mdntcallr
Sep 20, 04:10 PM
hey ill be happy as apple keeps the mac pro on the cutting edge, but anything to be able to bring the ram cost down would be awesome.
this buffered ram is expensive.
all the other ram out there is getting cheaper, but not this stuff they want in the mac pro.
this buffered ram is expensive.
all the other ram out there is getting cheaper, but not this stuff they want in the mac pro.
tortoise
Aug 7, 09:14 PM
Lots of ways it COULD be implemented. Looks at Suns new file system ZFS. It is basically "Copy on Write". With a file system you can do things even fancier then with a DBMS. For example a "block" (i-node) exists physicaly on the disk only once but it could be maped into any numbr of files. If a file in only an orderd set of block numbers then to copy a copy all you need to copy is the set of numbers which is on the order of 1000 times shorter then the data itself.
Ahem, a modern relational database system can do everything a file system can. In fact, they are both databases, but optimized for different tasks and slightly different semantics. The same behaviors can be achieved with both; it is a matter of design bias, not capability. File systems like ZFS actually converge on normal MVCC database behavior, which durably journals all writes but with more flexibility with respect to atomicity and version cleanup than a file system. File system semantics, even versioning ones, are more primitive and less capable than database ones, but with substantially increased performance over what would be possible from an MVCC database for the same task.
Same theory, different optimizations. The balancing act has always been between the power fully ACID-compliant MVCC semantics and the basic speed of simple file system semantics. Apple and Sun are burning some excess performance capacity to deliver features that are closer to the database ideal.
Ahem, a modern relational database system can do everything a file system can. In fact, they are both databases, but optimized for different tasks and slightly different semantics. The same behaviors can be achieved with both; it is a matter of design bias, not capability. File systems like ZFS actually converge on normal MVCC database behavior, which durably journals all writes but with more flexibility with respect to atomicity and version cleanup than a file system. File system semantics, even versioning ones, are more primitive and less capable than database ones, but with substantially increased performance over what would be possible from an MVCC database for the same task.
Same theory, different optimizations. The balancing act has always been between the power fully ACID-compliant MVCC semantics and the basic speed of simple file system semantics. Apple and Sun are burning some excess performance capacity to deliver features that are closer to the database ideal.
shamino
Jul 22, 12:18 PM
So I read in this thread that Kentsfield and Clovertown ARE compatible with Conroe and Woodcrest sockets (respectively) (Cloverton or Clovertown?)
Well, people here have mentioned it. I haven't seen any sources for these claims, however.
It's worth noting that the Pentium 4 shipped in several different socket packages over the years. The fact that the cores might be electrically compatible does not necessarily mean you're going to be able to perform a chip-swap upgrade on your Mac!
Hope for upgrading an iMac to Quad Core is kindled! At least if Apple releases Conroe iMacs.
And assuming they don't solder the chip to the motherboard, or hardwire the clock-multiplier chips, or hard-wire the voltage regulator settings, etc.
There are a lot of things that can be done to a motherboard to make these kinds of upgrades painful or even impossible.
With any kind of rumor like this, "I'll believe it when I see it" should be your mantra. Sure, these kinds of upgrades would be great, and it may even be possible to perform them on generic PC motherbaords, but this doesn't necessarily mean it will be easy or even possible on the systems Apple ends up shipping.
BTW, In my opinion, one thing a person should never, ever say is some computer has too much power, and that it will never be needed.
"Never" is always too strong a word. But there are plenty of good reasons to say "useless for today's applications" or "not worth the cost".
When applications start demanding more, and when costs come down, then the equations change. As they always do.
When we will be able to download our entire lives, and even conciousness into a computer, as is said to happen in about 40 years (very much looking forward to)...
You're looking forward to this? Let's hope for your sake that Microsoft has nothing to do with the system software.
I don't think it will be possible, even in 40 years, despite what sci-fi authors are predicting. And there's no way I'd ever have such a system installed even if it would be come possible. The possibility of dying or becoming comatose, or even worse, as a result of a software glitch is something I'm not going to allow. To quote McCoy from Star Trek: "Let's see how it scrambles your molecules first."
So as a conclusion to my most recent rant, Please, never tell me a computer is too powerfu, has too many cores, or has too much storage capacity. If it is there to be used, it will be used. It always is.
But do you want to be the first person to have to pay for it?
Well, people here have mentioned it. I haven't seen any sources for these claims, however.
It's worth noting that the Pentium 4 shipped in several different socket packages over the years. The fact that the cores might be electrically compatible does not necessarily mean you're going to be able to perform a chip-swap upgrade on your Mac!
Hope for upgrading an iMac to Quad Core is kindled! At least if Apple releases Conroe iMacs.
And assuming they don't solder the chip to the motherboard, or hardwire the clock-multiplier chips, or hard-wire the voltage regulator settings, etc.
There are a lot of things that can be done to a motherboard to make these kinds of upgrades painful or even impossible.
With any kind of rumor like this, "I'll believe it when I see it" should be your mantra. Sure, these kinds of upgrades would be great, and it may even be possible to perform them on generic PC motherbaords, but this doesn't necessarily mean it will be easy or even possible on the systems Apple ends up shipping.
BTW, In my opinion, one thing a person should never, ever say is some computer has too much power, and that it will never be needed.
"Never" is always too strong a word. But there are plenty of good reasons to say "useless for today's applications" or "not worth the cost".
When applications start demanding more, and when costs come down, then the equations change. As they always do.
When we will be able to download our entire lives, and even conciousness into a computer, as is said to happen in about 40 years (very much looking forward to)...
You're looking forward to this? Let's hope for your sake that Microsoft has nothing to do with the system software.
I don't think it will be possible, even in 40 years, despite what sci-fi authors are predicting. And there's no way I'd ever have such a system installed even if it would be come possible. The possibility of dying or becoming comatose, or even worse, as a result of a software glitch is something I'm not going to allow. To quote McCoy from Star Trek: "Let's see how it scrambles your molecules first."
So as a conclusion to my most recent rant, Please, never tell me a computer is too powerfu, has too many cores, or has too much storage capacity. If it is there to be used, it will be used. It always is.
But do you want to be the first person to have to pay for it?
Silentwave
Jul 14, 07:55 PM
Personally I go the BTO route at Apple.com for my PowerMacs and downgrade all RAM to the minimum cost and buy my RAM from a trusted 3rd party vendor for a savings of at least 10% if not more so.
sounds like a plan for me too. I just hope the prices drop soon and the selection gets a bit better :(
http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.asp?Submit=ENE&N=2010170147+1052121731&Subcategory=147&description=&srchInDesc=&minPrice=&maxPrice=
sounds like a plan for me too. I just hope the prices drop soon and the selection gets a bit better :(
http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.asp?Submit=ENE&N=2010170147+1052121731&Subcategory=147&description=&srchInDesc=&minPrice=&maxPrice=
Horst
Aug 28, 10:49 AM
Just my 0.02 regarding Apple's customer service :
I buy Apple computers in the hope never to need any support by the manufacturer. Two times I had issues ( broken hinge on TiBook, 1st. gen. ACD 23" with severe color tint ) and Apple wouldn't even acknowledge such a problem exists. Needless to say, those faults are well documented as inherent design flaws of the products mentioned.
That's Apple Germany, mind you - I would never even try to contact Apple US for possible issues with the computers I bought and use over there, as customer protection in the US is virtually non-existent.
I'm a professional user, and received exceptional online and phone support by other companies for 300$ products, but no service whatsoever for 20k+ of Apple products.
I know Apple is not catering to pros, but still ....
I buy Apple computers in the hope never to need any support by the manufacturer. Two times I had issues ( broken hinge on TiBook, 1st. gen. ACD 23" with severe color tint ) and Apple wouldn't even acknowledge such a problem exists. Needless to say, those faults are well documented as inherent design flaws of the products mentioned.
That's Apple Germany, mind you - I would never even try to contact Apple US for possible issues with the computers I bought and use over there, as customer protection in the US is virtually non-existent.
I'm a professional user, and received exceptional online and phone support by other companies for 300$ products, but no service whatsoever for 20k+ of Apple products.
I know Apple is not catering to pros, but still ....
Popeye206
Apr 11, 12:44 PM
If true, this means that Apple has raised the white flag and accepted the defeat that Android has given to them. Not caring about the power of the hardware relative to others in the marketplace is a hallmark of a niche ecosystem.
Welcome to obscurity Apple - Population You
LOL! You kill me! Either you have a tremendous amount of sarcasm or you really lost and don't see the bigger picture.
BTW... do you just want a Android only choice? And for real... packing features in a product does not make it good. There's something to be said for good design, overall usability and product longevity.
What do you think Apple should do? Just whip out models of new iPhones like Moto, HTC and others do as they all compete against themselves at no margin? How long do you think that is going to last before there are casualties?
Don't get me wrong... Android has done well, but I would guess most of the market share they are gaining is not from Apple, but from Blackberry, Microsoft, and Symbian based devices. They are the ones who need to toss in the white flag.
Welcome to obscurity Apple - Population You
LOL! You kill me! Either you have a tremendous amount of sarcasm or you really lost and don't see the bigger picture.
BTW... do you just want a Android only choice? And for real... packing features in a product does not make it good. There's something to be said for good design, overall usability and product longevity.
What do you think Apple should do? Just whip out models of new iPhones like Moto, HTC and others do as they all compete against themselves at no margin? How long do you think that is going to last before there are casualties?
Don't get me wrong... Android has done well, but I would guess most of the market share they are gaining is not from Apple, but from Blackberry, Microsoft, and Symbian based devices. They are the ones who need to toss in the white flag.
amin
Sep 14, 10:53 PM
I have noticed this emphasis as well; not being an expert on this issue myself though, would you care to shed light on how their coverage is an exaggeration and why we shouldn't be worried about it?
I am no expert, and I am not denying that this issue matters. However, I see no cause for concern unless someone provides some decent evidence that it matters. It strikes me as odd that they (at AnandTech) put so much emphasis on explaining the theory behind a "problem" without making any competent effort at illustrating an example of the problem. When you go to configure a Mac Pro, the Apple page says the following about memory: "Mac Pro uses 667MHz DDR2 fully buffered ECC memory, a new industry-standard memory technology that allows for more memory capacity, higher speeds, and better reliability. To take full advantage of the 256-bit wide memory architecture, four or more FB-DIMMs should be installed in Mac Pro." Yet AnandTech chose a 1GB x 2 RAM arrangement to compare the Core 2 Extreme and Xeon processors. Using this setup, which effectively cripples the Mac Pro memory system, they find it to be at worst 10% slower than the Conroe Extreme (in a single non real world usage benchmark). Meanwhile in any comparison that utilizes the four cores, the quad Xeon whoops ass by a large margin.
I am no expert, and I am not denying that this issue matters. However, I see no cause for concern unless someone provides some decent evidence that it matters. It strikes me as odd that they (at AnandTech) put so much emphasis on explaining the theory behind a "problem" without making any competent effort at illustrating an example of the problem. When you go to configure a Mac Pro, the Apple page says the following about memory: "Mac Pro uses 667MHz DDR2 fully buffered ECC memory, a new industry-standard memory technology that allows for more memory capacity, higher speeds, and better reliability. To take full advantage of the 256-bit wide memory architecture, four or more FB-DIMMs should be installed in Mac Pro." Yet AnandTech chose a 1GB x 2 RAM arrangement to compare the Core 2 Extreme and Xeon processors. Using this setup, which effectively cripples the Mac Pro memory system, they find it to be at worst 10% slower than the Conroe Extreme (in a single non real world usage benchmark). Meanwhile in any comparison that utilizes the four cores, the quad Xeon whoops ass by a large margin.
dgree03
Apr 6, 03:58 PM
1. Have you seen how those apps "scale" on XOOM? That doesn't make them optimized for tablets, just fit more screen space and even that doesn't work that well.
2. Bull.
YOU apparently havent seen how apps scale first hand. Like i said ill take that over x1, x2 ANY day.
Scale?? Access to each other??
I'm beginning to wonder if you have ever used EITHER iOS or Android.
HAHA, Yes I own a XOOM and a Ipad 2(previously Ipad 1).
YOU apparently havent used either at any length.
My point still stands, I can use less apps to accomplish the same goals on a XOOM than i can on a Ipad.
If you have any other first hand usage that proves me wrong.. go for it.
2. Bull.
YOU apparently havent seen how apps scale first hand. Like i said ill take that over x1, x2 ANY day.
Scale?? Access to each other??
I'm beginning to wonder if you have ever used EITHER iOS or Android.
HAHA, Yes I own a XOOM and a Ipad 2(previously Ipad 1).
YOU apparently havent used either at any length.
My point still stands, I can use less apps to accomplish the same goals on a XOOM than i can on a Ipad.
If you have any other first hand usage that proves me wrong.. go for it.
greenstork
Aug 16, 11:21 PM
Video cards won't make a difference in FCP as of now if that's what you are asking performance wise. If you are using Motion/Games, anything that really feeds off the video card, then I'd go for the higher end video card.
Otherwise I'd go for the 2.6 ghz.
If Cloverton is a drop-in chip, I'd say definitely go for the 2.0 GHz as it appears to be upgradeable.
Otherwise I'd go for the 2.6 ghz.
If Cloverton is a drop-in chip, I'd say definitely go for the 2.0 GHz as it appears to be upgradeable.
wmmk
Aug 17, 09:37 AM
Won't Adobe use Core Image when the Universal Binaries come out? If both Quads had the same high powered graphics card, the benchmarks may show them to be the same with Core Image tasks.
doubt it. because having core image would mean a totally seperate windows version. developing 2 totally different codebases would take forever.
doubt it. because having core image would mean a totally seperate windows version. developing 2 totally different codebases would take forever.
ClimbingTheLog
Jul 20, 12:56 PM
Anyone else think this is getting out of hand? Two cores, great improvement. Four cores, ehh it's faster but Joe can't tell. Eight cores, now thats just stupid.
Let me guess it will only come with 512mb of Ram :p (ok it will be at least a GB).
Have you ever owned a machine that hasn't been CPU bound? I know I haven't.
you need to do your math better, extra core = 1.5x - 1.8x speed increase. but still the same power usage as a normal core!
Where do you get these magical free electrons to drive the second core? That's some fancy silicon that uses 0W.
eight cores + Tiger = Octopussy?!?
Even Apple isn't that cool. Alas, I fear "Mac Pro 8x3.2"
How fast do you want mail to go? The main reasons you need good processors is not for browsing, e-mail, text, and such and such. I highly doubt someone who does all these things on a five year old computer will be much slower than someone on a 16 GB RAM top of the line Powermac
Have you ever done a search on a large volume of mail with AppleMail? That can eat my CPU for hours on a large IMAP mailstore on a 1.5 year old Mac. How about using Firefox with a number of useful extensions? CPU pegged for minutes when loading up the day's news stories from my RSS reader, and that's with a 2-year old Mac.
Bring the speed.
Let me guess it will only come with 512mb of Ram :p (ok it will be at least a GB).
Have you ever owned a machine that hasn't been CPU bound? I know I haven't.
you need to do your math better, extra core = 1.5x - 1.8x speed increase. but still the same power usage as a normal core!
Where do you get these magical free electrons to drive the second core? That's some fancy silicon that uses 0W.
eight cores + Tiger = Octopussy?!?
Even Apple isn't that cool. Alas, I fear "Mac Pro 8x3.2"
How fast do you want mail to go? The main reasons you need good processors is not for browsing, e-mail, text, and such and such. I highly doubt someone who does all these things on a five year old computer will be much slower than someone on a 16 GB RAM top of the line Powermac
Have you ever done a search on a large volume of mail with AppleMail? That can eat my CPU for hours on a large IMAP mailstore on a 1.5 year old Mac. How about using Firefox with a number of useful extensions? CPU pegged for minutes when loading up the day's news stories from my RSS reader, and that's with a 2-year old Mac.
Bring the speed.
ro2nie
Aug 27, 08:43 PM
I think im gonna wait and buy in 2007 with leopard and iLife 07 :rolleyes:
Burger King
Apr 27, 08:56 AM
Keeping a log of nearby locations I've been around, is by proxy, logging my location. If they keep a record of the towers my phone and iPad have linked to, and the locations of these towers are fixed and known, then Apple is in effect tracking my location in this linking.
I think it was not a bug, nut data waiting to be sent to Apple for profit generating purposes.
You really need to get a dumb phone............oh wait.....the NSA will still be able to log every conversation, text and yes your location..........
Either get rid of your phone or quit being such a whiner
I think it was not a bug, nut data waiting to be sent to Apple for profit generating purposes.
You really need to get a dumb phone............oh wait.....the NSA will still be able to log every conversation, text and yes your location..........
Either get rid of your phone or quit being such a whiner
MacBoobsPro
Jul 20, 09:40 AM
Well next time say what you mean. It makes more sense. ;)
I did but instead of saying core at the end I said processor :D Which is the same thing so i didnt think it would matter. :p
I did but instead of saying core at the end I said processor :D Which is the same thing so i didnt think it would matter. :p
relimw
Sep 13, 01:00 PM
A bit pointless given that no software utilises the extra cores yet. But nice to know, I guess.
Hehe, everybody else cited you, I suppose I will as well.
It's not that those cores won't be used. The average Joe user won't need them, it won't help you type letters any faster, and it'll do very little to help you websurf any faster (unless people keep putting bloat-ware browsers out there).
What it will help with, is people using HPC apps (BLAST comes to mind), or multi-threaded apps.
Hehe, everybody else cited you, I suppose I will as well.
It's not that those cores won't be used. The average Joe user won't need them, it won't help you type letters any faster, and it'll do very little to help you websurf any faster (unless people keep putting bloat-ware browsers out there).
What it will help with, is people using HPC apps (BLAST comes to mind), or multi-threaded apps.
NoSmokingBandit
Dec 4, 09:15 PM
I feel like a little cheating girl, but i turned on the skid recovery thing for the Lambo race in the Italy tour. I really wish i could do it without being a wimp, but its just not worth the frustration for me. I'll have to try the Alfa Romeo time trial with the skid thing on and see how that helps me.
There needs to be more snow rally races. The beginner snow rally is the most fun i've had in the game so far. Its just perfect in every way.
There needs to be more snow rally races. The beginner snow rally is the most fun i've had in the game so far. Its just perfect in every way.
ergle2
Sep 13, 01:58 PM
The only limit with Windows is they keep the low end XP home to 2 processors on the same die. There is probably an architectural limit on both OSX and XP and if it's not 8 it's 16. It's probably 8.
There's a bunch of HP Superdome 64-way Itanium systems around running Windows Server mostly for MS SQL work.
Windows XP 64bit is based on the same core. Given the license is per-socket, not per-processor (currently, anyway) and the Pro editions support two sockets, it should in theory support the 8-way setup as described by Anandtech.
Whether it recognises quad-core CPUs as such may of course be a different matter.
There's a bunch of HP Superdome 64-way Itanium systems around running Windows Server mostly for MS SQL work.
Windows XP 64bit is based on the same core. Given the license is per-socket, not per-processor (currently, anyway) and the Pro editions support two sockets, it should in theory support the 8-way setup as described by Anandtech.
Whether it recognises quad-core CPUs as such may of course be a different matter.
gnasher729
Apr 27, 08:59 AM
You mean to tell me that Apple, a company that seems to release fairly solid software, "neglected" to test that when disabling an option called LOCATION SERVICES, that it actually disabled location checking properly? Are some of you really so Jobsian?
Call a spade a spade. There's no possible chance this was a mistake. They got caught. They should not be given a pass over it. If a user opts to disable Location Services, they were working under the false impression that their location was no longer being tracked. Seems mighty shifty to me. Doesn't matter how much data might have been user-identifiable. This sounds like something Google would do, not Apple.
You can think what you want. I develop software for a living. This file is not a "feature", and it isn't and never was present intentionally to store your location data. It is a very, very useful collection of data that in some situations makes your phone work faster and save power. Location Services are disabled when you disable them, and enabled when you enable them. Whoever tested this was testing exactly that: That Location Services does its best to find your location when it is enabled, and that it absolutely refuses to look for your location when it is disabled. That's what enabling/disabling location services means. Nobody at Apple ever cared about this file. It wasn't on anyone's radar before people had their paranoia attack.
This file recorded locations of WiFi and cell towers, but only the last time that you have been at each place. Exactly what is needed to improve Location Services. All your history, which would have been much more useful to track you, is deleted. Your actual location, which is known to your phone, and which would have been much more useful to track you, is deleted. All because it didn't serve the purpose of this file, which isn't and never was to track you.
Call a spade a spade. There's no possible chance this was a mistake. They got caught. They should not be given a pass over it. If a user opts to disable Location Services, they were working under the false impression that their location was no longer being tracked. Seems mighty shifty to me. Doesn't matter how much data might have been user-identifiable. This sounds like something Google would do, not Apple.
You can think what you want. I develop software for a living. This file is not a "feature", and it isn't and never was present intentionally to store your location data. It is a very, very useful collection of data that in some situations makes your phone work faster and save power. Location Services are disabled when you disable them, and enabled when you enable them. Whoever tested this was testing exactly that: That Location Services does its best to find your location when it is enabled, and that it absolutely refuses to look for your location when it is disabled. That's what enabling/disabling location services means. Nobody at Apple ever cared about this file. It wasn't on anyone's radar before people had their paranoia attack.
This file recorded locations of WiFi and cell towers, but only the last time that you have been at each place. Exactly what is needed to improve Location Services. All your history, which would have been much more useful to track you, is deleted. Your actual location, which is known to your phone, and which would have been much more useful to track you, is deleted. All because it didn't serve the purpose of this file, which isn't and never was to track you.
starflyer
Mar 23, 09:30 AM
So you don't understand the primary differences between the cellphone market and the launch of the iPhone and the tablet market and the launch of the iPad. If you did you would understand why this is not the case.
Exactly. What people fail to realize is that the iPad market is more comparable to the iPod Touch then the iPhone for which there still isn't any competition.
Exactly. What people fail to realize is that the iPad market is more comparable to the iPod Touch then the iPhone for which there still isn't any competition.
BlondeBuddhist
Jun 10, 12:37 PM
When I talked to the rep at The Shack 2 days ago he told me to keep checking back for what time they'll be open on launch day. He said there is a good chance I'll know when I pre-orer the 15th.
As far as how many non pre-order phones they plan to have, he told me they will likely have as many stock phones as they get pre-ordered. Doesn't apply to those pre-ordering as much as those hitting up RS for shorter lines that didn't pre-order.
I wonder if they will allow me to pay in full on the 15th as oppose to the $50 down payment. Either way I hope this helps Radio Shack out. I have been treated 100X better by the staff there compared to Best Buy OR AT&T. Plus they're prices seem better. When I was there asking about the pre-orders I purchased a car charger/cord to plug my ipod in to the glove box that runs thru the deck for only $37 with tax.
Blonde Buddhist
As far as how many non pre-order phones they plan to have, he told me they will likely have as many stock phones as they get pre-ordered. Doesn't apply to those pre-ordering as much as those hitting up RS for shorter lines that didn't pre-order.
I wonder if they will allow me to pay in full on the 15th as oppose to the $50 down payment. Either way I hope this helps Radio Shack out. I have been treated 100X better by the staff there compared to Best Buy OR AT&T. Plus they're prices seem better. When I was there asking about the pre-orders I purchased a car charger/cord to plug my ipod in to the glove box that runs thru the deck for only $37 with tax.
Blonde Buddhist
Eraserhead
Mar 1, 04:52 PM
^^ Well maybe, but the Obama administration doesn't believe that law is constitutional.
xxBURT0Nxx
Apr 7, 09:26 AM
ok don't be as ass! back-lit keyboard on the 13' but not the 11' would be heartbreaking for those of us who wants the 11 and will make the decision making between the two even harder..
yes posting DREAM spec's for a machine that he really knows absolutely nothing about makes him an ass because it is not your dream spec sheet:confused: some people these days... smh:rolleyes:
yes posting DREAM spec's for a machine that he really knows absolutely nothing about makes him an ass because it is not your dream spec sheet:confused: some people these days... smh:rolleyes:
asiayeah
Aug 25, 09:16 PM
It seems like a preponderance of the issues people have are with the notebooks.
Do you think it could be because Apple has the thinnest laptops on the market which means they sacrifice build quality and heat management?
When I looked at the innards of an iBook G3 it was basically "a mess" in there...nothing looked modular like you would see inside the new Mac pro.
Apple doesn't has the thinnest laptops on the market.
Do you think it could be because Apple has the thinnest laptops on the market which means they sacrifice build quality and heat management?
When I looked at the innards of an iBook G3 it was basically "a mess" in there...nothing looked modular like you would see inside the new Mac pro.
Apple doesn't has the thinnest laptops on the market.
cecildk9999
Nov 28, 07:30 PM
I agree with pretty much everyone else here; this royalty notion won't fly with Apple being (for once) in the dominant market position. If Universal pulls their music/content, it'll all be downloaded illegally, since the Zune isn't about to replace the iPod as the must-have 'cool' item (even if Zune marketplace does offer the Universal catalog). Universal just wants Apple to throw them a bone.