ccrandall77
Aug 11, 12:28 PM
isn't it about time you guys got in line with the rest of the world? GSM has more than 81% (http://www.gsacom.com/news/gsa_203.php4?PHPSESSID=7aa4036fa6a16fe0066d2e6dc9430727) of the world market. If you get a cdma phone you are more or less restriced to use it in US, whereas a GSM phone can be used more or less all over the planet.
Why? First of all, with CDMA2000 I get great coverage in N. America. Second, it's not like most people in N. America regularly travel to Europe. Third, CDMA2000 is a superior technology. EDGE only gave me 128Kbps for data but with EVDO I peak at 700Kbps. Fourth, with Verizon and Sprint you can get a CDMA/GSM phone if you REALLY need to travel abroad.
I could also ask why the rest of the world doesn't get with the program and move to better technology with CDMA2000 like the US and parts of Asia have?
Why? First of all, with CDMA2000 I get great coverage in N. America. Second, it's not like most people in N. America regularly travel to Europe. Third, CDMA2000 is a superior technology. EDGE only gave me 128Kbps for data but with EVDO I peak at 700Kbps. Fourth, with Verizon and Sprint you can get a CDMA/GSM phone if you REALLY need to travel abroad.
I could also ask why the rest of the world doesn't get with the program and move to better technology with CDMA2000 like the US and parts of Asia have?
mamouneyya
Mar 31, 03:08 PM
Hahahahahaha! Go to the hell!
:apple: iOS for ever :apple:
:D:D
:apple: iOS for ever :apple:
:D:D
KingYaba
Aug 27, 10:45 AM
Maybe an x1800. We all just have to wait and see. :)
Matthew Yohe
Apr 7, 10:41 PM
:mad:Best Buy told me today that they had them in but Apple would not let them sell them. I have been going for two weeks every other day and they finally tell me they have them and can't sell them. I hate this crap. I want my IPad 2.
Well of course they say they have it now, because they can't sell you any. They also probably had it the various times you went in, and yet lied to you.
Well of course they say they have it now, because they can't sell you any. They also probably had it the various times you went in, and yet lied to you.
Ries
Apr 27, 09:45 AM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_2_6 like Mac OS X; en-gb) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8E200 Safari/6533.18.5)
It wouldn't hurt to actually read the article. I know this wouldn't allow you to write the gibberish that is your paranoia, so I can see why you wouldn't. They say very clearly that they will be releasing an update to the particular problem of location services. Also, the phone isn't logging your location if it is logging cell towers and some wifi hotspots. It's logging those locations.
And how close do you have to be before a wifi is logged? they reach what, 10-100meters? Take the log and triangulate the cell towers, since your properly most at work or at home, those two places will stand out in the data.
It wouldn't hurt to actually read the article. I know this wouldn't allow you to write the gibberish that is your paranoia, so I can see why you wouldn't. They say very clearly that they will be releasing an update to the particular problem of location services. Also, the phone isn't logging your location if it is logging cell towers and some wifi hotspots. It's logging those locations.
And how close do you have to be before a wifi is logged? they reach what, 10-100meters? Take the log and triangulate the cell towers, since your properly most at work or at home, those two places will stand out in the data.
raymondso
Sep 19, 09:18 AM
0710 PDT - no updates yet - keep counting :-(
1:40 to go :p
1:40 to go :p
zin
Mar 22, 12:52 PM
A 5 gram drop in weight? And people said Apple's effort at reducing weight was bad. :rolleyes:
4God
Jul 27, 10:00 AM
My credit card is melting just thinking about WWDC. :D
FlameofAnor
Mar 31, 05:23 PM
You could say the same thing about Apple though. The Apple fad will go away and the extremely closed ecosystem which seems to not be really developing much in terms of UI or having an actual roadmap could end iOS.
I don't understand why people can't just see the pros and cons of both and accept both are great platforms. Its always a WAR with Apple fans. Apple against EVERYONE!
Really? :confused:
I always perceived it as everyone against Apple. Just read the comments on any tech site anytime Apple launches a new product. "This has fail written all over it".... "only iSheep will buy this crap"...... blah, blah, blah.
The amount of people who never bought an Apple product, but will still log-on to blast away at anything Apple is really quite amusing. ;)
I don't understand why people can't just see the pros and cons of both and accept both are great platforms. Its always a WAR with Apple fans. Apple against EVERYONE!
Really? :confused:
I always perceived it as everyone against Apple. Just read the comments on any tech site anytime Apple launches a new product. "This has fail written all over it".... "only iSheep will buy this crap"...... blah, blah, blah.
The amount of people who never bought an Apple product, but will still log-on to blast away at anything Apple is really quite amusing. ;)
gnasher729
Jul 20, 01:06 PM
I have a question.
If Kentsfield is a relation of the Conroe part (ie. Core 2 Duo) then will it be capable of being configured in a pair to create a "octo" core machine?
Surely that will require a Xeon class processor (like a quad version of the Woodcrest)?
Most likely not. The other question is: Is it easy to plug a Kentsfield into a machine designed for Conroe (not for the end user, but for Apple), and is it easy to plug two Clovertowns into a machine designed for two Woodcrests?
If Kentsfield is a relation of the Conroe part (ie. Core 2 Duo) then will it be capable of being configured in a pair to create a "octo" core machine?
Surely that will require a Xeon class processor (like a quad version of the Woodcrest)?
Most likely not. The other question is: Is it easy to plug a Kentsfield into a machine designed for Conroe (not for the end user, but for Apple), and is it easy to plug two Clovertowns into a machine designed for two Woodcrests?
digitalbiker
Aug 25, 10:09 PM
In a world full of computers, I want to be helped by a human with common sense.
I'm with you on this one! The first thing I do when I reach a phone menu system is try to figure out how to circumvent it so that I can get to a real person.
The problem with menu systems is that they only cover the most likely common user problems. I have been around computers long enough that I can fix all the easy issues. The only time I call is when my problem is serious and phone support never has a menu option for that.
I'm with you on this one! The first thing I do when I reach a phone menu system is try to figure out how to circumvent it so that I can get to a real person.
The problem with menu systems is that they only cover the most likely common user problems. I have been around computers long enough that I can fix all the easy issues. The only time I call is when my problem is serious and phone support never has a menu option for that.
Bosunsfate
Aug 8, 12:39 AM
:p
As I had said many times before, we were not going to see just upgraded features. Rather the show stoppers are something no one had thought of before.
You guys and Apple are really doing a sweet job....and yea take the rest of the year off.....but then again, I need Leopard shipped, so get that out first. ;)
As I had said many times before, we were not going to see just upgraded features. Rather the show stoppers are something no one had thought of before.
You guys and Apple are really doing a sweet job....and yea take the rest of the year off.....but then again, I need Leopard shipped, so get that out first. ;)
kvizzel
Apr 8, 05:09 AM
When you are as HUGE as best buy, and you are selling a product as huge as the iPad, it makes sense to create a demand. People do this all the time. You can't get it now, so the second it becomes available to you, you buy it in fear that you might have to wait another month. This happens all the time with a lot of products.
Why would this matter.
I would understand it if they were able to raise the prices, but no...
So... the point of this?
Why would this matter.
I would understand it if they were able to raise the prices, but no...
So... the point of this?
guzhogi
Jul 14, 03:37 PM
I have Mirror Door. How can I burn DVD (top) and CD (bottom) at once via Toast? I have tried and nothing worked, Toast only focus 1 thing at a time. Or am I wrong? :confused:
Make a copy of Toast and use one copy for one drive and the other copy for the other drive.
Make a copy of Toast and use one copy for one drive and the other copy for the other drive.
brianus
Sep 14, 10:23 PM
AnandTech is putting a lot of emphasis on this FB-DIMM issue. Their Conroe vs Xeon comparisons are poor given that they maximize the FB-DIMM latency "problem" by using a Mac Pro with only two RAM slots occupied. Seems as though they have an agenda to exaggerate the importance of this technical issue.
I have noticed this emphasis as well; not being an expert on this issue myself though, would you care to shed light on how their coverage is an exaggeration and why we shouldn't be worried about it?
The comments about separate platforms in the NT era I took to refer to NT3.x/4 vs Win9x.
Yes, this is what I was getting at. ("arse about face"? What is that, Swedish? :rolleyes: ). Noone other than a vintage Windows IT person would know there were further differences between versions of NT itself. Also when making comparisons I never mentioned Server 2003 (about which I know almost nothing); I was talking about XP and 2000 being relatively similar whereas, for example NT and 98 were not.
New micro-arch -- Nehalem is due 2008.
Really, completely new? As in, to Core 2 what the G5 was to G4? In just two years?? I guess they're really ramping things up... Core 3 Hexa Mac Pros, anyone?
I have noticed this emphasis as well; not being an expert on this issue myself though, would you care to shed light on how their coverage is an exaggeration and why we shouldn't be worried about it?
The comments about separate platforms in the NT era I took to refer to NT3.x/4 vs Win9x.
Yes, this is what I was getting at. ("arse about face"? What is that, Swedish? :rolleyes: ). Noone other than a vintage Windows IT person would know there were further differences between versions of NT itself. Also when making comparisons I never mentioned Server 2003 (about which I know almost nothing); I was talking about XP and 2000 being relatively similar whereas, for example NT and 98 were not.
New micro-arch -- Nehalem is due 2008.
Really, completely new? As in, to Core 2 what the G5 was to G4? In just two years?? I guess they're really ramping things up... Core 3 Hexa Mac Pros, anyone?
bibbz
Jun 9, 09:45 PM
Bibbz: I'm in the dfw area which radio shack do you work at? Would like to go through you for my next iPhone since know what's going on. I will be trading in my current 3gs.
I tried to send you a pm, I'm not really sure why I couldn't.
I tried to send you a pm, I'm not really sure why I couldn't.
skunk
Mar 23, 05:34 PM
I keep seeing these pointless ad hominems popping up in your posts. It really is getting tiresome.Isn't that an ad feminam?
Vegasman
Apr 27, 08:57 AM
Ah, I see. I wasn't checking the WSJ, only Macrumors.
Woah! That's a scrary thought. ;)
Woah! That's a scrary thought. ;)
janstett
Oct 23, 11:44 AM
Unfortunately not many multithreaded apps - yet. For a long time most of the multi-threaded apps were just a select few pro level things. 3D/Visualization software, CAD, database systems, etc.. Those of us who had multiprocessor systems bought them because we had a specific software in mind or group of software applications that could take advantage of multiple processors. As current CPU manufacturing processes started hitting a wall right around the 3GHz mark, chip makers started to transition to multiple CPU cores to boost power - makes sense. Software developers have been lazy for years, just riding the wave of ever-increasing MHz. Now the multi-core CPUs are here and the software is behind as many applications need to have serious re-writes done in order to take advantage of multiple processors. Intel tried to get a jump on this with their HT (Hyper Threading) implementation that essentially simulated dual-cores on a CPU by way of two virtual CPUs. Software developers didn't exactly jump on this and warm up to it. But I also don't think the software industry truly believed that CPUs would go multi-core on a mass scale so fast... Intel and AMD both said they would, don't know why the software industry doubted. Intel and AMD are uncommonly good about telling the truth about upcoming products. Both will be shipping quad-core CPU offerings by year's end.
What you're saying isn't entirely true and may give some people the wrong idea.
First, a multicore system is helpful when running multiple CPU-intensive single-threaded applications on a proper multitasking operating system. For example, right now I'm ripping CDs on iTunes. One processor gets used a lot and the other three are idle. I could be using this CPU power for another app.
The reality is that to take advantage of multiple cores, you had to take advantage of threads. Now, I was doing this in my programs with OS/2 back in 1992. I've been writing multithreaded apps my entire career. But writing a threaded application requires thought and work, so naturally many programmers are lazy and avoid threads. Plus it is harder to debug and synchronize a multithreaded application. Windows and Linux people have been doing this since the stone age, and Windows/Linux have had usable multiprocessor systems for more than a decade (it didn't start with Hyperthreading). I had a dual-processor 486 running NT 3.5 circa 1995. It's just been more of an optional "cool trick" to write threaded applications that the timid programmer avoids. Also it's worth noting that it's possible to go overboard with excessive threading and that leads to problems (context switching, thrashing, synchronization, etc).
Now, on the Mac side, OS 9 and below couldn't properly support SMP and it required a hacked version of the OS and a special version of the application. So the history of the Mac world has been, until recently with OSX, to avoid threading and multiprocessing unless specially called for and then at great pain to do so.
So it goes back to getting developers to write threaded applications. Now that we're getting to 4 and 8 core systems, it also presents a problem.
The classic reason to create a thread is to prevent the GUI from locking up while processing. Let's say I write a GUI program that has a calculation that takes 20 seconds. If I do it the lazy way, the GUI will lock up for 20 seconds because it can't process window messages during that time. If I write a thread, the calculation can take place there and leave the GUI thread able to process messages and keep the application alive, and then signal the other thread when it's done.
But now with more than 4 or 8 cores, the problem is how do you break up the work? 9 women can't have a baby in a month. So if your process is still serialized, you still have to wait with 1 processor doing all the work and the others sitting idle. For example, if you encode a video, it is a very serialized process. I hear some work has been done to simultaneously encode macroblocks in parallel, but getting 8 processors to chew on a single video is an interesting problem.
What you're saying isn't entirely true and may give some people the wrong idea.
First, a multicore system is helpful when running multiple CPU-intensive single-threaded applications on a proper multitasking operating system. For example, right now I'm ripping CDs on iTunes. One processor gets used a lot and the other three are idle. I could be using this CPU power for another app.
The reality is that to take advantage of multiple cores, you had to take advantage of threads. Now, I was doing this in my programs with OS/2 back in 1992. I've been writing multithreaded apps my entire career. But writing a threaded application requires thought and work, so naturally many programmers are lazy and avoid threads. Plus it is harder to debug and synchronize a multithreaded application. Windows and Linux people have been doing this since the stone age, and Windows/Linux have had usable multiprocessor systems for more than a decade (it didn't start with Hyperthreading). I had a dual-processor 486 running NT 3.5 circa 1995. It's just been more of an optional "cool trick" to write threaded applications that the timid programmer avoids. Also it's worth noting that it's possible to go overboard with excessive threading and that leads to problems (context switching, thrashing, synchronization, etc).
Now, on the Mac side, OS 9 and below couldn't properly support SMP and it required a hacked version of the OS and a special version of the application. So the history of the Mac world has been, until recently with OSX, to avoid threading and multiprocessing unless specially called for and then at great pain to do so.
So it goes back to getting developers to write threaded applications. Now that we're getting to 4 and 8 core systems, it also presents a problem.
The classic reason to create a thread is to prevent the GUI from locking up while processing. Let's say I write a GUI program that has a calculation that takes 20 seconds. If I do it the lazy way, the GUI will lock up for 20 seconds because it can't process window messages during that time. If I write a thread, the calculation can take place there and leave the GUI thread able to process messages and keep the application alive, and then signal the other thread when it's done.
But now with more than 4 or 8 cores, the problem is how do you break up the work? 9 women can't have a baby in a month. So if your process is still serialized, you still have to wait with 1 processor doing all the work and the others sitting idle. For example, if you encode a video, it is a very serialized process. I hear some work has been done to simultaneously encode macroblocks in parallel, but getting 8 processors to chew on a single video is an interesting problem.
Peterkro
Mar 24, 02:08 PM
The vast majority of conservatives are WASP-ish,
puggles
Jun 14, 07:42 PM
ok definitely not going to radio shack... they changed the time from 7AM to 1PM and are now giving out pins which will put your name on a list and they will call you as they are received to the store.... definitely not guaranteed! They also seemed really desperate for my business. Im guessing they also made the 1PM time so you will miss other pre orders and be stuck with them....unless you can pre order with apple and radio shack and cancel the apple one if radio shack does work out?
skunk
Mar 1, 04:31 PM
well it certainly isn't the renaissance mind, as leonardo and michelangelo were pretty clearly raving homosexuals.+2. :)
BaldiMac
Apr 19, 03:20 PM
You're wrong. Apple is losing marketshare for over 2 years now. Just because they are selling MORE iPhones doesn't mean they are gaining marketshare. The market grows much faster than the iPhone sales. Have a look at Nokia: In Q4/10 Nokia sold almost 7 million more smartphones but they lost about 10% marketshare.
http://www.gartner.com/it/page.jsp?id=985912
http://www.gartner.com/it/page.jsp?id=1372013
iPhone Worldwide smartphone market share
Q1 2008 5.3%
Q1 2009 10.8%
Q1 2010 15.4%
Q1 2011 ???
How have they been losing market share for two years now?
In Q1/11 Apple lost about 2% marketshare despite the fact that they sold about 2.5 million more iPhones. Just read the latest GfK numbers (needs registered account), it's all in there. NDP numbers for Q1/11 will be released next week if you trust them more.
2.5 million more? Apple has likely sold more than double then number of iPhones in q1 2011 than q1 2010 (8.75 million).
http://www.gartner.com/it/page.jsp?id=985912
http://www.gartner.com/it/page.jsp?id=1372013
iPhone Worldwide smartphone market share
Q1 2008 5.3%
Q1 2009 10.8%
Q1 2010 15.4%
Q1 2011 ???
How have they been losing market share for two years now?
In Q1/11 Apple lost about 2% marketshare despite the fact that they sold about 2.5 million more iPhones. Just read the latest GfK numbers (needs registered account), it's all in there. NDP numbers for Q1/11 will be released next week if you trust them more.
2.5 million more? Apple has likely sold more than double then number of iPhones in q1 2011 than q1 2010 (8.75 million).
skunk
Apr 27, 01:17 PM
(insert here where some smart-A responds with "slavery?" or something equally inapplicable)Me first! I'll do it!
