Howdr
Apr 5, 05:17 PM
Honestly this whole thing PO's me to no end,
How Dare Apple!
Apple is now showcasing their stupid annoying IADS,
did you know Apple has plans to make their next OS for Mac make you have these Ads too, you will pay less ( but still buy the updated OS) but to "Subsidize" it you will suffer ADs............ Yeah Apple is Greaaaaaaaat :eek:
How Dare Apple!
Apple is now showcasing their stupid annoying IADS,
did you know Apple has plans to make their next OS for Mac make you have these Ads too, you will pay less ( but still buy the updated OS) but to "Subsidize" it you will suffer ADs............ Yeah Apple is Greaaaaaaaat :eek:
LagunaSol
Apr 18, 05:13 PM
What would you and Leguna have Samsung do to the Galaxy Tab to make it less "identical"?
Do what every other Android hardware manufacturer has done and come up with their own industrial design.
Do what every other Android hardware manufacturer has done and come up with their own industrial design.
kalsta
May 3, 08:57 PM
You missed my point; it isn't progress because it's an enormous step backward. It's not the "learning something new" part, it's the "throwing away everything you already know."
Semantics. Your argument boils down to the pain of change.
I would see your point if switching everything to metric would actually make things more efficient, but it wouldn't. People who use Imperial units are already comfortable with it - the system already works, and isn't broken.
Again, the real crux of your argument is that people are 'comfortable' with what they already know. If you were to put that aside and judge between the two systems objectively, I can't see how anyone would actually choose imperial over metric. Metric is the future. No, check that — it's actually the present. You're living in the past Tomorrow.
Semantics. Your argument boils down to the pain of change.
I would see your point if switching everything to metric would actually make things more efficient, but it wouldn't. People who use Imperial units are already comfortable with it - the system already works, and isn't broken.
Again, the real crux of your argument is that people are 'comfortable' with what they already know. If you were to put that aside and judge between the two systems objectively, I can't see how anyone would actually choose imperial over metric. Metric is the future. No, check that — it's actually the present. You're living in the past Tomorrow.
balamw
Apr 10, 06:06 PM
My grammar may be terrible, but I dare say that I can do math. I do lots of it. The divide balamw mentioned really does seem to exist, and is a little disappointing.
It has been mentioned before in the thread, but it bears repeating.
Addition and Subtraction can't have different precedence because they are the same operation. "Subtraction" is just shorthand for adding negative numbers.
Similarly division is just multiplication by the reciprocal. They MUST have the same precedence.
You can't take PEMDAS literally if you know what you are doing.
balamw & dukebound85:
You guys are making too many assumptions.
Following your thought process, the original post is not properly written then?
No we're not, we're using the language of math as we know it. x/y(a+b) has a definite meaning and it is the same as (x/y)*(a+b) not x/(y*(a+b)). You would NEED the extra parentheses to change the meaning.
The * multiplication is assumed if there is no operator provided, though most would probably add it in or rewrite the equation to make it even clearer it's very far from unclear.
B
It has been mentioned before in the thread, but it bears repeating.
Addition and Subtraction can't have different precedence because they are the same operation. "Subtraction" is just shorthand for adding negative numbers.
Similarly division is just multiplication by the reciprocal. They MUST have the same precedence.
You can't take PEMDAS literally if you know what you are doing.
balamw & dukebound85:
You guys are making too many assumptions.
Following your thought process, the original post is not properly written then?
No we're not, we're using the language of math as we know it. x/y(a+b) has a definite meaning and it is the same as (x/y)*(a+b) not x/(y*(a+b)). You would NEED the extra parentheses to change the meaning.
The * multiplication is assumed if there is no operator provided, though most would probably add it in or rewrite the equation to make it even clearer it's very far from unclear.
B
techfreak85
Apr 23, 04:34 PM
Would this mainly be for notebooks? I assume it would be too expensive to achieve a high enough PPI on a 22inch+ display, no?
kas23
Apr 8, 07:31 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_2 like Mac OS X; en) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8C134 Safari/6533.18.5)
I find this report very hard to believe. An experienced company planning to launch a product, but not signing a contract with a company for x amount of LCD panels, a component that is notoriously in tight supply? Sounds more like Asia decided to raise their prices "due to the Tsunami" and gouge clients. They're doing it Apple, but they can afford to be gouged. RIM probably decided to sit it out for a bit.
I find this report very hard to believe. An experienced company planning to launch a product, but not signing a contract with a company for x amount of LCD panels, a component that is notoriously in tight supply? Sounds more like Asia decided to raise their prices "due to the Tsunami" and gouge clients. They're doing it Apple, but they can afford to be gouged. RIM probably decided to sit it out for a bit.
*LTD*
Apr 5, 08:36 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Mobile/8G4)
Apple doesn't have a problem collecting 30% for completely stupid useless app store purchases, but they have a problem with making your iPhone look completely stupid?
Hmmm. Pot, meet kettle.
Useless app store purchases?
Based on what? How are they useless? This entire market is based around an app ecosystem. Apps are in demand. Apps help move hardware.
Your post makes no sense.
Apple doesn't have a problem collecting 30% for completely stupid useless app store purchases, but they have a problem with making your iPhone look completely stupid?
Hmmm. Pot, meet kettle.
Useless app store purchases?
Based on what? How are they useless? This entire market is based around an app ecosystem. Apps are in demand. Apps help move hardware.
Your post makes no sense.
Multimedia
Jul 22, 01:45 PM
Perhaps if I mention my wishes in every related thread, someone at apple will take note?
iMac Ultra: At least 2.4 Ghz Conroe, 512Mb ATI X1800, and a 23" Screen.
Macbook: I don't want Merom in it. I don't want a faster processor in it. I want a price drop!
______________
Powermac G4 Cube, 450Mhz ATI Rage 128 with 16mb VRAM, 512Mb System RAM, 250GB HDD but silly computer will only recognise 128Gb of it. Merom in MacBook will not cost Apple more than Yonah and it will run cooler and faster even at the same 2GHz.
Erasmus ,
Do you have any idea how much slower your Cube is running because you haven't maxed out the RAM to 1.5 GB? Just by adding two 512 Sticks for only $140 will almost double your speed.
iMac Ultra: At least 2.4 Ghz Conroe, 512Mb ATI X1800, and a 23" Screen.
Macbook: I don't want Merom in it. I don't want a faster processor in it. I want a price drop!
______________
Powermac G4 Cube, 450Mhz ATI Rage 128 with 16mb VRAM, 512Mb System RAM, 250GB HDD but silly computer will only recognise 128Gb of it. Merom in MacBook will not cost Apple more than Yonah and it will run cooler and faster even at the same 2GHz.
Erasmus ,
Do you have any idea how much slower your Cube is running because you haven't maxed out the RAM to 1.5 GB? Just by adding two 512 Sticks for only $140 will almost double your speed.
SandynJosh
Apr 23, 09:41 PM
I will be honest and truthful and say for a mobile device on batteries, I'm very impressed as what the iPhone and iPad can do gaming wise.
However I will also state, and I think we all should be honest, that at the moment, Apple are bringing the games DOWN to what their hardware can do, as opposed to making Hardware so great that gaming is being pushed UP to take advantage of Apples industry leading performance.
In your first paragraph you talk about Apple's mobile products, which is where Apple will be putting most of their effort in the foreseeable future. To have successful portable products, having a long time between charges is highly important. The old brute force methods of throwing power and RAM at the gaming performance problem can not be part of the design mindset. Game designers know this and are becoming much better at coding for portable games, but they are not quite there yet. Meanwhile Apple is working to find ways to build in performance and not increase power draw.
THIS is the future as Apple sees it, and their acceptance in the broad general market shows that they are on the right track.
When Apple release GTX580 beating desktops, and/or Xbox360 / PS3 beating gaming devices, I will happily bow down to them being the greatest in graphics.
NOW you have switched to talking about desktop and console gaming computers. THIS is a whole different area. First off, it's a tiny segment of the whole computer market. It's big, but not nearly as huge as what Apple is aiming for with their products.
In a nutshell, Apple's strategy is to capture the mobile device market as completely as they can. They are being highly successful at that strategy from iPods to iPhones, to iPads, to Laptops.
Meanwhile they are growing rapidly in the iMac desktop and tower market due primarily to the halo effect of their success in the portable arena. They are doing this even while the desktop and tower markets are shrinking overall. Can you see why Apple will not be putting a lot of effort into this segment?
But right now, they are trailing by miles due to years of neglect as they just did not have products that could compete, and their one semi attempt at a console got nowhere.
Note: I would LOVE LOVE LOVE Apple to turn this around.
You are right. Apple did not have products that could compete in the desktop and console markets. This was primarily due to game developers not interested in writing games for Intel chips and PowerPC chips. Since the installed base for Intel-based computers was more then a order-of-magnitude larger than the installed base of Macs. Apple was never going to enjoy being a suitable gaming platform until they switched to Intel CPUs.
Once Apple made the switch, they have come a long way towards being an acceptable gaming computer, but they have no desire or plans to go after the high end of this market... it's just not that profitable or large. Remember AlienWare? They had the best gaming computer, IMO, and they had to sell themselves to another company to stay alive.
As for the console market, it's crowded with established competitors and will likely see one squeezed out. Not the kind of market that Apple or anyone else should want to jump into.
They need to ditch the "Laptops on a Stand" design of the iMac for starters, but I feel they never will as they have decided they won't compete and they cannot compete in this sector of the market.
I addressed this above. As for the "Laptops on a Stand" design, it's such a bad design that the largest computer company, HP, as well as others, have copied it.
Console wise, I'm not sure they could compete against a 360 or a PS3. Let's say Apple against a PS4 or a Xbox720
Nope, can't see that happening either.
I address this above. Apple doesn't want to be in this arena. It's small and the competition is deadly.
The low power/trimmed down, casual gamers games, seems to be the only area they are going for.
Once more you are correct. There are many many times more gamers that want a short diversion while they have a few minutes away from home, then those who want to spend thousands on an immersive game experience that requires a larger block of time. "Portability with games optional" trumps "wired to the wall and game-focused" all the way to the bank.
But Again, I would LOVE Apple to turn this around and take high end graphics seriously in their future products.
The high-end gamer is not on Apple's radar at the moment and likely never will be unless a way is found to address hi-end graphics on a portable device without impacting battery life.
I know you'd like Apple to chase this rainbow, but they won't, there's no pot of gold at the end.
However I will also state, and I think we all should be honest, that at the moment, Apple are bringing the games DOWN to what their hardware can do, as opposed to making Hardware so great that gaming is being pushed UP to take advantage of Apples industry leading performance.
In your first paragraph you talk about Apple's mobile products, which is where Apple will be putting most of their effort in the foreseeable future. To have successful portable products, having a long time between charges is highly important. The old brute force methods of throwing power and RAM at the gaming performance problem can not be part of the design mindset. Game designers know this and are becoming much better at coding for portable games, but they are not quite there yet. Meanwhile Apple is working to find ways to build in performance and not increase power draw.
THIS is the future as Apple sees it, and their acceptance in the broad general market shows that they are on the right track.
When Apple release GTX580 beating desktops, and/or Xbox360 / PS3 beating gaming devices, I will happily bow down to them being the greatest in graphics.
NOW you have switched to talking about desktop and console gaming computers. THIS is a whole different area. First off, it's a tiny segment of the whole computer market. It's big, but not nearly as huge as what Apple is aiming for with their products.
In a nutshell, Apple's strategy is to capture the mobile device market as completely as they can. They are being highly successful at that strategy from iPods to iPhones, to iPads, to Laptops.
Meanwhile they are growing rapidly in the iMac desktop and tower market due primarily to the halo effect of their success in the portable arena. They are doing this even while the desktop and tower markets are shrinking overall. Can you see why Apple will not be putting a lot of effort into this segment?
But right now, they are trailing by miles due to years of neglect as they just did not have products that could compete, and their one semi attempt at a console got nowhere.
Note: I would LOVE LOVE LOVE Apple to turn this around.
You are right. Apple did not have products that could compete in the desktop and console markets. This was primarily due to game developers not interested in writing games for Intel chips and PowerPC chips. Since the installed base for Intel-based computers was more then a order-of-magnitude larger than the installed base of Macs. Apple was never going to enjoy being a suitable gaming platform until they switched to Intel CPUs.
Once Apple made the switch, they have come a long way towards being an acceptable gaming computer, but they have no desire or plans to go after the high end of this market... it's just not that profitable or large. Remember AlienWare? They had the best gaming computer, IMO, and they had to sell themselves to another company to stay alive.
As for the console market, it's crowded with established competitors and will likely see one squeezed out. Not the kind of market that Apple or anyone else should want to jump into.
They need to ditch the "Laptops on a Stand" design of the iMac for starters, but I feel they never will as they have decided they won't compete and they cannot compete in this sector of the market.
I addressed this above. As for the "Laptops on a Stand" design, it's such a bad design that the largest computer company, HP, as well as others, have copied it.
Console wise, I'm not sure they could compete against a 360 or a PS3. Let's say Apple against a PS4 or a Xbox720
Nope, can't see that happening either.
I address this above. Apple doesn't want to be in this arena. It's small and the competition is deadly.
The low power/trimmed down, casual gamers games, seems to be the only area they are going for.
Once more you are correct. There are many many times more gamers that want a short diversion while they have a few minutes away from home, then those who want to spend thousands on an immersive game experience that requires a larger block of time. "Portability with games optional" trumps "wired to the wall and game-focused" all the way to the bank.
But Again, I would LOVE Apple to turn this around and take high end graphics seriously in their future products.
The high-end gamer is not on Apple's radar at the moment and likely never will be unless a way is found to address hi-end graphics on a portable device without impacting battery life.
I know you'd like Apple to chase this rainbow, but they won't, there's no pot of gold at the end.
chaoticbear
Apr 11, 08:29 AM
I've read 2 pages, and that's 2 pages more than I should. I can't parse this in any way other than to answer it as 2; I agree that it is written ambiguously - while a calculator is cold and impersonal, I see it as a numerator of 48 and a denominator of 2(9+3). It's not the 2 camp doing multiplication before division out of some misunderstand of how order of operations works, it's us completing all the operations in the denominator before we solve the fraction. I assume any time I see a division symbol that it takes the place of a bar in traditional handwriting.
Unfortunately, there's not any way to express this clearly in a single line without some more parentheses. If you presented me with the expression "a/b(c+d)" in any form, I'd parse it the same way every time. If you are intending for the problem to read in such a way to get 288, I'd expect to see "(a/b)(c+d)".
Unfortunately, there's not any way to express this clearly in a single line without some more parentheses. If you presented me with the expression "a/b(c+d)" in any form, I'd parse it the same way every time. If you are intending for the problem to read in such a way to get 288, I'd expect to see "(a/b)(c+d)".
Don't panic
May 3, 05:25 PM
I deem thyself dead forthwith.
yeah, yeah, you always say that, but then when all your hocus-pocus frizzles, and it comes to save your skinny buttock from a mountain troll once again, what are you going to trust: the rabbits dropping out of that sorry hat of yours, or my axe?
i thought so.
yeah, yeah, you always say that, but then when all your hocus-pocus frizzles, and it comes to save your skinny buttock from a mountain troll once again, what are you going to trust: the rabbits dropping out of that sorry hat of yours, or my axe?
i thought so.
Dont Hurt Me
Aug 7, 03:47 PM
The old Macfanclub hating the gamer , we have heard it before. There isnt any reason Macs cant game. You buy a thousand or two thousand machine it should be able to game. Mini cant.............Powermac is pure Overkill workstation. A gigantic hole for sure. Here's to the Mac gamers ! Its folks like you that have kept the fun in Mac :D Work Sucks:) edit in response to thataboy
MikeTheC
Nov 25, 10:14 PM
i hope apple comes out with a shoe phone, something the pink panther or inspector gadget would use.
Would you believe agent Maxwell Smart?
https://www.cia.gov/spy_fi/graphics/shoe_phone.jpg
Would you believe agent Maxwell Smart?
https://www.cia.gov/spy_fi/graphics/shoe_phone.jpg
nsjoker
Aug 4, 02:22 PM
of course they're adopting core 2 duo's... duh, so is every computer maker out there. intel is trying to transition very rapidly into core 2 duo and phasing out the "old" core duo. to do this they've priced the core 2 duos at exactly the same cost as the core duo's with the same clock speed/configuration. you would be stupid not to adopt. i just hope apple doesn't surcharge and tout core 2 duo as a monumental upgrade for the laptops, becase it's only incremental at best. the real gain is the conroe on the desktop processor. as long as the FSB in the portables isn't 1,000 mhz, merom won't be that much faster than yonah.
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.
adbe
Apr 5, 02:17 PM
Companies have a right then to make money on it and Apple cannot actively try to cut off the ability of another company to make money off the Iphone legally, its called restraint of trade, a federal law.
Yes they can. There is no protection under law for making money off the ineptitude of other companies. Apple is entitled, and expected to fix bugs. When those bugs get fixed, an avenue for jail breaking gets closed. Companies that see their revenue stream dry up are just screwed. That's life.
Jail breaking happens because Apple screwed the pooch on security. That's all.
Yes they can. There is no protection under law for making money off the ineptitude of other companies. Apple is entitled, and expected to fix bugs. When those bugs get fixed, an avenue for jail breaking gets closed. Companies that see their revenue stream dry up are just screwed. That's life.
Jail breaking happens because Apple screwed the pooch on security. That's all.
dethmaShine
May 4, 05:33 PM
My opposition to this isn't because I think Digital Distribution is bad (the copy of Windows 7 I'm writing this on was downloaded, legally I might add, from Microsoft), it's because of how Apple is offering it.
I was able to download a .iso of Windows and install it how I wanted to. I was able to back up the .iso to an external hard drive and also to burn a copy of it.
The App Store (unless they change things) wouldn't allow that. I would have no problem with this if Apple included a way to create a DVD or USB installer from the download.
Oh! I see. I can agree to that.
If Apple does not allow that, I might as well go out and buy the DVD or USB for such a purpose.
I was able to download a .iso of Windows and install it how I wanted to. I was able to back up the .iso to an external hard drive and also to burn a copy of it.
The App Store (unless they change things) wouldn't allow that. I would have no problem with this if Apple included a way to create a DVD or USB installer from the download.
Oh! I see. I can agree to that.
If Apple does not allow that, I might as well go out and buy the DVD or USB for such a purpose.
WildCowboy
Aug 3, 11:23 PM
are people not expecting merom to go immediately into the macbook as well? i don't see a reason for apple to purposely gimp their best-selling notebook when a merom chip is supposed to cost the same as its yonah counterpart.
Why not? They did it with the iBooks for quite some time...
Why not? They did it with the iBooks for quite some time...
BRLawyer
Aug 4, 12:59 PM
Really?? I thought heat and battery life issues are directly connected to cpu chips. I wonder why they didn't put G5 in Powerbook :confused:
1 - I don't know what overheating you talk about, apart from some cases that have been dealt with under AppleCare;
2 - Apple has probably the best battery life of the industry for such a notebook range...and no, don't tell me about 10" microbooks;
3 - the SD thing is due to the thin enclosure, a clear design paradigm at Apple...nothing else.
1 - I don't know what overheating you talk about, apart from some cases that have been dealt with under AppleCare;
2 - Apple has probably the best battery life of the industry for such a notebook range...and no, don't tell me about 10" microbooks;
3 - the SD thing is due to the thin enclosure, a clear design paradigm at Apple...nothing else.
BittenApple
May 7, 10:13 AM
Makes sense, all Apple needs is the cloud.
If it is indeed free, this is a welcomed change.
If it is indeed free, this is a welcomed change.
miles01110
May 7, 09:09 AM
Finally, they'll be charging what the service is worth!
DakotaGuy
Aug 7, 06:00 PM
About the cube pro or headless iMac
Yes, but quiet. Without fans, if possible.
I'm pretty much sure anything at this performance level will need fans. We are not dealing with a G3 processor anymore.
Anyhow I agree with the people that want a tower in between the iMac and these new Mac Pros. In fact, I would say these new models are probably complete overkill for 80% of Mac users. The 20% that really need this kind of power know who they are. The rest only need it for bragging rights.
I like the iMac it is perfect in my eyes, but many people like to have something that is expandable. Something they can get inside of and change things.
I don't even know if Apple needs a whole new case for that. Just a single dual core processor model would be fine. Either a single Xeon or a single Core 2 Duo. Something priced around $1,500 (+ or - a few dollars) fairly well equipped.
Like I said before these things are beasts almost to the point of overkill except for professionals. Not everyone wants an all-in-one and the Mac Mini is not comparable to a tower in any way. So I think these people's complants are justified.
Yes, but quiet. Without fans, if possible.
I'm pretty much sure anything at this performance level will need fans. We are not dealing with a G3 processor anymore.
Anyhow I agree with the people that want a tower in between the iMac and these new Mac Pros. In fact, I would say these new models are probably complete overkill for 80% of Mac users. The 20% that really need this kind of power know who they are. The rest only need it for bragging rights.
I like the iMac it is perfect in my eyes, but many people like to have something that is expandable. Something they can get inside of and change things.
I don't even know if Apple needs a whole new case for that. Just a single dual core processor model would be fine. Either a single Xeon or a single Core 2 Duo. Something priced around $1,500 (+ or - a few dollars) fairly well equipped.
Like I said before these things are beasts almost to the point of overkill except for professionals. Not everyone wants an all-in-one and the Mac Mini is not comparable to a tower in any way. So I think these people's complants are justified.
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.
ghostlyorb
Mar 30, 09:12 PM
I wish I had an extra $100 laying around.. I would get into the developer program!
