In practice, if they allow users to pick their own distro, they MUST also make the decision that Linux is officially not supported, else they be bombarded with hating users. I still think a custom Dell-distro is the way to go, if it's to succeed, though I think the project is doomed from the start.
HDTV Tuners seem to be a pretty loaded topic. Thanks to the move digital, what once was possible now seems impossible (or at least pretty difficult.) (Thank you MPAA/RIAA, and all you paranoid TV production people that think we're evil consumers -- the same ones who pad your back pocket...) There are a plethora of very crappy OTA TV tuner cards for your PC out there. Pinnacle makes one, ATI made one, and there a number of other start ups out there, too, even with Linux support. The "cable card" seemed like a good concept, but never really took off, and is now pretty much DOA. Your best bet is to check with your local cable company FIRST, then (if they support it), get a card that supports unencrypted QAM (for north america) or DVB-T (for Europe), such as the DViCO FusionHDTV (say that 5 times fast... or even once!) I, personally, went another route, which seems to have a bit more flexibility for my needs. It's not perfect (for instance, I can't watch from more than one PC at a time, there's a lag time in changing channels, etc.), but it's a good solution. Check out the Sling Media SlingBox Pro, which will allow you to connect your HDTV signal from your cable provider and broadcast it over the web. The speed is pretty good on a LAN, okay on the web, and even watchable from a Windows Mobile PDA (Palm version in the works.) Best of all, you can use your familiar DVR, delete shows as you watch them, and your living room is already up to date. The only thing I would like better is a digital way to record my shows over the web, so I can archive them on my PC for later. Unfortunately, the current Slingbox does not allow this (though I hear the original did...)
If Dell wants this to work and work *right* they'll probably need to come up with their own distro of Linux for support of their systems. This would be much the same as Apple/OS X, in that the software would be under tight control of the OEM. Heck, Dell might end up with a better image, to boot. It's the only way they can guarantee that binary drivers work with kernel updates, and all OEM hardware is officially supported version to version, and that they maintain a level of seamlessness currently unavailable in the Linux (and for that matter, Windows) realm. Heck, they could even TPM it if they wanted (so long as the source code for GPL'd stuff was still public, but what's the point?) If they wanted to go the Red Hat or Novell (or some other VAR) route, the VAR would be required to include support and guarantee a certain level of functionality and performance before releasing the next version, which means slowing down your release schedule and having less than satisfied customers. End users might not like not having access to the "latest and greatest" kernel, KDE, or X11 release, but it's the only way an OEM can properly ensure that they don't start losing money hand over fist on supporting Linux customers that just don't have the experience, but want to try something non-Windows.
If they do it "the right way," I certainly support them in their endeavor. Alas, I fear it'll end up a failed attempt and half-assed effort.
And how do you think you got introduced to most of the music you listen to in your iPod? I mean, seriously? Broadcast radio, be it terrestrial or satellite has it's place. There is a SEA of music out there. Plenty of it's good, plenty of it's crap, and what I like and what you like just aren't going to be the same. I've been a Sirius subscriber since Day 1. I was an XM subscriber for 6 months before Sirius. I now have both services (XM at home, Sirius in the car.) Why? Variety, variety, variety, an amazing amount of music content, in addition to some actually GOOD talk content to, which I switch to when I'm looking for a change. I've listened to C-SPAN in my car when breaking news events happen. Satellite radio has become a HUGE part of my life. I use my iPod for all the GREAT music I've been introduced to BECAUSE of Sirius & XM. I simply jot down the artist & song (thanks to the handy displays that show such information), then search for it on iTunes or yahoo when I get home. In fact, I even keep a notepad in my center console for that sole purpose. Your belief that services such as these are "old fashioned" are largely like saying watching the news isn't worthwhile versus reading some random blog for your primary source of information.
Email has never been secure. Everything sent or receive is unencrypted. The FBI has been reading our mail for years. If you're really that concerned about what they do with the data they could potentially mine from you, get PGP and use their free POP servers to send mail securely, incapable of being mined, since it was encrypted before it makes it to their servers.
What about the million other applications that just don't work with Vista yet? Vista might be ready, but the software industry at large is not, and it's not just Apple. Heck, even the Zune wasn't ready by the time Vista was released to Businesses. I don't see why everyone is making a big fuss about this.
Quicktime (the Windows version) hasn't seemed buggy or brittle to me in a very long time. Sure, it's 2.x days for Windows 95 were shit, but 6.X+ have been largely fine. I agree about not taking over every file extension -- it's one of the things I hate about Real player, too, which is FAR worse, IMHO. And, the "non-removable" tray icon you speak of has always been removable. They just used to put the process for it in the startup folder, which was easy to remove.
I'm quite certain it's a stripped down version of OS X. People port Linux for everything, and it's still called Linux be it just the kernel, or the whole KDE/GNOME desktop shebang. Yet, when most people think of Linux, they think of the whole desktop operation system -- not just the kernel core. So, the iPhone runs darwin, and a few other OS X technologies. Apple owns the trademark -- they're welcome to tell people it runs OS X if they want. Who cares if it's "the real deal." If you can't write software for it, what difference does it make anyway?
Furthermore, the music you *do* purchase from the iTunes music store is saved into your iTunes library, which ends up in some directory on the user profile\my documents\my music\iTunes Library\artist\album\song.m4b. I doubt many beyond savvy users would go through the effort to locate it so they could pull it out and throw it on their non-iPod hardware. And, those clever enough to go through that effort are the ones also clever enough to know they have the right to burn it to a CD and re-rip it for that purpose, or just use the illegal FairPlay hacking tools. They're making far too big a deal out of nothing.
Thanks for that -- If anything, maybe flaimbait, but certainly I'm not trolling. Was just stating, matter of factly, the two major Operating System vendors both support DRM. Sure, there are other commercial alternatives for Intel that haven't flagrantly obstructed users from wanting to do whatever they want with their hardware/software, namely Solaris, but none have the clout of Linux. Basically, if you don't like DRM, your options are:
#1 - Deal with it
#2 - Switch to Linux
#3 - Switch to something other than Linux if you're really brave.
You must not buy from Microsoft either... Windows Product Activation is DRM for the OS. And, in Vista, they make it more annoying that the product keys get checked every 30 days or every time the OS receives an update. MUCH more bullish than Apple. The only strong alternative is Linux...
So, having watched the Keynote, what I want to know is where are people getting some of their info. Specifically:
#1 - People are saying this is a closed platform. Steve said nothing of that. He said it was running OS X with core animation. I'm sure there will be support for xcode development. I'm also quite sure that this is running a light version of OS X, being just the OS core (darwin kernel + extensions and a new UI layer on top.) I'm not sure why Apple would make mention of the snazzy development features (software guts) at the product launch if he meant it to be impossible for 3rd party developers to add functionality. Apple may require a certification process, which would discourage open source development, but certainly there's got to be some programmability for commercial apps.
#2 - Unremovable battery. Certainly, it didn't look easily removable in the product images, or demonstration, but Pogue made no mention of not being able to remove the battery, nor did Steve mention that at all during the demo. If the device had, say, 15-20 hours of talk time, this would be an acceptable scenario, but laptop users and cell phone users have LONG had need for easy battery swapping. I'd be hard pressed to believe Apple would really make that big of a mistake with the device. Also, given it's GSM status, it would only make sense that the back cover is removable to place in a SIM card, as REQUIRED BY LAW in Europe. It would only make sense that the battery would have to be swappable.
Why are people so convinced these lacking features are really lacking features just because Apple hasn't been specific regarding them? Or have they, and I just missed something somewhere. Please point me in the right direction...
Indeed - minimo is pretty much a piece... Opera Mobile is much better. I was just using it as an example.
I agree, the OS is not likely that large. Given that it runs "OS X," it's likely just the MACH kernel with a port of core animation, and support for some of the OS X development tools. I can guarantee, it's like toasters running Linux. It's not likely to be running a full feature set, but more the core of the OS. It's like saying the X-Box runs Windows 2000. Kinda, but not really. Anyway, the original article I read said 4 and 6GB version, though Apple and others state 4 & 8GB versions, which makes more sense.
All carriers have issues, yes. But, considering you've not dealt with Crapular, let me say they are the single worst in customer service of any company in any sector of business I have ever dealt with. Ever. They have a decent network, but the compliments stop there. Before the AT&T merger, they were lower priced than Verizon. These days, they're equally expensive, offering only "rollover" to compensate for the $10-20 price hike in all of their service plans, which largely amount to being useless minutes anyway, for someone who isn't right at the edge of their minutes every month. With Verizon, they're VERY strict on how you can use your phone, and are notorious for disabling services and features on otherwise great phones (Bluetooth is practically useless on Verizon.) That aside, their data network is fast and reliable, reception is fantastic, and customer service can be reached in under 2 minutes, even on the busiest days. They've consistently been rated the best wireless carrier in the US by ConsumerReports.org. As for phone insurance, the situation in the US is a little more grim. Next day replacements are often not an option without paying a premium, deductibles are high and increasing each year. With the increasing monthly costs, it's often worthwhile to keep insurance, but only for the first 6 months of owning a phone for cheaper models, and 1 year for pricier models your more likely to hold on to for some time.
I doubt an Apple/Intel merger will ever happen. It's cut way too deeply into Microsoft's long standing partnership with Intel. And Intel/nVidia merger seems much more likely, considering the AMD/ATI merger, and Intel & nVidias recent efforts into markets which compete directly. (Intel is competing in integrated graphics and embedded devices, while nVidia is increasing it's embedded graphics and chipset markets. Both have similar unified driver models, and have given a commitment to drivers for open source operating systems.
Apparently, after having read several articles earlier, Apple had already been in negotiation with Cisco to get permission to use the name before the announcement. An offer had been written up, Apple had yet to agree, but time had run out -- Macworld happened, so they had to announce it, legal or not. Bottom line - if Cisco wants to play hardball now, Apple will, in fact, have to rename it. Likely, however, Cisco is suing them to ensure Apple agrees to what they'd already threw on the table. In light of (apple)TV, the most likely alternative would seem to be (apple)Phone. But, it sounds like Cisco really doesn't care much, but wants Apple to sign what they already proposed (whatever those terms were... articles were not clear.)
What's stopping Google writing a native app for any platform they please? This has nothing to do with the platform really. I find that all mobile JVM interfaces bite, I don't even bother with a mobile JVM these days. And this is coming from a J2EE developer...
Absolutely nothing. But, they haven't yet (for Windows Mobile or Palm OS.)... Google seems to be giving much love for the underdog. (Symbian OS, Mozilla, and now Apple).
Which OS has the main-memory restriction?
Windows Mobile, including 5.0. Certain apps, like Voice Command, Minimo, JVM, all need main memory to function properly. Others, that don't, are bad NOT to install to main memory because if you eject the card, the processes hang (SPB stuff, for instance.)
Besides, how long do you think it'll be before Apple bring out an hard-drive version? They already have lots of experience in this field. I reckon the 8gig will be surpassed pretty quickly, especially if Apple want to leverage their iPod market to see this device as an iPod upgrade which would be a smart thing to do if they want to steal the mobile market from their competitors.
Oh, I agree, completely. 3G and hard drive versions are bound to come out, in thicker, less sexy versions. I was a little odded out by the fact that they only offer 4 and 6GB versions, but then I figured the OS overhead is probably eating up about 2GB. I was also actually pretty surprised there wasn't a 30 or 60GB version at release... This is essentially, iPod nano meets iPod video meets Windows Mobile 2003 Second Edition+ screen rotate meets PDA functionality meets OS X touch pad functionality from Macbooks/Macbook Pros. It's excellent convergence, and I'm confident they'll get it right in no time. Besides, they still have 6 months before it comes out in which to make further revisions and rock your world even more when the device finally releases. But what's up with the Crapular Wireless exclusivity until 200..9? That's a pretty HUGE lockout period. Alas, as much as I want one, I **REFUSE** to go back to Crapular. Maybe I'll buy a contract-free phone and snag an unlock code on ebay (bound to happen) and switch to T-Mobile. Then again, maybe not. Meh. Verizon may be evil, but alas, they're still the best over all, IMHO.
So.. given any thought as to what processor they might be using? That's a pretty responsive UI they demod. MUCH nicer than Windows Mobile 5 on my piddly 416MHz XScale xv6700. Given the deal with Intel, xScale just makes sense. Who knows...?
In what way? Name one feature the iPhone has that these haven't had for several years.
#1 - A brilliant, seemless, easy to understand UI that just works.
#2 - Google local integration is a big bonus. (Can be added after the fact, but the Windows Mobile version requires use of a JVM, and the interface flatly BITES when compared to the Symbian OS version I had on my old Nokia 6620.)
#3 - PDA phones often require use of stylus, because of how sensitive certain icons/actions are to press. Less so on my Treo 700p, but every once in a while, it's a must. The iPhone is stylus free operation. Fingers only. (Meaning it'll also have grease streaks all over it, marring it's pretty look, but still -- a NICE improvement.)
#4 - Large Data support. At 6GB and 8GB, it's not expandable, but then it's seemless and bigger than what I could get with others, too. Max on SD cards is about 4GB now (2GB on MiniSD), sure, but the memory is seperate from the main device memory, and certain apps MUST be installed to the main memory, meaning that the tiny built in memory gets used up fast, with no room for further expansion. Palm is MUCH better about this, however.
Parent should be modded up. I'm a HUGE fan of the new iPhone. It's an AMAZING leap forward in terms of UI, form, function, and features on cell phones. I have a Verizon xv6700 (also known as the PPC-6700 under Sprint/Alltel), and Windows and Palm PDA phones just can't compare. That said, lacking a keypad is a MAJOR downfall... Unless, that is, it includes -- out of the box -- significant speech recognition technologies, similar to that of Microsoft's Voice Command. (Works out of the box, no programming required. Simply call by tapping a button and saying "call person x" or "dial 888-555-1212") Without that, much as I think people will LOVE their shiny new iPhones, they'll also be returning them after a few weeks. Apple had best port some decent speech recognition software, do it quickly, and provide it free...
Climate change is more accurate in layman's terms. However, the term Global Warming is more scientific, since the world's oceans are, overall, warming. This causes the climate change. Some areas will become hotter, others colder, others wetter, others dryer. Particularly vulnerable is the Atlantic ocean, where some evidence of warming is already showing oceanic changes in salinity. Ocean water in the tropics has become more saline, thanks to less fresh water flowing in. Water in the north Atlantic has become fresher, thanks to melting glaciers pumping even more fresh water in. This interrupts the North Atlantic Current, and results in cooler temps for Europe, which could see temps more similar to that of southern Canada. Also at risk is oceanic life, in which creatures must either migrate, adapt, or die to increasing temps and changes in salinity.
Vista car analogy: Ford Fusion. Why? Designed to show the future direction of Ford, with advances in styling and a catchy/trendy new name, the rest of the world largely looked at it and said "so what?" While fashionable and modern looking, most of us have been there, seen that with other operating systems of yesterday. (OS X, Linux/BSD+KDE3, etc.) While Ford/Microsoft tout new reliability, built on a more robust platform than outgoing models (XP/Taurus), the new product has seen major flaws even before broad consumer release. We might have to take it to the shop less, but the fact that we still have to take it to the shop for things that should be fixed already annoys us to no end. Despite attention to styling, components still feel plastic-y, cheap, and thrown together while the ergonomics are anything but seamless. Ultimately, Vista will be another "fleet vehicle" used by businesses for mass adoption, while the rest of us yawn and start looking for something else more interesting, only to feel largely disappointed.
For many companies (mine included), we'd happily run an alternative to Windows if we could just plain use the software that was required to get our jobs done. I work for a small engineering company, and fact of the matter is, many of the applications we use just aren't available on any other OS other than Windows. Pressure from Microsoft may compel an upgrade at some point, but fact of the matter is, we resisted XP SP2 even after it was EOL'd because they hadn't worked out an issue yet with some software we were using. Plain and simple, does anyone really actually care about what they use to open applications? An OS should be simple. You shouldn't have to think about it. In the end, the apps are what save the platform, and not the other way around. If linux were binary compatible to Windows, would we use it? I can't say for certain, but I'd guess we'd certainly be considering it strongly.
I also can't say for certain, but I suspect businesses are reluctant to try Linux because most execs fear change. Further adding to fear, the decision to move to Linux also involves the decision a LOT of decisions that high level execs aren't willing to research. Face it: until the Linux community starts unification and picking standards, it just doesn't make sense for businesses to use (at the desktop level.) Businesses don't want to figure out if they should use Redhat or Suse, nor do they want to figure out if they should support x.org or xfree86, nor KDE or GNOME. That which is Linux's greatest strength (diversity) is also it's greatest weakness. They want a common platform with a common interface such that people they hire will already be familiar with (no training required.) Aside from the recent stock option scandal with Jobs, I suspect many would jump faster to consider Apple than other alternatives -- but CIOs won't let that happen until Apple stops vendor lock in and licenses the OS. Apple should *not* stop making hardware, but they should give businesses alternative hardware vendors if they ever want to be taken seriously in the business market at large.
Bottom line: there aren't really a lot of options. There's old familiar (windows), with all of its problems, but runs a common interface that everyone (like it or hate it) is familiar with. It runs just about 90% of all available software in the entire software industry. There's Mac OS X, which has a standard interface that's pretty similar to windows (thanks largely to Microsoft flattery [imitation]), that roughly 3% of the world already knows, but comes with vendor lock in which scares businesses who like to be able to buy from alternative vendors should supply chain problems arise. There's Linux, which suffers from multiple personality disorder, which is hardly used in the desktop, and while some themes kind of look like windows, the guts of the OS are pretty unfamiliar and would require extensive training. On top of this, some applications require kernel mods, and recompilation to run, sending many running for the hills. Point being, until something changes, Windows is here to stay. Word to the wise: open up, choose standards, make support strong, include free training with purchase, make it available for commodity Intel compatible hardware, and make it ridiculously easy for developers to port code from windows such that they'd be stupid not to release support for your OS. Only then will we have real, viable Windows alternatives in the business market.
Vista Enterprise was released in November 2006, and therefor qualifies. Home Basic, Home Pro, Business, & Ultimate will be released on January 30th, 2007, so technically, Microsoft has two years in which Vista can be the best "new" operating system of the year.
Unfortunately, the reality is, Vista Enterprise will largely be useless for corporate customers outside of testing in 2006. Way too much enterprise software gets broken on the new platform. And then there's the deployment, which can't be done using Ghost 9 or less, meaning that companies need to invest new software to make it deployable in a seemless fashion. And then there's the pain of the new Key License servers. And then, there's the hardware requirements to meet. And then.. well.. you get the idea.
Ultimately, for all it's merits, even after running the betas for months, I'm not convinced the upgrade is worthwhile. I'm sure my company will eventually move to the new version, some time in 2008 or 2009, when XP has been EOL'd. Personally, I'll be holding out for as long as I can while evaluating other operating systems for home. Microsoft stepped over some threshold of annoyance with the new OS's stranglehold "security" and activation features that make it just annoying enough for me to jump ship.
The blurb reads "muslim-sounding" names - showing how ignorant we Americans are. Since we're the population minority in the world, almost everyone has a "foreign-sounding" name.
Forgive me for saying so, but I believe most Americans can tell the difference between a German sounding name, a French sounding name, a Russian sounding name, an Arabic sounding name, a Jewish sounding name, an African sounding name, a Japanese, a Chinese, so on, and so forth. Since pretty much 90% of the Arabic world is Muslim, I think it's pretty much safe to say that "Muslim-sounding" names is without bias.
Face it -- whether the game authors meant to have a sense of humor or not, they are perpetuating hate through fear mongering. You might not be, but I believe people like this are basically Christian Taliban. Not all Christians are evil. Not all Muslims are evil. In fact, most of both religions are not. However, there are definitely wackos in all faiths (including atheists who have no faith.) Tolerance, acceptance, understanding, and appreciation are paramount for a safer and better world.
But seriously... In light of the Unix-based core, and ease of portability of wine (see the darwine project), and the ability to run Microsoft Office for years now, why not just buy the Windows version of Microsoft Office and run it under OS X using Darwine? Sure, it's not ideal, but if Apple increased contribution to the project and put it's support behind running Microsoft Office 2007 on OS X, I think that should be about all the comfort businesses and enterprises need to insure they could move forward with OS X. You'd be guaranteed 100% compatibility with the Windows version, Access would be there, and life would be happy again. Oh, and added benefit - it's already Intel native, so performance should be pretty darned good (even better than office 2004), as wine, as we all know, is not an emulator.;-)
Don't forget new RAM with the motherboard, as RAM seems to change practically every three months. And, probably a new, more powerful power supply to support that new graphics card. Oh, and you might want a new hard drive to support the new SATA connection. Yeah - I hear ya. I'm in the same boat.
Seriously, though... Vista runs fine on just about any system capable of running XP that happens to have 1GB of RAM or better (the minimum processor is only 800MHz, and there's no minimum graphics card requirements for the basic interface look.) So, if you happen to have that, Vista is probably fine on your system for now. You just won't get the nifty Aero Glass experience, which (while pretty snazzy) isn't really necessary for the improved usability from using Vista. The main thing is to double check and make sure your existing system is supported from a driver standpoint, and verify with the software vendors with any critical "must have" apps that it's supported under the new OS (from my experience, about 5% of the apps I tried just didn't work). Personally, I'm disappointed with Microsoft slapping their "Vista Capable" logo on everything. Just about everything bought in last 3 years is "Vista Capable". But, most consumers are concerned that they don't have the hardware for the true experience, which a "Vista Capable" logo can't gaurantee. What they should have is a "Vista Recommended" logo that would guarantee the full user interface experience...
Slashdot Mirror
In practice, if they allow users to pick their own distro, they MUST also make the decision that Linux is officially not supported, else they be bombarded with hating users. I still think a custom Dell-distro is the way to go, if it's to succeed, though I think the project is doomed from the start.
HDTV Tuners seem to be a pretty loaded topic. Thanks to the move digital, what once was possible now seems impossible (or at least pretty difficult.) (Thank you MPAA/RIAA, and all you paranoid TV production people that think we're evil consumers -- the same ones who pad your back pocket...) There are a plethora of very crappy OTA TV tuner cards for your PC out there. Pinnacle makes one, ATI made one, and there a number of other start ups out there, too, even with Linux support. The "cable card" seemed like a good concept, but never really took off, and is now pretty much DOA. Your best bet is to check with your local cable company FIRST, then (if they support it), get a card that supports unencrypted QAM (for north america) or DVB-T (for Europe), such as the DViCO FusionHDTV (say that 5 times fast... or even once!) I, personally, went another route, which seems to have a bit more flexibility for my needs. It's not perfect (for instance, I can't watch from more than one PC at a time, there's a lag time in changing channels, etc.), but it's a good solution. Check out the Sling Media SlingBox Pro, which will allow you to connect your HDTV signal from your cable provider and broadcast it over the web. The speed is pretty good on a LAN, okay on the web, and even watchable from a Windows Mobile PDA (Palm version in the works.) Best of all, you can use your familiar DVR, delete shows as you watch them, and your living room is already up to date. The only thing I would like better is a digital way to record my shows over the web, so I can archive them on my PC for later. Unfortunately, the current Slingbox does not allow this (though I hear the original did...)
If they do it "the right way," I certainly support them in their endeavor. Alas, I fear it'll end up a failed attempt and half-assed effort.
And how do you think you got introduced to most of the music you listen to in your iPod? I mean, seriously? Broadcast radio, be it terrestrial or satellite has it's place. There is a SEA of music out there. Plenty of it's good, plenty of it's crap, and what I like and what you like just aren't going to be the same. I've been a Sirius subscriber since Day 1. I was an XM subscriber for 6 months before Sirius. I now have both services (XM at home, Sirius in the car.) Why? Variety, variety, variety, an amazing amount of music content, in addition to some actually GOOD talk content to, which I switch to when I'm looking for a change. I've listened to C-SPAN in my car when breaking news events happen. Satellite radio has become a HUGE part of my life. I use my iPod for all the GREAT music I've been introduced to BECAUSE of Sirius & XM. I simply jot down the artist & song (thanks to the handy displays that show such information), then search for it on iTunes or yahoo when I get home. In fact, I even keep a notepad in my center console for that sole purpose. Your belief that services such as these are "old fashioned" are largely like saying watching the news isn't worthwhile versus reading some random blog for your primary source of information.
Email has never been secure. Everything sent or receive is unencrypted. The FBI has been reading our mail for years. If you're really that concerned about what they do with the data they could potentially mine from you, get PGP and use their free POP servers to send mail securely, incapable of being mined, since it was encrypted before it makes it to their servers.
What about the million other applications that just don't work with Vista yet? Vista might be ready, but the software industry at large is not, and it's not just Apple. Heck, even the Zune wasn't ready by the time Vista was released to Businesses. I don't see why everyone is making a big fuss about this.
Quicktime (the Windows version) hasn't seemed buggy or brittle to me in a very long time. Sure, it's 2.x days for Windows 95 were shit, but 6.X+ have been largely fine. I agree about not taking over every file extension -- it's one of the things I hate about Real player, too, which is FAR worse, IMHO. And, the "non-removable" tray icon you speak of has always been removable. They just used to put the process for it in the startup folder, which was easy to remove.
I'm quite certain it's a stripped down version of OS X. People port Linux for everything, and it's still called Linux be it just the kernel, or the whole KDE/GNOME desktop shebang. Yet, when most people think of Linux, they think of the whole desktop operation system -- not just the kernel core. So, the iPhone runs darwin, and a few other OS X technologies. Apple owns the trademark -- they're welcome to tell people it runs OS X if they want. Who cares if it's "the real deal." If you can't write software for it, what difference does it make anyway?
Who knew? That's convenient/easy. ;-) Thanks for the tip.
Furthermore, the music you *do* purchase from the iTunes music store is saved into your iTunes library, which ends up in some directory on the user profile\my documents\my music\iTunes Library\artist\album\song.m4b. I doubt many beyond savvy users would go through the effort to locate it so they could pull it out and throw it on their non-iPod hardware. And, those clever enough to go through that effort are the ones also clever enough to know they have the right to burn it to a CD and re-rip it for that purpose, or just use the illegal FairPlay hacking tools. They're making far too big a deal out of nothing.
Thanks for that -- If anything, maybe flaimbait, but certainly I'm not trolling. Was just stating, matter of factly, the two major Operating System vendors both support DRM. Sure, there are other commercial alternatives for Intel that haven't flagrantly obstructed users from wanting to do whatever they want with their hardware/software, namely Solaris, but none have the clout of Linux. Basically, if you don't like DRM, your options are:
#1 - Deal with it
#2 - Switch to Linux
#3 - Switch to something other than Linux if you're really brave.
You must not buy from Microsoft either... Windows Product Activation is DRM for the OS. And, in Vista, they make it more annoying that the product keys get checked every 30 days or every time the OS receives an update. MUCH more bullish than Apple. The only strong alternative is Linux...
So, having watched the Keynote, what I want to know is where are people getting some of their info. Specifically:
#1 - People are saying this is a closed platform. Steve said nothing of that. He said it was running OS X with core animation. I'm sure there will be support for xcode development. I'm also quite sure that this is running a light version of OS X, being just the OS core (darwin kernel + extensions and a new UI layer on top.) I'm not sure why Apple would make mention of the snazzy development features (software guts) at the product launch if he meant it to be impossible for 3rd party developers to add functionality. Apple may require a certification process, which would discourage open source development, but certainly there's got to be some programmability for commercial apps. #2 - Unremovable battery. Certainly, it didn't look easily removable in the product images, or demonstration, but Pogue made no mention of not being able to remove the battery, nor did Steve mention that at all during the demo. If the device had, say, 15-20 hours of talk time, this would be an acceptable scenario, but laptop users and cell phone users have LONG had need for easy battery swapping. I'd be hard pressed to believe Apple would really make that big of a mistake with the device. Also, given it's GSM status, it would only make sense that the back cover is removable to place in a SIM card, as REQUIRED BY LAW in Europe. It would only make sense that the battery would have to be swappable.
Why are people so convinced these lacking features are really lacking features just because Apple hasn't been specific regarding them? Or have they, and I just missed something somewhere. Please point me in the right direction...
Indeed - minimo is pretty much a piece... Opera Mobile is much better. I was just using it as an example.
I agree, the OS is not likely that large. Given that it runs "OS X," it's likely just the MACH kernel with a port of core animation, and support for some of the OS X development tools. I can guarantee, it's like toasters running Linux. It's not likely to be running a full feature set, but more the core of the OS. It's like saying the X-Box runs Windows 2000. Kinda, but not really. Anyway, the original article I read said 4 and 6GB version, though Apple and others state 4 & 8GB versions, which makes more sense.
All carriers have issues, yes. But, considering you've not dealt with Crapular, let me say they are the single worst in customer service of any company in any sector of business I have ever dealt with. Ever. They have a decent network, but the compliments stop there. Before the AT&T merger, they were lower priced than Verizon. These days, they're equally expensive, offering only "rollover" to compensate for the $10-20 price hike in all of their service plans, which largely amount to being useless minutes anyway, for someone who isn't right at the edge of their minutes every month. With Verizon, they're VERY strict on how you can use your phone, and are notorious for disabling services and features on otherwise great phones (Bluetooth is practically useless on Verizon.) That aside, their data network is fast and reliable, reception is fantastic, and customer service can be reached in under 2 minutes, even on the busiest days. They've consistently been rated the best wireless carrier in the US by ConsumerReports.org. As for phone insurance, the situation in the US is a little more grim. Next day replacements are often not an option without paying a premium, deductibles are high and increasing each year. With the increasing monthly costs, it's often worthwhile to keep insurance, but only for the first 6 months of owning a phone for cheaper models, and 1 year for pricier models your more likely to hold on to for some time.
I doubt an Apple/Intel merger will ever happen. It's cut way too deeply into Microsoft's long standing partnership with Intel. And Intel/nVidia merger seems much more likely, considering the AMD/ATI merger, and Intel & nVidias recent efforts into markets which compete directly. (Intel is competing in integrated graphics and embedded devices, while nVidia is increasing it's embedded graphics and chipset markets. Both have similar unified driver models, and have given a commitment to drivers for open source operating systems.
Apparently, after having read several articles earlier, Apple had already been in negotiation with Cisco to get permission to use the name before the announcement. An offer had been written up, Apple had yet to agree, but time had run out -- Macworld happened, so they had to announce it, legal or not. Bottom line - if Cisco wants to play hardball now, Apple will, in fact, have to rename it. Likely, however, Cisco is suing them to ensure Apple agrees to what they'd already threw on the table. In light of (apple)TV, the most likely alternative would seem to be (apple)Phone. But, it sounds like Cisco really doesn't care much, but wants Apple to sign what they already proposed (whatever those terms were... articles were not clear.)
What's stopping Google writing a native app for any platform they please? This has nothing to do with the platform really. I find that all mobile JVM interfaces bite, I don't even bother with a mobile JVM these days. And this is coming from a J2EE developer...
Absolutely nothing. But, they haven't yet (for Windows Mobile or Palm OS.)... Google seems to be giving much love for the underdog. (Symbian OS, Mozilla, and now Apple).
Which OS has the main-memory restriction?
Windows Mobile, including 5.0. Certain apps, like Voice Command, Minimo, JVM, all need main memory to function properly. Others, that don't, are bad NOT to install to main memory because if you eject the card, the processes hang (SPB stuff, for instance.)
Besides, how long do you think it'll be before Apple bring out an hard-drive version? They already have lots of experience in this field. I reckon the 8gig will be surpassed pretty quickly, especially if Apple want to leverage their iPod market to see this device as an iPod upgrade which would be a smart thing to do if they want to steal the mobile market from their competitors.
Oh, I agree, completely. 3G and hard drive versions are bound to come out, in thicker, less sexy versions. I was a little odded out by the fact that they only offer 4 and 6GB versions, but then I figured the OS overhead is probably eating up about 2GB. I was also actually pretty surprised there wasn't a 30 or 60GB version at release... This is essentially, iPod nano meets iPod video meets Windows Mobile 2003 Second Edition+ screen rotate meets PDA functionality meets OS X touch pad functionality from Macbooks/Macbook Pros. It's excellent convergence, and I'm confident they'll get it right in no time. Besides, they still have 6 months before it comes out in which to make further revisions and rock your world even more when the device finally releases. But what's up with the Crapular Wireless exclusivity until 200..9? That's a pretty HUGE lockout period. Alas, as much as I want one, I **REFUSE** to go back to Crapular. Maybe I'll buy a contract-free phone and snag an unlock code on ebay (bound to happen) and switch to T-Mobile. Then again, maybe not. Meh. Verizon may be evil, but alas, they're still the best over all, IMHO.
So.. given any thought as to what processor they might be using? That's a pretty responsive UI they demod. MUCH nicer than Windows Mobile 5 on my piddly 416MHz XScale xv6700. Given the deal with Intel, xScale just makes sense. Who knows...?
In what way? Name one feature the iPhone has that these haven't had for several years.
#1 - A brilliant, seemless, easy to understand UI that just works.
#2 - Google local integration is a big bonus. (Can be added after the fact, but the Windows Mobile version requires use of a JVM, and the interface flatly BITES when compared to the Symbian OS version I had on my old Nokia 6620.)
#3 - PDA phones often require use of stylus, because of how sensitive certain icons/actions are to press. Less so on my Treo 700p, but every once in a while, it's a must. The iPhone is stylus free operation. Fingers only. (Meaning it'll also have grease streaks all over it, marring it's pretty look, but still -- a NICE improvement.)
#4 - Large Data support. At 6GB and 8GB, it's not expandable, but then it's seemless and bigger than what I could get with others, too. Max on SD cards is about 4GB now (2GB on MiniSD), sure, but the memory is seperate from the main device memory, and certain apps MUST be installed to the main memory, meaning that the tiny built in memory gets used up fast, with no room for further expansion. Palm is MUCH better about this, however.
Parent should be modded up. I'm a HUGE fan of the new iPhone. It's an AMAZING leap forward in terms of UI, form, function, and features on cell phones. I have a Verizon xv6700 (also known as the PPC-6700 under Sprint/Alltel), and Windows and Palm PDA phones just can't compare. That said, lacking a keypad is a MAJOR downfall... Unless, that is, it includes -- out of the box -- significant speech recognition technologies, similar to that of Microsoft's Voice Command. (Works out of the box, no programming required. Simply call by tapping a button and saying "call person x" or "dial 888-555-1212") Without that, much as I think people will LOVE their shiny new iPhones, they'll also be returning them after a few weeks. Apple had best port some decent speech recognition software, do it quickly, and provide it free...
Climate change is more accurate in layman's terms. However, the term Global Warming is more scientific, since the world's oceans are, overall, warming. This causes the climate change. Some areas will become hotter, others colder, others wetter, others dryer. Particularly vulnerable is the Atlantic ocean, where some evidence of warming is already showing oceanic changes in salinity. Ocean water in the tropics has become more saline, thanks to less fresh water flowing in. Water in the north Atlantic has become fresher, thanks to melting glaciers pumping even more fresh water in. This interrupts the North Atlantic Current, and results in cooler temps for Europe, which could see temps more similar to that of southern Canada. Also at risk is oceanic life, in which creatures must either migrate, adapt, or die to increasing temps and changes in salinity.
Vista car analogy: Ford Fusion. Why? Designed to show the future direction of Ford, with advances in styling and a catchy/trendy new name, the rest of the world largely looked at it and said "so what?" While fashionable and modern looking, most of us have been there, seen that with other operating systems of yesterday. (OS X, Linux/BSD+KDE3, etc.) While Ford/Microsoft tout new reliability, built on a more robust platform than outgoing models (XP/Taurus), the new product has seen major flaws even before broad consumer release. We might have to take it to the shop less, but the fact that we still have to take it to the shop for things that should be fixed already annoys us to no end. Despite attention to styling, components still feel plastic-y, cheap, and thrown together while the ergonomics are anything but seamless. Ultimately, Vista will be another "fleet vehicle" used by businesses for mass adoption, while the rest of us yawn and start looking for something else more interesting, only to feel largely disappointed.
For many companies (mine included), we'd happily run an alternative to Windows if we could just plain use the software that was required to get our jobs done. I work for a small engineering company, and fact of the matter is, many of the applications we use just aren't available on any other OS other than Windows. Pressure from Microsoft may compel an upgrade at some point, but fact of the matter is, we resisted XP SP2 even after it was EOL'd because they hadn't worked out an issue yet with some software we were using. Plain and simple, does anyone really actually care about what they use to open applications? An OS should be simple. You shouldn't have to think about it. In the end, the apps are what save the platform, and not the other way around. If linux were binary compatible to Windows, would we use it? I can't say for certain, but I'd guess we'd certainly be considering it strongly.
I also can't say for certain, but I suspect businesses are reluctant to try Linux because most execs fear change. Further adding to fear, the decision to move to Linux also involves the decision a LOT of decisions that high level execs aren't willing to research. Face it: until the Linux community starts unification and picking standards, it just doesn't make sense for businesses to use (at the desktop level.) Businesses don't want to figure out if they should use Redhat or Suse, nor do they want to figure out if they should support x.org or xfree86, nor KDE or GNOME. That which is Linux's greatest strength (diversity) is also it's greatest weakness. They want a common platform with a common interface such that people they hire will already be familiar with (no training required.) Aside from the recent stock option scandal with Jobs, I suspect many would jump faster to consider Apple than other alternatives -- but CIOs won't let that happen until Apple stops vendor lock in and licenses the OS. Apple should *not* stop making hardware, but they should give businesses alternative hardware vendors if they ever want to be taken seriously in the business market at large.
Bottom line: there aren't really a lot of options. There's old familiar (windows), with all of its problems, but runs a common interface that everyone (like it or hate it) is familiar with. It runs just about 90% of all available software in the entire software industry. There's Mac OS X, which has a standard interface that's pretty similar to windows (thanks largely to Microsoft flattery [imitation]), that roughly 3% of the world already knows, but comes with vendor lock in which scares businesses who like to be able to buy from alternative vendors should supply chain problems arise. There's Linux, which suffers from multiple personality disorder, which is hardly used in the desktop, and while some themes kind of look like windows, the guts of the OS are pretty unfamiliar and would require extensive training. On top of this, some applications require kernel mods, and recompilation to run, sending many running for the hills. Point being, until something changes, Windows is here to stay. Word to the wise: open up, choose standards, make support strong, include free training with purchase, make it available for commodity Intel compatible hardware, and make it ridiculously easy for developers to port code from windows such that they'd be stupid not to release support for your OS. Only then will we have real, viable Windows alternatives in the business market.
Unfortunately, the reality is, Vista Enterprise will largely be useless for corporate customers outside of testing in 2006. Way too much enterprise software gets broken on the new platform. And then there's the deployment, which can't be done using Ghost 9 or less, meaning that companies need to invest new software to make it deployable in a seemless fashion. And then there's the pain of the new Key License servers. And then, there's the hardware requirements to meet. And then.. well.. you get the idea.
Ultimately, for all it's merits, even after running the betas for months, I'm not convinced the upgrade is worthwhile. I'm sure my company will eventually move to the new version, some time in 2008 or 2009, when XP has been EOL'd. Personally, I'll be holding out for as long as I can while evaluating other operating systems for home. Microsoft stepped over some threshold of annoyance with the new OS's stranglehold "security" and activation features that make it just annoying enough for me to jump ship.
Forgive me for saying so, but I believe most Americans can tell the difference between a German sounding name, a French sounding name, a Russian sounding name, an Arabic sounding name, a Jewish sounding name, an African sounding name, a Japanese, a Chinese, so on, and so forth. Since pretty much 90% of the Arabic world is Muslim, I think it's pretty much safe to say that "Muslim-sounding" names is without bias.
Face it -- whether the game authors meant to have a sense of humor or not, they are perpetuating hate through fear mongering. You might not be, but I believe people like this are basically Christian Taliban. Not all Christians are evil. Not all Muslims are evil. In fact, most of both religions are not. However, there are definitely wackos in all faiths (including atheists who have no faith.) Tolerance, acceptance, understanding, and appreciation are paramount for a safer and better world.
I think you mean football. You know? That game where they kick a black and white ball down the field wearing shiny shorts?
But seriously... In light of the Unix-based core, and ease of portability of wine (see the darwine project), and the ability to run Microsoft Office for years now, why not just buy the Windows version of Microsoft Office and run it under OS X using Darwine? Sure, it's not ideal, but if Apple increased contribution to the project and put it's support behind running Microsoft Office 2007 on OS X, I think that should be about all the comfort businesses and enterprises need to insure they could move forward with OS X. You'd be guaranteed 100% compatibility with the Windows version, Access would be there, and life would be happy again. Oh, and added benefit - it's already Intel native, so performance should be pretty darned good (even better than office 2004), as wine, as we all know, is not an emulator. ;-)
Don't forget new RAM with the motherboard, as RAM seems to change practically every three months. And, probably a new, more powerful power supply to support that new graphics card. Oh, and you might want a new hard drive to support the new SATA connection. Yeah - I hear ya. I'm in the same boat.
Seriously, though... Vista runs fine on just about any system capable of running XP that happens to have 1GB of RAM or better (the minimum processor is only 800MHz, and there's no minimum graphics card requirements for the basic interface look.) So, if you happen to have that, Vista is probably fine on your system for now. You just won't get the nifty Aero Glass experience, which (while pretty snazzy) isn't really necessary for the improved usability from using Vista. The main thing is to double check and make sure your existing system is supported from a driver standpoint, and verify with the software vendors with any critical "must have" apps that it's supported under the new OS (from my experience, about 5% of the apps I tried just didn't work). Personally, I'm disappointed with Microsoft slapping their "Vista Capable" logo on everything. Just about everything bought in last 3 years is "Vista Capable". But, most consumers are concerned that they don't have the hardware for the true experience, which a "Vista Capable" logo can't gaurantee. What they should have is a "Vista Recommended" logo that would guarantee the full user interface experience...