p*sses you off!
>
> Copying the calendar out of the way and bringing just a few items
> back to sync should only take a few minutes- if the iPhone doesn't
> respond, you can give up on my suggestion with little time lost.
>
>> You're correct about certain items causing syncing problems. When I
>> initially synced my BB, a few items were replicated on the device.
>> But they were clever enough to have color-coded them for me so that
>> I could find them easily, delete the red ones, and re-sync. And,
>> generally speaking the
> BB's
>> syncing program (Desktop Manager) warns you of potential problems (as
> does
>> the Dell Axim's Activesync program) and gives you options about how
>> to handle the discrepancies during the syncing process.
>>
>> Those are serious syncing devices with serious syncing software. I
>> would say that if Apple wants to be in the synced-device business,
>> it needs to develop better syncing software.
>
>
> Or convince the other 94% of the market to buy Macs, at least based on
> Oxford's advice. ;-)
>
Exactly.

---

› See More: How come this hasn't been talked about here?

On Wed, 23 Jul 2008, Carl posted:
> The amount of memory used up on my Touch tells me the data DID reach the
> device but isn't showing. DO you know of a way to get it to show???

On the Nano, a hard reset sometimes causes some of the data to show up.
You may have to repeat it a few times.

I haven't seen any trick to get the Touch to sync with Outlook since
1.1.3. Sometimes, an empty Touch will show the Outlook data, but as soon
as you load any media the Calendar and Contacts goes empty even though
syncing of that data was unchecked.

> Also,
> my feeling has been that Apple is NOT acknowledging this bug. Where did you
> get the info that they are acknowledging it? Thanks.

Direct conversations with Apple engineers, as well as submissions and
follow-throughs with Apple in their bug reporter.

-- Mark --

http://panda.com/mrc
Democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what to eat for lunch.
Liberty is a well-armed sheep contesting the vote.

In message <[email protected]> DevilsPGD
<[email protected]> wrote:

>I've found half a dozen quirks/bugs in the iPod Touch/iPhone, and took
>the time to bring up a couple via their forums, receiving responses of
>"well, just don't do that" to a couple repeatable crashes (notable ones
>being in Safari accessing only Apple.com, and in attempting to add songs
>to the "On-the-go" playlist in iPod mode -- Not what I'd normally
>consider niche features, given the device's marketing. The Safari bugs
>are still reproducible in 2.0, I haven't tested building a playlist yet)

So today, I had no less then four Safari crashes, plus I managed to
reproduce the iPod mode crash. Yay, thanks Apple.

In article <[email protected]>, Mark
Crispin <[email protected]> wrote:

> On Wed, 23 Jul 2008, nospam posted:
> >> Apple acknowledges the bug, and acknowledges that it is unfixed.
> > where did they acknowledge it and what exactly did they say?
>
> Apple's bugtracker.

they specifically said all powerpc g4 mac minis are unsupported?

> > and why
> > is this the only report that i've ever heard of it?
>
> You haven't looked very hard. A simple Google search for certain iTunes
> 4-digit "Unknown error" codes will find numerous reports of problems with
> iPhone and iPod Touch software upgrades.

sure, there are plenty of bugs, but which one specifically states that
a powerpc g4 mac mini can't update an iphone/ipod touch, a hardware
configuration that's explicitly supported by apple?

> If you want to see the problem in operation, bring your iToy here and I
> will happily use my 1GB PowerPC G4 Mac Mini to get it irrecoverably stuck
> in Restore mode. I will then demonstrate how an older Windows laptop has
> no problem in loading the software.

i don't doubt that you have a problem updating it, but to say that it's
a hardware issue in *all* powerpc g4 mac minis is a *huge* leap. in
the last few days i asked numerous people if they had heard of this
(including people at apple and people who own a ppc g4 mac mini) and
they laughed, especially the ones who own a ppc g4 mac mini.

> Apple should just include a Windows laptop in the box with every Mac sold,
> so that users can use the Windows machine to do the stuff that Mac can't
> do. Apple's overcharges so much, they can do this without any price
> increases.

prices are comparable for similarly configured hardware.

In article <[email protected]>, Carl
<[email protected]> wrote:

> >>>> there is no modern mac that cannot update any ipod / iphone. as
> >>>> long as that mac is running the minimum required software version,
> >>>> ANY mac will update ANY apple device without issue.
> >>> How do you KNOW this? Have you personally checked all "modern macs"
> >>> David? And, by the way, what is a "modern mac"?
> >>
> >> My Mac was purchased new from Apple in May 2005. It is incapable of
> >> updating an iPhone or iPod Touch, although it is capable of updating
> >> an iPod Nano or iPod Shuffle.
> >
> > apple sold various macs in 2005. which one and what configuration?
> >
> What's the difference? The guy stated that "there is no modern mac that
> cannot update any ipod / iphone" and followed that with "ANY mac will update
> ANY apple device without issue" (the caps being his own). So why are we now
> nit-picking which model this poster has? Is this about to become one of
> those BUTs...?

the difference is that it's baseless assertion.

he needs to provide the hardware configuration so that others can test
it for themselves to see if his assertion is correct. the fact that
he's vague about exactly how to duplicate it suggests that it's bogus.
and the fact that i asked people who own the same hardware if they had
a problem and they said no indicates that it's not the *mac* that's the
problem.

At 27 Jul 2008 21:31:11 -0400 nospam wrote:
> > Apple's overcharges so much, they can do this without any price
> > increases.
>
> prices are comparable for similarly configured hardware.


Ah, but that's the great Mac Myth isn't? Macs are crammed full of so many
"forced upgrades" that yes, they're "comparably priced" if you take a base
PC and then add the laundry list of options (usually at MSRP, not "street
price") to equate it to the Mac being discussed.

Similarly, a $40,000 is "comparably priced" to a $20,000 car, if we're
forced to outfit the $20,000 with the same options that come standard on
the $40k ride. The price advantage of PCs comes from the competition
between brands and the plethora of configurations available.

Even if I accept your premise that my $299 low-end PC will cost $599 if I
outfit it to match the features/specs of an entry-level Mac, it's MY option
to do so or not to, depending on my needs for that particular PC.

I can't, however, go into an Apple store and rip $300 worth of unneeded
options off the $599 Mac to get it down to $299, can I?

Todd Allcock <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> Even if I accept your premise that my $299 low-end PC will cost $599
> if I outfit it to match the features/specs of an entry-level Mac, it's
> MY option to do so or not to, depending on my needs for that
> particular PC.
>
>

Naw....just eliminate the Gates load from it and install a Linux. That'll
make the $299 low end PC MUCH faster and bring the price down to $129.
Even cheaper, buy a $25 Win98 box from the thrift shop and wipe the Micro
$not off it, install the Linux to the bare box and reduce your costs to
near zero. Add Open Office and you've got a serious business box for
nearly free!

It scares them to death....(c;

.....and save those old 128MB RAM sticks, too! Programs are in KB, not MB!

nospam wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, Carl
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>>>>> there is no modern mac that cannot update any ipod / iphone. as
>>>>>> long as that mac is running the minimum required software
>>>>>> version, ANY mac will update ANY apple device without issue.
>>>>> How do you KNOW this? Have you personally checked all "modern
>>>>> macs" David? And, by the way, what is a "modern mac"?
>>>>
>>>> My Mac was purchased new from Apple in May 2005. It is incapable
>>>> of updating an iPhone or iPod Touch, although it is capable of
>>>> updating an iPod Nano or iPod Shuffle.
>>>
>>> apple sold various macs in 2005. which one and what configuration?
>>>
>> What's the difference? The guy stated that "there is no modern mac
>> that cannot update any ipod / iphone" and followed that with "ANY
>> mac will update ANY apple device without issue" (the caps being his
>> own). So why are we now nit-picking which model this poster has? Is
>> this about to become one of those BUTs...?
>
> the difference is that it's baseless assertion.
>
> he needs to provide the hardware configuration so that others can test
> it for themselves to see if his assertion is correct. the fact that
> he's vague about exactly how to duplicate it suggests that it's bogus.
> and the fact that i asked people who own the same hardware if they had
> a problem and they said no indicates that it's not the *mac* that's
> the problem.
>
No, sorry. One of us is having trouble with the basic of the English
language here. Perhaps it's me. If someone says, "ANY mac will update ANY
apple device without issue" and the responder states that "My Mac was
purchased new from Apple in May 2005", that meets the criterion of "ANY
mac", and no further qualification is necessary.

Said another way, if some of youse guys is gonna state absolutes, you need
to live with what you've said afterwards. No "ands, ifs or buts" after the
fact please.

On Mon, 28 Jul 2008, Carl posted:
>> he needs to provide the hardware configuration so that others can test
>> it for themselves to see if his assertion is correct. the fact that
>> he's vague about exactly how to duplicate it suggests that it's bogus.
>> and the fact that i asked people who own the same hardware if they had
>> a problem and they said no indicates that it's not the *mac* that's
>> the problem.
> No, sorry. One of us is having trouble with the basic of the English
> language here. Perhaps it's me. If someone says, "ANY mac will update ANY
> apple device without issue" and the responder states that "My Mac was
> purchased new from Apple in May 2005", that meets the criterion of "ANY
> mac", and no further qualification is necessary.

Youngsters such as our fanboy have not yet developed adult reasoning
patterns, and so they can't be expected to understand your argument.

Interestingly, besides giving relevant case numbers in Apple's bug
tracker, I identified that it was a 1.25GHz PPC G4 based Mac desktop with
1GB of RAM. That narrows it down to a very few models that were sold in
May 2005. The particular model in question was introduced a few months
previously, and was still sold as recently as two years ago.

Now I expect the fanboy to claim that a PPC based Mac (or anything else
more than a year old) is not "modern". Try telling that to most adults
who expect a computer to be useful for more than a year or so.

> Said another way, if some of youse guys is gonna state absolutes, you need
> to live with what you've said afterwards. No "ands, ifs or buts" after the
> fact please.

The only absolute that I offer is that it is typical fanboy behavior to
deny that the object of worship has any flaws, or that anyone could
possibly be experiencing problems that are not due to that person's
stupidity.

It isn't just Apple fanboys who behave this way. It is associated with
other manufacturers of overpriced "elite" products marketed to mostly
younger consumers as the epitome of "quality". BMW and Sony come
immediately to mind, although both have lost considerable glitter in
recent years.

-- Mark --

http://panda.com/mrc
Democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what to eat for lunch.
Liberty is a well-armed sheep contesting the vote.

On Sun, 27 Jul 2008, nospam posted:
>>>> Apple acknowledges the bug, and acknowledges that it is unfixed.
>>> where did they acknowledge it and what exactly did they say?
>> Apple's bugtracker.
> they specifically said all powerpc g4 mac minis are unsupported?

Silly child. Apple said no such thing.

Apple acknowledges that there is a bug, and that the bug is still unfixed.

That says nothing about being "unsupported". It merely says that they
haven't been able to fix it.

A straw man argument is a logical fallacy.

> sure, there are plenty of bugs, but which one specifically states that
> a powerpc g4 mac mini can't update an iphone/ipod touch, a hardware
> configuration that's explicitly supported by apple?

Silly child. Nobody said any such thing.

I said that some modern Macs can't update an iPhone/iPod Touch, that Apple
has acknowledged the bug and that it is unfixed; that this problem happens
on a PPC G4 Mac purchased new in May 2005; and that there are numerous
reports from other users who have the same problem.

> i don't doubt that you have a problem updating it, but to say that it's
> a hardware issue in *all* powerpc g4 mac minis is a *huge* leap.

Since nobody said "*all* PowerPC G4 Macs", your entire argument is a
straw man fallacy.

> in
> the last few days i asked numerous people if they had heard of this
> (including people at apple and people who own a ppc g4 mac mini) and
> they laughed, especially the ones who own a ppc g4 mac mini.

Once again, your argument is a fallacy: "my friends don't have a problem,
therefore there is no problem." Argumentiam ad ignorantiam. Converse
Accident.

-- Mark --

http://panda.com/mrc
Democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what to eat for lunch.
Liberty is a well-armed sheep contesting the vote.