Dezinformatsiya
Jan 16, 05:28 PM
Sophos has quite a low detection rate in comparison to some others in my experience, but it's a solid AV, and one can't fault what's free.
QuarterSwede
Sep 16, 02:21 PM
It's certainly why I haven't. I wouldn't say the U.S. is so much behind the rest of the world (although that is true) but keep in mind U.S. carriers are all about keeping people locked into contracts. It's much easier to get a phone and change providers in Europe because they don't do hardware locking to network and prepaid is more proliferant. You can get lots of these great phones (by the way, they do make 10 megapixel camera phones now) if you buy them online, paying retail prices.
The problem is most U.S. consumers are cheap as far as I can tell, most will not pay at all for a phone and even few will pay more than $100. The carriers cannot afford to subsidize these phones because even with them partially covering the cost a consumer will be looking at an over $250 cost with a contract..
The U.S. cell phone is behind other countries because the U.S. cell phone network is behind other countries. We're just now getting 3G out in most of the country but Japan has had it and two way video calls for years.
If I could afford it and was willing to take the gamble of learning a new UI, I would get the Nokia N73. But it's hard to justify spending that much on a cell phone for me and I'm more familiar with Nokia series 40 phones.
I hear you on that. Just check out DoCoMo's (http://www.nttdocomo.co.jp/english/product/function_icon/index.html) phones (Japanese).
The problem is most U.S. consumers are cheap as far as I can tell, most will not pay at all for a phone and even few will pay more than $100. The carriers cannot afford to subsidize these phones because even with them partially covering the cost a consumer will be looking at an over $250 cost with a contract..
The U.S. cell phone is behind other countries because the U.S. cell phone network is behind other countries. We're just now getting 3G out in most of the country but Japan has had it and two way video calls for years.
If I could afford it and was willing to take the gamble of learning a new UI, I would get the Nokia N73. But it's hard to justify spending that much on a cell phone for me and I'm more familiar with Nokia series 40 phones.
I hear you on that. Just check out DoCoMo's (http://www.nttdocomo.co.jp/english/product/function_icon/index.html) phones (Japanese).
vincenz
Apr 20, 12:47 PM
Let's all wave and say hello, Big Brother.
jpg
Apr 25, 01:33 PM
I hope that I will like it. I hate the new screen bezel on the MacBook Air. The Unibody design is just beautiful and timeless. Pure Aluminum is great - no scratches and easy to clean..
Nice. My 17 MBP (Early 2009) will be getting close to the end of its life cycle by then, allowing me to easily slide into a new MBP.
That's just idiotic. I upgraded from a 2006 MB to a 2011 15" i7, to say I'm satisfied is an understatement. Hideous it is not even near - I've played with the new designs before but nothing comes close to it sitting on your desk.
You're getting all pissy over something that's just a rumour and you don't even know if you're going to like it or not!
Wow a little of topic, but how often do you all buy a new laptop? I used to have Windows Laptops until I switched in 2009 and I would use them till they break (1,5 - 2 Years). My 2009 MBP is still running really good. I bought 8GB RAM for it a week ago and now even Windows 7 runs reasonably fast.
Nice. My 17 MBP (Early 2009) will be getting close to the end of its life cycle by then, allowing me to easily slide into a new MBP.
That's just idiotic. I upgraded from a 2006 MB to a 2011 15" i7, to say I'm satisfied is an understatement. Hideous it is not even near - I've played with the new designs before but nothing comes close to it sitting on your desk.
You're getting all pissy over something that's just a rumour and you don't even know if you're going to like it or not!
Wow a little of topic, but how often do you all buy a new laptop? I used to have Windows Laptops until I switched in 2009 and I would use them till they break (1,5 - 2 Years). My 2009 MBP is still running really good. I bought 8GB RAM for it a week ago and now even Windows 7 runs reasonably fast.
arn
Sep 10, 05:06 AM
Surely Conroe needs to go somewhere in Apple's lineup? Great value, fast and soon to be quad-core.
ya, there really appears to be no space for the Conroe chip in Apple's lineup... at least with the decisions they've made so far in updating the iMac to Merom.
arn
ya, there really appears to be no space for the Conroe chip in Apple's lineup... at least with the decisions they've made so far in updating the iMac to Merom.
arn
mrkramer
Apr 25, 01:27 AM
EDIT: @ EricNau - what do you guys not understand about "she was doing 65mph is a 70mph zone" which she then lowered to 55mph after brakechecking me????????
-Don
Assuming the weather was good, she probably shouldn't have been in the fast lane going below the speed limit, but that doesn't give you any right to be driving 20 mph above the speed limit, and then intentionally trying to cause an accident.
Someday you will cause an accident, and hopefully you don't get killed or kill anyone. Maybe you will be lucky and get your license taken away first though.
-Don
Assuming the weather was good, she probably shouldn't have been in the fast lane going below the speed limit, but that doesn't give you any right to be driving 20 mph above the speed limit, and then intentionally trying to cause an accident.
Someday you will cause an accident, and hopefully you don't get killed or kill anyone. Maybe you will be lucky and get your license taken away first though.
kansast
Sep 13, 09:32 PM
Not what i was looking for
I wanted a smart phone wheres the keyboard ?
i can buy an itunes phone right now from cingular but i dont want one
what makes them think i will buy one now because its from apple and not motorola
But you just have to know that any "Apple" phone is gonna have a darn good user interface.. and that's what I'm hoping for.. almost regardless of over all shape and design, but Apple's UI. When compared with a compatible 'Itunes" phone anyway. Pretty sure I don't want a phone with a keyboard on it. but I understand why some might.
Kansast
I wanted a smart phone wheres the keyboard ?
i can buy an itunes phone right now from cingular but i dont want one
what makes them think i will buy one now because its from apple and not motorola
But you just have to know that any "Apple" phone is gonna have a darn good user interface.. and that's what I'm hoping for.. almost regardless of over all shape and design, but Apple's UI. When compared with a compatible 'Itunes" phone anyway. Pretty sure I don't want a phone with a keyboard on it. but I understand why some might.
Kansast
Lebowski
Sep 7, 04:04 AM
Finally G5 Powerbooks.
i know. i have been waiting forever. tablet G5PBs.....
i know. i have been waiting forever. tablet G5PBs.....
2 Replies
Mar 29, 02:58 PM
As much as I doubt that much massive growth, I'm more entertained by the "NEGATIVE" responses.
Not that I agree with them, (because I don't... I've used the WP7 and it's a decent phone with features people like that iOS will NEVER have)...
but mainly because having a negative reaction to a guess as to how other people will spend their money is such a infinitely retarded thing to do. X-D
Seriously, why the hell do any of you even care what type of phone other people decide to use? If you really DO like your iPhone, then you wouldn't.
Only an imbecil would make a personal purchase decision based mainly on what other people do.
The only reason anyone would care (besides being a stockholder, or Apple employee) would be that more than actually liking the phone itself you've bought the phone because you're a joiner.... you want to be 'popular' or in a 'majority'.
(Which honestly is a PATHETIC reason to make ANY purchase.)
X-D
(btw, yes I'm an iPhone owner)
Not that I agree with them, (because I don't... I've used the WP7 and it's a decent phone with features people like that iOS will NEVER have)...
but mainly because having a negative reaction to a guess as to how other people will spend their money is such a infinitely retarded thing to do. X-D
Seriously, why the hell do any of you even care what type of phone other people decide to use? If you really DO like your iPhone, then you wouldn't.
Only an imbecil would make a personal purchase decision based mainly on what other people do.
The only reason anyone would care (besides being a stockholder, or Apple employee) would be that more than actually liking the phone itself you've bought the phone because you're a joiner.... you want to be 'popular' or in a 'majority'.
(Which honestly is a PATHETIC reason to make ANY purchase.)
X-D
(btw, yes I'm an iPhone owner)
peharri
Sep 21, 08:10 AM
Finally, someone gets it right.
CDMA is technically superior to GSM just about any way you care to measure it. GSM's widespread adoption in Europe was by fiat as a protectionist measure for European telecom companies, primarily because the European technology providers did not want to license CDMA from an American company. CDMA was basically slandered six ways to Sunday to justify using GSM. It was nothing more than a case of Not Invented Here writ large and turf protection. This early rapid push to standardize on GSM in as many places as possible as a strategic hedge gave them a strong market position in most of the rest of the world. In the US, the various protocols had to fight it out on the open market which took time to sort itself out.
There's a lot of nonsense about IS-95 ("CDMA" as implemented by Qualcomm) that's promoted by Qualcomm shills (some openly, like Steve De Beste) that I'd be very careful about taking claims of "superiority" at face value. The above is so full of the kind mis-representations I've seen posted everywhere I have to respond.
1. CDMA is not "technically superior to GSM just about any way you care to measure". CDMA (by which I assume you mean IS95, because comparing GSM to CDMA air interface technology is like comparing a minivan to a car tire - the conflation of TDMA and GSM has, and the deliberate underplaying of the 95% of IS-95 that has nothing to do with the air-interface, has been a standard tool in the shills toolbox) has an air-interface technology which has better capacity than GSM's TDMA, but the rest of IS-95 really isn't as mature or consumer friendly as GSM. In particular, IS-95 leaves decisions as to support for SIM cards, and network codes, to operators, which means in practice that there's no standardization and few benefits to an end user who chooses it. Most US operators seem to have, surprise surprise, avoided SIM cards and network standardization seems to be based upon US analog dialing star codes (eg *72, etc)
2. "GSM's widespread adoption in Europe was by fiat as a protectionist measure for European telecom companies, primarily because the European technology providers did not want to license CDMA from an American company." is objectively untrue. GSM was developed in the mid-eighties as a method to move towards a standardized mobile phone system for Europe, which at the time had different systems running on different frequencies in pretty much every country (unlike the US where AMPS was available in every state.)
By the time IS-95 was developed, GSM was already an established standard in practically all of Europe. While 900MHz services were mandated as GSM and legacy analogy only by the EC, countries were free to allow other standards on other frequencies until one became dominant on a particular frequency. With 1800MHz, the first operators given the band choose GSM, as it was clearly more advanced than what Qualcomm was offering, and handset makers would have little or no difficulty making multifrequency handsets. (Today GSM is also mandated on 1800MHz, but that wasn't true at the time one2one and Orange, and many that followed, choose GSM.)
The only aspect of IS95 that could be described as "superior" that would require licensing is the CDMA air interface technology. European operators and phone makers have, indeed, licensed that technology (albeit not to Qualcomm's specifications) and it's present in pretty much all implementations of UMTS. So much for that.
3. "CDMA was basically slandered six ways to Sunday to justify using GSM." Funny, I could have sworn I saw the exact opposite.
I came to the US in 1998, GSM wasn't available in my market area at the time, and I picked up an IS-95 phone believing it to be superior based upon what was said on newsgroups, US media, and other sources. I was shocked. IS-95 was better than IS-136 ("D-AMPS"), but not by much, and it was considerably less reliable. At that time, IS-95, as providing by most US operators, didn't support two way text messaging or data. It didn't support - much to my astonishment - SIM cards. ISDN integration was nil. Network services were a jumbled mess. Call drops were common, even when signal strengths were high.
Much of this has been fixed since. But what amazed me looking back on it was the sheer nonsense being directed at GSM by IS-95 advocates. GSM was, according to them, identical to IS-136, which they called TDMA. It had identical problems. Apparently on GSM, calls would drop every time you changed tower. GSM only had a 7km range! It only worked in Europe because everyone lives in cities! And GSM was a government owned standard, imposed by the EU on unwilling mobile phone operators.
Every single one of these facts was completely untrue. IS-136 was closer in form to IS-95 than GSM. IS-136, unlike GSM and like IS-95, was essentially built around the same mobile phone model as AMPS, with little or no network services standardization and an inherent assumption that the all calls would be to POTS or other similarly limited cellphones as itself. Like IS-95 and unlike GSM, in IS-136 your phone was your identifier, you couldn't change phones without your operator's permission. Like IS-95 at the time, messaging and data was barely implemented in IS-136 - when I left the UK I'd been browsing the web and using IRC (via Demon's telnetable IRC client) on my Nokia 9000 on a regular basis.
No TDMA system I'm aware of routinely drops calls when you change towers. In practice, I had far more call drops under Sprint PCS then I had under any other operator, namely because IS-95's capacity improvement was over-exaggerated and operators at the time routinely overloaded their networks.
GSM's range, which is around 20km, while technically a limitation of the air interface technology, isn't much different to what a .25W cellphone's range is in practice. You're not going to find many cellphones capable of getting a signal from a tower that far, regardless of what technology you use. The whole "Everyone lives in cities" thing is a myth, as certain countries, notably Finland, have far more US-like demographics in that respect (but what do they know about cellphones in Finland (http://www.nokia.com)?)
GSM was a standard built by the operators after the EU told them to create at least one standard that would be supported across the continent. Only the concept of "standardization" was forced upon operators, the standard - a development of work being done by France Telecom at the time - was made and agreed to by the operators. Those same operators would have looked at IS-95, or even at CDMA incorporated into GSM at the air interface level - had it been a mature, viable, technology at the time. It wasn't.
The only practical advantage IS-95 had over GSM was better capacity. This in theory meant cheaper minutes. For a time, that was true. Today, most US operators offer close to identical tariffs and close to identical reliability. But I can choose which GSM phone I leave the house with, and I know it'll work consistantly regardless of where I am.
Ultimately, the GSM consortium lost and Qualcomm got the last laugh because the technology does not scale as well as CDMA. Every last telecom equipment provider in Europe has since licensed the CDMA technology, and some version of the technology is part of the next generation cellular infrastructure under a few different names.
This paragraph is bizarrely misleading and I'm wondering if you just worded it poorly. GSM is still the worldwide standard. The newest version, UMTS, uses a CDMA air interface but is otherwise a clear development of GSM. It has virtually nothing in common with IS-95. "The GSM consortium" consists of GSM operators and handset makers. They're doing pretty well. What have they lost? Are you saying that because GSM's latest version includes one aspect of the IS-95 standard that GSM is worse? Or that IS-95 is suddenly better?
While GSM has better interoperability globally, I would make the observation that CDMA works just fine in the US, which is no small region of the planet and the third most populous country. For many people, the better quality is worth it.
Given the choice between 2G IS-95 or GSM, I'd pick GSM every time. Given the choice between 3G IS-95 (CDMA2000) and UMTS, I'd pick UMTS every time. The quality is generally better with the GSM equivalent - you're getting a well designed, digitial, integrated, network with GSM with all the features you'd expect. The advantages of the IS-95 equivalent are harder to come by. Slightly better data rates with 3G seems to be the only major one. Well, maybe the only one. Capacity? That's an operator issue. Indeed, with the move to UMA (presumably there'll be an IS-95 equivalent), it wouldn't surprise me if operators need less towers in the future regardless of which network technology they picked. The only other "advantages" IS-95 brings to the table seem to be imaginary.
CDMA is technically superior to GSM just about any way you care to measure it. GSM's widespread adoption in Europe was by fiat as a protectionist measure for European telecom companies, primarily because the European technology providers did not want to license CDMA from an American company. CDMA was basically slandered six ways to Sunday to justify using GSM. It was nothing more than a case of Not Invented Here writ large and turf protection. This early rapid push to standardize on GSM in as many places as possible as a strategic hedge gave them a strong market position in most of the rest of the world. In the US, the various protocols had to fight it out on the open market which took time to sort itself out.
There's a lot of nonsense about IS-95 ("CDMA" as implemented by Qualcomm) that's promoted by Qualcomm shills (some openly, like Steve De Beste) that I'd be very careful about taking claims of "superiority" at face value. The above is so full of the kind mis-representations I've seen posted everywhere I have to respond.
1. CDMA is not "technically superior to GSM just about any way you care to measure". CDMA (by which I assume you mean IS95, because comparing GSM to CDMA air interface technology is like comparing a minivan to a car tire - the conflation of TDMA and GSM has, and the deliberate underplaying of the 95% of IS-95 that has nothing to do with the air-interface, has been a standard tool in the shills toolbox) has an air-interface technology which has better capacity than GSM's TDMA, but the rest of IS-95 really isn't as mature or consumer friendly as GSM. In particular, IS-95 leaves decisions as to support for SIM cards, and network codes, to operators, which means in practice that there's no standardization and few benefits to an end user who chooses it. Most US operators seem to have, surprise surprise, avoided SIM cards and network standardization seems to be based upon US analog dialing star codes (eg *72, etc)
2. "GSM's widespread adoption in Europe was by fiat as a protectionist measure for European telecom companies, primarily because the European technology providers did not want to license CDMA from an American company." is objectively untrue. GSM was developed in the mid-eighties as a method to move towards a standardized mobile phone system for Europe, which at the time had different systems running on different frequencies in pretty much every country (unlike the US where AMPS was available in every state.)
By the time IS-95 was developed, GSM was already an established standard in practically all of Europe. While 900MHz services were mandated as GSM and legacy analogy only by the EC, countries were free to allow other standards on other frequencies until one became dominant on a particular frequency. With 1800MHz, the first operators given the band choose GSM, as it was clearly more advanced than what Qualcomm was offering, and handset makers would have little or no difficulty making multifrequency handsets. (Today GSM is also mandated on 1800MHz, but that wasn't true at the time one2one and Orange, and many that followed, choose GSM.)
The only aspect of IS95 that could be described as "superior" that would require licensing is the CDMA air interface technology. European operators and phone makers have, indeed, licensed that technology (albeit not to Qualcomm's specifications) and it's present in pretty much all implementations of UMTS. So much for that.
3. "CDMA was basically slandered six ways to Sunday to justify using GSM." Funny, I could have sworn I saw the exact opposite.
I came to the US in 1998, GSM wasn't available in my market area at the time, and I picked up an IS-95 phone believing it to be superior based upon what was said on newsgroups, US media, and other sources. I was shocked. IS-95 was better than IS-136 ("D-AMPS"), but not by much, and it was considerably less reliable. At that time, IS-95, as providing by most US operators, didn't support two way text messaging or data. It didn't support - much to my astonishment - SIM cards. ISDN integration was nil. Network services were a jumbled mess. Call drops were common, even when signal strengths were high.
Much of this has been fixed since. But what amazed me looking back on it was the sheer nonsense being directed at GSM by IS-95 advocates. GSM was, according to them, identical to IS-136, which they called TDMA. It had identical problems. Apparently on GSM, calls would drop every time you changed tower. GSM only had a 7km range! It only worked in Europe because everyone lives in cities! And GSM was a government owned standard, imposed by the EU on unwilling mobile phone operators.
Every single one of these facts was completely untrue. IS-136 was closer in form to IS-95 than GSM. IS-136, unlike GSM and like IS-95, was essentially built around the same mobile phone model as AMPS, with little or no network services standardization and an inherent assumption that the all calls would be to POTS or other similarly limited cellphones as itself. Like IS-95 and unlike GSM, in IS-136 your phone was your identifier, you couldn't change phones without your operator's permission. Like IS-95 at the time, messaging and data was barely implemented in IS-136 - when I left the UK I'd been browsing the web and using IRC (via Demon's telnetable IRC client) on my Nokia 9000 on a regular basis.
No TDMA system I'm aware of routinely drops calls when you change towers. In practice, I had far more call drops under Sprint PCS then I had under any other operator, namely because IS-95's capacity improvement was over-exaggerated and operators at the time routinely overloaded their networks.
GSM's range, which is around 20km, while technically a limitation of the air interface technology, isn't much different to what a .25W cellphone's range is in practice. You're not going to find many cellphones capable of getting a signal from a tower that far, regardless of what technology you use. The whole "Everyone lives in cities" thing is a myth, as certain countries, notably Finland, have far more US-like demographics in that respect (but what do they know about cellphones in Finland (http://www.nokia.com)?)
GSM was a standard built by the operators after the EU told them to create at least one standard that would be supported across the continent. Only the concept of "standardization" was forced upon operators, the standard - a development of work being done by France Telecom at the time - was made and agreed to by the operators. Those same operators would have looked at IS-95, or even at CDMA incorporated into GSM at the air interface level - had it been a mature, viable, technology at the time. It wasn't.
The only practical advantage IS-95 had over GSM was better capacity. This in theory meant cheaper minutes. For a time, that was true. Today, most US operators offer close to identical tariffs and close to identical reliability. But I can choose which GSM phone I leave the house with, and I know it'll work consistantly regardless of where I am.
Ultimately, the GSM consortium lost and Qualcomm got the last laugh because the technology does not scale as well as CDMA. Every last telecom equipment provider in Europe has since licensed the CDMA technology, and some version of the technology is part of the next generation cellular infrastructure under a few different names.
This paragraph is bizarrely misleading and I'm wondering if you just worded it poorly. GSM is still the worldwide standard. The newest version, UMTS, uses a CDMA air interface but is otherwise a clear development of GSM. It has virtually nothing in common with IS-95. "The GSM consortium" consists of GSM operators and handset makers. They're doing pretty well. What have they lost? Are you saying that because GSM's latest version includes one aspect of the IS-95 standard that GSM is worse? Or that IS-95 is suddenly better?
While GSM has better interoperability globally, I would make the observation that CDMA works just fine in the US, which is no small region of the planet and the third most populous country. For many people, the better quality is worth it.
Given the choice between 2G IS-95 or GSM, I'd pick GSM every time. Given the choice between 3G IS-95 (CDMA2000) and UMTS, I'd pick UMTS every time. The quality is generally better with the GSM equivalent - you're getting a well designed, digitial, integrated, network with GSM with all the features you'd expect. The advantages of the IS-95 equivalent are harder to come by. Slightly better data rates with 3G seems to be the only major one. Well, maybe the only one. Capacity? That's an operator issue. Indeed, with the move to UMA (presumably there'll be an IS-95 equivalent), it wouldn't surprise me if operators need less towers in the future regardless of which network technology they picked. The only other "advantages" IS-95 brings to the table seem to be imaginary.
Superdrive
Sep 26, 12:13 PM
After the ROKR and SLVR, is anyone really surprised that Cingular will help launch this phone?
I'm still waiting for this to hit the market. My SLVR is great, and as long as Apple does NOT make a slider, I will buy an iPhone right away.
2007 is going to be spendy. I'll have to buy "iTV", Leopard, "iPhone", and a new portable. AHHH :eek:
I'm still waiting for this to hit the market. My SLVR is great, and as long as Apple does NOT make a slider, I will buy an iPhone right away.
2007 is going to be spendy. I'll have to buy "iTV", Leopard, "iPhone", and a new portable. AHHH :eek:
adnoh
Apr 30, 01:27 PM
wooo! finally!
KindredMAC
Mar 22, 01:58 PM
Come on Mac Mini update; well overdue for a refresh. That Core 2 Duo is keeping me from buying.
I just bought a refurbed Mac mini (HDMI) and was really surprised at how much horsepower that little C2D had to it! It is a GREAT Home Theatre Mac and am totally happy with my purchase! But if they put ThunderBolt in it and an i3 I won't be upset. This chips are getting to the point that they have beaten the software in the core-to-use ratio.
Maybe I'm just getting older and refined in how I design but there are few times that I have to actually WAIT for my Macs to perform a filter or effect that 15 years ago would have caused me to take a coffee break while my old Mac crunched the info. I don't care if I'm using a MacBook or a MacPro... I'll design on any of them and be quite content.
I just bought a refurbed Mac mini (HDMI) and was really surprised at how much horsepower that little C2D had to it! It is a GREAT Home Theatre Mac and am totally happy with my purchase! But if they put ThunderBolt in it and an i3 I won't be upset. This chips are getting to the point that they have beaten the software in the core-to-use ratio.
Maybe I'm just getting older and refined in how I design but there are few times that I have to actually WAIT for my Macs to perform a filter or effect that 15 years ago would have caused me to take a coffee break while my old Mac crunched the info. I don't care if I'm using a MacBook or a MacPro... I'll design on any of them and be quite content.
Eidorian
Jul 14, 02:37 PM
As Eidorian's link points out, Core Duo (Yonah) performance falls somewhere between the Athlon X2 3800 and the Athlon X2 4200. The 2.40GHz E6600, 2.66GHz E6700, and 2.93GHz X6800 Core 2 Duos in particular are at least 40% faster, which is exactly what Intel promised at the IDF.That's where I gauged it as well. The 1.86 GHz Conroe beats AMD's FX-62 in a few tests.
Hell the E6400 (2.13 GHz, $224) and the E6500 (2.4 GHz, $316) are more then enough to compete with the FX-62 (2.8 GHz, $999)
Hell the E6400 (2.13 GHz, $224) and the E6500 (2.4 GHz, $316) are more then enough to compete with the FX-62 (2.8 GHz, $999)
Rocketman
Aug 31, 03:24 PM
I don't care what it is, just give us something new to talk about. Mac Pro really nice machine but we saw it coming months in advance. Maybe not he exact spec but yeah we all knew it was coming. Same with Merom, Conroe etc... Give us something new, really new.
Get used to the new way. The only real suprise news from now on willl be specific software features, cosmetics and any new details not widely anticipated. The primary processor and platform/form factors are likely to remain unsurprising.
Furthermore, chip advances just took a big leap. Do not expect that again for 2 or more years.
Rocketman
Get used to the new way. The only real suprise news from now on willl be specific software features, cosmetics and any new details not widely anticipated. The primary processor and platform/form factors are likely to remain unsurprising.
Furthermore, chip advances just took a big leap. Do not expect that again for 2 or more years.
Rocketman
BobbyDigital
Sep 13, 11:20 PM
Hello everyone! I've been a daily MacRumors.com nerd for about 2 years now, but I never took the time to register until today...
I am definitely going to buy an Apple phone when and if it becomes available. I'm sure they'll get the design and interface right, as they always do. I saw someone post something on here (or maybe it was another recent thread) claiming their friend saw the Apple phone branded as a Samsung at a mobile phone convention just recently (which I totally doubt, they would never bring it out in public before release)... I think they're talking about this phone:
http://www.blogsmithmedia.com/www.engadgetmobile.com/media/2006/08/sgh-z610.jpg
Samsung SGH-Z610 (http://www.engadgetmobile.com/2006/08/29/samsungs-touchscreen-sgh-z610-sees-fcc-approval/)
I love the design of it, but I'm really not sure if Apple would abondon the click wheel on their first step into the cell phone market. One part of me wishes they would go with a full touch screen, but I think the click wheel will make it easier to market to the masses of iPod lovers.
I am definitely going to buy an Apple phone when and if it becomes available. I'm sure they'll get the design and interface right, as they always do. I saw someone post something on here (or maybe it was another recent thread) claiming their friend saw the Apple phone branded as a Samsung at a mobile phone convention just recently (which I totally doubt, they would never bring it out in public before release)... I think they're talking about this phone:
http://www.blogsmithmedia.com/www.engadgetmobile.com/media/2006/08/sgh-z610.jpg
Samsung SGH-Z610 (http://www.engadgetmobile.com/2006/08/29/samsungs-touchscreen-sgh-z610-sees-fcc-approval/)
I love the design of it, but I'm really not sure if Apple would abondon the click wheel on their first step into the cell phone market. One part of me wishes they would go with a full touch screen, but I think the click wheel will make it easier to market to the masses of iPod lovers.
coal
Sep 26, 09:13 AM
The Cingular "Jack" logo will look great on that new Apple-made phone. :(
yg17
Apr 25, 09:18 AM
Interesting coincidence. I just got off the line with someone who just told me how her brother was killed 2 weeks ago in a car wreck. A 16 year old was doing 55 in a 35 in a brand new Toyota truck, he hit her brother, t-boned, and he was killed instantly.
It's a shame, it's always the innocent ones who die. Every single time I hear about a fatal wreck on the news, the guy driving like an idiot walks away without a scratch and the innocent people in the other car die. I'd have no problem with 16 year old kids driving like idiots if there was a way to guarantee they're the ones who get killed and the person they hit walks away - natural selection would've removed those idiots from the gene pool by now.
And for everyone else on here who is a young male and doesn't drive like an idiot, you can thank Don here for your sky high insurance rates.
It's a shame, it's always the innocent ones who die. Every single time I hear about a fatal wreck on the news, the guy driving like an idiot walks away without a scratch and the innocent people in the other car die. I'd have no problem with 16 year old kids driving like idiots if there was a way to guarantee they're the ones who get killed and the person they hit walks away - natural selection would've removed those idiots from the gene pool by now.
And for everyone else on here who is a young male and doesn't drive like an idiot, you can thank Don here for your sky high insurance rates.
daddy-mojo
Sep 15, 06:17 PM
the ipod wasn't a ground up design either.
portal player had the software, pixo designed the UI, toshiba had the new 1.8" hard drives and tony fadell who came up with the whole idea was an outside vendor who pitched the ipod to real networds first (who turned them down, genius).
now admittedly, it was apple, jobs and ives' that took a good idea and refined it to being the great product introduced in '03, but the ipod was an interesting break from apple's NIH syndrome. so much so that i question the TS report about apple going for a ground up design.
I still have and use my original 5gb ipod. Came out before christmas, but after 9/11. I remember thinking how expensive it seemed & the state of the country at that point and wondered if anyone would buy it, I got mine in the spring of '02.
portal player had the software, pixo designed the UI, toshiba had the new 1.8" hard drives and tony fadell who came up with the whole idea was an outside vendor who pitched the ipod to real networds first (who turned them down, genius).
now admittedly, it was apple, jobs and ives' that took a good idea and refined it to being the great product introduced in '03, but the ipod was an interesting break from apple's NIH syndrome. so much so that i question the TS report about apple going for a ground up design.
I still have and use my original 5gb ipod. Came out before christmas, but after 9/11. I remember thinking how expensive it seemed & the state of the country at that point and wondered if anyone would buy it, I got mine in the spring of '02.
sfwalter
Sep 10, 03:39 PM
...I would like to be able to purchase a machine without an integrated display (aka iMac). This machine would have a graphics card in a standard slot so that it can upgraded. It would be great also to be able to remove and upgrade the hard disk, space for a second hard disk is would be a nice to have.
Currently I'm stuck in the middle between an iMac (I want a separate display, and some upgrade paths) and Mac Pro (too upgradeable for my needs, and way too expensive).
Apple really needs a pro-sumer box.
Currently I'm stuck in the middle between an iMac (I want a separate display, and some upgrade paths) and Mac Pro (too upgradeable for my needs, and way too expensive).
Apple really needs a pro-sumer box.
JAT
Oct 27, 11:56 AM
Somebody please explain to me what GW Bush has to do with a Greenpeace story out of the London Mac Expo?
And I don't know UK law, but if they did this in the USA (handing a kid food without parent's permission), they should be arrested. And fired by the company, although there's no company in this case. If somebody does that with one of my kids, they better be prepared to back down fast and apologize, or they will GO down fast. Wouldn't be the first time.
Let them hand out leaflets wherever they want.
And I don't know UK law, but if they did this in the USA (handing a kid food without parent's permission), they should be arrested. And fired by the company, although there's no company in this case. If somebody does that with one of my kids, they better be prepared to back down fast and apologize, or they will GO down fast. Wouldn't be the first time.
Let them hand out leaflets wherever they want.
Benjy91
Apr 19, 07:23 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)
Do no buckle to these power hungry tyrants Samsung. The stinger you fight, the more I will buy your products in the future.
You'd buy their products just because they opposed Apple? I buy products because I like them, hence a Samsung HDTV, Xbox 360, Sony Vaio Laptop, iPhone 4 and iPad.
One of my friends will not buy a piece of clothing if its cheaper than $50. (except underwear obviously) He could spot a shirt he liked, run over, and see it was $40, and he'd say "It's too cheap"
Where I would go, "Hey that shirt looks good"
4% doesn't sound like financial suicide to me. Though I do believe that Samsung would probably try to avoid losing that 4%.
Apple would probably find someone else for parts, but the question is if the quality/price would be the same. If I was a parts manufacturer, I would take advantage of this, knowing Apple is in desperate need of new parts. Cha-ching!!!!
Losing out on $142 billion in 1 deal, just to spite someone makes sense, if the CEO is 12.
Do no buckle to these power hungry tyrants Samsung. The stinger you fight, the more I will buy your products in the future.
You'd buy their products just because they opposed Apple? I buy products because I like them, hence a Samsung HDTV, Xbox 360, Sony Vaio Laptop, iPhone 4 and iPad.
One of my friends will not buy a piece of clothing if its cheaper than $50. (except underwear obviously) He could spot a shirt he liked, run over, and see it was $40, and he'd say "It's too cheap"
Where I would go, "Hey that shirt looks good"
4% doesn't sound like financial suicide to me. Though I do believe that Samsung would probably try to avoid losing that 4%.
Apple would probably find someone else for parts, but the question is if the quality/price would be the same. If I was a parts manufacturer, I would take advantage of this, knowing Apple is in desperate need of new parts. Cha-ching!!!!
Losing out on $142 billion in 1 deal, just to spite someone makes sense, if the CEO is 12.
powerbuddy
Sep 5, 01:52 PM
9.99? you can rent movies from Mlink or Cinemanow for 4.99 or DVR's from 3.99. Just stupid if we dont keep to buy and keep the movie for that price.
pavetheforest
Sep 15, 10:01 PM
I would ditch my verizon plan the instant it came out...