HoosierInFL
Apr 28, 09:58 PM
The only thing that will make me replace my current MBA is if the new model has a backlit keyboard. I greatly miss this feature.
Other than that, better battery life would be great.
Other than that, better battery life would be great.
JackSYi
Sep 1, 01:48 AM
I can't wait till MWSF 07.
Zadillo
Oct 26, 10:59 PM
Works fine in Firefox 2.0 under XP for me, including composing a message (it opens up a new compose window and it works fine).
This is very nice, very slick. I like it!
This is very nice, very slick. I like it!
tbobmccoy
Mar 24, 05:39 PM
It's a great deal; can I hire someone to convince my wife I need an iPad? Nothing I can say will convince her otherwise ;)
more...
ptuxbury
Feb 25, 06:45 AM
An another note, everybody makes mistakes. I don't think it's necessary to insult some of the parents posting here for their struggles with their children. I bet a lot of the insults come from people who aren't even parents themselves, so they wouldn't have a clue about the complexities, difficulties, and stresses associated with being a parent.
These parents already have their hands full without someone else (who probably doesn't understand anyway) insulting them.
These parents already have their hands full without someone else (who probably doesn't understand anyway) insulting them.
Cinematographer
Mar 13, 01:35 PM
Hello? Would you call your iPhone a labor savings device? :rolleyes:
more...
Rdclark
Apr 15, 11:55 AM
In January Consumer Reports surveyed over 58,000 of its subscribers on the quality of their cell phone service, with categories for voice, data, customer service, and coverage.
Both overall and localized for 26 different US cities, Verizon far outperformed AT&T in this survey.
It's customary for the tech community to scoff at Consumer Reports' findings, and often with very good reason. But if you ask 58k people, mostly the sort of middle-class folks that are typical CR subscribers, how satisfied they are with their cell phone service, the results IMO can't be easily dismissed. In this large sample, far more people were very unhappy with AT&T than with Verizon.
I found this -- as a person buying an iPad 2 as
1. a netbook/iPad/GPS/e-reader replacement, who
2. neither owns nor wants a smartphone, and who
3. spends nearly 100% of his time in large American cities
--to be a compelling argument in favor of Verizon. Far more compelling than any anecdotal evidence, which is all I see in this thread.
After a month with my 64GB white 3g iPad, I've had no reason to regret my choice. Verizon has never failed to connect, never dropped a connection, never seemed particularly sluggish (although I wait for wifi to download large files), and their pricing seems to fit my usage patterns more economically than AT&T's would have.
My point: it's possible for a rational person to research and analyze this question and come up with Verizon as an answer, and then be happy with that choice. Contrary to some assertions otherwise.
Both overall and localized for 26 different US cities, Verizon far outperformed AT&T in this survey.
It's customary for the tech community to scoff at Consumer Reports' findings, and often with very good reason. But if you ask 58k people, mostly the sort of middle-class folks that are typical CR subscribers, how satisfied they are with their cell phone service, the results IMO can't be easily dismissed. In this large sample, far more people were very unhappy with AT&T than with Verizon.
I found this -- as a person buying an iPad 2 as
1. a netbook/iPad/GPS/e-reader replacement, who
2. neither owns nor wants a smartphone, and who
3. spends nearly 100% of his time in large American cities
--to be a compelling argument in favor of Verizon. Far more compelling than any anecdotal evidence, which is all I see in this thread.
After a month with my 64GB white 3g iPad, I've had no reason to regret my choice. Verizon has never failed to connect, never dropped a connection, never seemed particularly sluggish (although I wait for wifi to download large files), and their pricing seems to fit my usage patterns more economically than AT&T's would have.
My point: it's possible for a rational person to research and analyze this question and come up with Verizon as an answer, and then be happy with that choice. Contrary to some assertions otherwise.
aristotle
Jun 13, 12:50 AM
because the 700 spectrum has theoretical data speeds much higher then the "standard" spectrum.
my family has been happy with t-mobiles service where we live for over 6 years and there rates are very affordable.
The only reason i went to ATT is because of the iPhone and if the iphones does come to t-mobile i will be switching back.
The speed has nothing to do with the frequency used. Those Canadian carriers I mentioned have a theoretical speed of 21Mbps (HSPA+) and they use the same frequencies as AT&T.
my family has been happy with t-mobiles service where we live for over 6 years and there rates are very affordable.
The only reason i went to ATT is because of the iPhone and if the iphones does come to t-mobile i will be switching back.
The speed has nothing to do with the frequency used. Those Canadian carriers I mentioned have a theoretical speed of 21Mbps (HSPA+) and they use the same frequencies as AT&T.
more...
Phantom Gremlin
Jan 14, 08:19 PM
I'm puzzled by why these apps all just tout iPhone compatibility. Why not also the iPad?
I have an iPad with 3G and the built-in map sucks (compared to my real Garmin Nuvi). I'd pay to have good navigation on it. So why the hate from Garmin?
I think I have the hardware, don't I? I can receive 3G data, which also means my iPad has GPS. Isn't that enough?
I have an iPad with 3G and the built-in map sucks (compared to my real Garmin Nuvi). I'd pay to have good navigation on it. So why the hate from Garmin?
I think I have the hardware, don't I? I can receive 3G data, which also means my iPad has GPS. Isn't that enough?
MacManiac1224
Sep 13, 04:23 PM
Can the G4 beat the Pentium 5? You are probably scratching your heads on this one. Yep, the Pentium 5 is very real, and it is coming soon. 2nd quarter of the Pentium 5 debuting at 3.2GHZ is going to come out. It will have 100 million transistors on it and it will be manufactured at .09 microns. Also, here is the doozy, it will have 1 mb of L2 on die cache, and it will support 333mhz bus speeds, with the addition of DDR, that is a possible 667mhz bus speeds. By the way, if you were wondering, the Pentium 4 has 42 million transistors.
Now, for the G4: I am not sure how many transistors the G4 has, but I imagine it is way less then 100 million, or even 42 million, considering the P4 came out after the G4. Anyway, the cache on the G4 is higher on the high-end, 2mb of cache. But: the speed: 1.25Ghz? Can that really stand up to a P5 with 333mhz bus, and 3.2Ghz clock speeds? My opinion: most likely not.
Let's be honest, the P4 basically can beat the G4 in most tasks today, so a new faster version of the P4, the P5 can easily beat the G4, most likely in 95-99% of all tasks.
Ok, we have established that the G4 is, well, to slow against the P5, even though we don't know about it yet, I imagine it will be. Well, Apple just pulled the plug on OS 9 for January, what could this mean? I am not sure, only Steve knows. But Apple better come out with something that can at least compete with the Pentium 5, and it better come soon. I would not be surprised if Apple comes out with the G5 in January, just to say they were the first to have a generation 5 possessor, but I could be wrong.
Ok, I made my case, now, what do you guys think? By the way: I got this information about the Pentium 5 from eWeek, so it is reputable.
Now, for the G4: I am not sure how many transistors the G4 has, but I imagine it is way less then 100 million, or even 42 million, considering the P4 came out after the G4. Anyway, the cache on the G4 is higher on the high-end, 2mb of cache. But: the speed: 1.25Ghz? Can that really stand up to a P5 with 333mhz bus, and 3.2Ghz clock speeds? My opinion: most likely not.
Let's be honest, the P4 basically can beat the G4 in most tasks today, so a new faster version of the P4, the P5 can easily beat the G4, most likely in 95-99% of all tasks.
Ok, we have established that the G4 is, well, to slow against the P5, even though we don't know about it yet, I imagine it will be. Well, Apple just pulled the plug on OS 9 for January, what could this mean? I am not sure, only Steve knows. But Apple better come out with something that can at least compete with the Pentium 5, and it better come soon. I would not be surprised if Apple comes out with the G5 in January, just to say they were the first to have a generation 5 possessor, but I could be wrong.
Ok, I made my case, now, what do you guys think? By the way: I got this information about the Pentium 5 from eWeek, so it is reputable.
more...
TheNewDude
Apr 30, 10:20 AM
I remember reading on Best Buy Canada's website that if you pre-order the game you get access to the Beta... I wonder if that goes for Mac too or just PC. But yeah, I can't wait to see how well it will end up running on the 13" MBP with the "killer graphics"!
ender land
Apr 12, 12:55 PM
racism is more or less tolerated against a majority (at least in the USA).
more...
diamond.g
Apr 20, 06:08 AM
... to apease old school folks like yourself. It's off by default. OSX has always been about not having to think about managing the OS and focusing on being productive, creative and enjoying the purpose of the computer. Letting the OS manage system resources is the next logical step.
Apps don't need to be running if they're not being used. If the OS saves all work and opening an app is nearly instantaneous, then there is no difference between a running app or a closed app running some services in the background.
Nonetheless, the ability to turn the lights back on is a temporary transitional ability. It will no doubt be gone in the OS after Lion and only few people clinging to the past will look to turn them on.Until all applications support this new feature we may be in for a bumpy ride. Especially when users expect their current applications to behave the new way. Much like the heart ache we saw with the iOS 3 to 4 transition.
Apps don't need to be running if they're not being used. If the OS saves all work and opening an app is nearly instantaneous, then there is no difference between a running app or a closed app running some services in the background.
Nonetheless, the ability to turn the lights back on is a temporary transitional ability. It will no doubt be gone in the OS after Lion and only few people clinging to the past will look to turn them on.Until all applications support this new feature we may be in for a bumpy ride. Especially when users expect their current applications to behave the new way. Much like the heart ache we saw with the iOS 3 to 4 transition.
firestarter
May 4, 12:55 AM
How do you know that that Sony prototype didn't come about as a result from work at UDC (funded by DARPA)?
I don't know. Does the US military usually sell its tech to the Japanese?
Seems to me that it's a technology lots of people are working on in parallel.
Consumer forces made flight widespread. Military forces make flight feasible. Hitler's minions didn't invent the jet engine and solid booster to deliver packages and orbit weather sensors.
Nice example. Frank Whittle (http://inventors.about.com/library/inventors/bljetengine.htm) received the first jet engine patent in 1930. He had been in the Air Force, but they wouldn't sponsor his research - so the development was privately funded and finally demonstrated in 1937.
Intercontental flight was made widespread after we decided to work on carring warheads across the ocean vs ppl. In 1940's who woulda funded a massive manhatten project to see if we can make it heat up some water...theoretically.
I think you're confusing fission and fusion.
The need for computer networks to survive a nuclear war now enable's us to read eachother's posts and take advantage of the consumerism on top of this web page.
Darpanet, indeed. But the web itself was developed in peacetime by a man researching at a (non military) Swiss research establishment (http://public.web.cern.ch/public/en/about/web-en.html).
Many technological advancements are so costly and far-fetched that no reasonable "business" would risk investing a lot of money in it. That's when paranoid governments pick up the tab. I don't think you understand that it's real easy to spend $499 on an iPod with tons of "Apps" on it and say...oh yah, this is like real easy to make because Chinese ppl take 50 cents worth of material and put it together. But before all this was possible, some of the smallest components in that iPhone and the most basic of all "Apps" took a "visionary" with a massivly risky budget to make one blink on some $5 million vaccuum box for the first time in history!
The first commercial transistors were developed for telecoms by AT&T / Texas instruments (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transistor).
The integrated circuit was invented in peace time, and it's mass production was spurred as much by the Apollo program (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integrated_circuit) as for defence.
Interestingly, defence and space are very conservative in their use of technology and CPUs. The increase in CPU power over time has clearly been motivated by commercial market forces (non military).
Yes, I don't deny that defence money does finance innovation. But that's not the same as implying that innovation wouldn't take place if it wasn't for War. That's clearly nonsense - there's plenty of civil and commercial market forces that also spur development, and the examples you've cited demonstrate a few. War is not an essential for human or technological development, although it may speed it along a little from time to time.
I don't know. Does the US military usually sell its tech to the Japanese?
Seems to me that it's a technology lots of people are working on in parallel.
Consumer forces made flight widespread. Military forces make flight feasible. Hitler's minions didn't invent the jet engine and solid booster to deliver packages and orbit weather sensors.
Nice example. Frank Whittle (http://inventors.about.com/library/inventors/bljetengine.htm) received the first jet engine patent in 1930. He had been in the Air Force, but they wouldn't sponsor his research - so the development was privately funded and finally demonstrated in 1937.
Intercontental flight was made widespread after we decided to work on carring warheads across the ocean vs ppl. In 1940's who woulda funded a massive manhatten project to see if we can make it heat up some water...theoretically.
I think you're confusing fission and fusion.
The need for computer networks to survive a nuclear war now enable's us to read eachother's posts and take advantage of the consumerism on top of this web page.
Darpanet, indeed. But the web itself was developed in peacetime by a man researching at a (non military) Swiss research establishment (http://public.web.cern.ch/public/en/about/web-en.html).
Many technological advancements are so costly and far-fetched that no reasonable "business" would risk investing a lot of money in it. That's when paranoid governments pick up the tab. I don't think you understand that it's real easy to spend $499 on an iPod with tons of "Apps" on it and say...oh yah, this is like real easy to make because Chinese ppl take 50 cents worth of material and put it together. But before all this was possible, some of the smallest components in that iPhone and the most basic of all "Apps" took a "visionary" with a massivly risky budget to make one blink on some $5 million vaccuum box for the first time in history!
The first commercial transistors were developed for telecoms by AT&T / Texas instruments (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transistor).
The integrated circuit was invented in peace time, and it's mass production was spurred as much by the Apollo program (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integrated_circuit) as for defence.
Interestingly, defence and space are very conservative in their use of technology and CPUs. The increase in CPU power over time has clearly been motivated by commercial market forces (non military).
Yes, I don't deny that defence money does finance innovation. But that's not the same as implying that innovation wouldn't take place if it wasn't for War. That's clearly nonsense - there's plenty of civil and commercial market forces that also spur development, and the examples you've cited demonstrate a few. War is not an essential for human or technological development, although it may speed it along a little from time to time.
more...
Oppressed
Apr 24, 08:49 PM
If someone is going to specifically test disk read/write speeds then one needs to also look into and see if the SSD is the Toshiba or Samsung model. I for one have the Samsung model and scored higher on the disk test then his model.
+1 for at least testing a MBA with 4 gigs of ram.
+1 for at least testing a MBA with 4 gigs of ram.
1080p
Jun 11, 09:35 AM
T-Mobile is not exactly a financial beast either... Can they afford to give $400 subsidies on iPhones?
more...
bradc
Sep 27, 04:51 PM
Luckily none of you have a Mac Pro with build 8K1079. It is complete *****. Build 8K1079 is horrible, hell-half of System Preferences doesn't work, Rosetta can't keep PPC apps open, can't plug in some USB devices, can't restart without holding power button down, the curtain of death happens.....a lot. So many problems with build 8K1079 that we don't/can't use it at work here.
ScottishDuck
Mar 27, 06:29 AM
Two CEOs discussing business in an open area is clearly not a publicity stunt :rolleyes:
PeterQVenkman
Apr 19, 09:51 AM
It looks neat. It makes me wonder how well that new color is going to show dust and dirt getting stuck in the seams and crevices.
sfwalter
Mar 6, 03:27 PM
Working from home that day, probably head to Willow Bend around 2pm.
Mac-Addict
Oct 25, 05:06 PM
a what from the cashier?
A and I are pretty far away on a normal keyboard.. so he must mean wink..
A and I are pretty far away on a normal keyboard.. so he must mean wink..
Bennieboy�
Apr 18, 06:55 AM
ok mines turned on :D ps3 will start the night shift tonight :D
ChrisA
Nov 21, 05:04 PM
Interesting concept, but their website (http://www.eneco.com/) scares me away in a hurry. What was that about making a good first impression?
What is wrong with it? The only thing I see is that they are presenting the Peltier Effect as if it was something they discovered and not already in common use. These chips have been produced on an industrial scale for many years. They don't say this.
Here is another company who has a real product to for sale http://www.melcor.com/ Here is one more - http://www.customthermoelectric.com/ It's a mature technology These guys at eneco seem to be selling a concept and have no product.
But who are they trying to fool? Anyone in a position to buy from eneco would have engineers on staff who certainly would already understand thermoelectrics
What is wrong with it? The only thing I see is that they are presenting the Peltier Effect as if it was something they discovered and not already in common use. These chips have been produced on an industrial scale for many years. They don't say this.
Here is another company who has a real product to for sale http://www.melcor.com/ Here is one more - http://www.customthermoelectric.com/ It's a mature technology These guys at eneco seem to be selling a concept and have no product.
But who are they trying to fool? Anyone in a position to buy from eneco would have engineers on staff who certainly would already understand thermoelectrics
nagromme
Nov 6, 12:34 PM
The iPhone has a power source, unlike a typical card or keyfob, so I would think it could implement active RFID instead of passive.
In other words, have it ONLY functional when powered on, unlike the tag in an RFID card. Then it can be optional and up to the user—best of both worlds. Convenience AND privacy. I could accept a tiny battery drain for that flexibility.
And if you’re paranoid about whether it REALLY is turned off when it says, then you may as well be paranoid about whether there already IS a chip in your iPhone (and your shoes and your coffee) that they’re not telling you about :)
(I’d be interested to know whether active RFID could do what nkawtg72 suggested above: alert you when the tag is read. Can it know that a read has taken place or is it just a steady broadcast in one direction? A beep/vibrate would be a nice step up from what a simple card can do.)
In other words, have it ONLY functional when powered on, unlike the tag in an RFID card. Then it can be optional and up to the user—best of both worlds. Convenience AND privacy. I could accept a tiny battery drain for that flexibility.
And if you’re paranoid about whether it REALLY is turned off when it says, then you may as well be paranoid about whether there already IS a chip in your iPhone (and your shoes and your coffee) that they’re not telling you about :)
(I’d be interested to know whether active RFID could do what nkawtg72 suggested above: alert you when the tag is read. Can it know that a read has taken place or is it just a steady broadcast in one direction? A beep/vibrate would be a nice step up from what a simple card can do.)
No comments:
Post a Comment