Unless I'm mistaken about the roles of the employees in question, these people are not actually responsible for any non-trivial tech support.
The role of standard employees in Apple retail stores is to recommend products to customers that match their needs well; to do this one needs only a working understanding of the functionality of the products, not the ability to do any deep troubleshooting. There are entirely separate sets of employees devoted to troubleshooting/diagnosis/repair tasks.
It seems likely that Apple will provide some training to store employees on 10.5's capabilities, features, and improvements... when they feel the time is right to do so. Which will probably be after all those have been finalized and perhaps described to the public, and shortly before it's actually on their shelves. Again, this particular set of people only need to be able to show off Spaces or Time Machine, not to describe the new Core Animation API.
"Enabled" isn't a very specific term when referring to accounts. So if by there being no root account "enabled" you mean "the account exists, and many system processes run as it, it has a homedir and a shell, but there is no valid password for it"... then yes, the account is not "enabled". But in that case I'm failing to see the part where I'm "just wrong", given that that's what I described.
If you mean something other than that, I would humbly suggest that you might be mistaken. I've used somewhere between two and three dozen macosx desktops/laptops, going back to DP3, and I've bothered to set a root password on about half of them. I'm pretty certain of the way that whole mechanic works, thanks.
If you are similarly certain that no root account exists on non-server macosx, I invite you to type "ps aux" in a shell, and note as whom the majority of processes are running, or "nidump passwd/", and examine the second-ish entry.
Re:But it still has the rootkit fallacy
on
Windows vs Mac Security
·
· Score: 3, Informative
A minor point of clarification, but macosx does indeed have a root account by default, and many system processes run as it.
There is, by default, no valid password for this account, and the gui does not volunteer information about it as an account for people to log into. But the account very much exists, and is used.
The threshold of being noticeably faster is generally held to be around 30%. Below that and you mostly don't notice unless you're really looking for it.
You are right that by the very fact that there is a Mac version of the WoW
client that they are not a Windows only shop - of course, they might have
outsourced the porting of their software.
My shallow knowledge of them (I'm not much of a gamer) is that every one of their products has been simultaneously released in Mac and Windows incarnations, always will full feature parity and interoperability. So I think that they really do platform-independent development in-house.
My whole arugment is just to take a look at the whole of what Blizzard did
and has had to deal with. The MMO market is still a relatively new one and
WoW took it to all new levels of penetration. Remember how crappy cable
internet used to be (at least in Northern California) when it was new? You
have game developers all of sudden in the business of having to manage
mission critical, rapidly scalable networks. Give'm a break.
Oh, sure. I know from scaling (I work for Google), and I've usually been the one arguing publicly that Blizzard is deserving of a break. When people make the "blizz maeks 7 billion dollars per months why dont the servers work!?!?!?" argument, I'm usually the first one to say that scaling is tricky, and you generally can't just throw money at the problem and make things magically more reliable.
But the amount of generous I'm willing to be about their challenges did go down quite a bit when I heard that they had chosen Windows as their server platform. Of course using something unixy would not magically solve all scaling problems, but it would at least mean not going out of one's way to use a deeply flawed tool. While there is a set of problems that anyone will have trouble with, I can't help but feel now that a good bit of those are problems that they willfully brought on themselves by making such an awful choice for the fundamentals.
Anyway, thanks for the additional information, and a reasonable perspective thereon.
It actually makes perfect sense. What platform do all of their developers
have experience with? They've been programming since Day 1 for Windows,
correct?
At least some of their developers have some experience with Windows, but far from exclusively so; I'm not sure that Blizzard has ever released a Windows-only product in their life.
But with an organization of their size, the client and server engineering groups almost certainly are completely separate. Scaling product development to larger teams is mostly about finding clear functional lines along which you can divide work, and client/server is about the biggest and most obvious one out there.
So no, I don't think the fact that some other team has some non-exclusive experience with Windows constitutes a good reason to also choose it as a server platform. Even if you believe that there's any job for which Windows is the right tool (which, I'll admit, I don't), scalable and reliable servers is most definitely not it.
Would you say that Blizzard has made no efforts to improve
from that? Would you also say they haven't made improvements since then?
Oh, I certainly didn't mean to claim that they have made no efforts or no improvements. Given that every day they refund to subscribers costs a couple million dollars, they clearly have an incentive to improve reliability.
I would, however, say that their efforts have had modest results. Yes, reliability has improved notably, from "laughable" to "mediocre". And if they've started this whole thing by saddling themselves with Windows, I can't say I'm surprised that even the best efforts would produce lackluster results.
Wait, the servers actually use Windows? That... would explain a lot of the suck.
I guess it had never crossed my mind that anyone would do anything so absurd. I don't immediately see any confirmation of this... whence comes your information about their serving platform?
Re:FYI SLASH-TARDS -- What Flash can do:
on
The Future of Flash
·
· Score: 1
Wow. You make a pretty strong case against Flash there.
In other words, Flash is completely inconsistent with every platform on which it runs.
-- and most
features cannot be disabled by the user. (compare that to a user being able
to turn off JS, or Java -- something often mandated in a corporate
environment.)
The horror! Users might actually have some control over their experience, and be able to express preferences about how things look on their computers! Such an atrocity cannot be allowed!
Two of the big design goals that made the web successful where other such tools had failed are accessibility with many different clients written by many different groups, and an emphasis on user control over presentation of content. Flash's touted "features" are attempts to thwart these design goals, and in the process set us back twenty years.
I certainly hope that you can put different windows from the same application on different desktops. Happily, the fact that you can auto-switch desktops by switching applications doesn't rule that out; you'd just switch to the last-topped window of that application, and thence to whatever desktop contained it.
MacPro cheese-grater gets thrown away for something significantly
smaller, now that they don't need to dissipate so much heat.
Wait, when did they suddenly need to dissipate less heat? A quick glance indicates that the new xeons at 2.6GHz will consume about 65W each, up from the 52W consumed by the powerpc 970 at 2.5GHz.
I can only assume that the newer video cards will put out similar or more heat, and the new enclosures support two more hard drives and one more optical drive.
I can't imagine that the total heat generation of the system did anything but increase.
Hm, glomming them all into one device seems, at best, a very mixed deal even for someone who does want to be carrying around exactly that combination of devices at all times. The lack of modularity means that you can't choose, say, a camera with the features that you want and a music player with the features you want; you just get stuck with whatever ones happen to be offered glued to one another. And if you want to upgrade your camera next year, you're stuck upgrading your phone and music player as well.
And, of course, it doesn't allow you to choose which combination of devices to carry at any given time. I want to have my phone with me at all times, but I very rarely want a camera. I more often want a flashlight, which is not on the list of semirandom things that people often bolt together.
There are obviously a few advantages to having them all in one box, like only having to deal with charging or synching one device. But that seems like a fairly small benefit in exchange for reduced flexibility.
So, yes, if some manufacturers want to offer an all-in-one gadget package, and some people want to buy it, bully for them. But I'd imagine it to be a pretty rare case that that's actually the best choice for users.
What I envision: an iPhone that not only has a built-in PDA based on either
Palm OS or some slimmed-down Mac OS X, and not only has an iPod built into
it, but one with a video iPod integrated as well. Oh, and you can add this
optional GPS package for $X. Throw in built-in wifi and bluetooth
connectivity
Gah! No! Stop throwing things in!
The primary problem with cellphones these days is that they're all maniacally throwing in additional crap like cameras and music players. The last thing the world needs is one more "feature"-laden monstrosity that's five times the size it should be.
If Apple were to enter this market, I think they would have the sense to see that what's really lacking is a simple, elegant telephone. That does its job with grace and speed, and doesn't try to be everything else in the world.
This is certainly one of the great strengths of the ipod, that most of the "ipod killers" don't get. They all try to conquer the ipod by telling people, "But you can listen to the radio, and record audio, and use it as a pda, and a cellphone, and a wireless access point, and a floor wax!" And while Apple has caved a little bit on photos and video, they for the most part have kept sight of the fact that people don't want to do those things. More features is not automatically better.
Sadly, I don't see any reason to believe that Apple actually is entering this market. Not so much for technical reasons as for the bureaucratic morass of dealing with cellular service providers, competing international standards, regulatory bodies, manufacturer subsidies, and the whole rest of the convoluted mess that is the cellphone industry. Apple is currently doing a pretty good job navigating a similar mess in the music industry, and starting to tackle the ones in the television and movie industries. I don't think they'd want to overextend themselves by taking on the telco industry at the same time.
A shame, though. I'd switch in a heartbeat to whatever provider offered an Apple phone.
...you will probably have some nasty worms, viruses and trojans in
about 1 hour. I have my computer set to scan everyday while I am at class.
It finds at least 2 viruses a week...
I am a Geek who used to love using Google, but now that Google has
become big, it is doing what most other big companies do - screw the small
guy and just walk away.
Well, this isn't exactly a case of Google maliciously screwing the small guy. In fact, this is Google needing to make a choice between two small guys: the ad-displaying site, and the advertisers. Even if Google was incorrect about whether or not this was fraud, this was still them going out of their way to not charge their advertisers for valueles clicks.
If Google were just being blindly greedy, they would allow fraudulent clicks to pass freely, as they're just more clicks for which they can bill advertisers. But they instead chose to at least attempt to treat everyone fairly, even though it cost them money in the short term.
I'm sorry that this site was denied this source of revenue, and it's unfortunate that the fraud-hunting system misfired in this way. But it's a bit deceptive to characterize that as malice or greed on Google's part.
Uhhh... yeah. But you do realize though that almost everyone in the world uses Windows right now?
Uh, I certainly don't realize that. I seem to recall that Windows usage ends up more around 75%-85%, depending upon how you measure. Which leaves several dozen million computer users that your "almost everyone" doesn't cover.
If Apple would support Windows for real, that would sell a lot more hardware.
Obviously we're both speculating, but I really don't believe that that's true. The set of people who would buy an Apple machine for the sole purpose of running Windows is relatively small. The set of people who choose a machine specifically to be able to run osx is much larger.
Oh look, another entry in the ever-growing "slashdot posts a 'summary' that's complete gibberish even to the majority of their readership" collection.
What's worse is that the excerpt from the submission implies that there was a preceding paragraph that might have explained what the fuck he was talking about. But Cliff apparently elected to snip out anything that might have lead to this making the slightest bit of sense.
Good show, Cliff! You'll catch up with Zonk on nonsensical "summaries" any day now!
Well the last war MS won but failed to keep their browser up to date.
Recall that this is exactly what Microsoft does in all markets. And, sad to say, it doesn't seem to work out too poorly for them.
Products like Word, Excel, and IE were genuinely good pieces of software back when Microsoft was first entering those markets, and had to bend all their efforts toward defeating a real competitor. But once they had eliminated Wordperfect, Lotus, and Netscape as real threats, Microsoft's offerings languished. Updates became more rare, and more inclined toward bloatware features than stability or performance.
This is how Microsoft has always operated, and as much as I wish it were not the case, it has not yet manifested as an exploitable chink in their armor. The most optimistic thing I can possibly think is that Netscape rising from its grave as zombie-Mozilla might keep Microsoft in "competing" mode for a while, thus creating slightly better products than they would have otherwise.
But I honestly don't really think that'll much happen. None of the brood of Mozilla is likely to seriously displace IE, partially because of the fact that Netscape-derived browsers have also been going way downhill for about a decade now. So they're just never going to be the kind of threat that can spur Microsoft into less-sucky mode, much less actually push Microsoft off the hill.
Am I the only one who was wondering what exactly Design Within Reach had done to improve AJAX? I mean, sure, I really like some of their lamps, but I think that AJAX is beyond even their power to salvage.
In, oh, probably 1998 or so, I heard from a friend who worked at a tier-1 ISP that fully 2% of their total backbone traffic was to Geocities. This horrified us at the time, that such a huge portion of the 'net was devoted to people's crappy animated flame HR gifs.
As we all know, Geocites then went on to conquer the Internet.
Yeah, turns out somebody was doing this for kind of a while. Called them "typewriters" or somesuch.
Really, much of the value of a computer lies in the fact that it's an extremely versatile device. Choosing to discard all that, and believe that you can know ahead of time every single thing you will ever want to accomplish with it, seems like a pretty bad deal.
The margins are better and the sales are better on the multi-function phones.
I'm not sure that either of those needs to be true. I and a substantial portion of my geek friends would pay more money for a version of one of the current bloatware phones that just had all the crap ripped out and was thus smaller and lighter. (Are you listening, Nokia/Motorola/Sanyo/Samsung/Sprint/Cingular/Veriz on? Yank out all that shit, cut the size of the phone in half, double the price, and I am there.)
This isn't unique to cellular:
When was the last time you saw an add for a single-function scanner for home use?
No idea, I haven't bought a scanner in a decade. What else do they bolt onto them? Faxing or somesuch nonsense?
I think scanners were probably altered by the fact that they had already gotten as small as they could while still performing their function, and so cheap as to border on free. (Yes, even when I last bought one almost a decade ago. It was a tiny bit larger than 8.5"x11", less than an inch thick, required no separate power source, and cost $40.) Neither of these things is true of phones; they're still about seven times their optimal size, and cost many hundreds of dollars (before carrier subsidies). So I don't think that that particular example is an especially relevant one.
Yeah, I'm totally perplexed by this. I looked at their "review" of the phone, which is really just a couple of sentences inexplicably listing its smallness as "con". Did they forget about the ability to duct tape bricks to the phone if they have some bizarre desire for it be larger?
And yes. The phone--not that small. Not nearly small enough.
The US cellphone market seems to be plagued by two awful things:
Carriers have mostly succeeded in tying phone hardware to phone service. So you can't just go out and choose the best phone and then choose the best carrier; you need to try and find some not-awful intersection of the two, and end up with a phone that has had many of its abilities intentionally disabled by the carrier.
Once they wrangled phones out of the separate market, carriers decided that they could only advertise ones with lots of features, not just ones that are good at being phones. So they're only selling huge monstrosities with nonsense like cameras, video and audio recording, color displays, multiple displays, games, web browsers, calendars, hard drives, laser printers, and whathaveyou. And they seem completely unwilling to sell something that's just a telephone, which is all I want. As small as humanly possible while still retaining good battery life, and none of that other cruft.
I can't speak for anyone else, but bootcamp solves nothing at all for me. The obstacle for me was never getting a machine that could run Windows; it was running Windows. Bootcamp just gives me a new way to do exactly the horrific thing that I'm avoiding.
Slashdot Mirror
Unless I'm mistaken about the roles of the employees in question, these people are not actually responsible for any non-trivial tech support.
The role of standard employees in Apple retail stores is to recommend products to customers that match their needs well; to do this one needs only a working understanding of the functionality of the products, not the ability to do any deep troubleshooting. There are entirely separate sets of employees devoted to troubleshooting/diagnosis/repair tasks.
It seems likely that Apple will provide some training to store employees on 10.5's capabilities, features, and improvements... when they feel the time is right to do so. Which will probably be after all those have been finalized and perhaps described to the public, and shortly before it's actually on their shelves. Again, this particular set of people only need to be able to show off Spaces or Time Machine, not to describe the new Core Animation API.
"Enabled" isn't a very specific term when referring to accounts. So if by there being no root account "enabled" you mean "the account exists, and many system processes run as it, it has a homedir and a shell, but there is no valid password for it"... then yes, the account is not "enabled". But in that case I'm failing to see the part where I'm "just wrong", given that that's what I described.
If you mean something other than that, I would humbly suggest that you might be mistaken. I've used somewhere between two and three dozen macosx desktops/laptops, going back to DP3, and I've bothered to set a root password on about half of them. I'm pretty certain of the way that whole mechanic works, thanks.
If you are similarly certain that no root account exists on non-server macosx, I invite you to type "ps aux" in a shell, and note as whom the majority of processes are running, or "nidump passwd
A minor point of clarification, but macosx does indeed have a root account by default, and many system processes run as it.
There is, by default, no valid password for this account, and the gui does not volunteer information about it as an account for people to log into. But the account very much exists, and is used.
The threshold of being noticeably faster is generally held to be around 30%. Below that and you mostly don't notice unless you're really looking for it.
(Exceptions abound, of course.)
But the amount of generous I'm willing to be about their challenges did go down quite a bit when I heard that they had chosen Windows as their server platform. Of course using something unixy would not magically solve all scaling problems, but it would at least mean not going out of one's way to use a deeply flawed tool. While there is a set of problems that anyone will have trouble with, I can't help but feel now that a good bit of those are problems that they willfully brought on themselves by making such an awful choice for the fundamentals.
Anyway, thanks for the additional information, and a reasonable perspective thereon.
At least some of their developers have some experience with Windows, but far from exclusively so; I'm not sure that Blizzard has ever released a Windows-only product in their life.
But with an organization of their size, the client and server engineering groups almost certainly are completely separate. Scaling product development to larger teams is mostly about finding clear functional lines along which you can divide work, and client/server is about the biggest and most obvious one out there.
So no, I don't think the fact that some other team has some non-exclusive experience with Windows constitutes a good reason to also choose it as a server platform. Even if you believe that there's any job for which Windows is the right tool (which, I'll admit, I don't), scalable and reliable servers is most definitely not it.
Oh, I certainly didn't mean to claim that they have made no efforts or no improvements. Given that every day they refund to subscribers costs a couple million dollars, they clearly have an incentive to improve reliability.
I would, however, say that their efforts have had modest results. Yes, reliability has improved notably, from "laughable" to "mediocre". And if they've started this whole thing by saddling themselves with Windows, I can't say I'm surprised that even the best efforts would produce lackluster results.
And yet, http://www.macintouch.com/reviews/macpro/powerusa
Wait, the servers actually use Windows? That... would explain a lot of the suck.
I guess it had never crossed my mind that anyone would do anything so absurd. I don't immediately see any confirmation of this... whence comes your information about their serving platform?
The horror! Users might actually have some control over their experience, and be able to express preferences about how things look on their computers! Such an atrocity cannot be allowed!
Two of the big design goals that made the web successful where other such tools had failed are accessibility with many different clients written by many different groups, and an emphasis on user control over presentation of content. Flash's touted "features" are attempts to thwart these design goals, and in the process set us back twenty years.
I certainly hope that you can put different windows from the same application on different desktops. Happily, the fact that you can auto-switch desktops by switching applications doesn't rule that out; you'd just switch to the last-topped window of that application, and thence to whatever desktop contained it.
Wait, when did they suddenly need to dissipate less heat? A quick glance indicates that the new xeons at 2.6GHz will consume about 65W each, up from the 52W consumed by the powerpc 970 at 2.5GHz.
I can only assume that the newer video cards will put out similar or more heat, and the new enclosures support two more hard drives and one more optical drive.
I can't imagine that the total heat generation of the system did anything but increase.
Hm, glomming them all into one device seems, at best, a very mixed deal even for someone who does want to be carrying around exactly that combination of devices at all times. The lack of modularity means that you can't choose, say, a camera with the features that you want and a music player with the features you want; you just get stuck with whatever ones happen to be offered glued to one another. And if you want to upgrade your camera next year, you're stuck upgrading your phone and music player as well.
And, of course, it doesn't allow you to choose which combination of devices to carry at any given time. I want to have my phone with me at all times, but I very rarely want a camera. I more often want a flashlight, which is not on the list of semirandom things that people often bolt together.
There are obviously a few advantages to having them all in one box, like only having to deal with charging or synching one device. But that seems like a fairly small benefit in exchange for reduced flexibility.
So, yes, if some manufacturers want to offer an all-in-one gadget package, and some people want to buy it, bully for them. But I'd imagine it to be a pretty rare case that that's actually the best choice for users.
Gah! No! Stop throwing things in!
The primary problem with cellphones these days is that they're all maniacally throwing in additional crap like cameras and music players. The last thing the world needs is one more "feature"-laden monstrosity that's five times the size it should be.
If Apple were to enter this market, I think they would have the sense to see that what's really lacking is a simple, elegant telephone. That does its job with grace and speed, and doesn't try to be everything else in the world.
This is certainly one of the great strengths of the ipod, that most of the "ipod killers" don't get. They all try to conquer the ipod by telling people, "But you can listen to the radio, and record audio, and use it as a pda, and a cellphone, and a wireless access point, and a floor wax!" And while Apple has caved a little bit on photos and video, they for the most part have kept sight of the fact that people don't want to do those things. More features is not automatically better.
Sadly, I don't see any reason to believe that Apple actually is entering this market. Not so much for technical reasons as for the bureaucratic morass of dealing with cellular service providers, competing international standards, regulatory bodies, manufacturer subsidies, and the whole rest of the convoluted mess that is the cellphone industry. Apple is currently doing a pretty good job navigating a similar mess in the music industry, and starting to tackle the ones in the television and movie industries. I don't think they'd want to overextend themselves by taking on the telco industry at the same time.
A shame, though. I'd switch in a heartbeat to whatever provider offered an Apple phone.
Well, this isn't exactly a case of Google maliciously screwing the small guy. In fact, this is Google needing to make a choice between two small guys: the ad-displaying site, and the advertisers. Even if Google was incorrect about whether or not this was fraud, this was still them going out of their way to not charge their advertisers for valueles clicks.
If Google were just being blindly greedy, they would allow fraudulent clicks to pass freely, as they're just more clicks for which they can bill advertisers. But they instead chose to at least attempt to treat everyone fairly, even though it cost them money in the short term.
I'm sorry that this site was denied this source of revenue, and it's unfortunate that the fraud-hunting system misfired in this way. But it's a bit deceptive to characterize that as malice or greed on Google's part.
Uh, I certainly don't realize that. I seem to recall that Windows usage ends up more around 75%-85%, depending upon how you measure. Which leaves several dozen million computer users that your "almost everyone" doesn't cover.
Obviously we're both speculating, but I really don't believe that that's true. The set of people who would buy an Apple machine for the sole purpose of running Windows is relatively small. The set of people who choose a machine specifically to be able to run osx is much larger.Oh look, another entry in the ever-growing "slashdot posts a 'summary' that's complete gibberish even to the majority of their readership" collection.
What's worse is that the excerpt from the submission implies that there was a preceding paragraph that might have explained what the fuck he was talking about. But Cliff apparently elected to snip out anything that might have lead to this making the slightest bit of sense.
Good show, Cliff! You'll catch up with Zonk on nonsensical "summaries" any day now!
Recall that this is exactly what Microsoft does in all markets. And, sad to say, it doesn't seem to work out too poorly for them.
Products like Word, Excel, and IE were genuinely good pieces of software back when Microsoft was first entering those markets, and had to bend all their efforts toward defeating a real competitor. But once they had eliminated Wordperfect, Lotus, and Netscape as real threats, Microsoft's offerings languished. Updates became more rare, and more inclined toward bloatware features than stability or performance.
This is how Microsoft has always operated, and as much as I wish it were not the case, it has not yet manifested as an exploitable chink in their armor. The most optimistic thing I can possibly think is that Netscape rising from its grave as zombie-Mozilla might keep Microsoft in "competing" mode for a while, thus creating slightly better products than they would have otherwise.
But I honestly don't really think that'll much happen. None of the brood of Mozilla is likely to seriously displace IE, partially because of the fact that Netscape-derived browsers have also been going way downhill for about a decade now. So they're just never going to be the kind of threat that can spur Microsoft into less-sucky mode, much less actually push Microsoft off the hill.
Am I the only one who was wondering what exactly Design Within Reach had done to improve AJAX? I mean, sure, I really like some of their lamps, but I think that AJAX is beyond even their power to salvage.
In, oh, probably 1998 or so, I heard from a friend who worked at a tier-1 ISP that fully 2% of their total backbone traffic was to Geocities. This horrified us at the time, that such a huge portion of the 'net was devoted to people's crappy animated flame HR gifs.
As we all know, Geocites then went on to conquer the Internet.
Yeah, turns out somebody was doing this for kind of a while. Called them "typewriters" or somesuch.
Really, much of the value of a computer lies in the fact that it's an extremely versatile device. Choosing to discard all that, and believe that you can know ahead of time every single thing you will ever want to accomplish with it, seems like a pretty bad deal.
I'm not sure that either of those needs to be true. I and a substantial portion of my geek friends would pay more money for a version of one of the current bloatware phones that just had all the crap ripped out and was thus smaller and lighter. (Are you listening, Nokia/Motorola/Sanyo/Samsung/Sprint/Cingular/Veriz on? Yank out all that shit, cut the size of the phone in half, double the price, and I am there.)
No idea, I haven't bought a scanner in a decade. What else do they bolt onto them? Faxing or somesuch nonsense?
I think scanners were probably altered by the fact that they had already gotten as small as they could while still performing their function, and so cheap as to border on free. (Yes, even when I last bought one almost a decade ago. It was a tiny bit larger than 8.5"x11", less than an inch thick, required no separate power source, and cost $40.) Neither of these things is true of phones; they're still about seven times their optimal size, and cost many hundreds of dollars (before carrier subsidies). So I don't think that that particular example is an especially relevant one.
Yeah, I'm totally perplexed by this. I looked at their "review" of the phone, which is really just a couple of sentences inexplicably listing its smallness as "con". Did they forget about the ability to duct tape bricks to the phone if they have some bizarre desire for it be larger?
And yes. The phone--not that small. Not nearly small enough.
The US cellphone market seems to be plagued by two awful things:
I can't speak for anyone else, but bootcamp solves nothing at all for me. The obstacle for me was never getting a machine that could run Windows; it was running Windows. Bootcamp just gives me a new way to do exactly the horrific thing that I'm avoiding.