ShnikeJSB
Aug 11, 01:40 PM
In other words, G5 PowerBooks next tuesday ;)
Man, I tell ya... 2 years+ ago when I wanted a new laptop, that's ALL I ever heard... I think Apple should build a one-off G5 laptop just to appease us crazy people in here, LOL! It would be an awesome tip-of-the-hat to us, don'tcha think? ;)
Man, I tell ya... 2 years+ ago when I wanted a new laptop, that's ALL I ever heard... I think Apple should build a one-off G5 laptop just to appease us crazy people in here, LOL! It would be an awesome tip-of-the-hat to us, don'tcha think? ;)
teiresias
Apr 4, 03:42 PM
Only for a year. Fill up that 20 Gigs and a year later you can either empty it down to the free 5, or pony up.
Not if you buy your music from Amazon and have it saved to your cloud storage be default. All mp3 purchases from Amazon (so long as cloud storage is set as your default when purchasing) are stored free in the cloud and don't count against your storage limit. You can download it to your Mac/PC later (while leaving it in the Amazon cloud) and add it into your iTunes library on your local storage if you'd like.
This is actually a much better thing for me, as if I'm away from my home computer, I can still buy music, have it go to the cloud by default, and immediately have it available to both any computer that runs the cloud player and my phone without having to wait to go home and purchase through iTunes and sync a device.
Not if you buy your music from Amazon and have it saved to your cloud storage be default. All mp3 purchases from Amazon (so long as cloud storage is set as your default when purchasing) are stored free in the cloud and don't count against your storage limit. You can download it to your Mac/PC later (while leaving it in the Amazon cloud) and add it into your iTunes library on your local storage if you'd like.
This is actually a much better thing for me, as if I'm away from my home computer, I can still buy music, have it go to the cloud by default, and immediately have it available to both any computer that runs the cloud player and my phone without having to wait to go home and purchase through iTunes and sync a device.
Multimedia
Aug 2, 09:44 PM
You win that one. :D Although I cannot find the product page for laptop Core 2 Duos, only those for the desktop.Carlos, Intel's web site is notoriously out of date. I have never been able to find any current info on their site. Do not expect to ever rely on the Intel website for up-to-date info about themselves. :rolleyes: It is an extremely poorly designed site.
ALL the Core 2 Duo Processors are shipping including Merom Carlos.
ALL the Core 2 Duo Processors are shipping including Merom Carlos.
iFanboy
Mar 30, 05:41 PM
Dear Apple
PLEASE can we have a UI update, even if it's a minor one (for instance, iTunes 10 scrollbars rather than the blue aqua ones). Just some extra polish really.
Signed
iFanboy
PLEASE can we have a UI update, even if it's a minor one (for instance, iTunes 10 scrollbars rather than the blue aqua ones). Just some extra polish really.
Signed
iFanboy
Reach9
Apr 20, 01:49 AM
Please site sources of when has Apple cared about staying ahead of an artificial market. I am trying to think of a time and they never really cared. They bring out what works when it works and that is why they do so well without having to have 100 products out all the time.
Every company cares about the market, and the market is very real. Basic economics, a college course should suffice. Apple is no different. Otherwise, why did Apple add Retina Display? Why did Apple add an A5 processor on the iPad 2? Why did Apple push for A4?
Apple always compares themselves with the competition, it's illogical to think that Apple doesn't care about the market.
Regarding the OP, i'm really hoping for a larger screen, or something which will entice customers, Apple wants to get everyone even people with iPhone 4's to upgrade.
Every company cares about the market, and the market is very real. Basic economics, a college course should suffice. Apple is no different. Otherwise, why did Apple add Retina Display? Why did Apple add an A5 processor on the iPad 2? Why did Apple push for A4?
Apple always compares themselves with the competition, it's illogical to think that Apple doesn't care about the market.
Regarding the OP, i'm really hoping for a larger screen, or something which will entice customers, Apple wants to get everyone even people with iPhone 4's to upgrade.
munkery
Nov 9, 03:39 PM
At present the Mac has few threats, those that are in the wild at the moment generally rely on social engineering as opposed to vulnerabilities in the software, however, what we have to remember is that there have been a number of vulernabilities in iOS that have been exploited in order to jailbreak iOS devices (these vulnerabilities in many cases are also common to OSX as they spring from the same codebase), these exploits do provide the ability to gain root access to OSX and hence provide an avenue to install software (without the users knowledge) that could be used to cause the theft or destruction of data.
iOS is 32bit. Many security mitigations in 32bit processes can often be defeated via bruteforce. Snow Leopard is mostly 64bit. 64bit processes have more security mitigations and have not yet been exploited. So, that is why many iOS exploits do not show up in OS X.
The initial hole from Jailbreakme (http://exploiting.wordpress.com/2010/11/09/unpatched-apple-os-x-atsserver-cff-charstrings-index-sign-mismatch-the-jailbreakme-bug-in-osx/) is still not patched. This is the initial arbitrary code execution (patched for iOS) prior to privilege escalation (already patched for iOS not present in OS X) so alone it does not provide root. Interestingly, it only effects Mac OS 10.5.x which contains much more 32 bit.
This vulnerability could be used by a remote attacker to execute arbitrary code, by enticing the user of Mac OS X v10.5.x to view or download a PDF document containing a embedded malicious CFF font (Compact Font Format [1]). Apple Mac OSX 10.6 is not affected by this vulnerability, upgrading to this version is highly recommed when possible.
iOS is 32bit. Many security mitigations in 32bit processes can often be defeated via bruteforce. Snow Leopard is mostly 64bit. 64bit processes have more security mitigations and have not yet been exploited. So, that is why many iOS exploits do not show up in OS X.
The initial hole from Jailbreakme (http://exploiting.wordpress.com/2010/11/09/unpatched-apple-os-x-atsserver-cff-charstrings-index-sign-mismatch-the-jailbreakme-bug-in-osx/) is still not patched. This is the initial arbitrary code execution (patched for iOS) prior to privilege escalation (already patched for iOS not present in OS X) so alone it does not provide root. Interestingly, it only effects Mac OS 10.5.x which contains much more 32 bit.
This vulnerability could be used by a remote attacker to execute arbitrary code, by enticing the user of Mac OS X v10.5.x to view or download a PDF document containing a embedded malicious CFF font (Compact Font Format [1]). Apple Mac OSX 10.6 is not affected by this vulnerability, upgrading to this version is highly recommed when possible.
mrsir2009
Mar 30, 10:21 PM
Yay Lion is getting closer.
Snik
Jan 8, 09:56 PM
I have just installed Sophos Anti Virus - what a mistake!
I decided to install it because I have been a long term user of Sophos at work on the corporate PC and having installed the latest OSX I saw virus checkers in the App Store and a recommendation for Sophos there in a reference for another product.
I ran a scan and a couple of PC specific malware files were found and destroyed.
Then I noticed that my Time Machine back up was struggling.
It turns out that there are issues with Sophos and Time Machine.
I moved my Time Machine back ups to a DroboFS in December I have now lost all my back ups since then.
Once I have backed up again I will be deinstalling it - bet I find that I loose the new back up then!
:mad:
I decided to install it because I have been a long term user of Sophos at work on the corporate PC and having installed the latest OSX I saw virus checkers in the App Store and a recommendation for Sophos there in a reference for another product.
I ran a scan and a couple of PC specific malware files were found and destroyed.
Then I noticed that my Time Machine back up was struggling.
It turns out that there are issues with Sophos and Time Machine.
I moved my Time Machine back ups to a DroboFS in December I have now lost all my back ups since then.
Once I have backed up again I will be deinstalling it - bet I find that I loose the new back up then!
:mad:
MacRumors
Apr 21, 02:25 PM
http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com/2011/04/21/apple-developing-narrower-rackmountable-mac-pro-prototypes/)
http://images.macrumors.com/article/2011/04/21/152122-mac_pro_2010_inside.jpg
Newborn Tips | My Little Baby
Duggar#39;s Newborn Hat!
long hair angs round face
Round Face Hair Styles 1
http://images.macrumors.com/article/2011/04/21/152122-mac_pro_2010_inside.jpg
DJMastaWes
Jul 22, 10:02 AM
I'm just burnin' doin' the Merom Dance!
Sing it with me, now! :D
Regardless of what happens on the 7th, I'm ordering a MBP. Though, things look like they're shaping up for that! Apple would be nuts not to put that chip in the MBP now that it's shipping.
I'm keeping my fingers crossed! Can't wait....
I know the odds are riseing for merom MBPs at WWDC, but anyone have opinions on a new enclosure for them at WWDC?
Sing it with me, now! :D
Regardless of what happens on the 7th, I'm ordering a MBP. Though, things look like they're shaping up for that! Apple would be nuts not to put that chip in the MBP now that it's shipping.
I'm keeping my fingers crossed! Can't wait....
I know the odds are riseing for merom MBPs at WWDC, but anyone have opinions on a new enclosure for them at WWDC?
*LTD*
Apr 24, 10:38 AM
Ps: Happy Easter everyone:)
Same to you. Happy Easter. :)
Same to you. Happy Easter. :)
clank72
Mar 29, 04:20 PM
Hard for me, even as an Apple fan, to weep too much for a company that chooses to do business overseas isntead of here in America, employing Americans.
No way. With the cost of employment here in America these Apple products would not be possible. We should be thankful.
No way. With the cost of employment here in America these Apple products would not be possible. We should be thankful.
Ryth
Apr 22, 10:22 AM
Hrm.. When I hear "Mac Pro", I think of a giant behemoth of a computer, with super internals for crazy processing power for graphics design or whatever your poison may be..
Actually, you can get by with a mid/high level iMac now for most graphic design needs (photoshop, illustrator, etc) these days and even average video editing needs
MacPros are really now for higher end video and 3D applications or those that really need to get their work done fast and rendered fast.
Funny though, one of the 3D companies that works in our building actually bought high end iMacs last year and they use them for Maya and they work great they said...I think we're at a plateau for a lot of apps in what you can do with them and the latest gen processors in the iMacs, MBPros are somewhat overkill for a lot of people already.
2011 Hairstyles, Long Face
But now it#39;s all over his face
But her head one are rashes.
A newborn#39;s skin is soft and
face as a weepy rash.
acne allergy heat rash.
Actually, you can get by with a mid/high level iMac now for most graphic design needs (photoshop, illustrator, etc) these days and even average video editing needs
MacPros are really now for higher end video and 3D applications or those that really need to get their work done fast and rendered fast.
Funny though, one of the 3D companies that works in our building actually bought high end iMacs last year and they use them for Maya and they work great they said...I think we're at a plateau for a lot of apps in what you can do with them and the latest gen processors in the iMacs, MBPros are somewhat overkill for a lot of people already.
toddybody
Apr 7, 11:50 AM
If the demand for touch panels increases then the manufacturers of touch panels will rejoice and expand their business thus increasing the supply. The real problem here is that RIM probably wants terms on touch panel production that are not all-too-inspiring to the manufacturers to warrant expansion. For example, Apple is confident that they will sell X units of iPads in Y units in 2012, and so on. So Apple prepays for what they need.
RIM is not as confident with their Playbook. They probably need contingencies in any long-term orders they place to ensure they can get out of buying touch panels they won't need. If these were 9.7-inch panels then the manufacturer could care less. Anything RIM walks away from, they can turn around and sell to Apple (very smart of HP). However, who is going to buy all those 7-inch panels if RIM's Playbook gets off to a false start? Samsung? Nope -- they make their own panels from what I have heard.
Supply and Demand.... When there is real demand for more touch panels from consumers than those being supplied to Apple for iPad then the manufacturers will expand their production and take advantage of the opportunity to increase profits. The real problem here is that RIM's attempt at media hype is not equivalent to real customer demand. The only tablet with a large amount of customer demand right now is the iPad. That is part of why I tend to believe that the "media tablet" category is a figment of the imagination for market analysts. Market analysts assign a level of demand to the "media tablet" category and make projections, but the difference between the "iPad" category and the rest of the "non-iPad media tablets" is staggering. The iPad category is flourishing, the "non-iPad media tablet" category is a fledgling state at best (if not failing).
If not for Apple's success with the iPad how many manufacturers would have already thrown in the towel with "media tablets" and once again written it off as "the technology for tablets is just not there yet for mass consumption". Tablets failed in various forms for over a decade. iPad is the first and only mass market success in this area. If not for Apple, there would be no such thing as "Honeycomb" or HP Touch Pad or Playbook -- these guys are hoping they can figure out what Apple did right and find some way to ride the same wave the iPad is on -- while technical specifications are there, they have not yet figured out the "magic" of iPad -- ease of use, awesome software market, and the emotional response Apple manages to evoke with their user experience. Just a few examples of emotional response.... There is something delightful about pinching a stack of photos to spread them out across the screen or the way Apple's tiled app icons and folders gets adults to collect apps the same way their kids collect trading cards -- these are very emotional things that Apple seems to understand.
Next time you should try formulating a more organized post:p
Well said sir, well said:) Stay well!
RIM is not as confident with their Playbook. They probably need contingencies in any long-term orders they place to ensure they can get out of buying touch panels they won't need. If these were 9.7-inch panels then the manufacturer could care less. Anything RIM walks away from, they can turn around and sell to Apple (very smart of HP). However, who is going to buy all those 7-inch panels if RIM's Playbook gets off to a false start? Samsung? Nope -- they make their own panels from what I have heard.
Supply and Demand.... When there is real demand for more touch panels from consumers than those being supplied to Apple for iPad then the manufacturers will expand their production and take advantage of the opportunity to increase profits. The real problem here is that RIM's attempt at media hype is not equivalent to real customer demand. The only tablet with a large amount of customer demand right now is the iPad. That is part of why I tend to believe that the "media tablet" category is a figment of the imagination for market analysts. Market analysts assign a level of demand to the "media tablet" category and make projections, but the difference between the "iPad" category and the rest of the "non-iPad media tablets" is staggering. The iPad category is flourishing, the "non-iPad media tablet" category is a fledgling state at best (if not failing).
If not for Apple's success with the iPad how many manufacturers would have already thrown in the towel with "media tablets" and once again written it off as "the technology for tablets is just not there yet for mass consumption". Tablets failed in various forms for over a decade. iPad is the first and only mass market success in this area. If not for Apple, there would be no such thing as "Honeycomb" or HP Touch Pad or Playbook -- these guys are hoping they can figure out what Apple did right and find some way to ride the same wave the iPad is on -- while technical specifications are there, they have not yet figured out the "magic" of iPad -- ease of use, awesome software market, and the emotional response Apple manages to evoke with their user experience. Just a few examples of emotional response.... There is something delightful about pinching a stack of photos to spread them out across the screen or the way Apple's tiled app icons and folders gets adults to collect apps the same way their kids collect trading cards -- these are very emotional things that Apple seems to understand.
Next time you should try formulating a more organized post:p
Well said sir, well said:) Stay well!
rjohnstone
Apr 18, 03:40 PM
The iPhone 1 was announced before the Prada phone. Patent dates showed iPhone implementation of a capacitive touchscreen phone at least a year before LG showed their Prada phone in 2006. The Prada shipped in small shipments before the iPhone, so that is their only claim that it was technically released before the iPhone even though real shipments occurred months later. Technically, if Apple wanted to, they could have sued LG.
Also, the Prada isn't a smartphone. It can't load apps. It doesn't even have a qwerty keyboard. You input text through the phone dialer like old school SMS.
Irrelevant argument from a "look and feel" standpoint as NOBODY outside of Apple knew what the iPhone looked like.
So either the design was logical or LG was frikkin clairvoyant and could see into the future.
The patent filings are moot.
Loading apps are moot as the original iPhone didn't permit that either.
The virtual qwerty keyboard existed before the iPhone as well.
Seriously do 10 seconds of research before posting.
What Apple did was made a phone that contained a lot of EXISTING technology and wrapped it into a single package.
And did a good job doing it too.
Show me something that works as well BEFORE Apple demoed the iPhone.
Technology =/= usability.
Irrelevant. Most of the tech in the iPhone predates it.
Also, the Prada isn't a smartphone. It can't load apps. It doesn't even have a qwerty keyboard. You input text through the phone dialer like old school SMS.
Irrelevant argument from a "look and feel" standpoint as NOBODY outside of Apple knew what the iPhone looked like.
So either the design was logical or LG was frikkin clairvoyant and could see into the future.
The patent filings are moot.
Loading apps are moot as the original iPhone didn't permit that either.
The virtual qwerty keyboard existed before the iPhone as well.
Seriously do 10 seconds of research before posting.
What Apple did was made a phone that contained a lot of EXISTING technology and wrapped it into a single package.
And did a good job doing it too.
Show me something that works as well BEFORE Apple demoed the iPhone.
Technology =/= usability.
Irrelevant. Most of the tech in the iPhone predates it.
MikeTheC
Nov 25, 10:46 PM
All this talk about Palm needing to modernize their OS, or it is outdated, or needing to re-write is absolutely hilarious.
On a phone, I want to use its features quickly and easily. When I have to schedule an appointment, I want to enter that appointment as easily as possible. When I want to add something to my to-do list, I want to do it easily and quickly. And first and foremost, I want to be able to look up a contact and dial it as quickly as possible.
A phone is not a personal computer. I couldn't care less about multitasking, rewriting, "modern" OSes (whatever "modern" means). "Modern" features and look is just eye candy and/or toys. A mobile phone is a gadget of convenience, and it should be convenient to use. Even PalmOS 1.0 was convenient. It was just as easy to use its contact and calendar features as any so-called "modern" OS is today.
I would really like to know how "modernizing" the OS on my phone would help me look up contacts, dial contacts, enter to-do list entries, and entering calendar entries any better that I could today.
Again, I repeat: a phone is not a personal computer. There's no point in treating it as such.
The same point could largely be made about cars, but I don't think either of us would want to be driving a Model T or Model A Ford these days, would we?
The term "Modern" as applied to operating systems has little to do with the interface per se. It primarily concerns the underpinnings of the OS and how forward-looking and/or open-ended it is. Older operating systems, if you want to look at it in this way, were very geared to the hardware of their times, and every time you added a new hardware feature or some new kind of technology came out, you wound up making this big patchwork of an OS, in which you had either an out-dated or obsolete "core" around which was stuck, somewhat unglamorously, lots of crap to allow it to do stuff it wasn't really designed for. Then, you wound up having to write patches for the patches, etc., ad infinitum.
Apple tried to go the internal development route, but that didn't work because their departmental infrastructure was eating them from the inside out at the time and basically poisoned all of their new projects. They considered BeOS because it was an incredibly modern OS at the time that was very capable, unbelievably good at multitasking, memory protection, multimedia tasks, etc. However, that company was so shaky that when Apple decided not to go with them, they collapsed. One of the products which was introduced and sold and almost immediately recalled that used a version of BeOS was Sony's eVilla (you just have to love that name -- try pronouncing it out loud to get the full effect).
Ultimately, they went with NeXT's BSD- and Mach-Kernel-based NeXTStep (which after a bunch of time and effort and -- since lots of it is based on Open Source software, there were a healthy amount of community contributions to) and hence we now have Mac OS X.
I'll leave it to actual developers and/or coders here to better explain and refine (and/or correct) what I've said here, should you wish greater detail beyond what I am able to -- and therefore have -- provided above.
The whole point of going with a modern OS implemented for an imbedded market (i.e. "Mac OS X Mobile") is it gives you much more direct (and probably better implemented and/or better-grounded) access to modern technologies. Everything from basic I/O tasks that reside in the Kernel to audio processing to doing H.264 decoding to having access to IPv4 or IPv6, are all examples of things which a modern OS could do a better job of providing and/or backing.
From what I understand, PalmOS is something that was designed to first and foremost give you basic notepad and daily organizer functionality. When they wrote, as you say, PalmOS 1.0, they happened to implement a way for third parties to write software that could run on it. This has been both a benefit and a bane of PalmOS's existence. First off, they now have the same issues of backwards-compatibility and storage space and memory use/abuse that a regular computer OS has. I said it was both a benefit and a bane; but there's actually two parts to the "bane" side. The first I've already mentioned, but the second is the fact that since apps have been written which can do darn near any conceivable task, people keep wanting more and more and more. And this then goes back to the "patchwork" I described earlier in talking about "older" computer OSs.
Then people want multimedia, and color screens, and apps to take advantage of it, and they want Palm to incorporate DSPs so they can play music, and of course that brings along with it all of the extra patching to then allow for the existence of, and permit the use of, an on-board DSP. And now you want WiFi? Well, shoot, now we gotta have IPv4 as well, and support for TCP/IP, none of which was ever a part of the original concept of PalmOS.
And even if you don't want or need any of those features in your own PDA, I'm sorry but that's really just too bad. Go live in a cave if you like, but if you buy a new PDA, guess what: you're gonna get all that stuff.
And at some point, all of this stretches an "older" OS just a bit too far, or it becomes a bit absurd with all the hoops and turns and wiggling that PalmOne's coders have to go through, so then they say, "Aw **** it, let's just re-write the thing."
Apple comes to this without any of *that* sort of legacy. Doubtless there will be no Newton code on this thing anywhere, but what Apple's got is Mac OS X, which means they also have the power (albeit somewhat indirectly) of an Open Source OS -- Linux. And in case you weren't aware, there are already numerous "imbedded" implementations of Linux -- phones, PDAs, game systems, kiosks, etc. -- all of which are data points and collective experience opportunities which ALREADY EXIST that Apple can exploit.
So no, having a "modern" OS is not a bad thing. It's actually a supremely awesome thing. What you're concerned about is having something that is intuitive AND efficient AND appropriate to the world of telephone interfaces for the user interface on the device you'd go and buy yourself.
All I can say, based on past performance, is give Apple a chance.
Now, here's a larger picture thought to ponder...
If Apple goes to market with the iPhone, then this is going to open up (to some extent) the viability of a F/OSS community cell phone. And this is a really good thing as well because it represents a non-commercial, enthusiast entrance into what up until now has been a totally proprietary, locked-down OS-based product world. It has the potential to do to cell phones what Linux has inspired in Mac OS X.
On a phone, I want to use its features quickly and easily. When I have to schedule an appointment, I want to enter that appointment as easily as possible. When I want to add something to my to-do list, I want to do it easily and quickly. And first and foremost, I want to be able to look up a contact and dial it as quickly as possible.
A phone is not a personal computer. I couldn't care less about multitasking, rewriting, "modern" OSes (whatever "modern" means). "Modern" features and look is just eye candy and/or toys. A mobile phone is a gadget of convenience, and it should be convenient to use. Even PalmOS 1.0 was convenient. It was just as easy to use its contact and calendar features as any so-called "modern" OS is today.
I would really like to know how "modernizing" the OS on my phone would help me look up contacts, dial contacts, enter to-do list entries, and entering calendar entries any better that I could today.
Again, I repeat: a phone is not a personal computer. There's no point in treating it as such.
The same point could largely be made about cars, but I don't think either of us would want to be driving a Model T or Model A Ford these days, would we?
The term "Modern" as applied to operating systems has little to do with the interface per se. It primarily concerns the underpinnings of the OS and how forward-looking and/or open-ended it is. Older operating systems, if you want to look at it in this way, were very geared to the hardware of their times, and every time you added a new hardware feature or some new kind of technology came out, you wound up making this big patchwork of an OS, in which you had either an out-dated or obsolete "core" around which was stuck, somewhat unglamorously, lots of crap to allow it to do stuff it wasn't really designed for. Then, you wound up having to write patches for the patches, etc., ad infinitum.
Apple tried to go the internal development route, but that didn't work because their departmental infrastructure was eating them from the inside out at the time and basically poisoned all of their new projects. They considered BeOS because it was an incredibly modern OS at the time that was very capable, unbelievably good at multitasking, memory protection, multimedia tasks, etc. However, that company was so shaky that when Apple decided not to go with them, they collapsed. One of the products which was introduced and sold and almost immediately recalled that used a version of BeOS was Sony's eVilla (you just have to love that name -- try pronouncing it out loud to get the full effect).
Ultimately, they went with NeXT's BSD- and Mach-Kernel-based NeXTStep (which after a bunch of time and effort and -- since lots of it is based on Open Source software, there were a healthy amount of community contributions to) and hence we now have Mac OS X.
I'll leave it to actual developers and/or coders here to better explain and refine (and/or correct) what I've said here, should you wish greater detail beyond what I am able to -- and therefore have -- provided above.
The whole point of going with a modern OS implemented for an imbedded market (i.e. "Mac OS X Mobile") is it gives you much more direct (and probably better implemented and/or better-grounded) access to modern technologies. Everything from basic I/O tasks that reside in the Kernel to audio processing to doing H.264 decoding to having access to IPv4 or IPv6, are all examples of things which a modern OS could do a better job of providing and/or backing.
From what I understand, PalmOS is something that was designed to first and foremost give you basic notepad and daily organizer functionality. When they wrote, as you say, PalmOS 1.0, they happened to implement a way for third parties to write software that could run on it. This has been both a benefit and a bane of PalmOS's existence. First off, they now have the same issues of backwards-compatibility and storage space and memory use/abuse that a regular computer OS has. I said it was both a benefit and a bane; but there's actually two parts to the "bane" side. The first I've already mentioned, but the second is the fact that since apps have been written which can do darn near any conceivable task, people keep wanting more and more and more. And this then goes back to the "patchwork" I described earlier in talking about "older" computer OSs.
Then people want multimedia, and color screens, and apps to take advantage of it, and they want Palm to incorporate DSPs so they can play music, and of course that brings along with it all of the extra patching to then allow for the existence of, and permit the use of, an on-board DSP. And now you want WiFi? Well, shoot, now we gotta have IPv4 as well, and support for TCP/IP, none of which was ever a part of the original concept of PalmOS.
And even if you don't want or need any of those features in your own PDA, I'm sorry but that's really just too bad. Go live in a cave if you like, but if you buy a new PDA, guess what: you're gonna get all that stuff.
And at some point, all of this stretches an "older" OS just a bit too far, or it becomes a bit absurd with all the hoops and turns and wiggling that PalmOne's coders have to go through, so then they say, "Aw **** it, let's just re-write the thing."
Apple comes to this without any of *that* sort of legacy. Doubtless there will be no Newton code on this thing anywhere, but what Apple's got is Mac OS X, which means they also have the power (albeit somewhat indirectly) of an Open Source OS -- Linux. And in case you weren't aware, there are already numerous "imbedded" implementations of Linux -- phones, PDAs, game systems, kiosks, etc. -- all of which are data points and collective experience opportunities which ALREADY EXIST that Apple can exploit.
So no, having a "modern" OS is not a bad thing. It's actually a supremely awesome thing. What you're concerned about is having something that is intuitive AND efficient AND appropriate to the world of telephone interfaces for the user interface on the device you'd go and buy yourself.
All I can say, based on past performance, is give Apple a chance.
Now, here's a larger picture thought to ponder...
If Apple goes to market with the iPhone, then this is going to open up (to some extent) the viability of a F/OSS community cell phone. And this is a really good thing as well because it represents a non-commercial, enthusiast entrance into what up until now has been a totally proprietary, locked-down OS-based product world. It has the potential to do to cell phones what Linux has inspired in Mac OS X.
FFTT
Aug 4, 08:21 AM
As always, I'm quite conservative about any new releases.
I'm sure those that MUST buy a new computer this year will soon find themselves with empty pockets or maxed out limits on their credit cards.
I might consider a Merom based MacBook, but otherwise I'm waiting quite
a while for a new desktop.
Rev "B" quad core or octacore will be my next desktop upgrade.
Rev "A" of any release has consistantly proven to be an unwise purchase unless you can afford a new machine every 2 years.
I'm sure those that MUST buy a new computer this year will soon find themselves with empty pockets or maxed out limits on their credit cards.
I might consider a Merom based MacBook, but otherwise I'm waiting quite
a while for a new desktop.
Rev "B" quad core or octacore will be my next desktop upgrade.
Rev "A" of any release has consistantly proven to be an unwise purchase unless you can afford a new machine every 2 years.
-aggie-
May 3, 02:29 PM
I suppose we'll know who the villain is?
B.winkle
Apr 10, 10:53 AM
Answer is 2. I'm right and you're wrong. So there! ;.) I sleep with a math teacher!!!
RalfTheDog
Apr 7, 10:16 AM
I see the short sighted Apple pom-pom shakers are once again giddy with excitement. The juvenile remarks are embarrassing.
For some strange reason you think monopolies are good for consumers.
When more than three people want to buy something that RIM makes, you will have something to complain about. When products just sit on shelves, are given away for free or BOGO, the supplies need to go to those who are selling every unit they can make and have people waiting in line every morning.
Touch screens are at high demand. Why waist one on something that will not sell.
For some strange reason you think monopolies are good for consumers.
When more than three people want to buy something that RIM makes, you will have something to complain about. When products just sit on shelves, are given away for free or BOGO, the supplies need to go to those who are selling every unit they can make and have people waiting in line every morning.
Touch screens are at high demand. Why waist one on something that will not sell.
iHeartapple2
Nov 2, 08:00 PM
I have had my MacBook over 2 years now and decided to do a full scan tonight using iAntiVirus just to see what it would find. The results are 0 , nothing, and nada.
vincenz
Apr 10, 09:39 AM
I got 24 * 24. Which is 288. I can't believe how long this thread is. And someone needs to fix the way the Mac does math...
babbit
Apr 18, 03:32 PM
LG was first (before iPhone) to release smart phone with capacitive screen and UI that looks suspiciously close to iPhone. Here is Prada:
http://www.itechnews.net/wp-content/uploads/2007/01/PRADA-Phone-LG-KE850-1.jpg
If Apple prevails in court. LG would be stupid not to sue Apple (and they would probably get more money considering iPhone volumes).
The iPhone 1 was announced before the Prada phone. Patent dates showed iPhone implementation of a capacitive touchscreen phone at least a year before LG showed their Prada phone in 2006. The Prada shipped in small shipments before the iPhone, so that is their only claim that it was technically released before the iPhone even though real shipments occurred months later. Technically, if Apple wanted to, they could have sued LG.
Also, the Prada isn't a smartphone. It can't load apps. It doesn't even have a qwerty keyboard. You input text through the phone dialer like old school SMS.
http://www.itechnews.net/wp-content/uploads/2007/01/PRADA-Phone-LG-KE850-1.jpg
If Apple prevails in court. LG would be stupid not to sue Apple (and they would probably get more money considering iPhone volumes).
The iPhone 1 was announced before the Prada phone. Patent dates showed iPhone implementation of a capacitive touchscreen phone at least a year before LG showed their Prada phone in 2006. The Prada shipped in small shipments before the iPhone, so that is their only claim that it was technically released before the iPhone even though real shipments occurred months later. Technically, if Apple wanted to, they could have sued LG.
Also, the Prada isn't a smartphone. It can't load apps. It doesn't even have a qwerty keyboard. You input text through the phone dialer like old school SMS.
LordTyroxx
Apr 5, 03:04 PM
Right. At the end of the day, customers chose with their wallets, and as of this year, more customers are choosing Android than iPhone (throw out Android tablet and iOS tablet as those are different categories and distort reality).
Where did that come from? Are more people buying android phones because they offer more freedom or are generally cheaper and have a bigger screen? I think if it came down to JUST freedom of choice inside the os, the app store is pretty huge. I don't think the vast majority of people buy a phone for what it can do after you hack into it.
Where did that come from? Are more people buying android phones because they offer more freedom or are generally cheaper and have a bigger screen? I think if it came down to JUST freedom of choice inside the os, the app store is pretty huge. I don't think the vast majority of people buy a phone for what it can do after you hack into it.
No comments:
Post a Comment