Gasu E.
Mar 29, 02:53 PM
Yes, didnt you know?
Every country outside the US lives in poverty, where families must raise 17 children to send them out to work, and must fight to the death over food.
Oh, I had forgotten about all that. Thanks!
Every country outside the US lives in poverty, where families must raise 17 children to send them out to work, and must fight to the death over food.
Oh, I had forgotten about all that. Thanks!
commonpeople
Jul 30, 12:21 AM
As a photo geek I would have to disagree with you here. I don't believe myself that the lens quality for something so small would be good enough, and I especially don't believe that the sensors @ 5mp that small would be up to it. You'd have ridiculous amounts of noise in almost any photo, and optical aberrations would be easily picked up. Pixel density would be incredible. They have trouble getting good performance out of 6mp sensors that are several times as large as the one that would be here, and lenses on those same point and shoot digital cameras often will show massive amounts of chromatic aberrations particularly around strong light sources and highlight-shadow transitions even with lenses that are many many times larger.
You would also probably not have a real zoom.
This is all speculation on my part, but based on the price points of the best point and shoots, to get decent performance out of a cell camera that small and with that much resolution, you'd have to pay a huge price tag.
Given the quality (sic) of iSight, I'm not sure that Apple is going to make a camera phone that will satisfy you. Come back in 30 years and we'll see.
You would also probably not have a real zoom.
This is all speculation on my part, but based on the price points of the best point and shoots, to get decent performance out of a cell camera that small and with that much resolution, you'd have to pay a huge price tag.
Given the quality (sic) of iSight, I'm not sure that Apple is going to make a camera phone that will satisfy you. Come back in 30 years and we'll see.
Eldiablojoe
May 4, 08:44 PM
Can you give the non-storybook reason for why he died and what actually happened?
I get that we encountered a monster, and via a random.org assignment, the monster took his 1HP/1AP and took out Wilmer. Rhon then attacked the 1 HP/0AP monster and vanquished the goblin into eternity.
Anyhow, that's how I understand this just went down. FWIW.
Dante.
I get that we encountered a monster, and via a random.org assignment, the monster took his 1HP/1AP and took out Wilmer. Rhon then attacked the 1 HP/0AP monster and vanquished the goblin into eternity.
Anyhow, that's how I understand this just went down. FWIW.
Dante.
kingtj
Aug 2, 02:40 PM
Actually, my guess is that Apple/Jobs thinks the whole idea of banning cameras from PCs in the workplace is nonsense anyway. Being a bit of a trendsetter, Apple probably will go ahead and put them in all of their products so the majority who don't mind them will reap the benefits of no-hassle video teleconferencing and so forth.
Nowdays, it's so *easy* to build a digital camera into even the smallest, most discreet places, that it's pretty much uneforceable if you're going to dictate "no cameras" in a work environment of any sort. It's just like the places that no longer allow USB flash drives or iPods to be brought in, for fear someone will steal data and take it home. You can get a USB key built into a watch with retractable USB cable, or combo pens/USB flash drives. Do you think security guards at the door will really be on top of every possibility for those?
The *real* answer has always been to only hire employees you trust, and keep them happy and fairly paid for their work - so they don't have an interest in leaking out your company's secrets.
Any company requiring security clearance most likely will not allow them. Mine does not. It's based on the sensitivity of the environment.
Nowdays, it's so *easy* to build a digital camera into even the smallest, most discreet places, that it's pretty much uneforceable if you're going to dictate "no cameras" in a work environment of any sort. It's just like the places that no longer allow USB flash drives or iPods to be brought in, for fear someone will steal data and take it home. You can get a USB key built into a watch with retractable USB cable, or combo pens/USB flash drives. Do you think security guards at the door will really be on top of every possibility for those?
The *real* answer has always been to only hire employees you trust, and keep them happy and fairly paid for their work - so they don't have an interest in leaking out your company's secrets.
Any company requiring security clearance most likely will not allow them. Mine does not. It's based on the sensitivity of the environment.
Stella
Aug 4, 07:52 AM
Cheese with your whine?
Never buy an apple product!!!
As soon as you do something new and better comes out!!!
AAAHHHHHH
I am typing this away on my new Macbook, Core 1 Duo; which i bought under the self-brainwashed reasoning that the MBP alone would see 2x2. Why you ask? Cuz I figured hey, the MB JUST came out, why refresh it every 2 months! The MBP has been out like 8 months, that makes sense.
I can only PRAY I am right.
No that my Macbook will be instant crap... I just COULD have waited until september.
Damn you apple...
Never buy an apple product!!!
As soon as you do something new and better comes out!!!
AAAHHHHHH
I am typing this away on my new Macbook, Core 1 Duo; which i bought under the self-brainwashed reasoning that the MBP alone would see 2x2. Why you ask? Cuz I figured hey, the MB JUST came out, why refresh it every 2 months! The MBP has been out like 8 months, that makes sense.
I can only PRAY I am right.
No that my Macbook will be instant crap... I just COULD have waited until september.
Damn you apple...
gugy
Jul 30, 01:19 AM
I don't think I've hated any company so passionately as I hate Verizon. I have not one positive word to say about them. If/when Apple announces a phone, I'll pay the early termination fee on my Verizon contract and jump to the carrier with Apple's phone. Hopefully that'll be Cingular.
Interesting I am the opposite of you. I hate Cingular and I am OK with Verizon.
The big question is if whatever Apple comes up it needs a good network.
What good will be an amazing phone with a crap network and service. In the past I had Cingular and just hate it. Now I have Verizon, I do not love it but at least I can use it at my home and office and IMHO is better than Cingular.
So I just hope I can have an Iphone that actually works wherever I go.
Interesting I am the opposite of you. I hate Cingular and I am OK with Verizon.
The big question is if whatever Apple comes up it needs a good network.
What good will be an amazing phone with a crap network and service. In the past I had Cingular and just hate it. Now I have Verizon, I do not love it but at least I can use it at my home and office and IMHO is better than Cingular.
So I just hope I can have an Iphone that actually works wherever I go.
QCassidy352
Aug 4, 09:31 AM
Where does this leave Conroe and Allendale? Apple's marketing strategy has always been that the PowerBooks (MacBook Pro) have faster processers then any of the iMac offerings. The Conroe and Allendale (Desktop) chips run faster then the Merom (Mobile) chips.
:confused: The imac had a G5 for a long time while the powerbook had a G4. The imac ended with a 2.1 G5 and the powerbook topped out at a 1.67 G4. Apple has no problem, nor should they, putting a faster processor in a desktop than a notebook, even when the notebook is a "pro" machine and the desktop a "consumer" machine.
I've maintained all along that the imac will get Conroe. It's a midrange desktop, not a laptop. Why would/should it get a laptop processor? (and don't say "yonah is a laptop processor." Apple did that because they wanted to switch to intel and the Pentium IV was not a valid option, so yonah was the only choice. Now they have a real desktop processor available, and they will use it.)
:confused: The imac had a G5 for a long time while the powerbook had a G4. The imac ended with a 2.1 G5 and the powerbook topped out at a 1.67 G4. Apple has no problem, nor should they, putting a faster processor in a desktop than a notebook, even when the notebook is a "pro" machine and the desktop a "consumer" machine.
I've maintained all along that the imac will get Conroe. It's a midrange desktop, not a laptop. Why would/should it get a laptop processor? (and don't say "yonah is a laptop processor." Apple did that because they wanted to switch to intel and the Pentium IV was not a valid option, so yonah was the only choice. Now they have a real desktop processor available, and they will use it.)
MikeTheC
Nov 25, 10:46 PM
All this talk about Palm needing to modernize their OS, or it is outdated, or needing to re-write is absolutely hilarious.
On a phone, I want to use its features quickly and easily. When I have to schedule an appointment, I want to enter that appointment as easily as possible. When I want to add something to my to-do list, I want to do it easily and quickly. And first and foremost, I want to be able to look up a contact and dial it as quickly as possible.
A phone is not a personal computer. I couldn't care less about multitasking, rewriting, "modern" OSes (whatever "modern" means). "Modern" features and look is just eye candy and/or toys. A mobile phone is a gadget of convenience, and it should be convenient to use. Even PalmOS 1.0 was convenient. It was just as easy to use its contact and calendar features as any so-called "modern" OS is today.
I would really like to know how "modernizing" the OS on my phone would help me look up contacts, dial contacts, enter to-do list entries, and entering calendar entries any better that I could today.
Again, I repeat: a phone is not a personal computer. There's no point in treating it as such.
The same point could largely be made about cars, but I don't think either of us would want to be driving a Model T or Model A Ford these days, would we?
The term "Modern" as applied to operating systems has little to do with the interface per se. It primarily concerns the underpinnings of the OS and how forward-looking and/or open-ended it is. Older operating systems, if you want to look at it in this way, were very geared to the hardware of their times, and every time you added a new hardware feature or some new kind of technology came out, you wound up making this big patchwork of an OS, in which you had either an out-dated or obsolete "core" around which was stuck, somewhat unglamorously, lots of crap to allow it to do stuff it wasn't really designed for. Then, you wound up having to write patches for the patches, etc., ad infinitum.
Apple tried to go the internal development route, but that didn't work because their departmental infrastructure was eating them from the inside out at the time and basically poisoned all of their new projects. They considered BeOS because it was an incredibly modern OS at the time that was very capable, unbelievably good at multitasking, memory protection, multimedia tasks, etc. However, that company was so shaky that when Apple decided not to go with them, they collapsed. One of the products which was introduced and sold and almost immediately recalled that used a version of BeOS was Sony's eVilla (you just have to love that name -- try pronouncing it out loud to get the full effect).
Ultimately, they went with NeXT's BSD- and Mach-Kernel-based NeXTStep (which after a bunch of time and effort and -- since lots of it is based on Open Source software, there were a healthy amount of community contributions to) and hence we now have Mac OS X.
I'll leave it to actual developers and/or coders here to better explain and refine (and/or correct) what I've said here, should you wish greater detail beyond what I am able to -- and therefore have -- provided above.
The whole point of going with a modern OS implemented for an imbedded market (i.e. "Mac OS X Mobile") is it gives you much more direct (and probably better implemented and/or better-grounded) access to modern technologies. Everything from basic I/O tasks that reside in the Kernel to audio processing to doing H.264 decoding to having access to IPv4 or IPv6, are all examples of things which a modern OS could do a better job of providing and/or backing.
From what I understand, PalmOS is something that was designed to first and foremost give you basic notepad and daily organizer functionality. When they wrote, as you say, PalmOS 1.0, they happened to implement a way for third parties to write software that could run on it. This has been both a benefit and a bane of PalmOS's existence. First off, they now have the same issues of backwards-compatibility and storage space and memory use/abuse that a regular computer OS has. I said it was both a benefit and a bane; but there's actually two parts to the "bane" side. The first I've already mentioned, but the second is the fact that since apps have been written which can do darn near any conceivable task, people keep wanting more and more and more. And this then goes back to the "patchwork" I described earlier in talking about "older" computer OSs.
Then people want multimedia, and color screens, and apps to take advantage of it, and they want Palm to incorporate DSPs so they can play music, and of course that brings along with it all of the extra patching to then allow for the existence of, and permit the use of, an on-board DSP. And now you want WiFi? Well, shoot, now we gotta have IPv4 as well, and support for TCP/IP, none of which was ever a part of the original concept of PalmOS.
And even if you don't want or need any of those features in your own PDA, I'm sorry but that's really just too bad. Go live in a cave if you like, but if you buy a new PDA, guess what: you're gonna get all that stuff.
And at some point, all of this stretches an "older" OS just a bit too far, or it becomes a bit absurd with all the hoops and turns and wiggling that PalmOne's coders have to go through, so then they say, "Aw **** it, let's just re-write the thing."
Apple comes to this without any of *that* sort of legacy. Doubtless there will be no Newton code on this thing anywhere, but what Apple's got is Mac OS X, which means they also have the power (albeit somewhat indirectly) of an Open Source OS -- Linux. And in case you weren't aware, there are already numerous "imbedded" implementations of Linux -- phones, PDAs, game systems, kiosks, etc. -- all of which are data points and collective experience opportunities which ALREADY EXIST that Apple can exploit.
So no, having a "modern" OS is not a bad thing. It's actually a supremely awesome thing. What you're concerned about is having something that is intuitive AND efficient AND appropriate to the world of telephone interfaces for the user interface on the device you'd go and buy yourself.
All I can say, based on past performance, is give Apple a chance.
Now, here's a larger picture thought to ponder...
If Apple goes to market with the iPhone, then this is going to open up (to some extent) the viability of a F/OSS community cell phone. And this is a really good thing as well because it represents a non-commercial, enthusiast entrance into what up until now has been a totally proprietary, locked-down OS-based product world. It has the potential to do to cell phones what Linux has inspired in Mac OS X.
On a phone, I want to use its features quickly and easily. When I have to schedule an appointment, I want to enter that appointment as easily as possible. When I want to add something to my to-do list, I want to do it easily and quickly. And first and foremost, I want to be able to look up a contact and dial it as quickly as possible.
A phone is not a personal computer. I couldn't care less about multitasking, rewriting, "modern" OSes (whatever "modern" means). "Modern" features and look is just eye candy and/or toys. A mobile phone is a gadget of convenience, and it should be convenient to use. Even PalmOS 1.0 was convenient. It was just as easy to use its contact and calendar features as any so-called "modern" OS is today.
I would really like to know how "modernizing" the OS on my phone would help me look up contacts, dial contacts, enter to-do list entries, and entering calendar entries any better that I could today.
Again, I repeat: a phone is not a personal computer. There's no point in treating it as such.
The same point could largely be made about cars, but I don't think either of us would want to be driving a Model T or Model A Ford these days, would we?
The term "Modern" as applied to operating systems has little to do with the interface per se. It primarily concerns the underpinnings of the OS and how forward-looking and/or open-ended it is. Older operating systems, if you want to look at it in this way, were very geared to the hardware of their times, and every time you added a new hardware feature or some new kind of technology came out, you wound up making this big patchwork of an OS, in which you had either an out-dated or obsolete "core" around which was stuck, somewhat unglamorously, lots of crap to allow it to do stuff it wasn't really designed for. Then, you wound up having to write patches for the patches, etc., ad infinitum.
Apple tried to go the internal development route, but that didn't work because their departmental infrastructure was eating them from the inside out at the time and basically poisoned all of their new projects. They considered BeOS because it was an incredibly modern OS at the time that was very capable, unbelievably good at multitasking, memory protection, multimedia tasks, etc. However, that company was so shaky that when Apple decided not to go with them, they collapsed. One of the products which was introduced and sold and almost immediately recalled that used a version of BeOS was Sony's eVilla (you just have to love that name -- try pronouncing it out loud to get the full effect).
Ultimately, they went with NeXT's BSD- and Mach-Kernel-based NeXTStep (which after a bunch of time and effort and -- since lots of it is based on Open Source software, there were a healthy amount of community contributions to) and hence we now have Mac OS X.
I'll leave it to actual developers and/or coders here to better explain and refine (and/or correct) what I've said here, should you wish greater detail beyond what I am able to -- and therefore have -- provided above.
The whole point of going with a modern OS implemented for an imbedded market (i.e. "Mac OS X Mobile") is it gives you much more direct (and probably better implemented and/or better-grounded) access to modern technologies. Everything from basic I/O tasks that reside in the Kernel to audio processing to doing H.264 decoding to having access to IPv4 or IPv6, are all examples of things which a modern OS could do a better job of providing and/or backing.
From what I understand, PalmOS is something that was designed to first and foremost give you basic notepad and daily organizer functionality. When they wrote, as you say, PalmOS 1.0, they happened to implement a way for third parties to write software that could run on it. This has been both a benefit and a bane of PalmOS's existence. First off, they now have the same issues of backwards-compatibility and storage space and memory use/abuse that a regular computer OS has. I said it was both a benefit and a bane; but there's actually two parts to the "bane" side. The first I've already mentioned, but the second is the fact that since apps have been written which can do darn near any conceivable task, people keep wanting more and more and more. And this then goes back to the "patchwork" I described earlier in talking about "older" computer OSs.
Then people want multimedia, and color screens, and apps to take advantage of it, and they want Palm to incorporate DSPs so they can play music, and of course that brings along with it all of the extra patching to then allow for the existence of, and permit the use of, an on-board DSP. And now you want WiFi? Well, shoot, now we gotta have IPv4 as well, and support for TCP/IP, none of which was ever a part of the original concept of PalmOS.
And even if you don't want or need any of those features in your own PDA, I'm sorry but that's really just too bad. Go live in a cave if you like, but if you buy a new PDA, guess what: you're gonna get all that stuff.
And at some point, all of this stretches an "older" OS just a bit too far, or it becomes a bit absurd with all the hoops and turns and wiggling that PalmOne's coders have to go through, so then they say, "Aw **** it, let's just re-write the thing."
Apple comes to this without any of *that* sort of legacy. Doubtless there will be no Newton code on this thing anywhere, but what Apple's got is Mac OS X, which means they also have the power (albeit somewhat indirectly) of an Open Source OS -- Linux. And in case you weren't aware, there are already numerous "imbedded" implementations of Linux -- phones, PDAs, game systems, kiosks, etc. -- all of which are data points and collective experience opportunities which ALREADY EXIST that Apple can exploit.
So no, having a "modern" OS is not a bad thing. It's actually a supremely awesome thing. What you're concerned about is having something that is intuitive AND efficient AND appropriate to the world of telephone interfaces for the user interface on the device you'd go and buy yourself.
All I can say, based on past performance, is give Apple a chance.
Now, here's a larger picture thought to ponder...
If Apple goes to market with the iPhone, then this is going to open up (to some extent) the viability of a F/OSS community cell phone. And this is a really good thing as well because it represents a non-commercial, enthusiast entrance into what up until now has been a totally proprietary, locked-down OS-based product world. It has the potential to do to cell phones what Linux has inspired in Mac OS X.
mr.steevo
Mar 29, 09:00 PM
Problem is, as I said before, Apple sells worldwide. And most of the world couldn't possibly care less if a product is made in the USA or in Japan. We want it to be as good as it is now, at the best price. America can't do that, can it? Prince increase = sales decrease.
Yep.
I could care less if something is made in the good 'ole US of A, Japan, China, India, Belgium, Korea, Finland or Tibet.
I don't live there.
What I care about is if it is good quality and is affordable.
Yep.
I could care less if something is made in the good 'ole US of A, Japan, China, India, Belgium, Korea, Finland or Tibet.
I don't live there.
What I care about is if it is good quality and is affordable.
goobot
Mar 28, 10:21 AM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_2_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8C148 Safari/6533.18.5)
Didn't they find an iPhone with a a5 chip in the 4.3 firmware? There is gana be a new One
Didn't they find an iPhone with a a5 chip in the 4.3 firmware? There is gana be a new One
LegendKillerUK
Mar 26, 11:26 PM
two credible sources
http://www.macrumors.com/2011/02/09/ipad-3-to-arrive-this-september/
So the sources are Gruber who stated it was a guess and TechCrunch who are, well, TechCrunch.
http://www.macrumors.com/2011/02/09/ipad-3-to-arrive-this-september/
So the sources are Gruber who stated it was a guess and TechCrunch who are, well, TechCrunch.
tokevino
Aug 7, 03:51 PM
http://www.apple.com/quicktime/qtv/wwdc06
Digital Skunk
Apr 18, 03:32 PM
Wow, that does look familiar!
It looks just like the original Palm UI....
Maybe HP should sue Samsung instead :rolleyes:
--t
Wrong... Apple didn't invent the concept of the touch UI, they bought most of what they have and own very little rights to it.
Dang it!
Ya'll beat me too it.
It's nice to know though, that there are some at Macrumors that actually KNOW where Apple got most of their "innovation" from.
And I hope no one goes mentioning the Newton . . . when a simple Wikipedia search will do.
It looks just like the original Palm UI....
Maybe HP should sue Samsung instead :rolleyes:
--t
Wrong... Apple didn't invent the concept of the touch UI, they bought most of what they have and own very little rights to it.
Dang it!
Ya'll beat me too it.
It's nice to know though, that there are some at Macrumors that actually KNOW where Apple got most of their "innovation" from.
And I hope no one goes mentioning the Newton . . . when a simple Wikipedia search will do.
svenas1
Jul 22, 06:13 AM
I don't think we'll see these at WWDC unless there are other substantial changes. Going from a Yonah to a Merom chip may be great news, but it's hardly something Steve can crow about on stage. "Here's the new macbook pro... it looks and functions exactly like the old one, but 20% faster. Um, yeah. You already know all about the macbook pro, so there's really nothing else for me to say, is there?"
Trust SJ to be able to say something amazing about that !! That's why he is CEO... he can make the smallest thing look like it's the coolest thing on earth. RDF at full swing...!
Trust SJ to be able to say something amazing about that !! That's why he is CEO... he can make the smallest thing look like it's the coolest thing on earth. RDF at full swing...!
B.winkle
Apr 10, 10:53 AM
Answer is 2. I'm right and you're wrong. So there! ;.) I sleep with a math teacher!!!
3N16MA
Mar 28, 12:10 PM
Wow, this has to be bs. I cannot believe Apple won't introduce any hardware in WWDC '11.
They're planning on stretching the iPhone 4? Good job Apple, don't complain about losing customers now. If Apple releases the next iPhone after 2 years, then they are officially going to lose whatever market share they had.
I'm still going to wait for another announcement because every report said that there would be an iPhone 5 this summer, it makes no sense.
So in your world a 'real refresh' is when the externals change? Don't judge a book by it's cover, the 3GS was a massive upgrade.
The iPhone 4 got massive external and internal changes while the 3Gs just got internal changes. iPhone 4 is a bigger refresh than the 3Gs. I never said the 3Gs was not a real refresh I said it was not as big as the iPhone 4.
They're planning on stretching the iPhone 4? Good job Apple, don't complain about losing customers now. If Apple releases the next iPhone after 2 years, then they are officially going to lose whatever market share they had.
I'm still going to wait for another announcement because every report said that there would be an iPhone 5 this summer, it makes no sense.
So in your world a 'real refresh' is when the externals change? Don't judge a book by it's cover, the 3GS was a massive upgrade.
The iPhone 4 got massive external and internal changes while the 3Gs just got internal changes. iPhone 4 is a bigger refresh than the 3Gs. I never said the 3Gs was not a real refresh I said it was not as big as the iPhone 4.
satcomer
Mar 30, 10:14 AM
I am starting to think that this is report maybe rooted in Stock manipulation of AAPL, in the future Apple quarterly report April 20th. Think about it, why hasn't any other electronic devices named it might affect also? :eek:
rdowns
May 6, 11:57 AM
If you told the average American male that his 5 inch penis was 13 centimeters, we'd be on the metric system a week from Thursday.
inkswamp
Nov 5, 03:31 PM
I'm actually not too thrilled to see this. Mac OS X does NOT need virus protection. Companies like this make OS X seem like it's prone to viruses.
Blah blah blah. Lack of AV software makes Macs very unattractive to business settings.
It installs various components into your system, so no, not until Apple modifies their guidelines.
Seeing how many things it does install and the size of the download, I wouldn't install this on any computer. Looks like FUDware to me.
One of the barriers to integrating Macs into corporate and business environments is the lack of anti-virus tools. Yeah, you can dismiss this as FUD (and maybe there's some truth to that) but the fact remains--someday, one way or another, there will be a Mac OS X virus. I defy you to find one IT dept. in the country that wants to be caught off-guard by that. If you're going to have Macs in a business environment, the IT staff needs to know that they're protected in the event of an OS X virus outbreak. Whether any OS X viruses exist now or not and whether AV companies are trying to sell products with FUD is irrelevant in that context.
Those of you who want to see wider adoption of Macs in business environments ought to be happy to see this kind of thing showing up, regardless of whether you personally need it or not.
Blah blah blah. Lack of AV software makes Macs very unattractive to business settings.
It installs various components into your system, so no, not until Apple modifies their guidelines.
Seeing how many things it does install and the size of the download, I wouldn't install this on any computer. Looks like FUDware to me.
One of the barriers to integrating Macs into corporate and business environments is the lack of anti-virus tools. Yeah, you can dismiss this as FUD (and maybe there's some truth to that) but the fact remains--someday, one way or another, there will be a Mac OS X virus. I defy you to find one IT dept. in the country that wants to be caught off-guard by that. If you're going to have Macs in a business environment, the IT staff needs to know that they're protected in the event of an OS X virus outbreak. Whether any OS X viruses exist now or not and whether AV companies are trying to sell products with FUD is irrelevant in that context.
Those of you who want to see wider adoption of Macs in business environments ought to be happy to see this kind of thing showing up, regardless of whether you personally need it or not.
aye5882
Aug 11, 08:43 PM
Merom isn't just bragging rights you should check out the comparison in the link that somebody provided. It's about 10% faster for the same price and power consumption. And the next generation of Front Row might take advtange of the 64-bitness.
Also, I plan on booting Vista with it also, which has a 64-bit version if/when it comes out next year.
well, i know there was some marginal increase in processing speed but i'm talking about actually running 64bit programs. i thought you need alot more horsepower to run 64bit programs than whats currently offered... maybe i was just tired and totally misread an article a couple of weeks ago.
Also, I plan on booting Vista with it also, which has a 64-bit version if/when it comes out next year.
well, i know there was some marginal increase in processing speed but i'm talking about actually running 64bit programs. i thought you need alot more horsepower to run 64bit programs than whats currently offered... maybe i was just tired and totally misread an article a couple of weeks ago.
DTphonehome
Jul 29, 09:29 PM
Up until about a year or so ago, Cingular used to have the worst network. And the Verizon network was mint. Great signal everywhere on earth and never lost a call. Now I have to try every call 4 times before it goes through. I'd rather see Apple buy up another carrier and own them. How much does a small cellular carrier cost to buy? :-)
They wouldn't have to do that. You know ESPN Mobile, Boost Mobile, and AMP'd mobile? They are all "virtual" networks that lease bandwidth from other providers who actually have a physical network. These "virtual" wireless companies are called MVNOs. Apple could become an MVNO (and it has been rumored in the past that would do so), so that they could offer all the features they want, and ensure a consistent experience across the entire user base.
They wouldn't have to do that. You know ESPN Mobile, Boost Mobile, and AMP'd mobile? They are all "virtual" networks that lease bandwidth from other providers who actually have a physical network. These "virtual" wireless companies are called MVNOs. Apple could become an MVNO (and it has been rumored in the past that would do so), so that they could offer all the features they want, and ensure a consistent experience across the entire user base.
nsayer
May 4, 04:03 PM
But what do you do if you need to reinstall, say, after replacing your hard disk? Without Lion restore media, you'd be forced to install Snow Leopard, then upgrade to the latest with SU, then log into the app store, then (presumably) re-download Lion, then (presumably) apply any Lion updates.
Seems quite cumbersome, plus then there's a disconnect between the machine and the OS license - if I sell my mac, I can't include with it media for the OS that's actually installed on it.
Seems quite cumbersome, plus then there's a disconnect between the machine and the OS license - if I sell my mac, I can't include with it media for the OS that's actually installed on it.
zv470
Nov 22, 05:32 PM
"We've learned and struggled for a few years here figuring out how to make a decent phone,'' he said. "PC guys are not going to just figure this out. They're not going to just walk in.''
It's this kind of thinking that is behind the failure of Palm today.
It's this kind of thinking that is behind the failure of Palm today.
Hubert Brutal
Apr 26, 02:32 PM
There's nearly 50 android phones released in the US alone. And there's currently 4 iPhone models (the only phones that run iOS atm and will always be). Do the math. Since there is such a broad market for android phones, there is also a larger price scale. Of course android will overtake iOS sales. :rolleyes:
I like my iOS devices but kudos to android to being more open to app development. I think my next phone will be running android anyway to switch it up a bit.
I like my iOS devices but kudos to android to being more open to app development. I think my next phone will be running android anyway to switch it up a bit.
