MacinDoc
Aug 26, 12:45 AM
Yep. My serial falls into the range and the website still won't accept it. I guess I will have to sit on hold Monday morning.
According to some people who have spoken with Apple customer service reps, some batteries within the listed ranges were not manufactured by Sony, which is why they don't qualify for replacement. Apparently, there is no easy way for the consumer to identify whether his/her battery is a Sony or not.
I suspect that because of all of the confusion, Apple will end up replacing all of the batteries in the listed ranges, whether they are Sony-manufactured or not, to avoid the wrath of customers who believe they are being ripped off if their batteries don't qualify. In the past, Apple has gone beyond what was required to correct situations that just looked bad.
Maybe this whole thing would have been easier if the serial numbers on the batteries somehow indicated their manufacturer (of course, that's just hindsight, but I hope Apple remembers this in the future).
According to some people who have spoken with Apple customer service reps, some batteries within the listed ranges were not manufactured by Sony, which is why they don't qualify for replacement. Apparently, there is no easy way for the consumer to identify whether his/her battery is a Sony or not.
I suspect that because of all of the confusion, Apple will end up replacing all of the batteries in the listed ranges, whether they are Sony-manufactured or not, to avoid the wrath of customers who believe they are being ripped off if their batteries don't qualify. In the past, Apple has gone beyond what was required to correct situations that just looked bad.
Maybe this whole thing would have been easier if the serial numbers on the batteries somehow indicated their manufacturer (of course, that's just hindsight, but I hope Apple remembers this in the future).
mumbo
Aug 26, 12:49 PM
I called this week to have the mighty mouse that came with my DC 2.3 G5 replaced. The guy was helpful and my new mouse came the next day, from California to Canada. I'm pretty impressed!
robbyx
Apr 25, 03:56 PM
Sometimes I really hate my country.
topmounter
Apr 6, 10:37 AM
"integrated graphics"... "good enough" LOL... I think I'll keep my current-gen 13" MBA. I didn't buy the world's most expensive netbook for "good enough".
ATD
Sep 13, 03:20 PM
A lot of 3d programs will use as many cores as are available when rendering.
And I would say that the next versions of many programs will be better suited for multiple core processors.* They are way too common for software developers to ignore them any longer.
Yep. Not all of the software I use taps all the cores but the 3D renders I do shallow every inch of the CPUs. I have Maya with Mental Ray hooked to 2 computers, a quad and a dual. When I hit render the CPU usage hits 100% on all 6 processors. While having all these processors working is great I have noticed that my quad has lots of pauses in the finder doing simple things, even if nothing is running. Everyone else I know that has a quad has the same issue. I have to believe that there is a trade off for having all these processors, it seems they trip over each other on the small stuff. I hope the next version of OSX will take a look at this, in light of the fact we will be jumping to 8 or more processors.
And I would say that the next versions of many programs will be better suited for multiple core processors.* They are way too common for software developers to ignore them any longer.
Yep. Not all of the software I use taps all the cores but the 3D renders I do shallow every inch of the CPUs. I have Maya with Mental Ray hooked to 2 computers, a quad and a dual. When I hit render the CPU usage hits 100% on all 6 processors. While having all these processors working is great I have noticed that my quad has lots of pauses in the finder doing simple things, even if nothing is running. Everyone else I know that has a quad has the same issue. I have to believe that there is a trade off for having all these processors, it seems they trip over each other on the small stuff. I hope the next version of OSX will take a look at this, in light of the fact we will be jumping to 8 or more processors.
boncellis
Jul 27, 04:54 PM
Dan=='s mockup is something that I had considered before, I remember talking about it with Yvan 256 at some point as something like "the return of the Cube." I think it's a pretty good design, the guts of the Mini are so packed as it is, an expanded case would allow for a substantial upgrade in components, including the oft clamored for dedicated GPU.
Another way Apple could do it is just to elongate the Mini's case to make it just as svelte vertically, only slightly wider. Could you take a run at that one Dan==? ;)
Another way Apple could do it is just to elongate the Mini's case to make it just as svelte vertically, only slightly wider. Could you take a run at that one Dan==? ;)
ergle2
Sep 15, 12:50 PM
More pedantic details for those who are interested... :)
NT actually started as OS/2 3.0. Its lead architect was OS guru Dave Cutler, who is famous for architecting VMS for DEC, and naturally its design influenced NT. And the N-10 (Where "NT" comes from, "N" "T"en) Intel RISC processor was never intended to be a mainstream product; Dave Cutler insisted on the development team NOT using an X86 processor to make sure they would have no excuse to fall back on legacy code or thought. In fact, the N-10 build that was the default work environment for the team was never intended to leave the Microsoft campus. NT over its life has run on X86, DEC Alpha, MIPS, PowerPC, Itanium, and x64.
IBM and Microsoft worked together on OS/2 1.0 from 1985-1989. Much maligned, it did suck because it was targeted for the 286 not the 386, but it did break new ground -- preemptive multitasking and an advanced GUI (Presentation Manager). By 1989 they wanted to move on to something that would take advantage of the 386's 32-bit architecture, flat memory model, and virtual machine support. Simultaneously they started OS/2 2.0 (extend the current 16-bit code to a 16-32-bit hybrid) and OS/2 3.0 (a ground up, platform independent version). When Windows 3.0 took off in 1990, Microsoft had second thoughts and eventually broke with IBM. OS/2 3.0 became Windows NT -- in the first days of the split, NT still had OS/2 Presentation Manager APIs for it's GUI. They ripped it out and created Win32 APIs. That's also why to this day NT/2K/XP supported OS/2 command line applications, and there was also a little known GUI pack that would support OS/2 1.x GUI applications.
All very true, but beyond that -- if you've ever looked closely VMS and at NT, you'll notice, it's a lot more than just "influenced". The core design was pretty much identical -- the way I/O worked, its interrupt handling, the scheduler, and so on -- they're all practically carbon copies. Some of the names changed, but how things work under the hood hadn't. Since then it's evolved, of course, but you'd expect that.
Quite amusing, really... how a heavyweight enterprise-class OS of the 80's became the desktop of the 00's :)
Those that were around in the dim and distant will recall that VMS and Unix were two of the main competitors in many marketplaces in the 80's and early 90's... and today we have OS X, Linux, FreeBSD, Solaris, etc. vs XP, W2K3 Server and (soon) Vista -- kind of ironic, dontcha think? :)
Of course, there's a lot still running VMS to this very day. I don't think HP wants them to tho' -- they just sent all the support to India, apparently, to a team with relatively little experience...
NT actually started as OS/2 3.0. Its lead architect was OS guru Dave Cutler, who is famous for architecting VMS for DEC, and naturally its design influenced NT. And the N-10 (Where "NT" comes from, "N" "T"en) Intel RISC processor was never intended to be a mainstream product; Dave Cutler insisted on the development team NOT using an X86 processor to make sure they would have no excuse to fall back on legacy code or thought. In fact, the N-10 build that was the default work environment for the team was never intended to leave the Microsoft campus. NT over its life has run on X86, DEC Alpha, MIPS, PowerPC, Itanium, and x64.
IBM and Microsoft worked together on OS/2 1.0 from 1985-1989. Much maligned, it did suck because it was targeted for the 286 not the 386, but it did break new ground -- preemptive multitasking and an advanced GUI (Presentation Manager). By 1989 they wanted to move on to something that would take advantage of the 386's 32-bit architecture, flat memory model, and virtual machine support. Simultaneously they started OS/2 2.0 (extend the current 16-bit code to a 16-32-bit hybrid) and OS/2 3.0 (a ground up, platform independent version). When Windows 3.0 took off in 1990, Microsoft had second thoughts and eventually broke with IBM. OS/2 3.0 became Windows NT -- in the first days of the split, NT still had OS/2 Presentation Manager APIs for it's GUI. They ripped it out and created Win32 APIs. That's also why to this day NT/2K/XP supported OS/2 command line applications, and there was also a little known GUI pack that would support OS/2 1.x GUI applications.
All very true, but beyond that -- if you've ever looked closely VMS and at NT, you'll notice, it's a lot more than just "influenced". The core design was pretty much identical -- the way I/O worked, its interrupt handling, the scheduler, and so on -- they're all practically carbon copies. Some of the names changed, but how things work under the hood hadn't. Since then it's evolved, of course, but you'd expect that.
Quite amusing, really... how a heavyweight enterprise-class OS of the 80's became the desktop of the 00's :)
Those that were around in the dim and distant will recall that VMS and Unix were two of the main competitors in many marketplaces in the 80's and early 90's... and today we have OS X, Linux, FreeBSD, Solaris, etc. vs XP, W2K3 Server and (soon) Vista -- kind of ironic, dontcha think? :)
Of course, there's a lot still running VMS to this very day. I don't think HP wants them to tho' -- they just sent all the support to India, apparently, to a team with relatively little experience...
fblack
Nov 28, 07:29 PM
it's ridiculous for Universal to even be thinking this. NONE of the money would get to artists or anything like that. it would just go to the company.
also. i dont pirate music.
alot of itunes people don't. we are the people actually paying for it. so screw that.
Actually I read that Universal is planning in giving some royalties to artists from their zune deal (I believe it might have been businessweek). This of course would be a ploy to get some major acts, U2 maybe, on the side of the recording industry to pressure Apple to give up a piece of ipod sales.
Greed is too small a word for all of this. Evil comes closer and this has Microsofts' stink all over it. They gave IE away free in order to destroy Netscape, they operated xbox at a loss in order to gain market share, and now they will give up profits for market share and try to lure labels away from apple (or at least hurt apple's bottom line). What happens when all labels even indies want a piece of ipod sales? This is M$ making everyone greedy and that's evil.:mad:
also. i dont pirate music.
alot of itunes people don't. we are the people actually paying for it. so screw that.
Actually I read that Universal is planning in giving some royalties to artists from their zune deal (I believe it might have been businessweek). This of course would be a ploy to get some major acts, U2 maybe, on the side of the recording industry to pressure Apple to give up a piece of ipod sales.
Greed is too small a word for all of this. Evil comes closer and this has Microsofts' stink all over it. They gave IE away free in order to destroy Netscape, they operated xbox at a loss in order to gain market share, and now they will give up profits for market share and try to lure labels away from apple (or at least hurt apple's bottom line). What happens when all labels even indies want a piece of ipod sales? This is M$ making everyone greedy and that's evil.:mad:
Lone Deranger
Mar 26, 08:26 AM
...at least Microsoft, and I hate it, does a complete overhaul of everything; sometimes it fails, and sometimes it succeeds)
Not quite, W7 is still based on Win NT technology, dating back to 1993.
Not quite, W7 is still based on Win NT technology, dating back to 1993.
JAT
Apr 27, 11:27 AM
It clearly is an issue if they have a federal lawsuit on it. The fact that Apple are rolling out an update that changes the way it works alone shows that there is clearly a problem. Apple vary rarely roll out updates that change things, even if consumers are screaming for it (mouse acceleration in OS X for example).
You refuse to accept there is a problem. You refuse to see the breech of privacy. Why? The government and Apple have clearly accepted it.
You should probably learn what "lawsuit", "federal", and "government" actually mean before saying such things.
You refuse to accept there is a problem. You refuse to see the breech of privacy. Why? The government and Apple have clearly accepted it.
You should probably learn what "lawsuit", "federal", and "government" actually mean before saying such things.
jhedges3
Aug 11, 02:40 PM
OK. let us just cut to the chase. The keyword here is hand-over. CDMA2000 doesnt support it from GSM. GSM has 81%. Hence cdma is and will always be a small local network that can be used in small pockets on this planet. Furthermore, I seriously doubt ITU/FOMA will change anything in the standard to allow any compability for CDMA2000 since it is not in their interest.
The faster cdam/CDMA2000 moves to oblivion the better.
We would all benefit from one standard, cheaper phones, worldwide access, lower minute rates (from higher competition) Just look at how Vz bills you.
Having multiple standard on cellphones is just as clever as having two incompatible internet.
I couldn't care less about whether my phone works well in the EU. What is your data on the percentage of consumers that travel the world to such an extent that they purchase their phones with inter-country usability as their primary consideration?
What maters to me more, not most, is that the phone works well were I make the majority of calls, New York. The majority of people I know do the same. Some people are willing to sacrifice network for phone and a few extra dollars a month, they pref TM and similar carriers. Others want to have better network and get VW and pay for that accordingly.
It seems to me that there is some level of implicit, or not so implicit, EU v US on both sides here. To the person in the EU they should have it first cause, LEST WE NOT FORGET, most of them are using a standard with 81% of the world.
But does anyone really believe that App would bring a phone to market without making it widely available to US consumers, regardless of whether we?re in the 19% minority? Is there any history of this? Have they ever, for example, released new gen iPods late here? Have they ever, for example, released new gen iPods in Sweden first and had the rest of us in the US buying them on eBay from the lucky ones in Stockholm? It simply wouldn?t make sense.
But it?s not even worth fighting over. The availability of any App phone will be sufficient to include nearly all of us; which is to say that if they release such a product all dedicated App consumers will be able to get one on some carrier at some cost.
The faster cdam/CDMA2000 moves to oblivion the better.
We would all benefit from one standard, cheaper phones, worldwide access, lower minute rates (from higher competition) Just look at how Vz bills you.
Having multiple standard on cellphones is just as clever as having two incompatible internet.
I couldn't care less about whether my phone works well in the EU. What is your data on the percentage of consumers that travel the world to such an extent that they purchase their phones with inter-country usability as their primary consideration?
What maters to me more, not most, is that the phone works well were I make the majority of calls, New York. The majority of people I know do the same. Some people are willing to sacrifice network for phone and a few extra dollars a month, they pref TM and similar carriers. Others want to have better network and get VW and pay for that accordingly.
It seems to me that there is some level of implicit, or not so implicit, EU v US on both sides here. To the person in the EU they should have it first cause, LEST WE NOT FORGET, most of them are using a standard with 81% of the world.
But does anyone really believe that App would bring a phone to market without making it widely available to US consumers, regardless of whether we?re in the 19% minority? Is there any history of this? Have they ever, for example, released new gen iPods late here? Have they ever, for example, released new gen iPods in Sweden first and had the rest of us in the US buying them on eBay from the lucky ones in Stockholm? It simply wouldn?t make sense.
But it?s not even worth fighting over. The availability of any App phone will be sufficient to include nearly all of us; which is to say that if they release such a product all dedicated App consumers will be able to get one on some carrier at some cost.
boncellis
Aug 27, 09:12 PM
Sifting through this thread can make one either optimistic or irrational, depending on who you ask. One point I found absent among the discussion was the possibility of a Core 2 Duo machine coinciding with the September 16th iPod offer end date.
Makes sense to me, but then I tend to get shouted down a lot in this forum. ;)
Makes sense to me, but then I tend to get shouted down a lot in this forum. ;)
W. Ademczyk
Aug 27, 09:41 PM
IMO, I believe the new enclosure will basically add easier access to swappable HDD's like the MB. It doesn't seem appropriate for a lower end model computer to have a feature the professional level model should have. That's why you pay the big $. I think the enclosure will remain the same, but we'll see an update that will allow users to change out their hard drives if they choose.
Exactly, allowing the user to swap out components is definately a direction that Apple is taking, which is something that helps them stay competitive in the pc world. The Macbook, as we all know, utilizes a design that makes it easy to swap out ram and HDDs; and the Mac Pro is configured with snazzy slide-out trays so that virtually every piece of hardware can be swapped out easily. This is a feature that the new MBP case design had better incorporate.
In regard to the Ipod incentive, if Intel shipped Merom to manufacturers at the end of July, will announce it's release to the public on the 28th, and Apple's own shipment of Merom toting computers comes in on the 5th, I have a hard time understanding why they would wait 2-3 weeks to put these computers in the hands of the public when Dell, HP, and Lenovo will be updating their websites the second that the announcement is made. As far as I can tell, there were two reasons Apple started giving away free Nanos to college kids. First, they needed to clean out the inventory for the next Ipod line; and second, the back to school rush is the best time to increase the market share since college students probably make up the highest percentage of win to mac switchers. Since Merom reportedly costs Apple the same amount as Yonah, and MBP sales have been a little lackluster, it would make next to no sense for Apple to drop the Ipod rebate. We have to remember that the only reason Macintels were released with Yonah in the first place is that Apple wasn't able to pressure Intel into giving them Merom early(thus explaining the drop from 64bit processing to 32bit and then back up again 7 months later). If Apple wouldn't have released the Intel line when it did, they would have been stuck with a stale product line and, missing out on the back to school rush, wouldn't be enjoying their doubled market share.
I think it's fair to conclude that the 16th was chosen as the date for the Nano rebate not because the Merom will appear after that time, but because most back to school shopping will be done by then. It is in Apple's best interest to try to catch the tail end of the college shopping season with the MBP.
Exactly, allowing the user to swap out components is definately a direction that Apple is taking, which is something that helps them stay competitive in the pc world. The Macbook, as we all know, utilizes a design that makes it easy to swap out ram and HDDs; and the Mac Pro is configured with snazzy slide-out trays so that virtually every piece of hardware can be swapped out easily. This is a feature that the new MBP case design had better incorporate.
In regard to the Ipod incentive, if Intel shipped Merom to manufacturers at the end of July, will announce it's release to the public on the 28th, and Apple's own shipment of Merom toting computers comes in on the 5th, I have a hard time understanding why they would wait 2-3 weeks to put these computers in the hands of the public when Dell, HP, and Lenovo will be updating their websites the second that the announcement is made. As far as I can tell, there were two reasons Apple started giving away free Nanos to college kids. First, they needed to clean out the inventory for the next Ipod line; and second, the back to school rush is the best time to increase the market share since college students probably make up the highest percentage of win to mac switchers. Since Merom reportedly costs Apple the same amount as Yonah, and MBP sales have been a little lackluster, it would make next to no sense for Apple to drop the Ipod rebate. We have to remember that the only reason Macintels were released with Yonah in the first place is that Apple wasn't able to pressure Intel into giving them Merom early(thus explaining the drop from 64bit processing to 32bit and then back up again 7 months later). If Apple wouldn't have released the Intel line when it did, they would have been stuck with a stale product line and, missing out on the back to school rush, wouldn't be enjoying their doubled market share.
I think it's fair to conclude that the 16th was chosen as the date for the Nano rebate not because the Merom will appear after that time, but because most back to school shopping will be done by then. It is in Apple's best interest to try to catch the tail end of the college shopping season with the MBP.
gkarris
Apr 7, 10:44 PM
I was at an Apple store and I saw a salesperson holding one new in the box and was just taking it to the back.
The sign up front said "iPads available every morning at 9:00 am".
I think that says it all... :eek:
I work in retail - if we have a product, we'll sell it (why would we deny a customer or "make them come back the next morning to wait in a line"?).
The sign up front said "iPads available every morning at 9:00 am".
I think that says it all... :eek:
I work in retail - if we have a product, we'll sell it (why would we deny a customer or "make them come back the next morning to wait in a line"?).
Lord Blackadder
Mar 22, 01:02 AM
I agree. The Democrats will, of course, push Obama for a second-term and thus our opposition candidates are all GOP, none of whom are serious contenders for improving our present situation.
Obama is far from perfect. But all of the known GOP contenders (Huckabee, Palin, Bachmann, Romney, Paul etc etc) are completely unacceptable.
If I read the Obama administration correctly, the US involvement will be very limited and while "advisors" are certainly on the ground
At this stage I doubt we have any boots on the ground. Communication with the opposition leadership is still patchy but they have made it clear they do not want foreign soldiers in-country. It will be best if the situation can be resolved without further foreign military intervention.
Obama is far from perfect. But all of the known GOP contenders (Huckabee, Palin, Bachmann, Romney, Paul etc etc) are completely unacceptable.
If I read the Obama administration correctly, the US involvement will be very limited and while "advisors" are certainly on the ground
At this stage I doubt we have any boots on the ground. Communication with the opposition leadership is still patchy but they have made it clear they do not want foreign soldiers in-country. It will be best if the situation can be resolved without further foreign military intervention.
MacinDoc
Aug 27, 03:23 AM
the iMac will get a conroe. Nothing can be as dumb as putting a laptop chip in the desktop iMac. If the iMac could hold a G5 in it, it sure can hold a Conroe chip.
So, does a dual core Conroe produce less heat than a G5? Remember, the iMac is essentially a laptop form factor, so heat dissipation is more difficult. I agree, though, it will get a Conroe chip, as long as it is cool enough.
So, does a dual core Conroe produce less heat than a G5? Remember, the iMac is essentially a laptop form factor, so heat dissipation is more difficult. I agree, though, it will get a Conroe chip, as long as it is cool enough.
iliketyla
Apr 6, 02:03 PM
Motorola not selling any units of a crappy product? Huh... who'd have thought.
I wish they'd start banning people who makes baseless comments like this.
I wish they'd start banning people who makes baseless comments like this.
caspersoong
Apr 13, 04:53 AM
The longer the wait, the less likely for my family to buy it.
Cowinacape
Jul 23, 05:32 PM
Multimedia, I'd love to see a line up like that released, dual 2.3 here I come :D here's hoping that your predictions are close to the mark!
Mattie Num Nums
Mar 31, 02:38 PM
I've been wanting to say this for a very long time. Google's OS has no advantage over iOS. You could even say it has a disadvantage. Having to create a vanilla code base that needs to function on multiple pieces of hardware is complex, more complexity creates weaker system.
But here's my point. The ONLY ONLY reason why Android market share is anywhere near what it is today is because of the Buy One Get One options at most phone retailers. iOS has NEVER done that and hopefully never will. If you didn't care about the phone or service but needed two "Newer Smart Phones" one for you and one for your wife, why not go with the "Blah Blah" model from Verizon where if I buy one today I get the second for free (two year agreement and activation fees required).
Market share means nothing. This platform is doomed unless Google reins it in and get control over it. If they do, providers will be less willing to work with them, if they don't, by by Android.
My Two Cents.
-LanPhantom
You could say the same thing about Apple though. The Apple fad will go away and the extremely closed ecosystem which seems to not be really developing much in terms of UI or having an actual roadmap could end iOS.
I don't understand why people can't just see the pros and cons of both and accept both are great platforms. Its always a WAR with Apple fans. Apple against EVERYONE!
But here's my point. The ONLY ONLY reason why Android market share is anywhere near what it is today is because of the Buy One Get One options at most phone retailers. iOS has NEVER done that and hopefully never will. If you didn't care about the phone or service but needed two "Newer Smart Phones" one for you and one for your wife, why not go with the "Blah Blah" model from Verizon where if I buy one today I get the second for free (two year agreement and activation fees required).
Market share means nothing. This platform is doomed unless Google reins it in and get control over it. If they do, providers will be less willing to work with them, if they don't, by by Android.
My Two Cents.
-LanPhantom
You could say the same thing about Apple though. The Apple fad will go away and the extremely closed ecosystem which seems to not be really developing much in terms of UI or having an actual roadmap could end iOS.
I don't understand why people can't just see the pros and cons of both and accept both are great platforms. Its always a WAR with Apple fans. Apple against EVERYONE!
rezenclowd3
Dec 8, 02:25 AM
Actually, Sony explained that the damage is not unlocked or progressive as one dives deeper into the game. It's just that as one goes further into the game, one is able to FINALLY collect more premium cars which do have the better damage engine.
As far as the cars...I really want more already...but not more of the same version. I REALLY want a Triumph TR6 and Datsun 240Z...theres a Triumph Spitfire, which is not near as collectible. Also should have the Brabham fan car as well IMO, plus some Can-Am cars. Stupid having 40 or so of the same body style.
Also, can one set a stick to look around? Racing without the ability to look around is for earlier generations, not THIS generation.
As far as the cars...I really want more already...but not more of the same version. I REALLY want a Triumph TR6 and Datsun 240Z...theres a Triumph Spitfire, which is not near as collectible. Also should have the Brabham fan car as well IMO, plus some Can-Am cars. Stupid having 40 or so of the same body style.
Also, can one set a stick to look around? Racing without the ability to look around is for earlier generations, not THIS generation.
ccrandall77
Aug 11, 02:03 PM
EDGE is not meant to compare with EVDO, UTMS is.
Can you imagine them making the phone only for CDMA? That translates to "US only." There will be a GSM version, it will most likely support UTMS, which is as good or better than EVDO.
Even assuming for the sake of argument, which I don't in reality, that CDMA is better than GSM for voice, the annoyance of not being able to swap SIM cards is enough for me to avoid it.
That and the fact I can't use it anywhere outside the US.
I agree that EVDO is more analgous to UTMS than EDGE, but for now in most places UTMS is not present... esp the US. So when I compare CDMA technologies to GSM technologies for domestic carriers, the CDMA camp wins hands down.
There are many places CDMA is used outside the US. From the maps I've seen, much of Asia, Australia, and the Americas have CDMA coverage. And has I mentioned in a previous post, the big 2 (VZW and Sprint) do offer hybrid CDMA/GSM phones (or at least they did... we can still apparently get them through our business).
I WHOLEHEARTEDLY agree about your point on SIM cards. I wish to God Sprint had SIM cards. I have a Treo 700p and I LOVE IT!!! But I don't want to haul it around with me everywhere. Frequently I steal my wife's new Samsung A900 since it's so thin and is hardly noticable in my pocket. I'd love to have the freedom to have 1 line and 2 phones.
Can you imagine them making the phone only for CDMA? That translates to "US only." There will be a GSM version, it will most likely support UTMS, which is as good or better than EVDO.
Even assuming for the sake of argument, which I don't in reality, that CDMA is better than GSM for voice, the annoyance of not being able to swap SIM cards is enough for me to avoid it.
That and the fact I can't use it anywhere outside the US.
I agree that EVDO is more analgous to UTMS than EDGE, but for now in most places UTMS is not present... esp the US. So when I compare CDMA technologies to GSM technologies for domestic carriers, the CDMA camp wins hands down.
There are many places CDMA is used outside the US. From the maps I've seen, much of Asia, Australia, and the Americas have CDMA coverage. And has I mentioned in a previous post, the big 2 (VZW and Sprint) do offer hybrid CDMA/GSM phones (or at least they did... we can still apparently get them through our business).
I WHOLEHEARTEDLY agree about your point on SIM cards. I wish to God Sprint had SIM cards. I have a Treo 700p and I LOVE IT!!! But I don't want to haul it around with me everywhere. Frequently I steal my wife's new Samsung A900 since it's so thin and is hardly noticable in my pocket. I'd love to have the freedom to have 1 line and 2 phones.
Eidorian
Jul 14, 06:02 PM
oh, btw, i did some of my own investigations and found this site:
http://www.nvidia.com/object/7_series_techspecs.html
which may mean that the standard cards are compatible with mac os x now.You can get the 7xxx series in the Power Mac G5.
http://www.nvidia.com/object/7_series_techspecs.html
which may mean that the standard cards are compatible with mac os x now.You can get the 7xxx series in the Power Mac G5.
Lord Blackadder
Mar 22, 01:32 PM
I'm very specific on what I praise Reagan for... including his excellent ability to speak eloquently about the values of the free market, small government, etc. I've repeatedly said that he was far from perfect... but it's less easy for you to argue with reality when you can just make up my positions on one man... isn't it?
Reagan was not about small government at all. He massively increased government spending and the size of the military. He may have spoken eloquently about small government, but they were empty words. There isn't much to praise there.
Speaking of making up positions, almost every post you make contains a micharacterization of what other people say, but phrased as a question so as to make it seem more innocent.
Reagan was not about small government at all. He massively increased government spending and the size of the military. He may have spoken eloquently about small government, but they were empty words. There isn't much to praise there.
Speaking of making up positions, almost every post you make contains a micharacterization of what other people say, but phrased as a question so as to make it seem more innocent.
