Help? I-pad doesn't work?
StrandElectric
manual however brief? How arrogant! When I switch it on, it briefly shows
an I-tunes icon and then switches itself off!
Any suggestions?
Lu Powell
"StrandElectric" wrote in message news:4d7ff558$1...@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
David Fritzinger
The iPad needs to be connected to a computer that has iTunes on it.
This allows you to activate the iPad, register it with Apple, etc.
After that has been done, it should act normally.
StrandElectric
"Lu Powell" <lupo...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:DESfp.136152$4c7....@newsfe06.iad...
StrandElectric
"David Fritzinger" <dfri...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:30feda21-2166-4d4c...@w9g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
Charles
<Strand@dummyspit> wrote:
> Thanks David. I do not have an Apple computer.
It does not have to be an Apple computer. You do need iTunes which runs
Windows or Mac.
--
Charles
David Empson
You don't need one. iTunes is available for Windows as well.
http://www.apple.com/itunes/download/
--
David Empson
dem...@actrix.gen.nz
George Kerby
On 3/15/11 7:31 PM, in article 4d8004de$1...@dnews.tpgi.com.au,
"StrandElectric" <Strand@dummyspit> wrote:
Plug it in to your 'puter so it can sync with your iTunes.
Follow the instructions from there. Simple!
George Kerby
On 3/15/11 9:01 PM, in article
150320112101192138%fo...@his.com.remove.invalid, "Charles"
<fo...@his.com.remove.invalid> wrote:
What he said.
StrandElectric
because there was no valid secrutiy certificate'.
"David Empson" <dem...@actrix.gen.nz> wrote in message
news:1jy86pe.1dqi4lt1sgajojN%dem...@actrix.gen.nz...
bj
> Tried that David, but after the site loaded, my XP o/s simply said 'blocked
> because there was no valid secrutiy certificate'.
>
I run iTunes on XP w/o any problem.
I have no idea why you'd be having a problem, unless it's something to do
w/ anti-virus/spyware/malware programs or your firewall settings.
bj
Allistar
Yes, it has to be Windows or Mac. Sucks for those that use some flavour of
Linux.
--
A.
David Empson
> Tried that David, but after the site loaded, my XP o/s simply said 'blocked
> because there was no valid secrutiy certificate'.
I assume you got that after clicking the Download button? iTunes is
downloaded via a secure HTTP link (from swdlp.apple.com), but there is
no secure connection required prior to that point.
Are you at least running Windows XP with service pack 2 or later
installed? (You must be running SP2 or later to use iTunes.)
Which web browser were you using (name and version number)?
I See
Erilar
--
Erilar, biblioholic medievalist with iPad
Fred Moore
"StrandElectric" <Strand@dummyspit> wrote:
If all else fails, you can take it to the Apple Store to activate it.
They can also give you tips on loading iTunes on your Windows machine.
Manuals are here: <http://support.apple.com/manuals/#ipad>
Get the one for the version you have.
(BTW, please don't top post. This is Usenet not personal email. We like
to try to follow the trail logically if possible. Thanks.)
Davoud
> Yes, it has to be Windows or Mac. Sucks for those that use some flavour of
> Linux.
But they knew when they chose Linux as your desktop operating system
that they would be denied the vast majority of high-quality desktop
software--all of Adobe, Apple, Microsoft, and countless others.
Is that not why Linux has 1% of the desktop market and is not growing
in the general computing market?
Anyway, who needs iTunes? Just consider the tons of great server
applications, command-line text editors, and, of course, The Exalted
Gimp, all for free.
Davoud
--
I agree with almost everything that you have said and almost everything that
you will say in your entire life.
usenet *at* davidillig dawt cawm
Allistar
> Allistar:
>> Yes, it has to be Windows or Mac. Sucks for those that use some flavour
>> of Linux.
>
> But they knew when they chose Linux as your desktop operating system
> that they would be denied the vast majority of high-quality desktop
> software--all of Adobe, Apple, Microsoft, and countless others.
It's a bit of false advertising though as when you buy a iOS device it's ot
made clear up front that you need to have either a Windows or a Mac. If you
do not then you have to go out and spend more money on one of those OSes
(and hardware) or borrow someone else's to do iTunes syncing.
Ideally iOS devices could sync without requiring a particular OS.
> Is that not why Linux has 1% of the desktop market and is not growing
> in the general computing market?
I can't comment on that, I don't really care who else uses it.
> Anyway, who needs iTunes? Just consider the tons of great server
> applications, command-line text editors, and, of course, The Exalted
> Gimp, all for free.
Price has nothing to do with why some people (like me) choose Linux.
--
A.
nospam
<m...@hiddenaddress.com> wrote:
> >> Yes, it has to be Windows or Mac. Sucks for those that use some flavour
> >> of Linux.
> >
> > But they knew when they chose Linux as your desktop operating system
> > that they would be denied the vast majority of high-quality desktop
> > software--all of Adobe, Apple, Microsoft, and countless others.
>
> It's a bit of false advertising though as when you buy a iOS device it's ot
> made clear up front that you need to have either a Windows or a Mac.
it's very clear. there is no false advertising whatsoever.
<http://www.apple.com/ipad/specs/>
Mac System Requirements
* Mac computer with USB 2.0 port
* Mac OS X v10.5.8 or later
* iTunes 10.2 or later recommended
(free download from www.itunes.com/download)
* iTunes Store account
* Internet access
Windows System Requirements
* PC with USB 2.0 port
* Windows 7; Windows Vista; or Windows XP Home or Professional
with Service Pack 3 or later
* iTunes 10.2 or later recommended
(free download from www.itunes.com/download)
* iTunes Store account
* Internet access
> If you
> do not then you have to go out and spend more money on one of those OSes
> (and hardware) or borrow someone else's to do iTunes syncing.
almost everyone already has either (or both).
> Ideally iOS devices could sync without requiring a particular OS.
we don't live in a perfect world. the fact remains that there aren't
enough linux or other os users to support it.
> > Is that not why Linux has 1% of the desktop market and is not growing
> > in the general computing market?
>
> I can't comment on that, I don't really care who else uses it.
>
> > Anyway, who needs iTunes? Just consider the tons of great server
> > applications, command-line text editors, and, of course, The Exalted
> > Gimp, all for free.
>
> Price has nothing to do with why some people (like me) choose Linux.
whatever the reason is, a linux user must accept the fact that a *lot*
of software does not exist for linux.
Carl Heinz
>whatever the reason is, a linux user must accept the fact that a *lot*
>of software does not exist for linux.
A number folks I know have linux on dual boot machines.
--
Carl Heinz
cfhe...@charter.net
(Remove number)
nospam
<cfhe...@charter.net> wrote:
> >whatever the reason is, a linux user must accept the fact that a *lot*
> >of software does not exist for linux.
>
> A number folks I know have linux on dual boot machines.
because there is less support for linux.
Carl Heinz
Agree, but they can have both linux and another OS which supports iOS.
I've also seen at least one instance where linux was used solely for servers.
(And, no, I don't use linux. I'm too old and lazy to go beyond my comfort
level.)
Jolly Roger
Carl Heinz <cfhe...@charter.net> wrote:
> On Wed, 16 Mar 2011 18:56:04 -0800, nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>
> >In article <3ef2o699kj9u4seun...@4ax.com>, Carl Heinz
> ><cfhe...@charter.net> wrote:
> >
> >> >whatever the reason is, a linux user must accept the fact that a *lot*
> >> >of software does not exist for linux.
> >>
> >> A number folks I know have linux on dual boot machines.
> >
> >because there is less support for linux.
>
> Agree, but they can have both linux and another OS which supports iOS.
IMO, there is virtually no need for Linux since Mac OS X has a BSD
sublayer built in.
--
Send responses to the relevant news group rather than email to me.
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my very hungry SPAM
filter. Due to Google's refusal to prevent spammers from posting
messages through their servers, I often ignore posts from Google
Groups. Use a real news client if you want me to see your posts.
JR
Erilar
> In article <JuOdnc_J4v__kxzQ...@giganews.com>,
> Allistar <m...@hiddenaddress.com> wrote:
>
>> It's a bit of false advertising though as when you buy a iOS device it's ot
>> made clear up front that you need to have either a Windows or a Mac.
>
> you buy it on line from the Apple Store web site, there's a link for tech
> specs. (I'm sure than any *nix geek would look at the tech specs out of
> curiosity if for no other reason.) The specs list Windows and Mac OS
> system requirements; they make no mention of any other OS. Furthermore,
> one of the requirements is iTunes 10.2.
I don't have 10.2. . . 8-).
>
> And, as been said, it's needed only for initial setup and for OS updates.
Davoud
> > But they knew when they chose Linux as your desktop operating system
> > that they would be denied the vast majority of high-quality desktop
> > software--all of Adobe, Apple, Microsoft, and countless others.
Allistar:
> It's a bit of false advertising though as when you buy a iOS device it's ot
> made clear up front that you need to have either a Windows or a Mac.
That is simply untrue. Apple's published specs, easily found on the
iPad page, make clear that iPad requires iTunes and that iTunes
requires Mac OS or Windows.
> If you do not then you have to go out and spend more money on one of those
> OSes (and hardware) or borrow someone else's to do iTunes syncing.
True. But you don't have to buy an iPad or other IOS thingie. Besides,
one who buys one of those bits of hardware (Mac), gets Unix and Mac OS
out of the box and it's easy enough to run install and run Windows
natively as well. Three computers for the price of one. There is
practically no desktop software on earth that it won't run.
> Ideally iOS devices could sync without requiring a particular OS.
Apple's market research shows that compiling one's own software is not
high on the list of desired features among iPad buyers.
As I said, you have your good reasons for using Linux, but you take the
baggage that goes with it--or should I say you leave behind the luggage
that it can't carry.
> Price has nothing to do with why some people (like me) choose Linux.
Really? When you could do everything you do with Linux, and much more,
with a Mac? It's not reasonable to stereotype, I know, but one often
finds that Linux and Windows are popular with people who know all about
cost and nothing about value.
Allistar
> Davoud:
>> > But they knew when they chose Linux as your desktop operating system
>> > that they would be denied the vast majority of high-quality desktop
>> > software--all of Adobe, Apple, Microsoft, and countless others.
>
> Allistar:
>> It's a bit of false advertising though as when you buy a iOS device it's
>> ot made clear up front that you need to have either a Windows or a Mac.
>
> That is simply untrue. Apple's published specs, easily found on the
> iPad page, make clear that iPad requires iTunes and that iTunes
> requires Mac OS or Windows.
That's a fair call - my mistake.
>> If you do not then you have to go out and spend more money on one of
>> those OSes (and hardware) or borrow someone else's to do iTunes syncing.
>
> True. But you don't have to buy an iPad or other IOS thingie. Besides,
> one who buys one of those bits of hardware (Mac), gets Unix and Mac OS
> out of the box and it's easy enough to run install and run Windows
> natively as well. Three computers for the price of one. There is
> practically no desktop software on earth that it won't run.
Sure - the point is that it would be nice to copy music or photos to an iPad
without requiring a wired connection to a Mac or Windows PC.
>> Ideally iOS devices could sync without requiring a particular OS.
>
> Apple's market research shows that compiling one's own software is not
> high on the list of desired features among iPad buyers.
I didn't know they specifically ask such a question in their research. Got a
cite?
> As I said, you have your good reasons for using Linux, but you take the
> baggage that goes with it--or should I say you leave behind the luggage
> that it can't carry.
Oh, but it carries plenty. I use it as my primary productivity operating
system and have run a business with it for the past 8 years.
>> Price has nothing to do with why some people (like me) choose Linux.
>
> Really? When you could do everything you do with Linux, and much more,
> with a Mac?
Yes, really. I prefer the power and control of Linux. I like that it's very
customisable and tunable.
> It's not reasonable to stereotype, I know, but one often
> finds that Linux and Windows are popular with people who know all about
> cost and nothing about value.
Perhaps, but for me personally cost is not relevant. Freedom and flexibility
is.
--
A.
nospam
<m...@hiddenaddress.com> wrote:
> >> If you do not then you have to go out and spend more money on one of
> >> those OSes (and hardware) or borrow someone else's to do iTunes syncing.
> >
> > True. But you don't have to buy an iPad or other IOS thingie. Besides,
> > one who buys one of those bits of hardware (Mac), gets Unix and Mac OS
> > out of the box and it's easy enough to run install and run Windows
> > natively as well. Three computers for the price of one. There is
> > practically no desktop software on earth that it won't run.
>
> Sure - the point is that it would be nice to copy music or photos to an iPad
> without requiring a wired connection to a Mac or Windows PC.
wireless sync is coming.
> >> Ideally iOS devices could sync without requiring a particular OS.
> >
> > Apple's market research shows that compiling one's own software is not
> > high on the list of desired features among iPad buyers.
>
> I didn't know they specifically ask such a question in their research. Got a
> cite?
it's not just ipad buyers. very few users have an interest in compiling
software in order to use their computer. they want to *use* their
computer to get work done, to surf the 'net, to play games or whatever
else they use it for. that's why linux has a tiny market share. it's
simply too much hassle, and with limited software support.
> > As I said, you have your good reasons for using Linux, but you take the
> > baggage that goes with it--or should I say you leave behind the luggage
> > that it can't carry.
>
> Oh, but it carries plenty. I use it as my primary productivity operating
> system and have run a business with it for the past 8 years.
it may carry plenty, but it carries less than either mac or windows
does. it may be enough for you, but it is *not* enough for most people.
for example, stuff like photoshop or final cut pro or even firmware
updaters for hardware devices require mac or windows.
> >> Price has nothing to do with why some people (like me) choose Linux.
> >
> > Really? When you could do everything you do with Linux, and much more,
> > with a Mac?
>
> Yes, really. I prefer the power and control of Linux. I like that it's very
> customisable and tunable.
so is os x and even windows.
> > It's not reasonable to stereotype, I know, but one often
> > finds that Linux and Windows are popular with people who know all about
> > cost and nothing about value.
>
> Perhaps, but for me personally cost is not relevant. Freedom and flexibility
> is.
that must be a new definition of freedom and flexibility. a mac can run
just about all linux software, along with mac software and windows
software, all natively. linux can't.
Davoud
> > Apple's market research shows that compiling one's own software is not
> > high on the list of desired features among iPad buyers.
>
> I didn't know they specifically ask such a question in their research. Got a
> cite?
They does not ask that question, of course. See figurative speech and
hyperbole. They don't need to. Something over 99% of users of desktop
computers choose machines that they can plug it in, turn it on, and
work with (after installing the anti-malware stuff if it's Windows).
> > As I said, you have your good reasons for using Linux, but you take the
> > baggage that goes with it--or should I say you leave behind the luggage
> > that it can't carry.
> Oh, but it carries plenty. I use it as my primary productivity operating
> system and have run a business with it for the past 8 years.
I am not in any way putting you down for your choice of Linux to run
your business. Who could legitimately criticize a person for using what
works for them?
Nonetheless, Linux is not a general-purpose desktop OS, and you have
run into that fact with IOS devices. You would also run into it if you
needed to us almost any mainstream commercial application. The photo
editors, the music production software, the video editing
software--none of these has a professional-level Linux version.
> > Really? When you could do everything you do with Linux, and much more,
> > with a Mac?
> Yes, really. I prefer the power and control of Linux. I like that it's
> very customisable and tunable.
And Unix is not? Just asking, because have been running certain
scientific software (astronomy) under Unix on my Mac. I was not aware
that Linux was more customizable and flexible than other Unix versions.
Lately I have been pulling back from the Unix software because the
developers don't keep up with what is available for Mac OS and Windows.
> Perhaps, but for me personally cost is not relevant. Freedom and
> flexibility is.
Hard to argue with that, as well. Your notion of freedom and
flexibility is indisputably correct for you, but it simply differs from
mine. A machine that is running Unix and Mac OS simultaneously out of
the box, that also runs Windows natively as an option, that can run
virtually any desktop computer application extant--all that you run and
far more--that's /my/ notion of freedom and flexibility!
Erilar
>
> Yes, really. I prefer the power and control of Linux. I like that it's very
> customisable and tunable.
That ties to one of my complaints about certain software upgrades. I could
customize ClarisWorks to suit myself. I lost a lot of that control with
AppleWorks 6. I lost even more control and a useful draw program as well
with Pages, but upgrading the OS forced me into tighter and tighter
straightjackets. I certainly understand your viewpoint, even though it
goes beyond what I could handle 8-)
Davoud
> > Yes, really. I prefer the power and control of Linux. I like that it's very
> > customisable and tunable.
Erilar wrote:
> That ties to one of my complaints about certain software upgrades. I could
> customize ClarisWorks to suit myself. I lost a lot of that control with
> AppleWorks 6. I lost even more control and a useful draw program as well
> with Pages, but upgrading the OS forced me into tighter and tighter
> straightjackets. I certainly understand your viewpoint, even though it
> goes beyond what I could handle 8-)
If you did not consider moving away from using only Apple's low-end
software then you put the straightjacket on yourself. When Apple moved
away from a decent low-end vector drawing application I moved on as
well, to Adobe Illustrator. Perfect? Not by a country mile. But it is
very good and I find it easier to get good results with this pro-level
software than with Apple's now-abandoned low-end stuff. YMMV. There are
other vector graphics applications for the Mac, as well, but I haven't
tried them.
Erilar
> Allistar:
>>> Yes, really. I prefer the power and control of Linux. I like that it's very
>>> customisable and tunable.
>
> Erilar wrote:
>> That ties to one of my complaints about certain software upgrades. I could
>> customize ClarisWorks to suit myself. I lost a lot of that control with
>> AppleWorks 6. I lost even more control and a useful draw program as well
>> with Pages, but upgrading the OS forced me into tighter and tighter
>> straightjackets. I certainly understand your viewpoint, even though it
>> goes beyond what I could handle 8-)
>
> If you did not consider moving away from using only Apple's low-end
> software then you put the straightjacket on yourself. When Apple moved
> away from a decent low-end vector drawing application I moved on as
> well, to Adobe Illustrator. Perfect? Not by a country mile. But it is
> very good and I find it easier to get good results with this pro-level
> software than with Apple's now-abandoned low-end stuff. YMMV. There are
> other vector graphics applications for the Mac, as well, but I haven't
> tried them.
Oh, I know there are better separate programs out there. What I liked
about Apple's pre-Pages programs was that I had integrated word-processing
and useful draw programs and could switch between them with a single click.
The silly little collection of "shapes" in Pages is 95% useless. I'm
pretty well stuck in the Apple rut because I can at least open older
documents with minimal hassle there.