MikeTheC
Nov 25, 10:46 PM
All this talk about Palm needing to modernize their OS, or it is outdated, or needing to re-write is absolutely hilarious.
On a phone, I want to use its features quickly and easily. When I have to schedule an appointment, I want to enter that appointment as easily as possible. When I want to add something to my to-do list, I want to do it easily and quickly. And first and foremost, I want to be able to look up a contact and dial it as quickly as possible.
A phone is not a personal computer. I couldn't care less about multitasking, rewriting, "modern" OSes (whatever "modern" means). "Modern" features and look is just eye candy and/or toys. A mobile phone is a gadget of convenience, and it should be convenient to use. Even PalmOS 1.0 was convenient. It was just as easy to use its contact and calendar features as any so-called "modern" OS is today.
I would really like to know how "modernizing" the OS on my phone would help me look up contacts, dial contacts, enter to-do list entries, and entering calendar entries any better that I could today.
Again, I repeat: a phone is not a personal computer. There's no point in treating it as such.
The same point could largely be made about cars, but I don't think either of us would want to be driving a Model T or Model A Ford these days, would we?
The term "Modern" as applied to operating systems has little to do with the interface per se. It primarily concerns the underpinnings of the OS and how forward-looking and/or open-ended it is. Older operating systems, if you want to look at it in this way, were very geared to the hardware of their times, and every time you added a new hardware feature or some new kind of technology came out, you wound up making this big patchwork of an OS, in which you had either an out-dated or obsolete "core" around which was stuck, somewhat unglamorously, lots of crap to allow it to do stuff it wasn't really designed for. Then, you wound up having to write patches for the patches, etc., ad infinitum.
Apple tried to go the internal development route, but that didn't work because their departmental infrastructure was eating them from the inside out at the time and basically poisoned all of their new projects. They considered BeOS because it was an incredibly modern OS at the time that was very capable, unbelievably good at multitasking, memory protection, multimedia tasks, etc. However, that company was so shaky that when Apple decided not to go with them, they collapsed. One of the products which was introduced and sold and almost immediately recalled that used a version of BeOS was Sony's eVilla (you just have to love that name -- try pronouncing it out loud to get the full effect).
Ultimately, they went with NeXT's BSD- and Mach-Kernel-based NeXTStep (which after a bunch of time and effort and -- since lots of it is based on Open Source software, there were a healthy amount of community contributions to) and hence we now have Mac OS X.
I'll leave it to actual developers and/or coders here to better explain and refine (and/or correct) what I've said here, should you wish greater detail beyond what I am able to -- and therefore have -- provided above.
The whole point of going with a modern OS implemented for an imbedded market (i.e. "Mac OS X Mobile") is it gives you much more direct (and probably better implemented and/or better-grounded) access to modern technologies. Everything from basic I/O tasks that reside in the Kernel to audio processing to doing H.264 decoding to having access to IPv4 or IPv6, are all examples of things which a modern OS could do a better job of providing and/or backing.
From what I understand, PalmOS is something that was designed to first and foremost give you basic notepad and daily organizer functionality. When they wrote, as you say, PalmOS 1.0, they happened to implement a way for third parties to write software that could run on it. This has been both a benefit and a bane of PalmOS's existence. First off, they now have the same issues of backwards-compatibility and storage space and memory use/abuse that a regular computer OS has. I said it was both a benefit and a bane; but there's actually two parts to the "bane" side. The first I've already mentioned, but the second is the fact that since apps have been written which can do darn near any conceivable task, people keep wanting more and more and more. And this then goes back to the "patchwork" I described earlier in talking about "older" computer OSs.
Then people want multimedia, and color screens, and apps to take advantage of it, and they want Palm to incorporate DSPs so they can play music, and of course that brings along with it all of the extra patching to then allow for the existence of, and permit the use of, an on-board DSP. And now you want WiFi? Well, shoot, now we gotta have IPv4 as well, and support for TCP/IP, none of which was ever a part of the original concept of PalmOS.
And even if you don't want or need any of those features in your own PDA, I'm sorry but that's really just too bad. Go live in a cave if you like, but if you buy a new PDA, guess what: you're gonna get all that stuff.
And at some point, all of this stretches an "older" OS just a bit too far, or it becomes a bit absurd with all the hoops and turns and wiggling that PalmOne's coders have to go through, so then they say, "Aw **** it, let's just re-write the thing."
Apple comes to this without any of *that* sort of legacy. Doubtless there will be no Newton code on this thing anywhere, but what Apple's got is Mac OS X, which means they also have the power (albeit somewhat indirectly) of an Open Source OS -- Linux. And in case you weren't aware, there are already numerous "imbedded" implementations of Linux -- phones, PDAs, game systems, kiosks, etc. -- all of which are data points and collective experience opportunities which ALREADY EXIST that Apple can exploit.
So no, having a "modern" OS is not a bad thing. It's actually a supremely awesome thing. What you're concerned about is having something that is intuitive AND efficient AND appropriate to the world of telephone interfaces for the user interface on the device you'd go and buy yourself.
All I can say, based on past performance, is give Apple a chance.
Now, here's a larger picture thought to ponder...
If Apple goes to market with the iPhone, then this is going to open up (to some extent) the viability of a F/OSS community cell phone. And this is a really good thing as well because it represents a non-commercial, enthusiast entrance into what up until now has been a totally proprietary, locked-down OS-based product world. It has the potential to do to cell phones what Linux has inspired in Mac OS X.
On a phone, I want to use its features quickly and easily. When I have to schedule an appointment, I want to enter that appointment as easily as possible. When I want to add something to my to-do list, I want to do it easily and quickly. And first and foremost, I want to be able to look up a contact and dial it as quickly as possible.
A phone is not a personal computer. I couldn't care less about multitasking, rewriting, "modern" OSes (whatever "modern" means). "Modern" features and look is just eye candy and/or toys. A mobile phone is a gadget of convenience, and it should be convenient to use. Even PalmOS 1.0 was convenient. It was just as easy to use its contact and calendar features as any so-called "modern" OS is today.
I would really like to know how "modernizing" the OS on my phone would help me look up contacts, dial contacts, enter to-do list entries, and entering calendar entries any better that I could today.
Again, I repeat: a phone is not a personal computer. There's no point in treating it as such.
The same point could largely be made about cars, but I don't think either of us would want to be driving a Model T or Model A Ford these days, would we?
The term "Modern" as applied to operating systems has little to do with the interface per se. It primarily concerns the underpinnings of the OS and how forward-looking and/or open-ended it is. Older operating systems, if you want to look at it in this way, were very geared to the hardware of their times, and every time you added a new hardware feature or some new kind of technology came out, you wound up making this big patchwork of an OS, in which you had either an out-dated or obsolete "core" around which was stuck, somewhat unglamorously, lots of crap to allow it to do stuff it wasn't really designed for. Then, you wound up having to write patches for the patches, etc., ad infinitum.
Apple tried to go the internal development route, but that didn't work because their departmental infrastructure was eating them from the inside out at the time and basically poisoned all of their new projects. They considered BeOS because it was an incredibly modern OS at the time that was very capable, unbelievably good at multitasking, memory protection, multimedia tasks, etc. However, that company was so shaky that when Apple decided not to go with them, they collapsed. One of the products which was introduced and sold and almost immediately recalled that used a version of BeOS was Sony's eVilla (you just have to love that name -- try pronouncing it out loud to get the full effect).
Ultimately, they went with NeXT's BSD- and Mach-Kernel-based NeXTStep (which after a bunch of time and effort and -- since lots of it is based on Open Source software, there were a healthy amount of community contributions to) and hence we now have Mac OS X.
I'll leave it to actual developers and/or coders here to better explain and refine (and/or correct) what I've said here, should you wish greater detail beyond what I am able to -- and therefore have -- provided above.
The whole point of going with a modern OS implemented for an imbedded market (i.e. "Mac OS X Mobile") is it gives you much more direct (and probably better implemented and/or better-grounded) access to modern technologies. Everything from basic I/O tasks that reside in the Kernel to audio processing to doing H.264 decoding to having access to IPv4 or IPv6, are all examples of things which a modern OS could do a better job of providing and/or backing.
From what I understand, PalmOS is something that was designed to first and foremost give you basic notepad and daily organizer functionality. When they wrote, as you say, PalmOS 1.0, they happened to implement a way for third parties to write software that could run on it. This has been both a benefit and a bane of PalmOS's existence. First off, they now have the same issues of backwards-compatibility and storage space and memory use/abuse that a regular computer OS has. I said it was both a benefit and a bane; but there's actually two parts to the "bane" side. The first I've already mentioned, but the second is the fact that since apps have been written which can do darn near any conceivable task, people keep wanting more and more and more. And this then goes back to the "patchwork" I described earlier in talking about "older" computer OSs.
Then people want multimedia, and color screens, and apps to take advantage of it, and they want Palm to incorporate DSPs so they can play music, and of course that brings along with it all of the extra patching to then allow for the existence of, and permit the use of, an on-board DSP. And now you want WiFi? Well, shoot, now we gotta have IPv4 as well, and support for TCP/IP, none of which was ever a part of the original concept of PalmOS.
And even if you don't want or need any of those features in your own PDA, I'm sorry but that's really just too bad. Go live in a cave if you like, but if you buy a new PDA, guess what: you're gonna get all that stuff.
And at some point, all of this stretches an "older" OS just a bit too far, or it becomes a bit absurd with all the hoops and turns and wiggling that PalmOne's coders have to go through, so then they say, "Aw **** it, let's just re-write the thing."
Apple comes to this without any of *that* sort of legacy. Doubtless there will be no Newton code on this thing anywhere, but what Apple's got is Mac OS X, which means they also have the power (albeit somewhat indirectly) of an Open Source OS -- Linux. And in case you weren't aware, there are already numerous "imbedded" implementations of Linux -- phones, PDAs, game systems, kiosks, etc. -- all of which are data points and collective experience opportunities which ALREADY EXIST that Apple can exploit.
So no, having a "modern" OS is not a bad thing. It's actually a supremely awesome thing. What you're concerned about is having something that is intuitive AND efficient AND appropriate to the world of telephone interfaces for the user interface on the device you'd go and buy yourself.
All I can say, based on past performance, is give Apple a chance.
Now, here's a larger picture thought to ponder...
If Apple goes to market with the iPhone, then this is going to open up (to some extent) the viability of a F/OSS community cell phone. And this is a really good thing as well because it represents a non-commercial, enthusiast entrance into what up until now has been a totally proprietary, locked-down OS-based product world. It has the potential to do to cell phones what Linux has inspired in Mac OS X.
SandynJosh
Apr 26, 03:21 PM
But if Apple had gotten on board with Verizon a year earlier, those numbers would probably be reversed.
That extra year that Apple sat on their ass with AT&T was the crucial year that allowed android to gain traction and mindshare.
Neither your or I know what contract details with AT&T prevented Apple from opening up Verizon earlier than they did, so claiming Apple "sat on their ass" is just your silly opinion.
Once the 'greatly anticipated' Verizon launch finally did come, it was met with a large chorus of "who cares?" from the crowd - the crowd that had gotten their droid phone 6 months earlier.
Again you make a wild-assed leap of logic. I, like many Verizon users, met the news that the iPhone was available on my favorite carrier with, "Oh dam, I'm locked into a two-year contract with a ****** Android Incredible."
Your basic point that Apple needed to open up the iPhone to more U.S. carriers to avoid market share loss is correct and generally regarded as such by most analysts. However, from the launch of the first iPhone, Apple has struggled to meet the accelerating demand for its products, so adding more U.S. carriers may have not been as smart as us outside the company might second-guess.
That extra year that Apple sat on their ass with AT&T was the crucial year that allowed android to gain traction and mindshare.
Neither your or I know what contract details with AT&T prevented Apple from opening up Verizon earlier than they did, so claiming Apple "sat on their ass" is just your silly opinion.
Once the 'greatly anticipated' Verizon launch finally did come, it was met with a large chorus of "who cares?" from the crowd - the crowd that had gotten their droid phone 6 months earlier.
Again you make a wild-assed leap of logic. I, like many Verizon users, met the news that the iPhone was available on my favorite carrier with, "Oh dam, I'm locked into a two-year contract with a ****** Android Incredible."
Your basic point that Apple needed to open up the iPhone to more U.S. carriers to avoid market share loss is correct and generally regarded as such by most analysts. However, from the launch of the first iPhone, Apple has struggled to meet the accelerating demand for its products, so adding more U.S. carriers may have not been as smart as us outside the company might second-guess.
World Citizen
May 4, 03:03 PM
I want my Lion on a stick with a ThunderTail!
What else do I use my Tunderbolt port for... :p
What else do I use my Tunderbolt port for... :p
CiBoys
Aug 5, 04:48 AM
What I really want Apple to announce:
PowerMac (not MacPro FFS!:p )
ACD's (17, 20, 23 and 30", iSight and IR)
iPhone (http://www.floatingpears.com/garage/iPhone.jpg):rolleyes:
Leopard (iChat integration with MSN Messenger:D )
New MBP and iMac...
I just want a new MacBook Pro :D :D :D
PowerMac (not MacPro FFS!:p )
ACD's (17, 20, 23 and 30", iSight and IR)
iPhone (http://www.floatingpears.com/garage/iPhone.jpg):rolleyes:
Leopard (iChat integration with MSN Messenger:D )
New MBP and iMac...
I just want a new MacBook Pro :D :D :D
BlizzardBomb
Aug 7, 02:37 PM
I'll wait for that until Paris, and if it isn't available then, I'll buy a PC with Core 2 Duo E6600 and GeForce 7900 GT.
Mac OS X not do anything for you? :) I do agree that there is space for a Mid-range desktop.
I think if Apple just made the Mac Mini a bit bigger. They could fit in a Core 2 Duo (Conroe) inside along with a 3.5" Hard Drive and GMA X3000. The 1.86 GHz Conroe kills the Yonah Core Solo in everything and costs less than the Core Solo. A 3.5" Hard Drive is also much better in the value department. Couple this with an option for a Single-Woodcrest Mac Pro and it completely eliminates the need for a mid-range tower.
Mac OS X not do anything for you? :) I do agree that there is space for a Mid-range desktop.
I think if Apple just made the Mac Mini a bit bigger. They could fit in a Core 2 Duo (Conroe) inside along with a 3.5" Hard Drive and GMA X3000. The 1.86 GHz Conroe kills the Yonah Core Solo in everything and costs less than the Core Solo. A 3.5" Hard Drive is also much better in the value department. Couple this with an option for a Single-Woodcrest Mac Pro and it completely eliminates the need for a mid-range tower.
ChazUK
Mar 29, 01:45 PM
What I see is Amazon being explicit here in that they can retain, use and disclose your data in any way they see fit. Period.
Do you see this differently?
Looking at what you've said there makes sense and I think I see it the same as you (it certainly looks like Amazon will have more "right" to access your data for less specific reasons).
Perhaps it's a bad judge of character but I do see Amazon along with Apple as top tier companies when it comes to privacy concerns so my concerns are dampened by their good reputations. :)
Hopefully some rogue element in Amazon doesn't abuse the levels of access they have.
Do you see this differently?
Looking at what you've said there makes sense and I think I see it the same as you (it certainly looks like Amazon will have more "right" to access your data for less specific reasons).
Perhaps it's a bad judge of character but I do see Amazon along with Apple as top tier companies when it comes to privacy concerns so my concerns are dampened by their good reputations. :)
Hopefully some rogue element in Amazon doesn't abuse the levels of access they have.
bep207
Aug 3, 10:45 AM
do you think the macbook pro could get easy to switch hard drives like the macbook has? what are the odds of fitting two hard drives in say a 17" model and allowing people to carry multiple hard drives that can be easily switched via a port. like a bigger expresscard port but for hdd
KnightWRX
Mar 28, 10:05 AM
It's the usual geek misconception of what a device needs. They are all about checklist items. And thus they are missing the fact that a major paradigm shift is occurring in this world where the far larger non-tech audience is now buying tech toys. This audience does not know much about specs, and cares even less. All they care about is cost (Apple is right there in phones), how their apps work (just great on the iPhone), choice of apps (no one has more choice than Apple), and what they have read or heard about (Apple is the advertising leader).
So geeks will continue to stamp their feet and pout about checklists that Apple is "failing" at. The rest of the world will keep happily using their amazing iPhones.
And you're missing the fact that it's the Geeks who write the apps that work on the iPhone.
If the geeks decide the larger customer base elsewhere is more enticing, then you'll start hemorraging developers. Same if the geeks decide that their new project is going to be aimed at more robust hardware.
In the end, it's all tied together. The specs are an important part of the device, even if the person buying it has no clue what they mean. Developers are Apple's main focus (or should be) as far as iOS goes, and some of the lay people here chanting on and on about paradigms seem to be ignoring it.
So? Do any of those phones have 1/10th the user experience of the iPhone? Who is standing in line for them? Do you question the speed of the electronics in your TV set? No because it does what it's supposed to do.
I was talking about Developers, not users. While you may not care your iPhone has a single core SoC, ChAir software might for their next game and decide to simply forgo releasing it on iOS. Again, we're at a tipping point right now, Android has gained fast and offers devices right now that outperform the iOS devices, which might put Apple on the back burner.
Especially considering that their user base, while not on a single handset, is right now bigger or close to being than iOS's.
From a developer's perspective, Android is looking good right now. If these trends continue, iOS won't be looking as good as it used to.
So geeks will continue to stamp their feet and pout about checklists that Apple is "failing" at. The rest of the world will keep happily using their amazing iPhones.
And you're missing the fact that it's the Geeks who write the apps that work on the iPhone.
If the geeks decide the larger customer base elsewhere is more enticing, then you'll start hemorraging developers. Same if the geeks decide that their new project is going to be aimed at more robust hardware.
In the end, it's all tied together. The specs are an important part of the device, even if the person buying it has no clue what they mean. Developers are Apple's main focus (or should be) as far as iOS goes, and some of the lay people here chanting on and on about paradigms seem to be ignoring it.
So? Do any of those phones have 1/10th the user experience of the iPhone? Who is standing in line for them? Do you question the speed of the electronics in your TV set? No because it does what it's supposed to do.
I was talking about Developers, not users. While you may not care your iPhone has a single core SoC, ChAir software might for their next game and decide to simply forgo releasing it on iOS. Again, we're at a tipping point right now, Android has gained fast and offers devices right now that outperform the iOS devices, which might put Apple on the back burner.
Especially considering that their user base, while not on a single handset, is right now bigger or close to being than iOS's.
From a developer's perspective, Android is looking good right now. If these trends continue, iOS won't be looking as good as it used to.
Chupa Chupa
Sep 11, 10:54 AM
I really expect all of the above - though "true video iPod" and 6G iPod I think are one in the same. The only logical way to have a widescreen iPod is to have a virtual scroll wheel.
As for the movie store...I think I remember SJ in an interview awhile back saying, while he likes the purchase model for music, movies lend themselves to the subscription model because most people only watch a movie once or twice, Star Wars geeks notwithstanding. So I think the movie store is going to be like a true movie store. If you want to buy a movie you can, but the emphasis will be more on a NetFlix type model. A $15/mo sub gets you 3 movies at a time, unlimited d/ls per mo. Alternatively, you could rent a single movie for $4, viewable for a week or so. For people who don't have time to convert a DVD to an iPod viewable format that makes sense. Buying for $15 or $10 isn't going to excite anyone I don't think.
As for the movie store...I think I remember SJ in an interview awhile back saying, while he likes the purchase model for music, movies lend themselves to the subscription model because most people only watch a movie once or twice, Star Wars geeks notwithstanding. So I think the movie store is going to be like a true movie store. If you want to buy a movie you can, but the emphasis will be more on a NetFlix type model. A $15/mo sub gets you 3 movies at a time, unlimited d/ls per mo. Alternatively, you could rent a single movie for $4, viewable for a week or so. For people who don't have time to convert a DVD to an iPod viewable format that makes sense. Buying for $15 or $10 isn't going to excite anyone I don't think.
TimUSCA
Mar 28, 09:48 AM
Sort of relieved no iPhone 5 announcements, Im firmly bogged down into a 2 year contract.
So your attitude is "if I can't have it, I don't want anyone to have it."?
Whether it comes out or not, you won't be getting one. So why would it matter either way?
So your attitude is "if I can't have it, I don't want anyone to have it."?
Whether it comes out or not, you won't be getting one. So why would it matter either way?
Becordial
May 7, 11:13 AM
Making it free would be a smart move by Apple. It would help bond iphone users more effectively to Apple ecosystem.
At the moment, I don't use the MobileMe service (though I'd like to have findmyphone and perhaps back to my mac services) but if I had it free, it would be a thing that would make it less likely that I would switch to RIM/WIN7 or Android.
Does anyone know if the Windows version of this similar service bundle is free?
EDIT: From MS
# How much does the My Phone service cost? It's free! Except for a few optional services, Microsoft does not charge for use of Microsoft My Phone. However, your mobile operator may charge for data usage so please ensure that you have an appropriate data plan. If you are unsure of your data plan coverage, contact your mobile operator.
At the moment, I don't use the MobileMe service (though I'd like to have findmyphone and perhaps back to my mac services) but if I had it free, it would be a thing that would make it less likely that I would switch to RIM/WIN7 or Android.
Does anyone know if the Windows version of this similar service bundle is free?
EDIT: From MS
# How much does the My Phone service cost? It's free! Except for a few optional services, Microsoft does not charge for use of Microsoft My Phone. However, your mobile operator may charge for data usage so please ensure that you have an appropriate data plan. If you are unsure of your data plan coverage, contact your mobile operator.
silentnite
Apr 24, 11:14 AM
This is good news with the new imacs on the way this should tie everything together nicely.
Porscheboy16
Aug 11, 09:24 AM
Crap! My MacBook should be here on Monday. Is there anyway to return an online order?
KnightWRX
Apr 22, 10:08 AM
Well I don't think anyone actually USED the Xserve in datacenters anyway... Why would YOU? Seriously you don't need a boutique operating system on a server that's on 24/7/365 serving html/php/mysql with the only downtime is an occasional reboot for software updates.
The people who used Xserves had a few of them at most and could not even justify racking them. Most Xserves ended up on desks or maybe thrown next to a bunch of PC servers in a companies IT department for the "crazy Mac guys" in advertising/production. Really if you look at the Xserve in general you see the only real penetration was in the TV Station/Video Editing/Movie/Education/Advertising fields.. Not "Data Centers"
So a 3u Mac Pro will work just fine in the TV Station/Video Editing/Movie/Education/Advertising "Server Rooms" where they can fill up a rack with their 10, 3u servers and do what they need to.
I don't think your post is quite accurate. For large deployments of Mac clients, the Xserve was a wonderful integrated management solution and it fit in the data center along with all the other servers uses for other purposes. No one really wants homogeneous environnements in a data center and Xserve served as diversity, filling their niche well.
Use them to serve HTML/PHP/MySQL ? A waste of an Xserve. Use them for SUS, netboot, Opendirectory ? Wonderful. Also, many of those TV Station/Video Editing/Movie/Education/Advertising fields have data centers in case you didn't know. It's not like everyone operates out of a closet.
Heck, a few lifetimes ago when I worked small businesses, we were selling racks and properly wiring and racking systems for businesses with 50 employees and 5 servers. We were adding in UPSes and redundancy. I built a site-to-site VPN between our own surveillance network and everyone of our customer's networks to monitor services remotely using a Cisco based solution. Yes, about 1k$ worth of networking equipment for small business that did nothing else than check that their filesystems weren't full or that the database server didn't go down. And they paid monthly fees on that of that for the service.
Size of a business means nothing, it's the value of the data that a business manages that dictates their server needs. If a company has 5 employees but their data is worth over 10 million $, they aren't going to host it on a 1k$ PC thrown in a corner with a failing fan on the CPU. They are going to invest in a proper solution.
You have to have worked in IT to understand the implications here. This is not a Xserve replacement and if Apple goes through with a "rackable" Mac Pro, it's not going to be billed as an Xserve replacement nor are the buyers that bought Xserves going to be using that. It's not like you couldn't just use OS X Server on Mac Pros before Apple introduced the joke of the "Mac Pro Server". The thing already existed.
The people who used Xserves had a few of them at most and could not even justify racking them. Most Xserves ended up on desks or maybe thrown next to a bunch of PC servers in a companies IT department for the "crazy Mac guys" in advertising/production. Really if you look at the Xserve in general you see the only real penetration was in the TV Station/Video Editing/Movie/Education/Advertising fields.. Not "Data Centers"
So a 3u Mac Pro will work just fine in the TV Station/Video Editing/Movie/Education/Advertising "Server Rooms" where they can fill up a rack with their 10, 3u servers and do what they need to.
I don't think your post is quite accurate. For large deployments of Mac clients, the Xserve was a wonderful integrated management solution and it fit in the data center along with all the other servers uses for other purposes. No one really wants homogeneous environnements in a data center and Xserve served as diversity, filling their niche well.
Use them to serve HTML/PHP/MySQL ? A waste of an Xserve. Use them for SUS, netboot, Opendirectory ? Wonderful. Also, many of those TV Station/Video Editing/Movie/Education/Advertising fields have data centers in case you didn't know. It's not like everyone operates out of a closet.
Heck, a few lifetimes ago when I worked small businesses, we were selling racks and properly wiring and racking systems for businesses with 50 employees and 5 servers. We were adding in UPSes and redundancy. I built a site-to-site VPN between our own surveillance network and everyone of our customer's networks to monitor services remotely using a Cisco based solution. Yes, about 1k$ worth of networking equipment for small business that did nothing else than check that their filesystems weren't full or that the database server didn't go down. And they paid monthly fees on that of that for the service.
Size of a business means nothing, it's the value of the data that a business manages that dictates their server needs. If a company has 5 employees but their data is worth over 10 million $, they aren't going to host it on a 1k$ PC thrown in a corner with a failing fan on the CPU. They are going to invest in a proper solution.
You have to have worked in IT to understand the implications here. This is not a Xserve replacement and if Apple goes through with a "rackable" Mac Pro, it's not going to be billed as an Xserve replacement nor are the buyers that bought Xserves going to be using that. It's not like you couldn't just use OS X Server on Mac Pros before Apple introduced the joke of the "Mac Pro Server". The thing already existed.
DakotaGuy
Aug 7, 03:11 PM
LAME
� MacBook Pro & MacBook processors untouched
Maybe they want to make sure all of the issues with the Core Duo models are resolved before they begin a processor switch on those models.
After some of the things that popped up on the MacBook and MacBook Pro, I think they will take a bit more time before they launch the revision to make sure it is perfect.
� MacBook Pro & MacBook processors untouched
Maybe they want to make sure all of the issues with the Core Duo models are resolved before they begin a processor switch on those models.
After some of the things that popped up on the MacBook and MacBook Pro, I think they will take a bit more time before they launch the revision to make sure it is perfect.
FFTT
Nov 26, 05:53 PM
I would worry too much about the swivel joint and the connections and cables within breaking, however I do use a touchscreen display ToughBook at work
and I can certainly see where that option might be popular
IF the protective shield to the touch screen could be easily replaced.
They get scratched bad after using them for a while.
and I can certainly see where that option might be popular
IF the protective shield to the touch screen could be easily replaced.
They get scratched bad after using them for a while.
B.winkle
Apr 10, 10:53 AM
Answer is 2. I'm right and you're wrong. So there! ;.) I sleep with a math teacher!!!
RalfTheDog
Apr 7, 12:47 PM
...I walk away to contemplate seppuku
That is over dramatic, cut it out.
That is over dramatic, cut it out.
sixthdimension
Apr 25, 10:42 AM
Who cares if they know where you are. There are millions of iPhones, what are they gonna do? Track you down and shoot you if you switch to an Android device or something? Doubt it
Tha Professor
May 6, 05:11 AM
Yes please! Am I the only one that thinks that Intel is crap? Well, maybe it aint crap, but Apple is crappier since Intel... I yet have to see someone running an Intel Mac for several years without a hiccup.. Most Intel Macs I have seen did have problems or died completely in range of 3 years... PowerPCs had far less problems!:apple:
Snik
Jan 8, 09:56 PM
I have just installed Sophos Anti Virus - what a mistake!
I decided to install it because I have been a long term user of Sophos at work on the corporate PC and having installed the latest OSX I saw virus checkers in the App Store and a recommendation for Sophos there in a reference for another product.
I ran a scan and a couple of PC specific malware files were found and destroyed.
Then I noticed that my Time Machine back up was struggling.
It turns out that there are issues with Sophos and Time Machine.
I moved my Time Machine back ups to a DroboFS in December I have now lost all my back ups since then.
Once I have backed up again I will be deinstalling it - bet I find that I loose the new back up then!
:mad:
I decided to install it because I have been a long term user of Sophos at work on the corporate PC and having installed the latest OSX I saw virus checkers in the App Store and a recommendation for Sophos there in a reference for another product.
I ran a scan and a couple of PC specific malware files were found and destroyed.
Then I noticed that my Time Machine back up was struggling.
It turns out that there are issues with Sophos and Time Machine.
I moved my Time Machine back ups to a DroboFS in December I have now lost all my back ups since then.
Once I have backed up again I will be deinstalling it - bet I find that I loose the new back up then!
:mad:
bloodycape
Apr 18, 05:10 PM
No it's not. It's not that obvious. Phones sucked so bad before the iphone. Smart phones sucked even worse. Treo's, Q's omg. horrible pieces of equipment.
I can't say they sucked, they were just more spartan compare to what we have now. Sure the touch screen aspect of it was crap, but the browser was acceptable, battery life was good, and they keyboard, least on the 650, and 700w where good all the years I used them. From time to time I miss my 700w and WM as it had this nerdy charm to it.
This could out like the RIM v Handspring(Palm bought them later) lawsuit were RIM sued Handspring for copying their keyboard, and something related to emailing on a mobile device. They settled out of court in the end.
I can't say they sucked, they were just more spartan compare to what we have now. Sure the touch screen aspect of it was crap, but the browser was acceptable, battery life was good, and they keyboard, least on the 650, and 700w where good all the years I used them. From time to time I miss my 700w and WM as it had this nerdy charm to it.
This could out like the RIM v Handspring(Palm bought them later) lawsuit were RIM sued Handspring for copying their keyboard, and something related to emailing on a mobile device. They settled out of court in the end.
ECUpirate44
Apr 10, 08:15 AM
I woke up and checked this thread just to see if all the people who really think it's two woke up and realized it's not 2 its 288.
I should have known that wasn't going to happen. All that happened was another 2 pages :eek:. What an EPIC thread :D
I should have known that wasn't going to happen. All that happened was another 2 pages :eek:. What an EPIC thread :D
ctdonath
Mar 29, 10:53 AM
not really true. it depends on what kind of storage options they are currently running, there are many devices and programs out there that eliminate this kind of redundancy and odds are amazon is using them right now.
Technically, yes.
Legally, no.
There have been assorted lawsuits which ruled if you're going to "buffer" data for a consumer, you have to keep a copy for each customer - no "well, these people are storing the same thing so let's just store one copy". Stupid, but true. Amazon's way around this was obviously to make arrangements with publishers (or to have some creative lawyers leveraging a particular position) allowing the seller to keep one copy and give customers access to that one.
Upshot: buy it from Amazon, they use one copy and tout "free storage"; upload it to Amazon's storage, they have to store that copy independent of any other duplicates.
Technically, yes.
Legally, no.
There have been assorted lawsuits which ruled if you're going to "buffer" data for a consumer, you have to keep a copy for each customer - no "well, these people are storing the same thing so let's just store one copy". Stupid, but true. Amazon's way around this was obviously to make arrangements with publishers (or to have some creative lawyers leveraging a particular position) allowing the seller to keep one copy and give customers access to that one.
Upshot: buy it from Amazon, they use one copy and tout "free storage"; upload it to Amazon's storage, they have to store that copy independent of any other duplicates.
