I find that many times when I am in poor coverage areas (areas without 3G reception, for instance). My iPhone 3g (2.0.1) will show 1 or 2 bars of signal strength, yet my Blackberry 8700c (also on AT&T), will show full signal.
However I have certainly noticed this signal strength issue -- at least compared to the Blackberry when in areas with poor 3G reception.
I'd love to understand how the SIM causes dropped calls. Can you please explain?
Apparently some of the older sims handed out by AT&T were not properly registered to allow access to all 3G cell towers. This is what certain AT&T users were saying. As a Canadian on Fido, I can neither confirm or deny whether this was true or not as the Canadian problems were exclusively network based.
Looking at the thread on the Apple discussion boards, this seems to be an issue with the popularity of the new 3G phone and the inability of the AT&T 3G network to be able to handle the extra data load with such an internet enabled device.
I experienced a similar issue for a few days in Canada with the Fido and others with the Rogers 3G networks shortly after the July 11th launch. Within a few days, the problems mostly went away where I live and now I get great reception even at work.
There may be a few faulty 3G iPhones but this is mostly caused by a combination of faulty AT&T sims and problems with their network stability and capacity.
Why would I want to pay a premium to book through a third party when I could just go directly to their site? I can understand using expedia for hotels, car rentals and getting discounts on regular airlines but I cannot see how it is worth it to pay "more" for an already cheap flight.
When I was traveling ad hoc through Europe last year, I booked a flight to Germany directly through their website from my hotel room in the UK and it was the best deal I could find for the money. I did not bother for additional insurance or require any car rental.
If these third parties are indeed scrapping the official website and then charging a premium, I have to ask, why would people be stupid enough to use those services instead of dealing with them directly?
This is not an illegal typing arrangement because it only involves one party which build the software and hardware. Take consoles for instance. Nobody in their right mind expects an Xbox 360 game to run on a PS3 or visa versa.
Also, Apple does not have a monopoly or anything close to it.
INAL but obviously neither are you so why don't we leave the law to the experts.
Was that the sound of an electromagnet or disruptor wiping out years of corporate data?
The prudent thing would be to not put all your eggs in one basket. Magnetic tape backup is vulnerable to electromagnetic radiation.
I am sick of seeing MSFT trying to pass the buck on a Windows security issue.
When is MSFT going to implement cross-browser flagging of downloaded executables? When is MSFT going to patch IE to stop it from loading arbitrary DLLs from the desktop?
Bullshit. As I recall, Mac OS X was the first to fall to a remote exploit compared to Windows Vista and Linux.
What about that recent AppleScript root escalation exploit? What about the hundreds of other exploits we've heard about, but the cult of Mac has dismissed and quietly buried?
Over here, we call those carefully crafted "web pages" and "social engineering". There was no remote exploit for OS X in that contests. What was required was a user navigating to a specially crafted web page after having enabled remote login daemons disabled by default and creating basic accounts for the "hackers" to use to exploit the privilege escalation.
OS X has a solid architecture, but all the evidence indicates that Apple has not taken security seriously as a process issue to the same extent that Microsoft has.
Please. Do you think it wise behavior for IE to load any dll placed on the desktop? IE should not just load any DLL placed in the default path but rather should only load from a well defined directory tree built specifically for add-ons and plugins.
The recent "carpet bomb" issue with Safari on windows brought to centre stage this very issue.
MSFT is is still creating junior level mistakes with their flagship software.
How about NTFS, Apple? About damn time OS X supported read-write for NTFS - hard to bring it into corporate environment when you can't read from a Windows partition. NTFS-3G drivers are stable, they ought to have been integrated with Leopard to begin with. I'd rather see them license something from MSFT like they did with Active Sync and Exchange support in OS X. Paragon Software has a stable read/write drive which I already own and it seems to integrate well into OS X.
How would you suggest fixing this issue? Annoy the user by prompting and changing behavior of Safari on windows? Nothing Apple could do would do a thing about the real issue which is that IE will load any DLL into memory when stored on the desktop by whatever means it was placed there. It could have been copied through social engineering or through downloading via a browser.
MSFT has only to fix this by preventing automatic loading of any DLL on the desktop by IE.
Of course marking it as unsafe doesn't actually cause IE not to load it. So it is Microsoft's fault.
No, that makes it both their fault. Apple couldn't meet 'em halfway. Now all M$ has to do is release a patch so IE won't run stuff marked as unsafe and suddenly it's all apple's fault again.
Sorry but you are not seeing the real issue. IE should not load dlls on the desktop whether they were downloaded there automatically, on purpose or dragged there by explorer.
That is a horrific design decision.
If MSFT just released a patch to not run files marked as unsafe, it would still be their fault. Loading dlls on the desktop regardless of how they are marked or how they appeared on the desktop is idiotic.
This cannot be Apple's fault since Apple did not tell MSFT to design a system that loads dlls placed on the desktop.
Having Apple change the default location from ~/Desktop to something else only for windows would not solve the real problem. The real problem is that windows should be doing the flagging of the file as potentially unsafe and IE should not be loading DLLS placed on the desktop regardless of how they got there. It is not the responsibility of the browser to flag it a file as potentially unsafe. Windows should either provide a well documented API for setting an unsafe flag on downloads separate from any IE/IE7 code or windows should be monitoring downloads and flagging them.
Regardless of what the default is in Safari or even Firefox, a user can still change that default to anything they want including the desktop.
As others have pointed out, the downloads folder is a Leopard specific feature used by Safari when running under Leopard and the executable warning thing is also a Leopard feature.
Actually, it is possible that the pre-VAT price in the UK will be close to 199 USD when converted at current rates but then your government taxes you an additional 17% on top of that. Neither Apple or currency conversion rates have anything to do with the markup brits pay. It's all the fault of the governments you have chosen to elect.
In your rush to diss Verizon, you conveniently forgot that Sprint with 52 million US customers uses CDMA. Verizon users can switch to Sprint. Which would also give you a paperweight to lug around if you happen to travel outside of the US. CDMA is a dead end technology. I see Virgin trying to sell there phones in malls here in Canada but there do not seem to be many takers because a lot of people either have a phone and provider or are looking for a GSM phone that they can also use while on their holiday abroad.
I think I understand now. I was confused by this story but then I realized that companies often treat their Technical Support/Sys Admin staff differently from career employees.
Sys Admins often have access that go above and beyond what any developer or even DBA would have with the ability to grant or remove access to network resources. Usually, what they know is not terribly specialized or undocumented.
For this reason, I understand why companies will remove access from "IT" staff while business people, developers and other career employees require more time to transfer not only their technical knowledge but proprietary business knowledge and experience to their replacement.
The only time any of my colleagues have had their access stripped and escorted out of the building early were when they were fired or if they quit out of the blue.
Anyone who was leaving on good terms had their access up to and including their last day to facilitate knowledge transfer and cleaning up of lose ends during their last two weeks with the company.
Maybe we do things differently up here in Canada. I find it illogical that a company would stop trusting someone suddenly when they announce that they are leaving for another job especially when the day before that same company had trust in them to have high level access to the system. I could understand removing access from someone who was behaving erratically but it seems a bit strange to not trust someone who has given you no reason to not trust them.
When will they start to draw Apple's attention?
When they start appearing on Walmart shelves.
Personally, I can't wait for the day. One, because I wouldn't mind seeing a reasonably priced headless MAC desktop. Two, just to rejoice in the anguish of the apple fanbois. Three, weep bitter tears when Apple goes under or jetison's OS X and unprofitable computer section forcing you to either use windows or linux as your future OS.
You just don't get it. NeXT failed in the marketplace because multiple hardware configurations were too difficult to support, the X86 version cost 500 bucks and MSFT blocked companies like NeXT and Be Inc. from making deals with OEMs.
The reason why the upgrade versions of OS X are so cheap is because the OS development is subsidized by the profit margins on Apple hardware.
Why do people expect privacy on a public street? It is called the "public" for a reason.
I do not feel that Google should bother censoring anything that occurs in the public eye.
Why not just sign a deal with Netflix to do their Video Streaming feature via the XMB? Maybe because they also are looking to market to people outside of the US and Netflix is a US based offering?
and Microsoft's ass in handhelds. It's not hard to beat someone in market share when you've had more than a decades head start. I think you have that backwards. MSFT had a decade headstart in handsets (phones) over Apple and yet MSFT is losing in the smart phone market.
If you ask the Free Software Foundation, that would be a feature.
If you ask Apple, that would be a feature. Ah yes. At least it's only the users who lose. Users don't give a crap about licenses. What they care about is price. Free is the most popular price among users. I think you are confusing users with hobbyist programmers.
Slashdot Mirror
I find that many times when I am in poor coverage areas (areas without 3G reception, for instance). My iPhone 3g (2.0.1) will show 1 or 2 bars of signal strength, yet my Blackberry 8700c (also on AT&T), will show full signal.
However I have certainly noticed this signal strength issue -- at least compared to the Blackberry when in areas with poor 3G reception.
I have an explanation. Your Blackberry is GSM GPRS/Edge only.
http://na.blackberry.com/eng/devices/device-detail.jsp?navId=H0,C63,P65#tab_tab_specifications
Try switching off 3G on your iPhone in that area and see if the reception for Edge is the same as your Blackberry.
There are currently no 3G Blackberry units on the market.
http://digitaldaily.allthingsd.com/20070810/iphone-deadspot/
I'd love to understand how the SIM causes dropped calls. Can you please explain?
Apparently some of the older sims handed out by AT&T were not properly registered to allow access to all 3G cell towers. This is what certain AT&T users were saying. As a Canadian on Fido, I can neither confirm or deny whether this was true or not as the Canadian problems were exclusively network based.
I experienced a similar issue for a few days in Canada with the Fido and others with the Rogers 3G networks shortly after the July 11th launch. Within a few days, the problems mostly went away where I live and now I get great reception even at work.
There may be a few faulty 3G iPhones but this is mostly caused by a combination of faulty AT&T sims and problems with their network stability and capacity.
When I was traveling ad hoc through Europe last year, I booked a flight to Germany directly through their website from my hotel room in the UK and it was the best deal I could find for the money. I did not bother for additional insurance or require any car rental.
If these third parties are indeed scrapping the official website and then charging a premium, I have to ask, why would people be stupid enough to use those services instead of dealing with them directly?
Also, Apple does not have a monopoly or anything close to it.
INAL but obviously neither are you so why don't we leave the law to the experts.
United States = AIM Other places = MSN
That's a bit of an over generalization isn't it?
I'm not an American but I most certainly do not use MSN.
Was that the sound of an electromagnet or disruptor wiping out years of corporate data? The prudent thing would be to not put all your eggs in one basket. Magnetic tape backup is vulnerable to electromagnetic radiation.
When is MSFT going to implement cross-browser flagging of downloaded executables? When is MSFT going to patch IE to stop it from loading arbitrary DLLs from the desktop?
Bullshit. As I recall, Mac OS X was the first to fall to a remote exploit compared to Windows Vista and Linux.
What about that recent AppleScript root escalation exploit? What about the hundreds of other exploits we've heard about, but the cult of Mac has dismissed and quietly buried?
Over here, we call those carefully crafted "web pages" and "social engineering". There was no remote exploit for OS X in that contests. What was required was a user navigating to a specially crafted web page after having enabled remote login daemons disabled by default and creating basic accounts for the "hackers" to use to exploit the privilege escalation.OS X has a solid architecture, but all the evidence indicates that Apple has not taken security seriously as a process issue to the same extent that Microsoft has.
Please. Do you think it wise behavior for IE to load any dll placed on the desktop? IE should not just load any DLL placed in the default path but rather should only load from a well defined directory tree built specifically for add-ons and plugins.The recent "carpet bomb" issue with Safari on windows brought to centre stage this very issue.
MSFT is is still creating junior level mistakes with their flagship software.
MSFT has only to fix this by preventing automatic loading of any DLL on the desktop by IE.
No, that makes it both their fault. Apple couldn't meet 'em halfway. Now all M$ has to do is release a patch so IE won't run stuff marked as unsafe and suddenly it's all apple's fault again.
Sorry but you are not seeing the real issue. IE should not load dlls on the desktop whether they were downloaded there automatically, on purpose or dragged there by explorer.That is a horrific design decision.
If MSFT just released a patch to not run files marked as unsafe, it would still be their fault. Loading dlls on the desktop regardless of how they are marked or how they appeared on the desktop is idiotic.
This cannot be Apple's fault since Apple did not tell MSFT to design a system that loads dlls placed on the desktop.
Regardless of what the default is in Safari or even Firefox, a user can still change that default to anything they want including the desktop.
As others have pointed out, the downloads folder is a Leopard specific feature used by Safari when running under Leopard and the executable warning thing is also a Leopard feature.
Actually, it is possible that the pre-VAT price in the UK will be close to 199 USD when converted at current rates but then your government taxes you an additional 17% on top of that. Neither Apple or currency conversion rates have anything to do with the markup brits pay. It's all the fault of the governments you have chosen to elect.
Sys Admins often have access that go above and beyond what any developer or even DBA would have with the ability to grant or remove access to network resources. Usually, what they know is not terribly specialized or undocumented.
For this reason, I understand why companies will remove access from "IT" staff while business people, developers and other career employees require more time to transfer not only their technical knowledge but proprietary business knowledge and experience to their replacement.
Anyone who was leaving on good terms had their access up to and including their last day to facilitate knowledge transfer and cleaning up of lose ends during their last two weeks with the company.
Maybe we do things differently up here in Canada. I find it illogical that a company would stop trusting someone suddenly when they announce that they are leaving for another job especially when the day before that same company had trust in them to have high level access to the system. I could understand removing access from someone who was behaving erratically but it seems a bit strange to not trust someone who has given you no reason to not trust them.
You just don't get it. NeXT failed in the marketplace because multiple hardware configurations were too difficult to support, the X86 version cost 500 bucks and MSFT blocked companies like NeXT and Be Inc. from making deals with OEMs.
The reason why the upgrade versions of OS X are so cheap is because the OS development is subsidized by the profit margins on Apple hardware.
Why do people expect privacy on a public street? It is called the "public" for a reason. I do not feel that Google should bother censoring anything that occurs in the public eye.
Did they named the gene after the movie "Alien Versus Predator Requiem"?