vniow
Aug 7, 02:00 PM
Upping the baseline of the MacPro to $2500, what is that.
The baseline is actually somewhere around $2100, you can lower some of the options when configuring.
The baseline is actually somewhere around $2100, you can lower some of the options when configuring.
Mister Snitch
Mar 27, 10:43 AM
"2011: Year of iPad 2."
If you want to hang 'no iPad 3 in 2011' on the technicality of a slogan, remember: An entire "year" of iPad 2 would have required a launch on New Year's Day, at midnight. That didn't happen. So, a slavish adherence to the slogan is not a reason we wouldn't see an iPad 3 launch in the fall.
In that event, the BULK of the year still would have been the 'Year of iPad 2', if not literally every single day of it. By year's end, it's pretty safe to say the majority of tablets in use will in fact be iPad 2's. That's enough to fulfill the slogan, if such a fulfillment is something anyone's looking for.
If you want to hang 'no iPad 3 in 2011' on the technicality of a slogan, remember: An entire "year" of iPad 2 would have required a launch on New Year's Day, at midnight. That didn't happen. So, a slavish adherence to the slogan is not a reason we wouldn't see an iPad 3 launch in the fall.
In that event, the BULK of the year still would have been the 'Year of iPad 2', if not literally every single day of it. By year's end, it's pretty safe to say the majority of tablets in use will in fact be iPad 2's. That's enough to fulfill the slogan, if such a fulfillment is something anyone's looking for.
z3r01
Apr 26, 04:48 PM
You are mocking the wrong companies. Quad Core Android phones? Tell us more about it. There are dual core phones and guess what - Apple will follow suit (with usual delay). Same goes with the cameras. Apple is lagging there too. Android phones and tablets get good stuff first (including cameras, and no, there are no Android phones with 7 cameras).
While Android phones may not be that different from each other (although physical keyboard, screen size, LTE etc. are not so small differentiators) it's still much better than iPhone situation: one model (and then a white one a year later).
Ok umm it's obvious that the examples I used was sarcasm....but all in all..yes u get cameras and far better specs...but what does that prove? Not sales really..what device has sold more then an iOS device? All together android is out there more but target one single devices sales compared to iOS...evo made more then an iOS?no...droid made more then an iOS? No...android is ok but it's not passing iOS as one device alone...it needs to desperately piggy back other manufacturers in order to do so...but tell u this..if jobs was to say he wanted other manufacturers to carry iOS , goodbye android...but it doesn't need to do that..I guarantee that in apples top "threat" chart android is not even on the list....jailbreaks are...then probably cloud based services...but android like I said isn't even on there "oh snap" list.
While Android phones may not be that different from each other (although physical keyboard, screen size, LTE etc. are not so small differentiators) it's still much better than iPhone situation: one model (and then a white one a year later).
Ok umm it's obvious that the examples I used was sarcasm....but all in all..yes u get cameras and far better specs...but what does that prove? Not sales really..what device has sold more then an iOS device? All together android is out there more but target one single devices sales compared to iOS...evo made more then an iOS?no...droid made more then an iOS? No...android is ok but it's not passing iOS as one device alone...it needs to desperately piggy back other manufacturers in order to do so...but tell u this..if jobs was to say he wanted other manufacturers to carry iOS , goodbye android...but it doesn't need to do that..I guarantee that in apples top "threat" chart android is not even on the list....jailbreaks are...then probably cloud based services...but android like I said isn't even on there "oh snap" list.
ValSalva
May 7, 12:04 PM
Could Apple be tired of offering support for MobileMe? It must be an expensive pain in the butt costing more than they make from selling it. Maybe if it were free they would drop much or all of the support leaving it to an online manual or something. It could simplify things for Apple leaving them to concentrate on more profitable areas.
Elijahg
Apr 23, 08:02 PM
Again, KDE 2.0, 10 years ago. My Pentium 2 333 mhz didn't break a sweat doing SVG icons then (the Krystal SVG icon theme). ;)
I seriously doubt this is even an issue.
I doubt it had to process translucency or resize 50 times per second for 30+ images though :P If it were as efficient as bitmaps, it'd be used for game textures for sure... A texture would scale to any size with no pixellation at all, and the details wouldn't get blurred out when scaling down.
But I don't understand the resistance to SVG support, which would be a decade late. Sure it's not a shortcoming, but in light of these stories, it would be a "nicer to have".
I do agree SVG support is a good thing, just I don't see it getting used much. Even with resolution independence, standard pixel images are much easier to handle.
I seriously doubt this is even an issue.
I doubt it had to process translucency or resize 50 times per second for 30+ images though :P If it were as efficient as bitmaps, it'd be used for game textures for sure... A texture would scale to any size with no pixellation at all, and the details wouldn't get blurred out when scaling down.
But I don't understand the resistance to SVG support, which would be a decade late. Sure it's not a shortcoming, but in light of these stories, it would be a "nicer to have".
I do agree SVG support is a good thing, just I don't see it getting used much. Even with resolution independence, standard pixel images are much easier to handle.
SuperCachetes
May 3, 09:28 PM
Yes, it's a system that has its roots in the past, but the system still works. There's no compelling reason to change it. There's no efficiency to be gained.
I don't buy that for a second. As someone who works in the construction industry and has to deal with fractions of inches and materials that are odd nominal dimensions and even odder actual dimensions, I can tell you that there is a ****-ton of efficiency to be gained by getting away from bricks that are 3-5/8" deep, interior sheetrock walls that are 4-7/8" thick, and ceiling grids that are 15/16" wide.
Can a guy who's been working construction for 30 years add this stuff up in his head? Sure. But all along the way - from the architect, to the contractor, to the fabricator, to the installer - there is a chance for miscalculation because of our goofy system of measurement, and the savings from going to SI would be both in time spent designing and time spent correcting errors in the field.
Yes, there is a cost, both monetary and emotional - but we need to just rip the bandage off, already. "It's what I'm used to" is a tired excuse.
I don't buy that for a second. As someone who works in the construction industry and has to deal with fractions of inches and materials that are odd nominal dimensions and even odder actual dimensions, I can tell you that there is a ****-ton of efficiency to be gained by getting away from bricks that are 3-5/8" deep, interior sheetrock walls that are 4-7/8" thick, and ceiling grids that are 15/16" wide.
Can a guy who's been working construction for 30 years add this stuff up in his head? Sure. But all along the way - from the architect, to the contractor, to the fabricator, to the installer - there is a chance for miscalculation because of our goofy system of measurement, and the savings from going to SI would be both in time spent designing and time spent correcting errors in the field.
Yes, there is a cost, both monetary and emotional - but we need to just rip the bandage off, already. "It's what I'm used to" is a tired excuse.
dXTC
Mar 29, 01:47 PM
In 5-10 years the iPod will become extinct. By then the touch will be hanging on a thin wire.
Lemme guess... it'll all be in the cloud, right?
Lemme guess... it'll all be in the cloud, right?
Jett0516
Mar 28, 12:38 PM
I think the reason why there is no new iphone this year is because maybe apple wants to come out with both at&t and verizone iphone at the same time next year. which would be less of a headache for both carrier and fans.
Cougarcat
May 4, 06:46 PM
Also, how will they distribute the download? Will the file be an ISO or DMG file? How do you install it from that file?
I don't think it will change from the developer preview. Download an installer, double click, run and restart. (As I said above, hopefully with the added ability to make a hard backup without Disk Utility.)
Everything I heard said this image is not bootable nor usuable as a recovery media/installation media.
It's bootable (the, ahem, pirated versions of Lion are distributed as dmgs.)
I don't think it will change from the developer preview. Download an installer, double click, run and restart. (As I said above, hopefully with the added ability to make a hard backup without Disk Utility.)
Everything I heard said this image is not bootable nor usuable as a recovery media/installation media.
It's bootable (the, ahem, pirated versions of Lion are distributed as dmgs.)
rhsgolfer33
Apr 20, 06:19 PM
Capital gains allows you to choose the timeline and the price to a point. If Capital Gains is special because of time-linked shifts in pricing, why isn't freelance income.
In my mind, income is income.
You certainly can't choose the price in a capital gains situation - that is definitely a market determination; sure, you could sell for less than market it, but that would be pretty stupid and of no benefit.
Capital gains isn't special because of price shifts over time, its special because the government is trying to spur investment - in addition to raising revenue, the tax code is largely a tool to get people to behave in a certain manner. The thought is that giving people a preferential rate on gains from investment encourages people to 1) invest in our economy 2) save for retirement. Whether it works or not is debated by economists and we could probably argue about it all day.
I feel like I'm just repeating myself. I've already addressed that capital gains is not necessarily income.
I'd love it if you could point out where you addressed this, because as a tax accountant, I'm having a hard time thinking of a time when a realized capital gain isn't income - if you have a realized net gain (ie amount realized is greater than your basis in the capital asset), you certainly have income. Certainly you could reinvest that net gain, but that doesn't mean you don't have income, that just means you realized a gain and reinvested the old basis and the gain (income). You're only taxed on realized gains that are recognized by the code (and you can net against realized losses) - sure, I could have an unrealized capital gain that isn't income, but I wouldn't be taxed on it either. Not that I don't agree with some of your points, but I'd really love the same clarification on this that most other posters have been asking for.
I suppose what you are getting at as a trader is that you buy a capital asset for $1000 and sell two days latter for $1100, then reinvest the $1100 into another capital asset. You'd be taxed on the $100 of capital gain even though you effectively have no cash in your hands to pay the tax. Unfortunately for traders, income doesn't mean cash. But a person who was in the trade or business of being a professional trader wouldn't qualify for capital gains treatment anyways, it would all be ordinary income.
In my mind, income is income.
You certainly can't choose the price in a capital gains situation - that is definitely a market determination; sure, you could sell for less than market it, but that would be pretty stupid and of no benefit.
Capital gains isn't special because of price shifts over time, its special because the government is trying to spur investment - in addition to raising revenue, the tax code is largely a tool to get people to behave in a certain manner. The thought is that giving people a preferential rate on gains from investment encourages people to 1) invest in our economy 2) save for retirement. Whether it works or not is debated by economists and we could probably argue about it all day.
I feel like I'm just repeating myself. I've already addressed that capital gains is not necessarily income.
I'd love it if you could point out where you addressed this, because as a tax accountant, I'm having a hard time thinking of a time when a realized capital gain isn't income - if you have a realized net gain (ie amount realized is greater than your basis in the capital asset), you certainly have income. Certainly you could reinvest that net gain, but that doesn't mean you don't have income, that just means you realized a gain and reinvested the old basis and the gain (income). You're only taxed on realized gains that are recognized by the code (and you can net against realized losses) - sure, I could have an unrealized capital gain that isn't income, but I wouldn't be taxed on it either. Not that I don't agree with some of your points, but I'd really love the same clarification on this that most other posters have been asking for.
I suppose what you are getting at as a trader is that you buy a capital asset for $1000 and sell two days latter for $1100, then reinvest the $1100 into another capital asset. You'd be taxed on the $100 of capital gain even though you effectively have no cash in your hands to pay the tax. Unfortunately for traders, income doesn't mean cash. But a person who was in the trade or business of being a professional trader wouldn't qualify for capital gains treatment anyways, it would all be ordinary income.
kas23
Apr 5, 04:05 PM
Hmmm, a car company catering to a group largely comprised of teenagers and young adults whom (presumably) have little disposable income? Doesn't sound like the best idea to me personally, but what do I know...
Um, what do you think Apple does? Have you been in an Apple Store lately? I'll tell you, its like a high school pep rally. Even Apple admits that the majority of their revenue comes from iGadgets, not Macs. That is, the majority of Apple's revenue comes from devices that cost less than $500. Devices that are based around an mp3 player. Apple would not likely be around today if it wasn't for "teenagers and young adults whom (presumably) have little disposable income" buying iPods.
Um, what do you think Apple does? Have you been in an Apple Store lately? I'll tell you, its like a high school pep rally. Even Apple admits that the majority of their revenue comes from iGadgets, not Macs. That is, the majority of Apple's revenue comes from devices that cost less than $500. Devices that are based around an mp3 player. Apple would not likely be around today if it wasn't for "teenagers and young adults whom (presumably) have little disposable income" buying iPods.
Multimedia
Aug 2, 10:17 PM
Hm. Hey guys... I'm a longtime reader of MR. I always read your comments and never recall posting (Creepy, eh?)
Anyway apparently I once made an account although I don't remember.
None the less... I'm surprised at how much doubt there is about Core 2 Duos. Apple and Intel are more or less best buddies. You honestly expect Apple to not update their lineup? You don't think people will go... Hmm... Core Duo Macbook Pro... Or... Core 2 Duo Dell. Even a moron will say "2's better than 1!" Apple is KNOWN for having top of the line systems in their respective class, and now that that class is Intel processors, I have 0 doubt that Apple will introduce Core 2 Duos in it's Macbook Pros as soon as it can. The reason I say Macbook Pros is because I'm sure that Macbooks and Mac Minis will say with the Core Duos. Why? Apple needs to better differentiate their pro line from their consumer line, because right now there is not much difference between the Macbook and Macbook Pro, performance-wise (Yes I know Integrated Video, Glossy Screen, etc.) but Proc. to Proc., Almost no difference.
As for "Meroms in iMacs..." Maybe, but I doubt it. Not SOON at least. Conroes then? You guys are forgetting... Apple doesn't NEED to use it. Just because it's AVAILABLE means almost nothing. Why would they use Conroe when they simply don't need to. I don't think we'll see Conroes at all in Macs quite honestly, and I don't see any problem with that. Maybe in Intel-based Power Macs, but there's ALOT of speculation about that.Nope. The entire line will be Core 2 Duo by Thanksgiving. MBP will get speed bump to 2.33GHz for further differentiation while MB will remain 2GHz. No logic to keep buying Core Duo processors for the same money as Core 2 or less than they bought Yonah to begin with. They are already making record profits. I doubt they will deliberately cripple mini, iMac and MB when everything is selling like hot cakes anyway. There are plenty of other ways each line differentiates from the other. To leave any line in Core Duo would be outright greedy and I dont' see Apple as having that personality trait.
I fugure it's a 50-50 chance Steve tells the developers next week they can start thinking about 64-bit optimization due to the Core 2 shift that will be complete this year.
Anyway apparently I once made an account although I don't remember.
None the less... I'm surprised at how much doubt there is about Core 2 Duos. Apple and Intel are more or less best buddies. You honestly expect Apple to not update their lineup? You don't think people will go... Hmm... Core Duo Macbook Pro... Or... Core 2 Duo Dell. Even a moron will say "2's better than 1!" Apple is KNOWN for having top of the line systems in their respective class, and now that that class is Intel processors, I have 0 doubt that Apple will introduce Core 2 Duos in it's Macbook Pros as soon as it can. The reason I say Macbook Pros is because I'm sure that Macbooks and Mac Minis will say with the Core Duos. Why? Apple needs to better differentiate their pro line from their consumer line, because right now there is not much difference between the Macbook and Macbook Pro, performance-wise (Yes I know Integrated Video, Glossy Screen, etc.) but Proc. to Proc., Almost no difference.
As for "Meroms in iMacs..." Maybe, but I doubt it. Not SOON at least. Conroes then? You guys are forgetting... Apple doesn't NEED to use it. Just because it's AVAILABLE means almost nothing. Why would they use Conroe when they simply don't need to. I don't think we'll see Conroes at all in Macs quite honestly, and I don't see any problem with that. Maybe in Intel-based Power Macs, but there's ALOT of speculation about that.Nope. The entire line will be Core 2 Duo by Thanksgiving. MBP will get speed bump to 2.33GHz for further differentiation while MB will remain 2GHz. No logic to keep buying Core Duo processors for the same money as Core 2 or less than they bought Yonah to begin with. They are already making record profits. I doubt they will deliberately cripple mini, iMac and MB when everything is selling like hot cakes anyway. There are plenty of other ways each line differentiates from the other. To leave any line in Core Duo would be outright greedy and I dont' see Apple as having that personality trait.
I fugure it's a 50-50 chance Steve tells the developers next week they can start thinking about 64-bit optimization due to the Core 2 shift that will be complete this year.
h0mi
Mar 29, 10:14 AM
I was excited about this at first but... this just seems like an incredibly stupid fad. Instead of spending time to put the music on my PMP, I sync to the digital cloud, then stream the music to said player. Yeah, in an era where unlimited data is becoming more not less scarce, that's just what I need, data surcharges. This just appears to be yet another fad intending to push consumer technology in the wrong direction.
Jape
Dec 4, 03:35 PM
Hey guys I just called BLT and they said that they do not have an updated ETA on when they will be receiving a shipment. It almost makes me want to just go to the apple store and pick one up, it is just so hard to give up on 30% off... sigh.
maclaptop
May 4, 06:01 PM
i would rather have a disc or flash drive.
+1
+1
blow45
Mar 29, 07:35 PM
Why couldn�t you let it slide? Assuming you don�t like people �imposing� their beliefs on you, why would you impose yours on others? I think there�s a word for that.
You are talking about imposing beliefs to a guy sporting a gay marriage signature (which I am all for, but I wouldn't want to push it down people's throats via my signature here, which btw is a political issue and the only way he gets away with is is because he's best pals with the moderators here)? In any case I called him an uber belief commisar but as you say, there's another word for that, and I was implying fascist of course, but I guess an expletive would be best suited.
All of a sudden people can't offer their prayers to people suffering in Japan, because Aiden Shaw doesn't believe in God...whatever lola wants, as the song goes...:rolleyes: I would have banned this .... on the spot for calling someone's God a "spaghetti monster", it's one thing not to believe, and quite another to mock what someone holds sacred, but this guy is apparently un-bannable here...
You are talking about imposing beliefs to a guy sporting a gay marriage signature (which I am all for, but I wouldn't want to push it down people's throats via my signature here, which btw is a political issue and the only way he gets away with is is because he's best pals with the moderators here)? In any case I called him an uber belief commisar but as you say, there's another word for that, and I was implying fascist of course, but I guess an expletive would be best suited.
All of a sudden people can't offer their prayers to people suffering in Japan, because Aiden Shaw doesn't believe in God...whatever lola wants, as the song goes...:rolleyes: I would have banned this .... on the spot for calling someone's God a "spaghetti monster", it's one thing not to believe, and quite another to mock what someone holds sacred, but this guy is apparently un-bannable here...
mrblack927
Apr 21, 05:22 PM
Also, don't hold your breath for USB3 - as far as Apple's concerned, USB3 is a dead technology.
Last I heard, Apple was simply waiting for Intel to support it natively. Intel is going to support USB3 in it's next generation chipsets (http://www.tomshardware.com/news/superspeed-usb-usb3-panther-point,12061.html), and they've made it clear that they don't see USB3 as a direct competitor to Thunderbolt.
Last I heard, Apple was simply waiting for Intel to support it natively. Intel is going to support USB3 in it's next generation chipsets (http://www.tomshardware.com/news/superspeed-usb-usb3-panther-point,12061.html), and they've made it clear that they don't see USB3 as a direct competitor to Thunderbolt.
Jaro65
Mar 29, 08:46 AM
I'm glad Amazon rolled this out before Apple in the sense that I hope it pushes Apple to roll out a cloud subscription that handily beats Amazon's offering.
Exactly. Competition is a good thing.
Exactly. Competition is a good thing.
chris975d
Mar 27, 07:23 AM
You mean 12.
18 is correct.
6 WiFi only models:
18 is correct.
6 WiFi only models:
twoodcc
Aug 3, 07:23 AM
It's not a "chintzy marketing ploy by Intel". It's a scientific test conducted by two Intel Marketing engineers which I always believe because Intel employees are honest people with families and friends who love them. :)
intel employees don't lie? please tell me you didn't just say that
intel employees don't lie? please tell me you didn't just say that
CFreymarc
Apr 20, 02:03 AM
Not a summer update? Surprising.
I'll bang this gong again. Now someone reliable is showing a similar form factor, this is not the iPhone 5, this is iPhone 4G.
iPhone 4G announced WWDC this summer
iPhone 4G ships in September world wide with domestic USA shipment in August.
Bang a gong, get it on!
I'll bang this gong again. Now someone reliable is showing a similar form factor, this is not the iPhone 5, this is iPhone 4G.
iPhone 4G announced WWDC this summer
iPhone 4G ships in September world wide with domestic USA shipment in August.
Bang a gong, get it on!
Popeye206
Apr 26, 03:27 PM
Makes sense. Android is really becoming the defacto alternative to iOS.
This is not about iOS vs Android. Both are doing well. It's the others who need to worry like RIM and MS. Where RIM was trying to beat the iPhone 2 years ago, now they have two platforms kicking their butt.
However, it's really not a fair comparison when you compare the iPhone vs Android. One is a phone and the other an OS. Wake me up when one single model of an Android based phone out sells the iPhone, then you can say Apple is in trouble.
This is not about iOS vs Android. Both are doing well. It's the others who need to worry like RIM and MS. Where RIM was trying to beat the iPhone 2 years ago, now they have two platforms kicking their butt.
However, it's really not a fair comparison when you compare the iPhone vs Android. One is a phone and the other an OS. Wake me up when one single model of an Android based phone out sells the iPhone, then you can say Apple is in trouble.
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.
maelstromr
Apr 5, 04:03 PM
You also point out another Myth created by apple, the "Quality of product" myth. They have to control the product to provide quality. So far I can name 10's to 100's of times Apple has failed to provide such good tight control on the quality of their products, from:
Updates to IOS that crash or disable basic functioning of the device to
Apps in apple's own App store that either violate peoples information and bank accounts to apps that simply do not work and people paid money for them. The Iphone antenna, yes these are just the examples I can quickly post.
I can prove apple is delinquent in its stewardship of "Quality" Apple has a great ability to be teflon company with Steve Jobs getting on stage and exclaiming the problem is never Apple its always something else. Steve should of ran for president............:rolleyes:
Is this a serious argument that Apple does not provide better quality products than everyone else out there or a rant about three (extremely vague and un-substantiated except for antenna) issues demonstrating that at SOME time in the past SOME of Apple's products have been less than perfect? :rolleyes:
Updates to IOS that crash or disable basic functioning of the device to
Apps in apple's own App store that either violate peoples information and bank accounts to apps that simply do not work and people paid money for them. The Iphone antenna, yes these are just the examples I can quickly post.
I can prove apple is delinquent in its stewardship of "Quality" Apple has a great ability to be teflon company with Steve Jobs getting on stage and exclaiming the problem is never Apple its always something else. Steve should of ran for president............:rolleyes:
Is this a serious argument that Apple does not provide better quality products than everyone else out there or a rant about three (extremely vague and un-substantiated except for antenna) issues demonstrating that at SOME time in the past SOME of Apple's products have been less than perfect? :rolleyes:
No comments:
Post a Comment