Vandam500
Jan 12, 03:59 PM
We are working on a Facebook status update. Our app so far updates users via Twitter on daily things that get tracked. Glad to see Facebook become more iPhone friendly. If you have anything to track / improve in your life, have a look at Track & Share. Try the lite version for free. All the best to all Facebook fans,
T&S
I'll try it.
T&S
I'll try it.
JoeG4
Apr 22, 05:54 PM
I think I'd ride a Harley if I had one :D
Triumphs are nifty too..
I love tuna fish and salmon o_O Especially little tuna sandwiches with egg and relish and mustard. Dayum o_O
Triumphs are nifty too..
I love tuna fish and salmon o_O Especially little tuna sandwiches with egg and relish and mustard. Dayum o_O
MikeTheC
Nov 3, 01:19 AM
I'd like to tackle a few points in the discussion here.
Dirt-Cheap vs. Reasonable Economy (a.k.a. "The Wal-Martization of America"):
Apple has always had the philosophy that their name needs to mean a superior product. They have tended to shy away from producing bargain-basement products because it tends to take away from the "high-quality" reputation they are otherwise known for and desire to continue cultivating.
At direct odds with this is the pervasive and continually-perpetuated attitude in the U.S. (and elsewhere, perhaps) that the universe revolves exclusively around the mantra of "faster, cheaper, better", with emphasis on the latter two: cheaper and better. What I have noticed in my own 34 years on this planet is a considerable change in attitude, most easily summed up as people in general having their tastes almost "anti-cultured". It isn't "... cheaper, better" for them, but rather "cheaper = better". You can see this at all levels. Businesses, despite their claims to the contrary, tend to prioritize the executives specifically and the company generally making money over any other possible consideration. They try and drive their workforce from well-paid, highly competent full-time people, to part-time, no-medical or retirement-benefits-earning, low-experience, low-paid domestic help; and the second prong of their pincer movement is to outsource the rest.
Or, in short, "let's make a lot of money, but don't spend any in the process."
My goal here is not to get into the lengthy and well-trod discussion of corporate exploitation of the masses; rather it is to show the Wal-Mart effect at all levels.
More and more over the years I find that people have no taste. Steve Jobs accuses Microsoft of having no taste (a point I am not trying to argue against); I think however that he's hit a little low of the mark. The attitude out there seems to be one of total self-focus -- and not merely "me first", but rather "me first, me last, and ******* everybody else". They're the "I don't want to know anything", "all I want to do is get out of having to do anything I can, including not using my brain except for pleasure-seeking tasks," and "For God's sake, I surely don't want to have to spend more than the minimum on a computer" bunch.
Now, clearly, not everyone in the U.S. is like this; obviously, if they were, Apple would have no customers at all. But this is a real and fairly large group. Short of Apple practically giving away their computers, it's hard to imagine them being all that specifically attractive to that demographic. Moreover, those people are not merely non-enthusiasts; they want all of the benefits of having this trendy computer thing, but wish to be encumbered by none of the responsibilities.
To my way of thinking, frankly however large this group of people is, I would encourage Apple to avoid appealing to them whenever and wherever possible. If this means continuing the perception mentioned above of being a computer "for yuppies", then so be it.
Market Share Percentage and it's Perception:
Clearly, there is something to be gained by having the perception that "everyone's doing it". It's part of the reason why smoking, drinking, under-age sex, and drugs are so amazingly popular with us human beings the world over. It's part of the reason (maybe even a significant part) that iPods are so incredibly successful. Now, before someone here puts forth the argument that, "Well, you know, Apple's got a better design, and that's what attracts people to it," -- and that's quite true in it's own right -- let's break things down a bit.
Many animals develop and learn through a process called "patterning", and through imitation. Humans are not psychologically exempt from this; we do it all the time, and particularly so when we're younger. It's the fundamental force behind fashion, fads, and trends. There are definitely positive benefits to this. Kids, as they develop their social skills, learn from others the socially approved ways of behaving and interacting. Please note I did not use the term "correct" nor "right", but merely the "approved" (or, one might call it the "accepted") way. We also learn and learn from such things as casualty (actions have consequences), and other factors too numerous to pursue here.
Anyhow, all of these factors are in operation when it comes to buying technology (which is the boiled-down essence of what we're talking about here). Microsoft has learned this game, and has played it well for many years. Regardless of the "technically, we know it's bulls**t" truth, the reality of it is (and has been) when an unsavvy person walks into a store to buy a computer, and they see ten Windows-running computers on the shelf, and only one or two Mac OS-running computers there, they get the prima-facia notion that most computers are Windows computers, and by extension that statistically most people must be running Windows; therefore they should buy a Windows computer, too. There's a whole other subject here about how the ignorant sales people in electronics stores essentially use the same process to unwittingly deceive themselves into thinking the same thing. This is one of the factors which helped catapult Microsoft into the major, successful company they became. In truth, this specific scenario is a bit more 1994 than but it helps to explain why most people today who own a computer have only known life in a Microsoft world. As enough people attained this status, it became the dominant developmental factor in the world at large, which sort of helped to self-perpetuate the effect.
Let's also not lose sight of the fact that these statistics of percentage of platform used by definition leave out one particular group of people -- those who don't use a computer at all. After all, if you don't own a computer, you can't browse the web, send or receive email, or have your computer platform of choice tabulated in any kind of statistical data sample. One might be tempted to think that such a notion is silly, but it isn't. True, once we get to the point that only a statistically insignificant number of people on this planet don't own a computer (which is still far from the reality of today), counting their numbers won't matter for statistical purposes, it does matter. Why? Well, the statistics as presented make it seem like Macs (or Linux, or anything else) are only used by a subset of people on this planet. Not true! They're only used by a subset of a subset, the latter being the number of people on this planet who have a computer to be counted in such statistics in the first place.
Also, statistics vary depending on a variety of factors. It's also easy to write them off as a business or let them drop "below the radar" by various statistical gathering or reporting agencies; or merely through the informal process on the part of business owners of anecdotal evidence. Here's a perfect example of that very factor.
When the Macintosh came on the scene in 1984, and as it continued through it's early incarnations in the mid 1980s, it entered the fray of lots of non-defacto computer platforms. Or, to put it another way, it "came late to the party". So, you had all these computer dealers who were already trying to sell Apple ][s, TRS-80s, Commodore 64s (and later, C128s), Timex Sinclairs, an assortment of other PCs running proprietary OSs, amongst which were those which ran this thing called MS-DOS, and so forth and so on. Also, people who wound up buying Macs didn't exactly fit the same profile as those who had bought the other computers. You had artists -- literary, graphic, musical, etc. -- buying these things. While they didn't mind being technologically self-sufficent, they were not people who were interested in such things as tearing their computer apart and having a go at it's various electronic innards. Anyhow, they formed their own communities, and for various reasons didn't get a lot of support initially from local dealers and computer software stores. However, Apple did get quite a number of companies to write software or build hardware for their Mac platform. These companies started using mail-order as a significant portion of their sales strategy. Consequently, Mac owners used it as their more-and-more-primary computer-stuff purchasing regimen.
Ultimately, fewer and fewer Mac owners were going locally to buy stuff, due to availability and pricing. What then happened largely was this "perception" on the part of shop owners (and later their suppliers, etc.) that nobody out there used a Mac. As a result of their mis-perception, companies began to simply ignore us Mac users (I was around back then), acting as if we didn't exist; or at the least there weren't enough of us to bother supporting us or even trying to make money from us.
Now, at this point there's no denying there's more Windows boxen out there than Mac boxen, but this is still a valid factor and should not be discounted.
Besides, what number you hear quoted still, as it has for many, many years, depends on what your source is. I've heard numbers within the past month that range from 4.1 percent to 6 percent. Which one is correct? Does anyone even really know?
Since we can run Windows, why run Mac OS? (paranoia of market erosion):
I've been hearing this since before Apple ever disclosed their plans to switch to x86. It was actually one of the topics frequently -- and rather hotly, as I recall -- debated in these forums. However, I think the fear is greatly unjustified, and here's why.
First, let's look at it from an economic standpoint: Buying a Mac to run Windows is hardly the most cost-effective approach.
Second, let's look at it from a socio-economic standpoint: People don't buy a Mac to run Windows so much as they buy it to either try something different, or to escape Windows and the onslaught of problems that, in more recent years, it has brought to them.
Third, and while this really applies more to tech-savvy people: Windows represents a security and stability liability which most other operating systems do not.
In other words, by and large, people out there who are switching to a Mac are doing more than merely switching hardware: they're switching OS platforms. The fact that they can run Windows on a Mac is only slightly more of interest to them than is running an x86-based distro of GNU/Linux.
Bottom Line: Apple will appeal to and convert those that they can, and those are the hearts and minds which are the most vital and important anyhow. Let's not forget the relative merits of dummy-dropping. Sometimes, Darwin's theories of Evolution are more satisfyingly applied sociologically than biologically.
Dirt-Cheap vs. Reasonable Economy (a.k.a. "The Wal-Martization of America"):
Apple has always had the philosophy that their name needs to mean a superior product. They have tended to shy away from producing bargain-basement products because it tends to take away from the "high-quality" reputation they are otherwise known for and desire to continue cultivating.
At direct odds with this is the pervasive and continually-perpetuated attitude in the U.S. (and elsewhere, perhaps) that the universe revolves exclusively around the mantra of "faster, cheaper, better", with emphasis on the latter two: cheaper and better. What I have noticed in my own 34 years on this planet is a considerable change in attitude, most easily summed up as people in general having their tastes almost "anti-cultured". It isn't "... cheaper, better" for them, but rather "cheaper = better". You can see this at all levels. Businesses, despite their claims to the contrary, tend to prioritize the executives specifically and the company generally making money over any other possible consideration. They try and drive their workforce from well-paid, highly competent full-time people, to part-time, no-medical or retirement-benefits-earning, low-experience, low-paid domestic help; and the second prong of their pincer movement is to outsource the rest.
Or, in short, "let's make a lot of money, but don't spend any in the process."
My goal here is not to get into the lengthy and well-trod discussion of corporate exploitation of the masses; rather it is to show the Wal-Mart effect at all levels.
More and more over the years I find that people have no taste. Steve Jobs accuses Microsoft of having no taste (a point I am not trying to argue against); I think however that he's hit a little low of the mark. The attitude out there seems to be one of total self-focus -- and not merely "me first", but rather "me first, me last, and ******* everybody else". They're the "I don't want to know anything", "all I want to do is get out of having to do anything I can, including not using my brain except for pleasure-seeking tasks," and "For God's sake, I surely don't want to have to spend more than the minimum on a computer" bunch.
Now, clearly, not everyone in the U.S. is like this; obviously, if they were, Apple would have no customers at all. But this is a real and fairly large group. Short of Apple practically giving away their computers, it's hard to imagine them being all that specifically attractive to that demographic. Moreover, those people are not merely non-enthusiasts; they want all of the benefits of having this trendy computer thing, but wish to be encumbered by none of the responsibilities.
To my way of thinking, frankly however large this group of people is, I would encourage Apple to avoid appealing to them whenever and wherever possible. If this means continuing the perception mentioned above of being a computer "for yuppies", then so be it.
Market Share Percentage and it's Perception:
Clearly, there is something to be gained by having the perception that "everyone's doing it". It's part of the reason why smoking, drinking, under-age sex, and drugs are so amazingly popular with us human beings the world over. It's part of the reason (maybe even a significant part) that iPods are so incredibly successful. Now, before someone here puts forth the argument that, "Well, you know, Apple's got a better design, and that's what attracts people to it," -- and that's quite true in it's own right -- let's break things down a bit.
Many animals develop and learn through a process called "patterning", and through imitation. Humans are not psychologically exempt from this; we do it all the time, and particularly so when we're younger. It's the fundamental force behind fashion, fads, and trends. There are definitely positive benefits to this. Kids, as they develop their social skills, learn from others the socially approved ways of behaving and interacting. Please note I did not use the term "correct" nor "right", but merely the "approved" (or, one might call it the "accepted") way. We also learn and learn from such things as casualty (actions have consequences), and other factors too numerous to pursue here.
Anyhow, all of these factors are in operation when it comes to buying technology (which is the boiled-down essence of what we're talking about here). Microsoft has learned this game, and has played it well for many years. Regardless of the "technically, we know it's bulls**t" truth, the reality of it is (and has been) when an unsavvy person walks into a store to buy a computer, and they see ten Windows-running computers on the shelf, and only one or two Mac OS-running computers there, they get the prima-facia notion that most computers are Windows computers, and by extension that statistically most people must be running Windows; therefore they should buy a Windows computer, too. There's a whole other subject here about how the ignorant sales people in electronics stores essentially use the same process to unwittingly deceive themselves into thinking the same thing. This is one of the factors which helped catapult Microsoft into the major, successful company they became. In truth, this specific scenario is a bit more 1994 than but it helps to explain why most people today who own a computer have only known life in a Microsoft world. As enough people attained this status, it became the dominant developmental factor in the world at large, which sort of helped to self-perpetuate the effect.
Let's also not lose sight of the fact that these statistics of percentage of platform used by definition leave out one particular group of people -- those who don't use a computer at all. After all, if you don't own a computer, you can't browse the web, send or receive email, or have your computer platform of choice tabulated in any kind of statistical data sample. One might be tempted to think that such a notion is silly, but it isn't. True, once we get to the point that only a statistically insignificant number of people on this planet don't own a computer (which is still far from the reality of today), counting their numbers won't matter for statistical purposes, it does matter. Why? Well, the statistics as presented make it seem like Macs (or Linux, or anything else) are only used by a subset of people on this planet. Not true! They're only used by a subset of a subset, the latter being the number of people on this planet who have a computer to be counted in such statistics in the first place.
Also, statistics vary depending on a variety of factors. It's also easy to write them off as a business or let them drop "below the radar" by various statistical gathering or reporting agencies; or merely through the informal process on the part of business owners of anecdotal evidence. Here's a perfect example of that very factor.
When the Macintosh came on the scene in 1984, and as it continued through it's early incarnations in the mid 1980s, it entered the fray of lots of non-defacto computer platforms. Or, to put it another way, it "came late to the party". So, you had all these computer dealers who were already trying to sell Apple ][s, TRS-80s, Commodore 64s (and later, C128s), Timex Sinclairs, an assortment of other PCs running proprietary OSs, amongst which were those which ran this thing called MS-DOS, and so forth and so on. Also, people who wound up buying Macs didn't exactly fit the same profile as those who had bought the other computers. You had artists -- literary, graphic, musical, etc. -- buying these things. While they didn't mind being technologically self-sufficent, they were not people who were interested in such things as tearing their computer apart and having a go at it's various electronic innards. Anyhow, they formed their own communities, and for various reasons didn't get a lot of support initially from local dealers and computer software stores. However, Apple did get quite a number of companies to write software or build hardware for their Mac platform. These companies started using mail-order as a significant portion of their sales strategy. Consequently, Mac owners used it as their more-and-more-primary computer-stuff purchasing regimen.
Ultimately, fewer and fewer Mac owners were going locally to buy stuff, due to availability and pricing. What then happened largely was this "perception" on the part of shop owners (and later their suppliers, etc.) that nobody out there used a Mac. As a result of their mis-perception, companies began to simply ignore us Mac users (I was around back then), acting as if we didn't exist; or at the least there weren't enough of us to bother supporting us or even trying to make money from us.
Now, at this point there's no denying there's more Windows boxen out there than Mac boxen, but this is still a valid factor and should not be discounted.
Besides, what number you hear quoted still, as it has for many, many years, depends on what your source is. I've heard numbers within the past month that range from 4.1 percent to 6 percent. Which one is correct? Does anyone even really know?
Since we can run Windows, why run Mac OS? (paranoia of market erosion):
I've been hearing this since before Apple ever disclosed their plans to switch to x86. It was actually one of the topics frequently -- and rather hotly, as I recall -- debated in these forums. However, I think the fear is greatly unjustified, and here's why.
First, let's look at it from an economic standpoint: Buying a Mac to run Windows is hardly the most cost-effective approach.
Second, let's look at it from a socio-economic standpoint: People don't buy a Mac to run Windows so much as they buy it to either try something different, or to escape Windows and the onslaught of problems that, in more recent years, it has brought to them.
Third, and while this really applies more to tech-savvy people: Windows represents a security and stability liability which most other operating systems do not.
In other words, by and large, people out there who are switching to a Mac are doing more than merely switching hardware: they're switching OS platforms. The fact that they can run Windows on a Mac is only slightly more of interest to them than is running an x86-based distro of GNU/Linux.
Bottom Line: Apple will appeal to and convert those that they can, and those are the hearts and minds which are the most vital and important anyhow. Let's not forget the relative merits of dummy-dropping. Sometimes, Darwin's theories of Evolution are more satisfyingly applied sociologically than biologically.
Rendergroup
Apr 14, 11:54 AM
No plugin for Hotmail in Outlook available... common MS guys...
more...
Mr. Anderson
Sep 13, 04:36 PM
you got the link, I'd like to read more. Regardless of what happens with the Wintel world, Apple needs to do something about getting faster processors, period.
Blah!
D
Blah!
D
.jpg "studio album avrillavigne")
iBlue
Dec 18, 09:22 AM
There's already a thread on this. Just as I did in that one, I think it's incredibly sad. The irony in what the RATM croud are trying to achieve is particularly amusing.
Not half as sad as the machine of mediocrity that is Simon Bloody Cowell's monopoly on our christmas number ones.
So the frig what if a bunch of people want to feel like they've accomplished a small victory by bumping that rubbish off the top spot? It's harmless fun.
Not half as sad as the machine of mediocrity that is Simon Bloody Cowell's monopoly on our christmas number ones.
So the frig what if a bunch of people want to feel like they've accomplished a small victory by bumping that rubbish off the top spot? It's harmless fun.
more...
DarkForces
Apr 5, 11:03 AM
I just hope I can get an iPad 2, so I can verify CR ;) Still waiting for mine to come in. :(
sn00p
Nov 10, 02:27 PM
RFID in passports is kind of another ball of wax. One of the issues with so-called e-Passports is that they store all of the information on the RFID tag (i.e. your personal information) rather than just a reference number to a database. This is so you don't have different countries accessing other countries' databases. However, the level of encryption used on these passports is very weak, so all of that data on the tag is potentially vulnerable.
It is generally considered best practice to put only reference numbers to a database on RFID tags. That way if you skim the tag all you have is jibberish without the accompanying database info.
Don't blame the technology... blame the incorrect use of the technology. I don't see how the above examples of Apple's potential usage could be a serious privacy threat like the passports are.
E-Passports are however resilient to casual scanning (i.e the bad guy standing behind you in the queue) because you need to know personal details about the passport holder in order to generate the access key (this information is physically written inside the passport and the reader uses OCR to read it and then generate the key to access the electronic information).
There have been many unfounded stories about E-Passports, mainly by scaremongering newspapers who find the dumbest "security export" money can buy.
Yes you can duplicate the electronic portion of an E-passport with the right equipment, but what you cannot do is change this original information to create a fake passport that will pass validation, the data is signed using public key cryptography and the private keys are exactly that, private.
Providing that the authorities validate e-passport data with the authentic public keys, there is no problem and no security hole.
It is generally considered best practice to put only reference numbers to a database on RFID tags. That way if you skim the tag all you have is jibberish without the accompanying database info.
Don't blame the technology... blame the incorrect use of the technology. I don't see how the above examples of Apple's potential usage could be a serious privacy threat like the passports are.
E-Passports are however resilient to casual scanning (i.e the bad guy standing behind you in the queue) because you need to know personal details about the passport holder in order to generate the access key (this information is physically written inside the passport and the reader uses OCR to read it and then generate the key to access the electronic information).
There have been many unfounded stories about E-Passports, mainly by scaremongering newspapers who find the dumbest "security export" money can buy.
Yes you can duplicate the electronic portion of an E-passport with the right equipment, but what you cannot do is change this original information to create a fake passport that will pass validation, the data is signed using public key cryptography and the private keys are exactly that, private.
Providing that the authorities validate e-passport data with the authentic public keys, there is no problem and no security hole.
more...
iJohnHenry
Apr 28, 07:20 PM
I guess it never ends...
Not in our life-time.
Revenue shortfalls represent terror to bureaucrats defending budgets for next year.
Not in our life-time.
Revenue shortfalls represent terror to bureaucrats defending budgets for next year.
Sydde
Apr 12, 01:02 PM
WASPs.
That is a majority?
That is a majority?
more...
CaoCao
Apr 8, 03:37 AM
They'll just have to burn replicas of the Xoom.
The point is to honor ancestors not giving them crap you don't want
The point is to honor ancestors not giving them crap you don't want
tech4all
Nov 11, 02:55 PM
But for not doing much Japanese (actually none), I kinda followed along quite well. :D Kinda cool seeing the ads in another language.
more...
GorgonPhone
Mar 24, 08:55 PM
great deal cause ipad 2 is only about 5% faster in real life.. nnot worth the mony
Dreadnought
May 25, 01:06 PM
Well, two posts are better then one, so, I also posted. :D
more...
tazinlwfl
May 2, 01:07 PM
My buddy posted this (http://noeruiz.com/white-iphone-4-not-thicker/), and I tried to tell Engadget -- they wouldn't hear it.
Kind of ridiculous.
Kind of ridiculous.
NinjaHERO
Nov 6, 09:21 AM
If my Iphone can make Chuck Norris kick a car in the face, I will pay twice as much.:D
more...
TheMacBookPro
Apr 27, 11:29 AM
There have been many intel gpu based machine that had 1600x900 res displays, like the C2D Vaio Z or some of the offerings from Lenovo. I don't see why apple can't give such a res with to the 11.6in MBA with a 350nit display and wide color gamut. Then just add and SD card slot, make the usb ports 3.0 and a maybe even add a thunderbolt port and I'd be the first in line to get one.
Core 2 Duo based VAIO Z's had an NVIDIA graphics chip for light gaming/HD videos/GPU intensive processes and the Intel graphics were only for basic processes like Word and internet surfing.
In the Air you would be stuck with the Intel gfx doing everything as there is no space for a dedicated chip.
Core 2 Duo based VAIO Z's had an NVIDIA graphics chip for light gaming/HD videos/GPU intensive processes and the Intel graphics were only for basic processes like Word and internet surfing.
In the Air you would be stuck with the Intel gfx doing everything as there is no space for a dedicated chip.
OdduWon
Oct 10, 12:29 PM
most of us are saying that the outside is great but the entire inside needs to be redisigned anyway for the hot under the paste merom and the new chip set for santarosa, duo2 is a different board too i think. my point is this, because intel promised cool chips apple discarded some thermal buffer when they madi mbp less than 1 inch, now their faced with a redesign for a processor that will be 0utdated in 3 months or the will spend thwe time to give us a place holder that wont cook our sausage.
zengod
Jan 6, 11:32 AM
In the UK where customers of the like of O2 (me) have more chance of getting a w##k off the Pope than a decent data signal without resorting to standing up a ladder and waving their phone in the air, this is a definate no win app.
AP_piano295
May 2, 01:30 PM
I wish this would begin our troop withdrawal from Afghanistan. Simply a money pit.
The fact is, little will likely change. We'll still keep buying cold war era weapons like the F-22.
Trillions of dollars on all those cold war fighter jets and all we have to show for it is ****ing Top Gun. :D
WORTH IT :D.
But seriously terrorism is like crime, you can't get rid of crime by arresting all the criminals. You have to determine the root causes and alleviate those as much as possible.
But it's a lot easier (and often better received) :confused: to just blow **** up, so we usually do that instead.
The fact is, little will likely change. We'll still keep buying cold war era weapons like the F-22.
Trillions of dollars on all those cold war fighter jets and all we have to show for it is ****ing Top Gun. :D
WORTH IT :D.
But seriously terrorism is like crime, you can't get rid of crime by arresting all the criminals. You have to determine the root causes and alleviate those as much as possible.
But it's a lot easier (and often better received) :confused: to just blow **** up, so we usually do that instead.
Brien
Oct 6, 11:45 AM
There is a chance that we could still see a 3.5" screen, but with less features and a smaller case (less bezel/thinner). However that would make the 3GS (since they keep last years model as the low-end) somewhat pointless.
res1233
Apr 5, 09:08 AM
The iPad 2 at $730 beat the xoom at $800? Ouch... Not that i trust CR so much, but even with a margin for error, this seems rather telling...
Ummm...no.
Consumer Reports was clearly pageview trolling with the iPhone 4.
They rated it as their BEST smartphone, but said they wouldn't recommend it.
How does that make any sense?
Because, in their opinion, the iPhone 4's antenna was bad enough to make it bad at being a phone, which is its purpose, even though all the other parts of it were and still are amazing. However, they were completely wrong about that. Yes, maybe the reception gets worse when you touch that black spot, but I never leave the house without a case around it because the thing's expensive, so I never really got their point. That's why I tend to take CR with a grain of salt, but they did give it high ratings so... i guess you just have to read into their recommendations to get the full picture and decide for yourself.
Ummm...no.
Consumer Reports was clearly pageview trolling with the iPhone 4.
They rated it as their BEST smartphone, but said they wouldn't recommend it.
How does that make any sense?
Because, in their opinion, the iPhone 4's antenna was bad enough to make it bad at being a phone, which is its purpose, even though all the other parts of it were and still are amazing. However, they were completely wrong about that. Yes, maybe the reception gets worse when you touch that black spot, but I never leave the house without a case around it because the thing's expensive, so I never really got their point. That's why I tend to take CR with a grain of salt, but they did give it high ratings so... i guess you just have to read into their recommendations to get the full picture and decide for yourself.
wizard
Jun 18, 04:15 PM
That is hiding specs from people that would really like to know. That is the people who read the spec sheets and have good reason to do so. Little things add up be it the RAM in an iPhone/iPad, what the SD slot is capable of or any of a number of other devices that are poorly speced on the machine. Is it that difficult to just be honest with your users? Further where is the advantage of not coming clean?
The info gleaned above would seem to indicate that the port can do 250 MB/s less overhead. That would mean that the SD card could become one excellent boot device if cards with that speed actually become available. That would mean one could raid the two drives in the server and keep the OS on the SD card. That ought too make for a nice file server.
The other thing would be the possibility of booting alternative OS'es in a reasonable fashion. Seems like a great way to run Linux.
Ugly is the reality that the tech has to now catch up with the standard. This could take awhile and I'm not sure we will ever see two terabyte SD cards.
The info gleaned above would seem to indicate that the port can do 250 MB/s less overhead. That would mean that the SD card could become one excellent boot device if cards with that speed actually become available. That would mean one could raid the two drives in the server and keep the OS on the SD card. That ought too make for a nice file server.
The other thing would be the possibility of booting alternative OS'es in a reasonable fashion. Seems like a great way to run Linux.
Ugly is the reality that the tech has to now catch up with the standard. This could take awhile and I'm not sure we will ever see two terabyte SD cards.
Eastend
Nov 12, 08:32 PM
http://users.tkk.fi/~shaavist/b5/images/char/talon.jpg
That was a stirring reply, Eastend. And while it's true that all answers are replies, not all replies are answers.
Do not take it wrong, the English was not correct, he wanted a translation, but he asked what did the woman say.
That was a stirring reply, Eastend. And while it's true that all answers are replies, not all replies are answers.
Do not take it wrong, the English was not correct, he wanted a translation, but he asked what did the woman say.
No comments:
Post a Comment