oldwatery
Apr 19, 02:09 PM
What annoys me even more is that Apple always seems to make these claims that they made such and such first, and that Windows is copying Mac OS.. What annoys me is if you know a bit of the history you'll find that Apple copied Xerox interface, with permission of course, but it's not like they came up with it first..
Now they are making another claim that Samsung is copying..
x2
Everything is just a development of something else.
There is no absolute originality.
This is a stupid waste of time and effort.
But I guess when you get all big and high and mighty then why not throw some of the spare cash at a silly law suit if for no other reason than getting more publicity.
Now they are making another claim that Samsung is copying..
x2
Everything is just a development of something else.
There is no absolute originality.
This is a stupid waste of time and effort.
But I guess when you get all big and high and mighty then why not throw some of the spare cash at a silly law suit if for no other reason than getting more publicity.
littleman23408
Dec 14, 06:26 AM
Lookin good SevenInchScrew:cool:
Bill McEnaney
Apr 27, 12:27 PM
I guess you missed the part where the one that is being shown is a certified copy.
Maybe?? For someone who isn't a birther, you sure sound like one.
Apparently the short form wasn't convincing enough...which is why the long form has now been presented.
I suspected it was a copy, I've never trusted the president, and I probably never will. It's one thing to doubt that the certificate is legitimate. It's quite another to believe that the certificate is not legitimate.
Maybe?? For someone who isn't a birther, you sure sound like one.
Apparently the short form wasn't convincing enough...which is why the long form has now been presented.
I suspected it was a copy, I've never trusted the president, and I probably never will. It's one thing to doubt that the certificate is legitimate. It's quite another to believe that the certificate is not legitimate.
growlf
Mar 31, 03:50 PM
I cannot help shake the feeling that some of the vitriol from certain people is the fear that a more coherent and unified Android ecosystem is an even bigger threat to the iOS platform.
First, I have a Dell Streak. Wanted to see what the fuss was about. Took a year for the official Froyo release to appear. Yeah, fragmentation exists.
(I appreciate Android on the Streak, but GOOD GOD does it feel like a laggy piece of software compared to my iPhone and iPad. It has widgets and tons of convenient apps for pirating software or games (no... I own ALL those ROMS)... but I digress.)
So, Android unifies. Google forces handset/tablet manufacturers to adopt a stock OS interface. How will they differentiate themselves? What incentive, beyond a free OS, will there be to creating "phone B" that looks just like "phone A". This is where Google will shoot itself in the foot. The less the carriers and handset manufacturers can customize, the less incentive they have to launch on Android. Heck, just emulate Android if you want the apps, right RIM?
Weren't there waves a few weeks about about Motorola wanting its own OS? I'd want to control my own destiny. This is creating a "walled garden" (Andy as caretaker) for the device manufacturers/carriers, and they're the ones that Google needs to be pushing the platform.
First, I have a Dell Streak. Wanted to see what the fuss was about. Took a year for the official Froyo release to appear. Yeah, fragmentation exists.
(I appreciate Android on the Streak, but GOOD GOD does it feel like a laggy piece of software compared to my iPhone and iPad. It has widgets and tons of convenient apps for pirating software or games (no... I own ALL those ROMS)... but I digress.)
So, Android unifies. Google forces handset/tablet manufacturers to adopt a stock OS interface. How will they differentiate themselves? What incentive, beyond a free OS, will there be to creating "phone B" that looks just like "phone A". This is where Google will shoot itself in the foot. The less the carriers and handset manufacturers can customize, the less incentive they have to launch on Android. Heck, just emulate Android if you want the apps, right RIM?
Weren't there waves a few weeks about about Motorola wanting its own OS? I'd want to control my own destiny. This is creating a "walled garden" (Andy as caretaker) for the device manufacturers/carriers, and they're the ones that Google needs to be pushing the platform.
portishead
Apr 12, 02:44 AM
Are you saying you would prefer they give it the ability to use more memory before they give it the ability to use more processing cores? Because that's the only thing 64bit is going to give you.
Yes, it does most of what I "need", but the competition does most of them better. Final Cut used to be cutting edge, now it's slow, inefficient and buggy.
Naw, memory too. There's probably a lot I left out, it was just a quick list off the top of my head.
Yes, it does most of what I "need", but the competition does most of them better. Final Cut used to be cutting edge, now it's slow, inefficient and buggy.
Naw, memory too. There's probably a lot I left out, it was just a quick list off the top of my head.
Thataboy
Jul 27, 07:59 PM
It absolutely will!!! Leopard is just going to be mostly beneficial for dual-core machines. Read this article:
http://macosrumors.com/20060710A1.php
Leopard sounds FAST!
You didn't really just link to MOSR, did you? :p
Anyway, I have the sneaking suspicion that we will see Core 2 Duo/Extreme-related computer announcements next week, and not at WWDC. WWDC will get major coverage anyway because of Leopard (which could easily take up the whole keynote). So why not spread the Apple press over 2 weeks?
Moreover, everyone announced new computers today. Apple might have wanted to avoid the first-day glut of releases, but they might not want to wait almost 2 full weeks to announce a Mac Pro.
My wild guess is Mac Daddy Extreme and/or iMaconroe on Tuesday with near-immediate availability, and announcement of MeromBook Pro at WWDC with early September availability.
http://macosrumors.com/20060710A1.php
Leopard sounds FAST!
You didn't really just link to MOSR, did you? :p
Anyway, I have the sneaking suspicion that we will see Core 2 Duo/Extreme-related computer announcements next week, and not at WWDC. WWDC will get major coverage anyway because of Leopard (which could easily take up the whole keynote). So why not spread the Apple press over 2 weeks?
Moreover, everyone announced new computers today. Apple might have wanted to avoid the first-day glut of releases, but they might not want to wait almost 2 full weeks to announce a Mac Pro.
My wild guess is Mac Daddy Extreme and/or iMaconroe on Tuesday with near-immediate availability, and announcement of MeromBook Pro at WWDC with early September availability.
SuperCachetes
Mar 22, 06:53 PM
Oh yeah... and here's a fun little nugget for those who like to tout Obama's coalition:
Here's a little fun little nugget for those who say "Obama's just Bush all over again."
UN Resolution 1441 (2002) was drafted by the US and UK, and presented at the UN by Bush.
UN Resolution 1973 (2011) was drafted by France, Lebanon, and the UK, and not presented by the US.
Like you, I would rather us not be involved at all - but we hardly have quite the same hand in this latest business as we did when we went WMD-hunting...
Here's a little fun little nugget for those who say "Obama's just Bush all over again."
UN Resolution 1441 (2002) was drafted by the US and UK, and presented at the UN by Bush.
UN Resolution 1973 (2011) was drafted by France, Lebanon, and the UK, and not presented by the US.
Like you, I would rather us not be involved at all - but we hardly have quite the same hand in this latest business as we did when we went WMD-hunting...
BlondeBuddhist
Jun 10, 12:37 PM
When I talked to the rep at The Shack 2 days ago he told me to keep checking back for what time they'll be open on launch day. He said there is a good chance I'll know when I pre-orer the 15th.
As far as how many non pre-order phones they plan to have, he told me they will likely have as many stock phones as they get pre-ordered. Doesn't apply to those pre-ordering as much as those hitting up RS for shorter lines that didn't pre-order.
I wonder if they will allow me to pay in full on the 15th as oppose to the $50 down payment. Either way I hope this helps Radio Shack out. I have been treated 100X better by the staff there compared to Best Buy OR AT&T. Plus they're prices seem better. When I was there asking about the pre-orders I purchased a car charger/cord to plug my ipod in to the glove box that runs thru the deck for only $37 with tax.
Blonde Buddhist
As far as how many non pre-order phones they plan to have, he told me they will likely have as many stock phones as they get pre-ordered. Doesn't apply to those pre-ordering as much as those hitting up RS for shorter lines that didn't pre-order.
I wonder if they will allow me to pay in full on the 15th as oppose to the $50 down payment. Either way I hope this helps Radio Shack out. I have been treated 100X better by the staff there compared to Best Buy OR AT&T. Plus they're prices seem better. When I was there asking about the pre-orders I purchased a car charger/cord to plug my ipod in to the glove box that runs thru the deck for only $37 with tax.
Blonde Buddhist
gnasher729
Jul 27, 05:59 PM
but is still more productive because it handles more calculations per clock cycle
I'm no processor geek. I have a basic understanding of the terminology and how things work so correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't this one of the advantages that the PPC had over Intel chips? Does this mean Intel is moving toward shorter pipes? Are we talking more instructions per clock cycle or what? What does "calculations" mean in this context?
With most processors, especially the Intel/AMD processors, "instructions per cycle" is not a useful number. These processors have both simple instructions (add register number 3 to register number 6) and complex instructions (add register number 3 to the number whose address is in register number 6). A PowerPC has the simple instructions, but not the complex ones. Instead it would need three instructions "load the number whose address is in register number 6, and move it to register 7", "add register 3 to register 7", "store register 7 to the location whose address is in register 6". But the Intel processor doesn't magically do three times as much work. Instead, it splits the complex instruction into three so-called "macro-ops", and does exactly the same work. So in this case, the PowerPC would execute three times as many instructions per cycle (3 instead of 1), but because it doesn't do more actual work, that is pointless. Instead you would count the number of operations, and they are more or less the same.
Intel is indeed moving towards shorter pipelines. They have done that already with the Core Duo chips. Longer pipelines have the advantage that each pipeline step is a bit faster, so you can get higher clockspeed. Shorter pipelines have the advantage that they take much less energy (very important; at some point your chips just melt), they are much faster handling branches, and they are just much much easier to design. Pentium 4 needed absolutely heroic efforts to produce it, and would have needed twice the heroics to improve it. Instead, the Core Duo has a much simpler design, that is just as powerful, and because it was so simple, Core 2 Duo could improve it.
And Core 2 Duo can now execute up to four "micro-ops" per cycle, same as the G5, compared to three for Core Duo, Pentium 4 and G4. It also has some clever features that reduce the number of micro-ops needed up to 10 percent, and some other improvements.
I'm no processor geek. I have a basic understanding of the terminology and how things work so correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't this one of the advantages that the PPC had over Intel chips? Does this mean Intel is moving toward shorter pipes? Are we talking more instructions per clock cycle or what? What does "calculations" mean in this context?
With most processors, especially the Intel/AMD processors, "instructions per cycle" is not a useful number. These processors have both simple instructions (add register number 3 to register number 6) and complex instructions (add register number 3 to the number whose address is in register number 6). A PowerPC has the simple instructions, but not the complex ones. Instead it would need three instructions "load the number whose address is in register number 6, and move it to register 7", "add register 3 to register 7", "store register 7 to the location whose address is in register 6". But the Intel processor doesn't magically do three times as much work. Instead, it splits the complex instruction into three so-called "macro-ops", and does exactly the same work. So in this case, the PowerPC would execute three times as many instructions per cycle (3 instead of 1), but because it doesn't do more actual work, that is pointless. Instead you would count the number of operations, and they are more or less the same.
Intel is indeed moving towards shorter pipelines. They have done that already with the Core Duo chips. Longer pipelines have the advantage that each pipeline step is a bit faster, so you can get higher clockspeed. Shorter pipelines have the advantage that they take much less energy (very important; at some point your chips just melt), they are much faster handling branches, and they are just much much easier to design. Pentium 4 needed absolutely heroic efforts to produce it, and would have needed twice the heroics to improve it. Instead, the Core Duo has a much simpler design, that is just as powerful, and because it was so simple, Core 2 Duo could improve it.
And Core 2 Duo can now execute up to four "micro-ops" per cycle, same as the G5, compared to three for Core Duo, Pentium 4 and G4. It also has some clever features that reduce the number of micro-ops needed up to 10 percent, and some other improvements.
KnightWRX
Apr 9, 11:12 AM
I thought the 320m was also integrated? Wouldn't that mean that would be your only graphics card were nvidia allowed to add them to sandy bridge? I don't see why you would have integrated intel hd 3000 along with an integrated 320m (or successor).
Why not ? A 320m successor would just destroy the Intel HD 3000 which is sub-par compared to the current 320m. Why not use 2 IGPs and go for a 2 chip solution instead of using a dedicated GPU and have to rely on a 3 chip solution if that 2nd IGP just blows away the first ?
Heck, just disable the Intel 3000 HD entirely.
Intel got greedy.
Why not ? A 320m successor would just destroy the Intel HD 3000 which is sub-par compared to the current 320m. Why not use 2 IGPs and go for a 2 chip solution instead of using a dedicated GPU and have to rely on a 3 chip solution if that 2nd IGP just blows away the first ?
Heck, just disable the Intel 3000 HD entirely.
Intel got greedy.
Bacong
Apr 6, 11:07 AM
I am shocked that anyone finds this as a positive.
So you all want a drop from 1.86/2.13 to 1.4GHz CPUs in your 13" MBA? That is a 30% drop.
Then you want another drop of approaching 50% in graphics performance? Remember these IGPs clock in much lower than the STD voltage SB used in 13" MBP.
I find this completely backwards from Apple's current position on both CPU and graphics, and I don't think anyone would end up with a faster or better 13" MBA than the current generation. Apple would certainly have to bring back the backlit keyboard and introduce Thunderbolt to sucker anyone into buying such inferior junk! I would recommend people buy the current generation on clearance rather than lose performance everywhere like this. If this is the chip Apple uses in the 13" MBA, prepare for a big drop in capabilities!
I am still in shock anyone finds this a positive? Have you all read the clock speed? The facts about the chip and IGP in ultra low voltage variants?
agreed completely.
So you all want a drop from 1.86/2.13 to 1.4GHz CPUs in your 13" MBA? That is a 30% drop.
Then you want another drop of approaching 50% in graphics performance? Remember these IGPs clock in much lower than the STD voltage SB used in 13" MBP.
I find this completely backwards from Apple's current position on both CPU and graphics, and I don't think anyone would end up with a faster or better 13" MBA than the current generation. Apple would certainly have to bring back the backlit keyboard and introduce Thunderbolt to sucker anyone into buying such inferior junk! I would recommend people buy the current generation on clearance rather than lose performance everywhere like this. If this is the chip Apple uses in the 13" MBA, prepare for a big drop in capabilities!
I am still in shock anyone finds this a positive? Have you all read the clock speed? The facts about the chip and IGP in ultra low voltage variants?
agreed completely.
Blue Velvet
Mar 23, 06:11 AM
Libya is more like Bosnia than Iraq. A moment of force has the potential to change the scope of the conflict, hopefully for the positive, in a way that a full-blown invasion would merely complicate. That's the central part that fivepoint, who is merely interested in making another partisan screed, is ignoring.
Well exactly. Far easier to tag together some buzzwords, maybe pull something from FoxNews than it is to think critically about the issue. This inane comparison between coalition numbers was also picked up by Steve M.:
Fox Nation huffily declares that "Bush Had 2 Times More Coalition Partners in Iraq Than Obama Has in Libya." Bush's thirty-nation list, of course, included such global powers as Azerbaijan, Estonia, Latvia, and Uzbekistan, and didn't include the likes of, y'know, Germany and France.
But if we're going to play games like this, in the run-up to the war, how many coalition partners did Bush attract per week? The Libyan uprising started just about a month ago and Obama's coalition is fifteen nations. When do you date the start of the "Iraq crisis" the Bushies manufactured? The Axis of Evil speech, fourteen months before the war began? The Battle of Tora Bora, a month before that? The first administration meetings on Iraq regime change, mere days after Bush's inauguration, and more than two years before the Iraq War started? By that standard, Bush barely acquired one coalition partner a month! Obama obtained more than three partners a week!
I'm reminded of the 2000 electoral maps that measured Bush's vote by geography, as if winning a county with more jackrabbits than people was the equivalent of winning a county full of apartment buildings.
http://nomoremister.blogspot.com/2011/03/well-if-were-going-to-be-ridiculous.html
Meanwhile, Juan Cole lays out ten reasons why this is not like Iraq:
Here are the differences between George W. Bush�s invasion of Iraq in 2003 and the current United Nations action in Libya:
1. The action in Libya was authorized by the United Nations Security Council. That in Iraq was not. By the UN Charter, military action after 1945 should either come as self-defense or with UNSC authorization. Most countries in the world are signatories to the charter and bound by its provisions.
2. The Libyan people had risen up and thrown off the Qaddafi regime, with some 80-90 percent of the country having gone out of his hands before he started having tank commanders fire shells into peaceful crowds. It was this vast majority of the Libyan people that demanded the UN no-fly zone. In 2002-3 there was no similar popular movement against Saddam Hussein.
3. There was an ongoing massacre of civilians, and the threat of more such massacres in Benghazi, by the Qaddafi regime, which precipitated the UNSC resolution. Although the Saddam Hussein regime had massacred people in the 1980s and early 1990s, nothing was going on in 2002-2003 that would have required international intervention.
4. The Arab League urged the UNSC to take action against the Qaddafi regime, and in many ways precipitated Resolution 1973. The Arab League met in 2002 and expressed opposition to a war on Iraq. (Reports of Arab League backtracking on Sunday were incorrect, based on a remark of outgoing Secretary-General Amr Moussa that criticized the taking out of anti-aircraft batteries. The Arab League reaffirmed Sunday and Moussa agreed Monday that the No-Fly Zone is what it wants).
5. None of the United Nations allies envisages landing troops on the ground, nor does the UNSC authorize it. Iraq was invaded by land forces.
6. No false allegations were made against the Qaddafi regime, of being in league with al-Qaeda or of having a nuclear weapons program. The charge is massacre of peaceful civilian demonstrators and an actual promise to commit more such massacres.
7. The United States did not take the lead role in urging a no-fly zone, and was dragged into this action by its Arab and European allies. President Obama pledges that the US role, mainly disabling anti-aircraft batteries and bombing runways, will last �days, not months� before being turned over to other United Nations allies.
8. There is no sectarian or ethnic dimension to the Libyan conflict, whereas the US Pentagon conspired with Shiite and Kurdish parties to overthrow the Sunni-dominated Baathist regime in Iraq, setting the stage for a prolonged and bitter civil war.
9. The US has not rewarded countries such as Norway for entering the conflict as UN allies, but rather a genuine sense of outrage at the brutal crimes against humanity being committed by Qaddafi and his forces impelled the formation of this coalition. The Bush administration�s �coalition of the willing� in contrast was often brought on board by what were essentially bribes.
10. Iraq in 2002-3 no longer posed a credible threat to its neighbors. A resurgent Qaddafi in Libya with petroleum billions at his disposal would likely attempt to undermine the democratic experiments in Tunisia and Egypt, blighting the lives of millions.
http://www.juancole.com/2011/03/top-ten-ways-that-libya-2011-is-not-iraq-2003.html
Well exactly. Far easier to tag together some buzzwords, maybe pull something from FoxNews than it is to think critically about the issue. This inane comparison between coalition numbers was also picked up by Steve M.:
Fox Nation huffily declares that "Bush Had 2 Times More Coalition Partners in Iraq Than Obama Has in Libya." Bush's thirty-nation list, of course, included such global powers as Azerbaijan, Estonia, Latvia, and Uzbekistan, and didn't include the likes of, y'know, Germany and France.
But if we're going to play games like this, in the run-up to the war, how many coalition partners did Bush attract per week? The Libyan uprising started just about a month ago and Obama's coalition is fifteen nations. When do you date the start of the "Iraq crisis" the Bushies manufactured? The Axis of Evil speech, fourteen months before the war began? The Battle of Tora Bora, a month before that? The first administration meetings on Iraq regime change, mere days after Bush's inauguration, and more than two years before the Iraq War started? By that standard, Bush barely acquired one coalition partner a month! Obama obtained more than three partners a week!
I'm reminded of the 2000 electoral maps that measured Bush's vote by geography, as if winning a county with more jackrabbits than people was the equivalent of winning a county full of apartment buildings.
http://nomoremister.blogspot.com/2011/03/well-if-were-going-to-be-ridiculous.html
Meanwhile, Juan Cole lays out ten reasons why this is not like Iraq:
Here are the differences between George W. Bush�s invasion of Iraq in 2003 and the current United Nations action in Libya:
1. The action in Libya was authorized by the United Nations Security Council. That in Iraq was not. By the UN Charter, military action after 1945 should either come as self-defense or with UNSC authorization. Most countries in the world are signatories to the charter and bound by its provisions.
2. The Libyan people had risen up and thrown off the Qaddafi regime, with some 80-90 percent of the country having gone out of his hands before he started having tank commanders fire shells into peaceful crowds. It was this vast majority of the Libyan people that demanded the UN no-fly zone. In 2002-3 there was no similar popular movement against Saddam Hussein.
3. There was an ongoing massacre of civilians, and the threat of more such massacres in Benghazi, by the Qaddafi regime, which precipitated the UNSC resolution. Although the Saddam Hussein regime had massacred people in the 1980s and early 1990s, nothing was going on in 2002-2003 that would have required international intervention.
4. The Arab League urged the UNSC to take action against the Qaddafi regime, and in many ways precipitated Resolution 1973. The Arab League met in 2002 and expressed opposition to a war on Iraq. (Reports of Arab League backtracking on Sunday were incorrect, based on a remark of outgoing Secretary-General Amr Moussa that criticized the taking out of anti-aircraft batteries. The Arab League reaffirmed Sunday and Moussa agreed Monday that the No-Fly Zone is what it wants).
5. None of the United Nations allies envisages landing troops on the ground, nor does the UNSC authorize it. Iraq was invaded by land forces.
6. No false allegations were made against the Qaddafi regime, of being in league with al-Qaeda or of having a nuclear weapons program. The charge is massacre of peaceful civilian demonstrators and an actual promise to commit more such massacres.
7. The United States did not take the lead role in urging a no-fly zone, and was dragged into this action by its Arab and European allies. President Obama pledges that the US role, mainly disabling anti-aircraft batteries and bombing runways, will last �days, not months� before being turned over to other United Nations allies.
8. There is no sectarian or ethnic dimension to the Libyan conflict, whereas the US Pentagon conspired with Shiite and Kurdish parties to overthrow the Sunni-dominated Baathist regime in Iraq, setting the stage for a prolonged and bitter civil war.
9. The US has not rewarded countries such as Norway for entering the conflict as UN allies, but rather a genuine sense of outrage at the brutal crimes against humanity being committed by Qaddafi and his forces impelled the formation of this coalition. The Bush administration�s �coalition of the willing� in contrast was often brought on board by what were essentially bribes.
10. Iraq in 2002-3 no longer posed a credible threat to its neighbors. A resurgent Qaddafi in Libya with petroleum billions at his disposal would likely attempt to undermine the democratic experiments in Tunisia and Egypt, blighting the lives of millions.
http://www.juancole.com/2011/03/top-ten-ways-that-libya-2011-is-not-iraq-2003.html
Burnsey
Apr 27, 09:23 PM
Technically he is eligible to be president even if he wasn't born in the US:
http://blogs.forbes.com/danielfreedman/2011/04/12/romney-to-trump-obama-doesnt-need-a-birth-certificate/
Not sure why this is such a big issue, the country is facing huge problems and you people need to work together and solve them. Set these distractions aside or you'll miss what's really going on.
http://blogs.forbes.com/danielfreedman/2011/04/12/romney-to-trump-obama-doesnt-need-a-birth-certificate/
Not sure why this is such a big issue, the country is facing huge problems and you people need to work together and solve them. Set these distractions aside or you'll miss what's really going on.
antster94
Mar 22, 12:44 PM
Competition is good.
absynth
Apr 11, 01:34 PM
who cares about iphone 5, where's my white iphone4 dammit! :mad:
Lone Deranger
Mar 26, 09:43 AM
OS X is still based on UNIX, dating back to '69.
You say that as if that's a bad thing. NT≠Unix. :)
You say that as if that's a bad thing. NT≠Unix. :)
marksman
Mar 22, 11:29 PM
Someone give Android's UI and Playbook's UI huge recognition so Apple will change it's old grid-like UI.
I am not sure you are using "UI" correctly.
The iPad two does have some shortcomings, few of which are worth going to to here. However, the OS of these devices IS crucial and we are beginning to see iOS creaking slightly. In terms of looks and notifications,
I get the notification thing, but I keep seeing some people talking about the look of the interface of IOS being dated and I don't get it. It seems like a very young and inexperienced viewpoint. Wanting change solely for the sake of change. The UI for IOS works very well. I don't want it changed just because some people are bored of looking at it. This is something you realize as you get older and more experienced in life. Change just for the sake of change is not a great deal, most of the time.
Change for the sake of improved usability and function? I am all for it. Change of the UI just because they have used the same basic look for the UI for 5 years? No not really.
I can assure that doubling the 256MB of the first iPad is not enough for people that need a lot of multitask, like me.
Here I don't think you understand how "multitasking" works on IOS devices.
It is not really possible to do a "lot" of multi-tasking. There are only a certain number of APIs that can be used concurrently. Having a bunch of apps listed in the fast task switcher is not multi-tasking and it does not require more ram.
Android phones are selling more than iPhone.
iPhone has started a market, competitors are improving it.
iPad has started a market, competitors are improving it.
The problem is Android becomes the brand and all these hardware makers become a commodity. People who have an android phone look to get a new android phone. They don't look to get an upgrade to their current phone because no upgrade exists, because the hardware makers just come up with new dumb names for products six times a year.
On the other hand someone with an iPhone is going to upgrade to another iPhone and so on. The brand and name builds on itself. This only becomes a bigger advantage for Apple as time goes on... And as others have noted it is silly to compare the userbase of a free OS that is installed on 100s of different hardware products, and that of the market leader which has a massive market share advantage over the next biggest competitive handset, which is the iPhone.
People who own a Motorola Suxit V or a HTC Yourmomma have NOTHING in common other than they both might be running some variation (probably different) of the Android OS. Compared to two people owning iPhones, even different model iPhones, where the experience will be very similar and comparable.
If you just can't recognize how multitask works better with 1GB RAM and true background apps (QNX, Honeycomb), then you deserve to use a limited thing like an iPad.
If you don't like your battery life, you got a point. Perhaps you can just always have a long extension cord and then you got a real winner!
I've only bought the first iPad because there were no competitors at that time (and I hate netbooks), but now things are different. To be honest, A LOT different.
At this point and time there are still no real competitors. There is one copycat device out there that is inferior, and a couple more potentially coming out soon... but nothing is guaranteed.
People said that the iPhone was going to be the best phone out there, but the market is showing something different.
People say the iPad is the best tablet out there, but it seems that the market is going to show something different.
I think the market clearly shows the iPhone is the best phone out there. There is no other phone that comes anywhere close to selling as much as the iPhone. The iPad is worse, and will pretty much stay that way as all of the competitors are just clones of the iPad, and they don't have the advantage of a protected Verizon environment to move their product. They will have to compete against the iPad 2 for every sale they make.
With the shortages of iPad2's out there, and international sales about to start up, probably making it worse, if the Xoom, G Tabs and Playbooks are "close enough" (particularly for folks that are not avid Apple followers), they could get quite a few sales. At least that is my opinion. (And like everyone I have an @$$-hole too.):)
This is a good point. The supply chain deficit is really the only chance these clone machines have of making inroads. I suspect the supply issue will be resolved before anyone else gets to market though, so the only one who will benefit from it is the Xoom.
I am not sure you are using "UI" correctly.
The iPad two does have some shortcomings, few of which are worth going to to here. However, the OS of these devices IS crucial and we are beginning to see iOS creaking slightly. In terms of looks and notifications,
I get the notification thing, but I keep seeing some people talking about the look of the interface of IOS being dated and I don't get it. It seems like a very young and inexperienced viewpoint. Wanting change solely for the sake of change. The UI for IOS works very well. I don't want it changed just because some people are bored of looking at it. This is something you realize as you get older and more experienced in life. Change just for the sake of change is not a great deal, most of the time.
Change for the sake of improved usability and function? I am all for it. Change of the UI just because they have used the same basic look for the UI for 5 years? No not really.
I can assure that doubling the 256MB of the first iPad is not enough for people that need a lot of multitask, like me.
Here I don't think you understand how "multitasking" works on IOS devices.
It is not really possible to do a "lot" of multi-tasking. There are only a certain number of APIs that can be used concurrently. Having a bunch of apps listed in the fast task switcher is not multi-tasking and it does not require more ram.
Android phones are selling more than iPhone.
iPhone has started a market, competitors are improving it.
iPad has started a market, competitors are improving it.
The problem is Android becomes the brand and all these hardware makers become a commodity. People who have an android phone look to get a new android phone. They don't look to get an upgrade to their current phone because no upgrade exists, because the hardware makers just come up with new dumb names for products six times a year.
On the other hand someone with an iPhone is going to upgrade to another iPhone and so on. The brand and name builds on itself. This only becomes a bigger advantage for Apple as time goes on... And as others have noted it is silly to compare the userbase of a free OS that is installed on 100s of different hardware products, and that of the market leader which has a massive market share advantage over the next biggest competitive handset, which is the iPhone.
People who own a Motorola Suxit V or a HTC Yourmomma have NOTHING in common other than they both might be running some variation (probably different) of the Android OS. Compared to two people owning iPhones, even different model iPhones, where the experience will be very similar and comparable.
If you just can't recognize how multitask works better with 1GB RAM and true background apps (QNX, Honeycomb), then you deserve to use a limited thing like an iPad.
If you don't like your battery life, you got a point. Perhaps you can just always have a long extension cord and then you got a real winner!
I've only bought the first iPad because there were no competitors at that time (and I hate netbooks), but now things are different. To be honest, A LOT different.
At this point and time there are still no real competitors. There is one copycat device out there that is inferior, and a couple more potentially coming out soon... but nothing is guaranteed.
People said that the iPhone was going to be the best phone out there, but the market is showing something different.
People say the iPad is the best tablet out there, but it seems that the market is going to show something different.
I think the market clearly shows the iPhone is the best phone out there. There is no other phone that comes anywhere close to selling as much as the iPhone. The iPad is worse, and will pretty much stay that way as all of the competitors are just clones of the iPad, and they don't have the advantage of a protected Verizon environment to move their product. They will have to compete against the iPad 2 for every sale they make.
With the shortages of iPad2's out there, and international sales about to start up, probably making it worse, if the Xoom, G Tabs and Playbooks are "close enough" (particularly for folks that are not avid Apple followers), they could get quite a few sales. At least that is my opinion. (And like everyone I have an @$$-hole too.):)
This is a good point. The supply chain deficit is really the only chance these clone machines have of making inroads. I suspect the supply issue will be resolved before anyone else gets to market though, so the only one who will benefit from it is the Xoom.
ezekielrage_99
Sep 18, 11:33 PM
For the love of God, please, learn to spell.
It's just not the spelling it's the grammatical errors in general as well.
It's just not the spelling it's the grammatical errors in general as well.
rezenclowd3
Dec 12, 06:05 PM
At least GT6 is already underway. (http://www.1up.com/news/gran-turismo-6-development-underway) (old news, but throwing it out there for those that don't know)
laurim
Apr 25, 02:47 PM
If the chicken littles had any idea how transparent and documented their lives already are, they would never leave the house. It amazes me how many people think "other people" are trying to find out what they do in their mundane lives. Some egos!
I hate to think that a decent way to track potential terrorist movements was ruined by all of this bs. Imagine how much good information could have been had if a terrorist was arrested and his cell phone record scanned to find out where other terrorists are meeting. But no, you people have to tell them to delete the file. Thanks!
I hate to think that a decent way to track potential terrorist movements was ruined by all of this bs. Imagine how much good information could have been had if a terrorist was arrested and his cell phone record scanned to find out where other terrorists are meeting. But no, you people have to tell them to delete the file. Thanks!
NT1440
Mar 23, 08:38 AM
. Wow, completely clicked on the wrong tab.....
heisetax
Jul 14, 04:16 PM
That's nice...
They'd better have something in between this and the iMac...
Apple has had an inbetween model for a long time. Low end where models change more often compared to a so called high end where a good model is made, then only minor changes are made every year or so. High end clock speed will still be down after 2 years. It sounds to me that Apple makes a high end then allows it to slide to a middle ground, ownly they forget to lower the price to mid ground.
The new Intel Macs are supposed to be top end again, so that means a general accross the board price increases. The price increases must mean we are getting a new high end product. Just wait a couple of generations & we'll have a mid-range Mac.
Bill the TaxMan
They'd better have something in between this and the iMac...
Apple has had an inbetween model for a long time. Low end where models change more often compared to a so called high end where a good model is made, then only minor changes are made every year or so. High end clock speed will still be down after 2 years. It sounds to me that Apple makes a high end then allows it to slide to a middle ground, ownly they forget to lower the price to mid ground.
The new Intel Macs are supposed to be top end again, so that means a general accross the board price increases. The price increases must mean we are getting a new high end product. Just wait a couple of generations & we'll have a mid-range Mac.
Bill the TaxMan
Silentwave
Aug 26, 04:48 PM
You're screwing up, intel. We don't want 300 trillion transistors on a 1 nm die. We want longer battery life. Idiots.
But there's no die size change here....
and doesn't transitioning to a smaller process usually mean improvements in that department anyways?
Next die change is the 45nm Intel Core Microarchitecture "Penryn" core for mobile- mid-2007 or thereabouts.
But there's no die size change here....
and doesn't transitioning to a smaller process usually mean improvements in that department anyways?
Next die change is the 45nm Intel Core Microarchitecture "Penryn" core for mobile- mid-2007 or thereabouts.
SiliconAddict
Aug 7, 07:50 PM
Not very innovative so-far. The Intel change took the OS's soul and the inspiration.
Give me a fracking break. Intel has NOTHING to do with this. NOTHING. I wish PPC fanbois would just give it up. Soon they will be claiming that ozone depletion is due too Intel chips.
does upgrading to leopard cost money for tiger users?
Yes.
Give me a fracking break. Intel has NOTHING to do with this. NOTHING. I wish PPC fanbois would just give it up. Soon they will be claiming that ozone depletion is due too Intel chips.
does upgrading to leopard cost money for tiger users?
Yes.
