A dear friend sent a generous gift certificate in sympathy, so I have that, I have a few songs on my iPod that I never use that can go back on the computer, and then I'll just replace the things I miss the most.

It's ridiculous to get all emotional in tech, but gah, I just felt SO INCOMPETENT that i couldn't do this otherwise simple task correctly.

Blargh.

It's ridiculous to get all emotional in tech

Dude. Happens.

Start using your iPod--it's a simple backup. I keep meaning to burn all my bought stuff to CD so it's backed up somewhere in an iTunes independent format.

My iPod can't contain all my music, so I finally went and bought a 100 Gig portable Firewire drive and set up my Mini to do a daily backup to it.

Yeah, i plan to store all my music and large graphic files on the La Cie.

I have no reason to use my iPod. I don't have a tape deck in the car, and I won't walk around with one attached to my head.

I have no reason to use my iPod.

It's an external hard drive. I don't know its capacity nor the capacity of your La Cie, but you can use it for backup just like your La Cie, or use it just for your music through iTunes.

I have no reason to use my iPod. I don't have a tape deck in the car, and I won't walk around with one attached to my head.

I can't get into the headphone habit either, but I use my FM transmitter both in the car and at home with my stereo.

but I use my FM transmitter both in the car and at home with my stereo.

For home stereo, I use a 1/8" stereo plug to dual RCA plug adapter cable. This sort of cable is cheap, and the sound quality is much better than using the FM transmitter.

eta: This assumes your stereo has RCA stereo inputs....

For home stereo, I use a 1/8" stereo plug to dual RCA plug adapter cable.

That's my setup too. (Though mine wasn't so cheap, since it was an implulse buy at the Apple Store. The lure of the iProduct is irresistible...)

I think my RCA inputs are taken up by the DVD player. I'm feeling too lazy at the moment to turn the thing around enough to see if there's another input available.

Why Apple Really Ditched PowerPC

Sounds plausible.

Note: this is macslash, which is runing kinda' slow at the moment. The short version was that IBM and Motorolla were both busy doing other things....

After looking at Motorola and IBM and their chip businesses, it becomes clear that Apple was a victim of apathy, and that Apple really needed a chip company whose business was desktops, portables, workstations, and servers — not routers or mainframes or game consoles. These criteria basically left one choice for Apple, and there was no one to dissuade them this time. Apple announced their switch to Intel processors in June '05 and just recently announced and released their first such systems to wide acclaim.

The rest, as they say, will be history. The Intel transition will be the smoothest one Apple has ever gone through, much smoother than the 68k-to-PowerPC switch and a lot quicker than the Mac OS X migration. With their own development tools, and Tiger presenting a mature, stable API, the cross-grade to Intel chips is almost seamless. And Apple will never again find itself embarrassingly behind its rivals for clock-speed, or number of cores, or any other feature that becomes important to CPUs. It's obvious Apple wants to complete the move as quickly as possible and get on with things, which is why they're six months ahead of the Intel schedule.