majorp
Sep 1, 11:46 AM
i wonder if it will lose its chin?! ^^^^^^ yes...precisely
aristobrat
Sep 19, 02:29 PM
... and yet there is a conspicuous lack of a self-congratulatory press release from Amazon about their sales numbers. I suspect that despite Unbox starting with 2000 movies, they've sold less than 125,000 movies.
If that's true, I wonder if it's because folks didn't want to have to learn new software to make Amazon's solution work, vs. "just clicking" in iTunes?
If that's true, I wonder if it's because folks didn't want to have to learn new software to make Amazon's solution work, vs. "just clicking" in iTunes?
FFTT
Sep 10, 08:26 PM
I understand the need for a mid level consumer tower, but right now
50%+/- of the market is looking at notebooks.
The cluttered, wire infested desktop is also none too popular with many people.
That's why the AOI iMac is so popular.
The MacBook is already more powerful than the majority of desktops MOST
average users have in their home.
The mini does a respectable job filling the affordable hassle free niche.
Heck, if you don't count the extra RAM cost, the Xeon powered Mac Pro 2.66 Quad is priced neck and neck with the mid level MacBook Pro.
That's amazing when you really think about it.
Even so, I do see a place for a Max mini of some sort starting
with at least the power of half a Mac Pro Tower for $999.00
50%+/- of the market is looking at notebooks.
The cluttered, wire infested desktop is also none too popular with many people.
That's why the AOI iMac is so popular.
The MacBook is already more powerful than the majority of desktops MOST
average users have in their home.
The mini does a respectable job filling the affordable hassle free niche.
Heck, if you don't count the extra RAM cost, the Xeon powered Mac Pro 2.66 Quad is priced neck and neck with the mid level MacBook Pro.
That's amazing when you really think about it.
Even so, I do see a place for a Max mini of some sort starting
with at least the power of half a Mac Pro Tower for $999.00
kresh
Sep 6, 05:33 AM
although i dont know enough about the bittorrent protocol to fully understand the effects of prioritizing consecutive pieces.
I think you just hit on why you can't watching streaming video with Bittorrent.
I think you just hit on why you can't watching streaming video with Bittorrent.
mechamac
Sep 19, 03:17 PM
I bought The Ladykillers and got the movie in 40 minutes. I watched it on my iMac (last Intel-model, 17") and the quality was really great. Might be slightly softer than DVD quality, but color, detail, everything is really sharp. Not at all like the TV shows. Chapter skipping is great....no complaints, really. I doubt I'll be buying many movies, but I'll certainly buy again when the selection improves.
My Netflix account stays, though.
My Netflix account stays, though.
aristobrat
Sep 19, 03:26 PM
I'm not touching it until they offer 5.1 sound. I'm sure its just a matter of time, though.
I thought they had 5.1 sound already in the movie downloads?
I thought they had 5.1 sound already in the movie downloads?
ValSalva
Apr 25, 02:33 PM
Would you disagree that, just perhaps, in these industries where the DVD drive is so crucial that they might just have external drives? Apple is trying to sell these MacBooks to everyone, not just pros. It's the internet and App store are capable of doing the exact same thing as DVDs (for most computer purposes). For everything else, buy the external superdrive. 15% of MBP customers might need a DVD drive, but we know Apple isn't going to ignore the 85% who don't.
I'd agree with you. Apple is also trying to get everyone to purchase software from the Mac App Store. They are even trying to distribute Final Cut Pro via download so you have to believe Apple is going to do everything possible to diminish the use of CD/DVDs.
You also have to believe that if you still intend to watch movies/TV on your MacBook Pro that Apple would rather you download it from iTunes than buy a DVD from which Apple receives no cut.
At this point I'd be more surprised if the next MacBook Pro had a Superdrive. I think they didn't remove it this year because that would have required a redesign.
I'd agree with you. Apple is also trying to get everyone to purchase software from the Mac App Store. They are even trying to distribute Final Cut Pro via download so you have to believe Apple is going to do everything possible to diminish the use of CD/DVDs.
You also have to believe that if you still intend to watch movies/TV on your MacBook Pro that Apple would rather you download it from iTunes than buy a DVD from which Apple receives no cut.
At this point I'd be more surprised if the next MacBook Pro had a Superdrive. I think they didn't remove it this year because that would have required a redesign.
w00master
Nov 13, 02:42 PM
Obviously the images are copyrighted by Apple, and those images they don't want people using. Ok, well, that is their rights, they designed them and copyrighted them. Either they have to license those images from Apple (which I doubt Apple would do) or make their own. Just like every other copyright, you don't have the right to breech. If Apple doesn't defend their copyright, then they can lose it, so they HAVE to fight for it.
Again... you clearly did not read the developer's side.
Btw, those "copyrighted images?" Programmers use them all the time on OS X. Why? Because THEY'RE FROM OS X APIs.
w00master
Again... you clearly did not read the developer's side.
Btw, those "copyrighted images?" Programmers use them all the time on OS X. Why? Because THEY'RE FROM OS X APIs.
w00master
Music-Man
Sep 14, 08:21 AM
just saw this on the register
not sure if its been posted before
http://www.reghardware.co.uk/2006/09/14/apple_iphone_at_large/
Yes it has.
I really like this mock-up from a little while ago.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-5qGn7kIkMA
not sure if its been posted before
http://www.reghardware.co.uk/2006/09/14/apple_iphone_at_large/
Yes it has.
I really like this mock-up from a little while ago.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-5qGn7kIkMA
fall3n
Aug 28, 03:29 PM
Hey I said I too have been waiting - since June - to replace my 6 1/2 year old G4. Don't even have iWeb or Tiger. At this point, I almost want to wait to get Leopard pre-installed on a Santa Rosa motherboard. It's a vicious circle. So sue me for being a little bored while I wait for revisions. And speaking of, can we stop the should I buy now or wait threads. Find one and read it.
there will ALWAYS be updates, if you keep waiting for the next one you'll be waiting forever. Santa rosa isn't going to be THAT amazing of an upgrade. I'd just buy the core duo 2 when they release and then upgrade to leopard later. But that's just me.
there will ALWAYS be updates, if you keep waiting for the next one you'll be waiting forever. Santa rosa isn't going to be THAT amazing of an upgrade. I'd just buy the core duo 2 when they release and then upgrade to leopard later. But that's just me.
ezekielrage_99
Sep 10, 08:31 PM
I wondering how many people are now going to put off buying a Mac Pro and wait for a faster Kentsfield :confused:
The Mac Pros a fast as it is now, Kentsfield would smash the previous benchmarks but a fair margin.
The Mac Pros a fast as it is now, Kentsfield would smash the previous benchmarks but a fair margin.
jeff1977
Mar 29, 11:51 AM
He means CUT and paste hence the caps. Not copy. i.e. The text you select is both deleted and copied to the clipboard. I use it a lot myself in Windows and do miss it in OSX. Also allows you to easily move files around by CUT and pasting them :D
Wow, I didnt even realize they took CUT away, I guess because I always use copy for text, as I rarely want it deleted. As far as using it for moving files, I don't use it because I always assumed, probably wrongly, that there was some file size limit or that it could affect performance when using it for large files (I mostly work with huge ProRes files. Maybe I think that because of old Photoshop error windows, when closing the application, saying clipboard failed to save due to size?
Actually what annoys me in SL to no end is lack of file size sorting in Finder search (CMD+F) and the changes to Finder search like not being able to select which disk you're searching. If there is a way please inform me!
Wow, I didnt even realize they took CUT away, I guess because I always use copy for text, as I rarely want it deleted. As far as using it for moving files, I don't use it because I always assumed, probably wrongly, that there was some file size limit or that it could affect performance when using it for large files (I mostly work with huge ProRes files. Maybe I think that because of old Photoshop error windows, when closing the application, saying clipboard failed to save due to size?
Actually what annoys me in SL to no end is lack of file size sorting in Finder search (CMD+F) and the changes to Finder search like not being able to select which disk you're searching. If there is a way please inform me!
rmhop81
Apr 22, 09:54 AM
Key things said in your statement. First, believe it or not, people do spend a lot of time out, people have lives. I'm not saying you don't necessarily but, not everyone sits at home. When the time comes when its obvious physical media is actually dead, internet connectivity sure will be more reliable at that point. Its hard to say what data charges and such will be like at that point. Also, not everyone has or is able to get unlimited data so quit acting basing your arguments on that people do. Also, I'm assuming you have AT&T. In case you didn't know AT&T is already sending out messages to people with abnormally high data usage...even to people on unlimited plans saying stop it or we will change your plan to one our current higher end plans....i.e. 4GB. So until, cellular data is stable, reliable and the carriers do NOT want to gouge the customer on data....I want my local storage. One more point, physical media is one thing and local storage in terms of what we're discussing is not exactly the same thing. You're talking about CDs, blu rays and such. I'm talking about digital storage of .mp3/.aac/.mp4 and such. Not exactly the same.
hence why i have unlimited data....when i am on the go i am not limited. do you know how much data it takes to stream something like pandora? not a lot. you are all acting like ur going to be hitting 50gb data usage by streaming something. I don't have abnormally high data usage at all. It's actually less most months than 2gb's but it's not worth it to me to give up unlimited data to save $5/month.
You still don't get it. Look at where the future is going. Look at the storage on iPads, MBA's etc. There is not a need for massive local storage like there was in the past. Heck i have a 64gb MBA and have over 40gb's free bc nothing is locally stored. I can access everything at anytime from any device. Local storage is not necessary and just makes things more difficult when wanting to get music on multiple devices. Physical media is slowly going away bc it's old technology and there are better ways to do things. Local storage is the same thing man.
hence why i have unlimited data....when i am on the go i am not limited. do you know how much data it takes to stream something like pandora? not a lot. you are all acting like ur going to be hitting 50gb data usage by streaming something. I don't have abnormally high data usage at all. It's actually less most months than 2gb's but it's not worth it to me to give up unlimited data to save $5/month.
You still don't get it. Look at where the future is going. Look at the storage on iPads, MBA's etc. There is not a need for massive local storage like there was in the past. Heck i have a 64gb MBA and have over 40gb's free bc nothing is locally stored. I can access everything at anytime from any device. Local storage is not necessary and just makes things more difficult when wanting to get music on multiple devices. Physical media is slowly going away bc it's old technology and there are better ways to do things. Local storage is the same thing man.
Popeye206
Apr 19, 08:51 AM
Too bad Apple couldn't just ask Samsung to behave themselves... Maybe they did?
I don't know about you, but it's pretty obvious to me that the Samsung devices pictured here are a clear and blatant rip-off of Apple's designs and interface. At least other Android devices had some differentiating elements. Not so here. Even a monkey could see Samsung stealing Apple's bananas in this case.
So you know, before you sue, you issue a "Cease" letter explaining your claim and asking the offending company to stop. So in essence, they did ask. It's part of the process.
Really guys.... this is all just normal business. It amazes me when people get up in arms either way. Valid patents and technology innovations need to protected by their owners... otherwise they are fools to let others copy them... especially when you do have the hottest single product out there. Apple worked hard to get where they are and to just let others copy freely would be stupid on Apple's part.
With that said, I'm saying the above as a "fanboy" but as someone in the software industry and value the things I've done in the past and patents we've had.
I don't know about you, but it's pretty obvious to me that the Samsung devices pictured here are a clear and blatant rip-off of Apple's designs and interface. At least other Android devices had some differentiating elements. Not so here. Even a monkey could see Samsung stealing Apple's bananas in this case.
So you know, before you sue, you issue a "Cease" letter explaining your claim and asking the offending company to stop. So in essence, they did ask. It's part of the process.
Really guys.... this is all just normal business. It amazes me when people get up in arms either way. Valid patents and technology innovations need to protected by their owners... otherwise they are fools to let others copy them... especially when you do have the hottest single product out there. Apple worked hard to get where they are and to just let others copy freely would be stupid on Apple's part.
With that said, I'm saying the above as a "fanboy" but as someone in the software industry and value the things I've done in the past and patents we've had.
Eye4Desyn
Apr 30, 04:12 PM
I couldn't possibly be happier to hear this news. Bring on May 3rd. I've got cash in hand.
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.
iRobby
Mar 23, 06:47 PM
It's true what they say "Mac's just work."
I've been told "Once you go Mac you don't go back!"
Judging from my experience with my iPhone 3GS making me wanting to get an iMac 27" inch Quad Core I may agree.
I've been told "Once you go Mac you don't go back!"
Judging from my experience with my iPhone 3GS making me wanting to get an iMac 27" inch Quad Core I may agree.
techfreak85
Apr 25, 09:28 AM
Instead of increasing the driving age, what about requiring more logged hours with a parent whit a learner's permit, manditory quality driver's ed, and making it harder for unsafe drivers to get their licence? Then require a one year driving check up a year after the licence was attained?
ThomasJL
Apr 30, 09:37 PM
Curious that everyone is clamoring for a thunderbolt-enabled machine, but there isn't a single thunderbolt drive available on the market.
I guess some people just need to feel like they have new stuff even if it's totally pointless.
Two words: Future-proofing.
Macs are expensive, and many Mac users cannot afford or do not want to buy new Macs frequently. Such Mac users want to buy a Mac and have it work with the latest software and peripherals for as many years as possible. For such users, it makes total sense to want a Mac with Thunderbolt, even though there are isn't a single Thunderbolt peripheral on the market.
I guess some people just need to feel like they have new stuff even if it's totally pointless.
Two words: Future-proofing.
Macs are expensive, and many Mac users cannot afford or do not want to buy new Macs frequently. Such Mac users want to buy a Mac and have it work with the latest software and peripherals for as many years as possible. For such users, it makes total sense to want a Mac with Thunderbolt, even though there are isn't a single Thunderbolt peripheral on the market.
biw314
Sep 6, 07:55 AM
When did it come out? Wht aren't you guys talking about it? Did I miss something?
chopsuey158
Sep 9, 10:13 PM
I'd say switch the last two, make the ipod the 'one more thing' event and have the itunes movie store presented after the new mbp's. That would be a smoother transition ("oh, on your new mbp, you can download movies with the new itunes movie store") and then after that say "and one more thing, we also have the new ipod for you movie enjoyment." Who knows (besides steve jobs), but that's just my two cents worth.
snebes
Apr 4, 11:51 AM
seems a little excessive. Hopefully there were some bits to the story left out.
Otherwise, yeah... a little excessive.
Nothing was left out, if you read the story. Gun fire was exchanged. Obviously the mall guard had better training, possibly a moonlighting cop.
Armed security guards are pretty standard in Chicagoland too.
Otherwise, yeah... a little excessive.
Nothing was left out, if you read the story. Gun fire was exchanged. Obviously the mall guard had better training, possibly a moonlighting cop.
Armed security guards are pretty standard in Chicagoland too.
AppliedVisual
Oct 27, 01:29 PM
Of course, they've never really cared if people get offended, even their own voice actors (Issac Hayes).
Hayes has issues... He stuck with the show and helped Matt and Trey and the folks at Commedy Central poke fun at every race and religion... And then came the Scientologists turn to get made fun of. Hayes, being a Scientologist, didn't agree with that (even though it's OK with him to defile every other religion), so he announced he was leaving the show.
Oh, and the Mr. & Mrs. Tennorman chili was classic. Cartman rules. ;)
Hayes has issues... He stuck with the show and helped Matt and Trey and the folks at Commedy Central poke fun at every race and religion... And then came the Scientologists turn to get made fun of. Hayes, being a Scientologist, didn't agree with that (even though it's OK with him to defile every other religion), so he announced he was leaving the show.
Oh, and the Mr. & Mrs. Tennorman chili was classic. Cartman rules. ;)
Josias
Sep 10, 06:15 AM
It seems Apple could just wait for Clovertown...
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/02/11/intel_clovertown/
which appears to be 2 Woodcrests on one processor. Could we see 8-Core Mac Pros' in 2007?
arn
Oh, Kentsfield will as Conroe maybe not support duel processors, thereby disabling the opportunity of 8 cores? I c...;)
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/02/11/intel_clovertown/
which appears to be 2 Woodcrests on one processor. Could we see 8-Core Mac Pros' in 2007?
arn
Oh, Kentsfield will as Conroe maybe not support duel processors, thereby disabling the opportunity of 8 cores? I c...;)