CalBoy
May 5, 02:27 PM
Sorry it took so long to respond to this; I assure you it took only a second to Google (this is just the first result I found):
http://lamar.colostate.edu/~hillger/pays-off.html
All of that is about the private sector switching to save money on their bottom line, something which I already mentioned should happen (and will without intervention).
The question is if the government mandated the metric system for EVERYTHING, from speed limits on the roads to the measurements on a box of Betty Crocker brownies. Many of these things won't actually lead to any increased economic efficiency because certain products can only be produced locally (say weather reports) and consumed locally. The cost of these industries switching would be quite expensive with no real economic gain because the products and services can't be exported or imported.
Is that wink a small admission of how silly your system really is? :) Sure, the math was simple, but how meaningful are all these crazy fractions? If I actually had to try and picture what these fractions represent, I'd want to convert the denominator into a multiple of 10 first in order to try and picture it. I might note that twice 48 is roughly 100, so I know we're dealing with a bit over 26%. Other fractions could prove more difficult. With the metric system, you never have to do this. You're always dealing with base-10, which is something we all understand and can picture, without having to memorise particular fractions and what they represent.
No the wink was just to say that 1) I would use a calculator, and 2) even if I couldn't, multiplying fractions is not hard at all.
Well, we could certainly argue that international communication would be a LOT simpler if there was only one language � and it would be! However, the reality is, we have a world with not only a diversity of language, but a diversity of culture, and the two are intricately linked. That makes the world a very interesting place, and being able to speak multiple languages would be a wonderful skill to have when travelling and engaging in other cultures. People are generally proud of their heritage, culture and language, and there aren't too many people suggesting the world should lose all of that richness in the interest of conformity. (Well, there are such people, but I think we can agree they're generally pretty scary.)
This is off topic, but language is but one part of culture. Customs, celebrations, and even measures, are all marks of a culture. In the process of colonization and free trade, we've actively destroyed many languages, customs, celebrations, and measures. I think we typically don't consider the loss of a measurement system to be too catastrophic because of the many conveniences that can be had from uniformity. But the same is true for language as well. I think the real reason we tend to gloss over measures is because they are typically easier to learn than a new language. Anthropologically speaking, however, they are very valuable in exploring a culture.
What is different about the US that it can't do likewise? I honestly find it perplexing. Be honest now� Is it because the French invented it?
Ultimately I think it comes down to the fact that the US is one of the few countries that had a great deal of popular sovereignty determine the outcome of whether or not we should switch to the metric system. Most other countries enacted policy through a quiet parliamentary action that was later carried out by agencies or at a time when most people weren't active in politics. Still others had theirs done at the point of a gun.
In the US there are a lot of veto points in the legislative process, making any significant change hard to do. Americans also tend not to have a great deal of respect for the sciences (scientific literacy is appallingly low) so it makes it a tougher pitch to the everyday person. Then there's also the issue that to most it's a solution for a problem that doesn't exist; why should they care about a measurement system when the one they are using right now is working for them?
You're not stepping out onto the moon this time. Just about every other country on the planet (and there are quite a few of them!) have gone before you, and it worked out just fine. Sure, it takes some time, but not as long as you might like to imagine. Let me come back to my own experience� I was born in the 70s, around the time Australia was just starting to transition to the metric system. The older folk may well have had a difficult time with it, but if so I was blissfully unaware of it. I came to learn what an inch was, since most rulers had inches on one side and mm/cm on the other, and people still, to this day, casually talk about their height in feet and the weight of newborn babies in pounds. (Yes, some old habits die hard.) But these sort of things are the exceptions. The transition to metric was so efficient, I, as a first generation growing up with it, didn't even notice there was a transition happening.
Seriously, you should be looking to Australia and other countries with successful transitions and learning from them, instead of just perpetuating all these fanciful stories of how terrible it's going to be to change.
The issue goes beyond just the prescribed time period to shift, however. As I mentioned above, there are a lot of infrastructure concerns. Not to mention that Australia in the 1970s was 13 million people, or about 24 times smaller than the current US population. The only other countries that were on this scale were India and China when they transitioned, and both had much less infrastructure and an already illiterate population that could be trained from the ground up.
Any realistic transition for the US would take decades.
http://lamar.colostate.edu/~hillger/pays-off.html
All of that is about the private sector switching to save money on their bottom line, something which I already mentioned should happen (and will without intervention).
The question is if the government mandated the metric system for EVERYTHING, from speed limits on the roads to the measurements on a box of Betty Crocker brownies. Many of these things won't actually lead to any increased economic efficiency because certain products can only be produced locally (say weather reports) and consumed locally. The cost of these industries switching would be quite expensive with no real economic gain because the products and services can't be exported or imported.
Is that wink a small admission of how silly your system really is? :) Sure, the math was simple, but how meaningful are all these crazy fractions? If I actually had to try and picture what these fractions represent, I'd want to convert the denominator into a multiple of 10 first in order to try and picture it. I might note that twice 48 is roughly 100, so I know we're dealing with a bit over 26%. Other fractions could prove more difficult. With the metric system, you never have to do this. You're always dealing with base-10, which is something we all understand and can picture, without having to memorise particular fractions and what they represent.
No the wink was just to say that 1) I would use a calculator, and 2) even if I couldn't, multiplying fractions is not hard at all.
Well, we could certainly argue that international communication would be a LOT simpler if there was only one language � and it would be! However, the reality is, we have a world with not only a diversity of language, but a diversity of culture, and the two are intricately linked. That makes the world a very interesting place, and being able to speak multiple languages would be a wonderful skill to have when travelling and engaging in other cultures. People are generally proud of their heritage, culture and language, and there aren't too many people suggesting the world should lose all of that richness in the interest of conformity. (Well, there are such people, but I think we can agree they're generally pretty scary.)
This is off topic, but language is but one part of culture. Customs, celebrations, and even measures, are all marks of a culture. In the process of colonization and free trade, we've actively destroyed many languages, customs, celebrations, and measures. I think we typically don't consider the loss of a measurement system to be too catastrophic because of the many conveniences that can be had from uniformity. But the same is true for language as well. I think the real reason we tend to gloss over measures is because they are typically easier to learn than a new language. Anthropologically speaking, however, they are very valuable in exploring a culture.
What is different about the US that it can't do likewise? I honestly find it perplexing. Be honest now� Is it because the French invented it?
Ultimately I think it comes down to the fact that the US is one of the few countries that had a great deal of popular sovereignty determine the outcome of whether or not we should switch to the metric system. Most other countries enacted policy through a quiet parliamentary action that was later carried out by agencies or at a time when most people weren't active in politics. Still others had theirs done at the point of a gun.
In the US there are a lot of veto points in the legislative process, making any significant change hard to do. Americans also tend not to have a great deal of respect for the sciences (scientific literacy is appallingly low) so it makes it a tougher pitch to the everyday person. Then there's also the issue that to most it's a solution for a problem that doesn't exist; why should they care about a measurement system when the one they are using right now is working for them?
You're not stepping out onto the moon this time. Just about every other country on the planet (and there are quite a few of them!) have gone before you, and it worked out just fine. Sure, it takes some time, but not as long as you might like to imagine. Let me come back to my own experience� I was born in the 70s, around the time Australia was just starting to transition to the metric system. The older folk may well have had a difficult time with it, but if so I was blissfully unaware of it. I came to learn what an inch was, since most rulers had inches on one side and mm/cm on the other, and people still, to this day, casually talk about their height in feet and the weight of newborn babies in pounds. (Yes, some old habits die hard.) But these sort of things are the exceptions. The transition to metric was so efficient, I, as a first generation growing up with it, didn't even notice there was a transition happening.
Seriously, you should be looking to Australia and other countries with successful transitions and learning from them, instead of just perpetuating all these fanciful stories of how terrible it's going to be to change.
The issue goes beyond just the prescribed time period to shift, however. As I mentioned above, there are a lot of infrastructure concerns. Not to mention that Australia in the 1970s was 13 million people, or about 24 times smaller than the current US population. The only other countries that were on this scale were India and China when they transitioned, and both had much less infrastructure and an already illiterate population that could be trained from the ground up.
Any realistic transition for the US would take decades.
MacBookPro13"
Mar 31, 05:17 AM
I reckon Lion will be the last of cat names used for OS X.
They can't really call the next one Ocelot, for example.
Mac OS X Pus*y ;)
They can't really call the next one Ocelot, for example.
Mac OS X Pus*y ;)
Benjy91
Apr 25, 09:55 AM
And remarkably inaccurate when I looked myself up. It has a bit of correct information on my parents. I'm actually surprised at how wrong they were since I have a fairly large internet footprint (of course, these guys probably don't have Google's database since they're just skimming).
It's inaccurate because it doesn't track YOUR location, just the location of your nearest Cell Tower.
It's inaccurate because it doesn't track YOUR location, just the location of your nearest Cell Tower.
ender land
Apr 10, 10:46 AM
hence the ambiguity, IMO, of the presentation of the equation.
Ambiguity would be something like
what does 48 2 9 3 equal?
A mathematical expression such as the one addressed here is not ambiguous unless people draw inferences from it which are not present. Just because people can incorrectly draw information does not make something inherently ambiguous.
It would be ambiguous if there were two right answers from the given information. In this case, there is not, there is only one answer which makes sense mathematically from the equation.
Ambiguity would be something like
what does 48 2 9 3 equal?
A mathematical expression such as the one addressed here is not ambiguous unless people draw inferences from it which are not present. Just because people can incorrectly draw information does not make something inherently ambiguous.
It would be ambiguous if there were two right answers from the given information. In this case, there is not, there is only one answer which makes sense mathematically from the equation.
xPismo
Jul 21, 10:25 PM
Regarding hot laptops:
Tell me about it!
Add a pro book that lasts ~5hours and I'd be one happy man. Lets hope Apple can crack the heat / battery / weight triangle of pain this time around.
Tell me about it!
Add a pro book that lasts ~5hours and I'd be one happy man. Lets hope Apple can crack the heat / battery / weight triangle of pain this time around.
hobo.hopkins
Mar 31, 09:34 AM
What the heck is a "golden master candidate"? Google search only hits on this story and a story about iOS 4.0. As far as I know, Apple doesn't use the term. Someone made it up and ran with it.
It makes no sense. There are Release Candidates, and there are Golden Masters.
I was thinking the same thing; it doesn't make much sense to have a candidate for a supposedly Golden Master build. There shouldn't be more than one!
On another note, I am really loving Lion because everything seems more intuitive to use. I love the small things, like moving forward and backward in Safari. I'm also loving the full screen feature.
It makes no sense. There are Release Candidates, and there are Golden Masters.
I was thinking the same thing; it doesn't make much sense to have a candidate for a supposedly Golden Master build. There shouldn't be more than one!
On another note, I am really loving Lion because everything seems more intuitive to use. I love the small things, like moving forward and backward in Safari. I'm also loving the full screen feature.
fswmacguy
Mar 27, 07:46 AM
I have extremely slow DSL. There is one ISP in my area so upgrading is not an option (if it was I would have upgraded long ago). A cloud-based OS is horrifying to me. The last thing I want is for my files to transfer back and forth, slowly, to a server somewhere.
mdgm
Mar 30, 10:10 PM
No.
That's a shame. I'd like to get a 3rd party SSD but would prefer to wait till using TRIM with it is officially supported by Mac OS X.
That's a shame. I'd like to get a 3rd party SSD but would prefer to wait till using TRIM with it is officially supported by Mac OS X.
SmackaMac
Mar 28, 10:40 AM
Surely this just means the iPhone released in June will simply be like the iPhone 3G to 3GS transition. Same form factor, upgraded internals, etc� Hard to imagine there won't be an iPhone with an A5 this year.
Ding Ding Ding....We Have a Winner!!!
Those individuals quoted in the article aren't seeing new pieces produced for the iphone 5 because the form factor will likely be the same as the current phone. I would expect a speed bump with the implementation of the A5 chip.
Ding Ding Ding....We Have a Winner!!!
Those individuals quoted in the article aren't seeing new pieces produced for the iphone 5 because the form factor will likely be the same as the current phone. I would expect a speed bump with the implementation of the A5 chip.
solvs
Jul 23, 08:16 PM
Makes no sense to me. :rolleyes:
Wow, why all the hatin'? This is what they did before. This is the way things are headed. I see another sub $1000 just like the iBook, that's a given. I'm hoping for a cheaper one, but not expecting it for awhile. Could be months, could be years. But as prices drop, it will happen. It's only a matter of time.
Wow, why all the hatin'? This is what they did before. This is the way things are headed. I see another sub $1000 just like the iBook, that's a given. I'm hoping for a cheaper one, but not expecting it for awhile. Could be months, could be years. But as prices drop, it will happen. It's only a matter of time.
-aggie-
May 6, 06:42 PM
I don't understand how it would be quicker either.
How about stick with me and we lose the clod you have for a husband? :)
How about stick with me and we lose the clod you have for a husband? :)
gnasher729
Apr 25, 09:50 AM
+1. My IP is being logged right now most likely. No matter where you go, using any communication device, you can be tracked. If you're that paranoid, get off the grid. Every phone company tracks your location. This for iPhone users is just a log of it on your phone.
I do agree, however, that the consolidated.db file should at least be encrypted if it is to remain on the device. Now any good crook knows all they need is your iphone to find out when best to rob you.
What is actually tracked is not _your_ location, it is the location of WiFi basestations around the country. Which Google, Apple, and Skyhook use for their "poor man's GPS" that allows a device with WiFi but without working GPS to find its location. Skyhook started this by having cars drive round the country, recording the position of WiFi devices. Google and Apple, having the infrastructure, use a more efficient method to do this - instead of driving cars throught the country, they use people's iPhones or Android phones to collect the same data. Note they are not collecting _your_ data, they are collecting the data of WiFi base stations that you happen to pass with your iPhone.
The database file is most likely there so your phone knows which information it has already sent, so it doesn't send info about the same basestation twice. That should be easily checkable - is the database full with hundreds of copies of your home location or not? Does it have dozens of copies of locations along your way to work? I think each location is recorded only once, so a crook stealing the phone would know places where I have been, but not how often I go where. So they would have very little clue where to find me.
And the whole scenario seems very unlikely. It would be very, very rare that a specific person is robbed intentionally. That robber will most likely come to your home without having any idea who lives there, or wait in a dark alleyway and rob the next person to come along, not stealing your phone in order to find other information about you and rob you again. It is just a hypothetical danger that is not actually going to happen.
But what actually does happen and worries me (well, I'm not worried, but some people should be), is that apparently it is possible to access Google's database. There is a website where you can enter the MAC address of your router, and it will find its location. It found mine within about 100 meters. That might make it possible to find people who don't want to be found. So anyone who moves to escape a stalker, or goes into witness protection, they better not take their router with them to the new home.
I do agree, however, that the consolidated.db file should at least be encrypted if it is to remain on the device. Now any good crook knows all they need is your iphone to find out when best to rob you.
What is actually tracked is not _your_ location, it is the location of WiFi basestations around the country. Which Google, Apple, and Skyhook use for their "poor man's GPS" that allows a device with WiFi but without working GPS to find its location. Skyhook started this by having cars drive round the country, recording the position of WiFi devices. Google and Apple, having the infrastructure, use a more efficient method to do this - instead of driving cars throught the country, they use people's iPhones or Android phones to collect the same data. Note they are not collecting _your_ data, they are collecting the data of WiFi base stations that you happen to pass with your iPhone.
The database file is most likely there so your phone knows which information it has already sent, so it doesn't send info about the same basestation twice. That should be easily checkable - is the database full with hundreds of copies of your home location or not? Does it have dozens of copies of locations along your way to work? I think each location is recorded only once, so a crook stealing the phone would know places where I have been, but not how often I go where. So they would have very little clue where to find me.
And the whole scenario seems very unlikely. It would be very, very rare that a specific person is robbed intentionally. That robber will most likely come to your home without having any idea who lives there, or wait in a dark alleyway and rob the next person to come along, not stealing your phone in order to find other information about you and rob you again. It is just a hypothetical danger that is not actually going to happen.
But what actually does happen and worries me (well, I'm not worried, but some people should be), is that apparently it is possible to access Google's database. There is a website where you can enter the MAC address of your router, and it will find its location. It found mine within about 100 meters. That might make it possible to find people who don't want to be found. So anyone who moves to escape a stalker, or goes into witness protection, they better not take their router with them to the new home.
vartanarsen
Apr 18, 03:36 PM
Wow. Any breakdowns of what patents Samsung are allegedly infringing on that our local patent experts can give some insight into?
probably the use of Capacative technologies over resistive (less desireable)
probably the use of Capacative technologies over resistive (less desireable)
kev0476
Aug 3, 11:04 PM
they are just cycling through old rumors now... only difference, it is so close to wwdc.
fupresti
Apr 26, 04:13 PM
iOS isn't losing market you morons, the market is simply expanding and Android is better positioned in their product lineup to attract a wider variety of consumer. You can buy Android phones on all four major carriers and also with companies like Boost and Cricket. We are not slicing up the same size pie, the pie is getting bigger.
I agree Apple needs to revamp iOS, but this survey doesn't indicate Apple is failing, it simply shows that more and more people are moving from feature phones to smart phones.
Quit with the fan boy tirades.
I agree Apple needs to revamp iOS, but this survey doesn't indicate Apple is failing, it simply shows that more and more people are moving from feature phones to smart phones.
Quit with the fan boy tirades.
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.
toots66
Nov 22, 05:32 AM
Elsewhere in the world that is mostly how you buy a phone. Phone first, then a carrier. Not the other way around.
Not in the UK it isn't. It's very difficult to get a new contract without a phone. You can buy phones SIM-free but the high initial price puts most people off (if they know about them at all) because the networks here provide most phones 'free' with 12 or 18 month contracts. And most customers expect a new 'free' phone every 12/18 months, even though this will cost them more in the long-term. It's been going on for years and this is unlikely to change until one network breaks ranks but that would put them at a disadvantage.
How would this situation affect an Apple phone? I cannot see Apple changing their software to suit the network and that might rule out a couple of them. The networks have their own systems in place for selling music, at a higher price than iTMS, so any kind of iPod functionality in the phone would probably put them all off. A single network might be interested if they feel that the features in the Apple phone will gain them new customers.
End-users would still be able to buy a phone separately and use their existing SIM of course. But as this is so different to the entrenched practice in the UK, it would have to be a very good device.
Not in the UK it isn't. It's very difficult to get a new contract without a phone. You can buy phones SIM-free but the high initial price puts most people off (if they know about them at all) because the networks here provide most phones 'free' with 12 or 18 month contracts. And most customers expect a new 'free' phone every 12/18 months, even though this will cost them more in the long-term. It's been going on for years and this is unlikely to change until one network breaks ranks but that would put them at a disadvantage.
How would this situation affect an Apple phone? I cannot see Apple changing their software to suit the network and that might rule out a couple of them. The networks have their own systems in place for selling music, at a higher price than iTMS, so any kind of iPod functionality in the phone would probably put them all off. A single network might be interested if they feel that the features in the Apple phone will gain them new customers.
End-users would still be able to buy a phone separately and use their existing SIM of course. But as this is so different to the entrenched practice in the UK, it would have to be a very good device.
AppleDroid
May 6, 01:05 AM
Intel has been a Microsoft bitch for the past twenty years and it shows. They did everything they did to keep the 8086 instruction set running for every piece of screwed up DOS code written by guy with more karma than formal CS educations.
You do realize that this was mostly driven by multi-national corporations that didn't want to pay software engineers money to update all of the ancient legacy software right? Do you also believe MS wanted IE6 to stick around for 10 years? :rolleyes:
You do realize that this was mostly driven by multi-national corporations that didn't want to pay software engineers money to update all of the ancient legacy software right? Do you also believe MS wanted IE6 to stick around for 10 years? :rolleyes:
ergle2
Sep 15, 11:09 PM
If you really want longer battery life, then you should be hoping to keep the X1600. It's regarded as having the best "performance per watt" of recent mobile GPUs.
I'd rather have a bigger battery and a Go 7700. I've not seen any decent figures for power draw on the mobile chips. The 7700 is manufactured on an 80nm process tho', so that should help some.
Personally, I hope (well, pipe dream actually) they'll make MBP build-to-order like Mac Pro. I'd downgrade the CPU to the 2.0GHz version. It wholesales for $130 less than the 2.16, and $340 less than the 2.33. That's way too much to pay for a fractional speed increase.
OTOH, the 2.0 Xeon is $370 less than the 2.66 and Apple only cuts the price $75 for two of them. That's robbery. So I guess MBP BTO probably wouldn't help me even if they did it.
Bear in mind custom options effectively "cost" Apple a lot more due to requiring special attention in a way the rest of the line doesn't. More so with the laptop line due to the processor being socketted rather than soldered.
Personally, I think the 2.33GHz part price is insane considering the small speed-bump, but that's up to Apple.
I'd rather have a bigger battery and a Go 7700. I've not seen any decent figures for power draw on the mobile chips. The 7700 is manufactured on an 80nm process tho', so that should help some.
Personally, I hope (well, pipe dream actually) they'll make MBP build-to-order like Mac Pro. I'd downgrade the CPU to the 2.0GHz version. It wholesales for $130 less than the 2.16, and $340 less than the 2.33. That's way too much to pay for a fractional speed increase.
OTOH, the 2.0 Xeon is $370 less than the 2.66 and Apple only cuts the price $75 for two of them. That's robbery. So I guess MBP BTO probably wouldn't help me even if they did it.
Bear in mind custom options effectively "cost" Apple a lot more due to requiring special attention in a way the rest of the line doesn't. More so with the laptop line due to the processor being socketted rather than soldered.
Personally, I think the 2.33GHz part price is insane considering the small speed-bump, but that's up to Apple.
Plutonius
May 5, 11:43 AM
are we ready to move to the next room? anyone wants to split out for whatever reason?
No reason to split. There is only 1 door.
No reason to split. There is only 1 door.
McGiord
Apr 9, 07:42 PM
I did parenthesis, then multiplication or division from left to right. That's how I was taught it.
I'm pretty sure doing PEMDAS left to right is the proper way to do it
48/2(9+3)
48/2(12)
24(12)
288
PEMDAS... First time ever that I hear of it.
I did no go to school in the US.
So.. if the priorities are Parenthesis, then Exponents, Multiplication, Division, Addition and lastly Substraction, using your rule:
48/2(9+3)
First whatever is inside the Parenthesis: 9+3=12
48/2(12)
Then Exponent: none
Then Multiplication: 2(12) = 24
Then Division: 48/24 = 2
There you go...PEMDAS fans.
I'm pretty sure doing PEMDAS left to right is the proper way to do it
48/2(9+3)
48/2(12)
24(12)
288
PEMDAS... First time ever that I hear of it.
I did no go to school in the US.
So.. if the priorities are Parenthesis, then Exponents, Multiplication, Division, Addition and lastly Substraction, using your rule:
48/2(9+3)
First whatever is inside the Parenthesis: 9+3=12
48/2(12)
Then Exponent: none
Then Multiplication: 2(12) = 24
Then Division: 48/24 = 2
There you go...PEMDAS fans.
mr.barkan
Aug 12, 10:31 AM
I think we will see the upgrade the Tuesday after they have enough supply to meet the demand. These laptops are selling great and they don't want to have to interrupt the supply. I think this is especially true at the stores.
Are they really selling that great??
Is there anyway to know??
I wonder how much people is waiting for the Merom MBP's.
I mean, in general like a couple o guys said here the ones available today are great. But I use Final Cut Pro ALOT, and I'm sure the 64bit will be VERY useful on that. So for me is worth the wait... as for alot of other Final Cut, Logic Pro, Aperture users...
I'm quite curious about those MBP sales... :rolleyes:
Are they really selling that great??
Is there anyway to know??
I wonder how much people is waiting for the Merom MBP's.
I mean, in general like a couple o guys said here the ones available today are great. But I use Final Cut Pro ALOT, and I'm sure the 64bit will be VERY useful on that. So for me is worth the wait... as for alot of other Final Cut, Logic Pro, Aperture users...
I'm quite curious about those MBP sales... :rolleyes:
D A
May 6, 01:53 AM
I was a little worried until I saw who wrote the article. It's Charlie Demerjian and I've never seen a tech journalist as full of **** as he is. No need to worry, Apple ain't switching to ARM chips in their Macs.
henry72
May 4, 04:10 PM
I think Apple might update the firmware. It will appear a Mac App Store icon when user hold down the option key. Also it will allow user to put their Apple ID and choose a Wifi network. Isn't it a good idea? :D
I mean how many time you need to reinstall Mac OS lol
Mac App Store will be the fastest way to get what you want and this is the future. Disc is OVER!
I mean how many time you need to reinstall Mac OS lol
Mac App Store will be the fastest way to get what you want and this is the future. Disc is OVER!