Number 41
Apr 20, 12:37 PM
[SIZE=1]
What are you people doing to scratch your phones so much? I don't use a case with my iPhone 4, carry it in my pocket (sometimes with my car keys) and there's not a noticeable scratch on the front or back.
Scratching isn't the issue, it's the shattering that happens when the phone is impacted. I watched an iPhone shatter on a drop of less than 3 feet onto a padded (industrial carpet) floor. I've had friends iPhones shatter from sliding off a table accidentally, being dropped when getting out of a car, and even one who had it with him at a concert and it shattered from the 100+ degree heat.
This wouldn't be an issue if they'd simply recessed the glass into the bezel on the front and used something sensible on the back.
There's a very good reason why nothing that needs to be durable is made out of glass.
What are you people doing to scratch your phones so much? I don't use a case with my iPhone 4, carry it in my pocket (sometimes with my car keys) and there's not a noticeable scratch on the front or back.
Scratching isn't the issue, it's the shattering that happens when the phone is impacted. I watched an iPhone shatter on a drop of less than 3 feet onto a padded (industrial carpet) floor. I've had friends iPhones shatter from sliding off a table accidentally, being dropped when getting out of a car, and even one who had it with him at a concert and it shattered from the 100+ degree heat.
This wouldn't be an issue if they'd simply recessed the glass into the bezel on the front and used something sensible on the back.
There's a very good reason why nothing that needs to be durable is made out of glass.
grassfeeder
Apr 26, 02:06 PM
so much for going heavy after the enterprise market
balamw
Apr 9, 09:15 PM
Tastes great. (who's with me):p
Given your argument I would have thought you'd represent "less filling". :p
B
Given your argument I would have thought you'd represent "less filling". :p
B
Chase R
Dec 15, 01:10 AM
The big deal is that i do not want buggy, resource stealing software on my mac. Simple as that.
Exactly, there's no reason for a Mac to need virus protection. Just a waste of CPU cycles, RAM, and disk IO.
And any PC user that doesn't have AV protection is just asking for it. It's not our responsibility to save their ass. Maybe if they actually do get a(nother) virus they will make the switch!
Exactly, there's no reason for a Mac to need virus protection. Just a waste of CPU cycles, RAM, and disk IO.
And any PC user that doesn't have AV protection is just asking for it. It's not our responsibility to save their ass. Maybe if they actually do get a(nother) virus they will make the switch!
alent1234
Apr 7, 11:23 AM
apple was supposed to have bought up all the smartphone displays as well, yet it's easy to buy an Atrix, Inspire or any other android phone. manufacturers just use screen sizes that apple doesn't use
csHokie
May 4, 06:32 PM
... plain, brown rapper.
Don't be racist... what is wrong with other color rappers?
Sorry, couldn't resist.
I for one will opt for the hard media unless I can download the image and burn it. I'd want to start with a completely fresh install.
Don't be racist... what is wrong with other color rappers?
Sorry, couldn't resist.
I for one will opt for the hard media unless I can download the image and burn it. I'd want to start with a completely fresh install.
HiVolt
Apr 21, 05:22 PM
It would be nice. As I'm forced to use a Mac Pro with no redundancy at work to run some Mac specific software. At least my rack is wide enough, I slide in thru the side and on a shelf.
A 3U-4U Mac Pro with optional redundant PSU and hardware RAID5 would be great. We would certainly buy one at work.
A 3U-4U Mac Pro with optional redundant PSU and hardware RAID5 would be great. We would certainly buy one at work.
nbs2
Nov 22, 12:40 PM
I couldn't agree more. I still think a cell phone should be, first and foremost, a decent telephone! If it stops working after I drop it on carpet, or the person at the other end sounds like they are taking through a "tin can", or if the reception "goes down more frequently than a five dollar hooker" and it drops calls, I don't really give a rat's ass about a built in camera, video, music player, fancy ringers, or any of the other "bells and whistles" that seem to be a marketing priority these days. Then there's the whole battery life issue. I don't want to caught off guard with a dead phone late one night because I happened to be in the mood for music that day and used the phone as a music player all day. Give me a good telephone, and decent features that enhance that function (BT hands free, sync, etc.) first. Then worry about the other gimmicks.
I'll agree as well. One feature that Apple might be able to captalize on, if they do sell direct to consumers rather than through carriers, would be resolution of the bells/whistles problem.
For some people, a phone isn't a phone unless is has a 3MP camera, takes 640x480 video, etc. For others, all they want is basic PDA functionality. Would it be possible for Apple to offer a BTO option? I mean, Camera/Video is generally listed under a single menu option, and it wouldn't be that difficult to design the firmware to only display the category if the Camera is installed. To make things easier, Apple could stock one or two basic models in their stores, and leave people to go to apple.com for customizations...Any reason why this couldn't work?
I'll agree as well. One feature that Apple might be able to captalize on, if they do sell direct to consumers rather than through carriers, would be resolution of the bells/whistles problem.
For some people, a phone isn't a phone unless is has a 3MP camera, takes 640x480 video, etc. For others, all they want is basic PDA functionality. Would it be possible for Apple to offer a BTO option? I mean, Camera/Video is generally listed under a single menu option, and it wouldn't be that difficult to design the firmware to only display the category if the Camera is installed. To make things easier, Apple could stock one or two basic models in their stores, and leave people to go to apple.com for customizations...Any reason why this couldn't work?
dba7dba
Mar 29, 03:59 PM
Globalization is a race to the bottom, and nobody seems to understand that while the 3rd world rises up, the 1st world inevitably must slide down.
You left out a crucial fact.
The 1st world may slide down but not the top 0.5% of the 1st world. In fact the wealth of top 0.5% in the 1st world will keep doubling every few years because of the rise of the 3rd world.
It happens because of more demand (from 3rd world) for goods made by the companies the top 0.5% in 1st world own while the cost for making them will stay low, thanks to outsourcing manufacturing (and increasingly service industry) to the 3rd world.
Awesome deal I must say, for those in the top 0.5% in the 1st world.
You left out a crucial fact.
The 1st world may slide down but not the top 0.5% of the 1st world. In fact the wealth of top 0.5% in the 1st world will keep doubling every few years because of the rise of the 3rd world.
It happens because of more demand (from 3rd world) for goods made by the companies the top 0.5% in 1st world own while the cost for making them will stay low, thanks to outsourcing manufacturing (and increasingly service industry) to the 3rd world.
Awesome deal I must say, for those in the top 0.5% in the 1st world.
BlizzardBomb
Jul 21, 03:46 PM
Three words: Back to School.
Three more words: Worldwide Developer's Conference. Why would a back to school product be released at a developer's conference. It will have its own event or a silent release. And yes that was way more than three words. :p
Three more words: Worldwide Developer's Conference. Why would a back to school product be released at a developer's conference. It will have its own event or a silent release. And yes that was way more than three words. :p
tekmoe
Jul 22, 05:21 PM
Negative? How can this news be negative? Only the most diehard G4 lovers would call this news negative.
it's probably the people who just bought macbook pro's a few weeks ago. hah!
glad i haven't bought a macbook pro yet. must have merom! woooohoooooo!
it's probably the people who just bought macbook pro's a few weeks ago. hah!
glad i haven't bought a macbook pro yet. must have merom! woooohoooooo!
ChazUK
Mar 29, 11:34 AM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (Linux; U; Android 2.3.3; en-gb; Blade Build/FRG83) AppleWebKit/533.1 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0 Mobile Safari/533.1)
Storing some music locally on my phone and having a 20gb cloud of music and having it all accessable via a single app is brilliant.
A good move and potentially good product from Amazon. Looking forward to a UK release!
Storing some music locally on my phone and having a 20gb cloud of music and having it all accessable via a single app is brilliant.
A good move and potentially good product from Amazon. Looking forward to a UK release!
mozmac
Jul 29, 09:41 PM
They wouldn't have to do that. You know ESPN Mobile, Boost Mobile, and AMP'd mobile? They are all "virtual" networks that lease bandwidth from other providers who actually have a physical network. These "virtual" wireless companies are called MVNOs. Apple could become an MVNO (and it has been rumored in the past that would do so), so that they could offer all the features they want, and ensure a consistent experience across the entire user base.
I think that would be a smart move by Apple. It would give them complete control over the whole operation (which we know Jobs loves). They would be able to set their own rules for over-the-air downloads as well as transfering files between your phone and your computer. Verizon is notorious for taking great phones and cripling them, so I don't see Apple going with them. With their own network, Apple could also control offering some sort of syncronized email service through .mac. Imagine...having push email from your .mac account, as well as your calendar that automatically syncs with iCal and your contacts auot-syncing with Address Book. They could build in support for pages and the spreadsheet program they're working on.
I have been with Cingular for a long time and have been very satisfied with the service. I have an EDGE connection just about everywhere I go and haven't had any billing problems. Their customer service has always been fairly willing to help me out with specific concerns. My current contract is up in April, so if they come out with a phone in August, they should hopefully have a rev b phone out by April, just in time for me to upgrade and maybe get a discount by signing a new contract. :)
I think that would be a smart move by Apple. It would give them complete control over the whole operation (which we know Jobs loves). They would be able to set their own rules for over-the-air downloads as well as transfering files between your phone and your computer. Verizon is notorious for taking great phones and cripling them, so I don't see Apple going with them. With their own network, Apple could also control offering some sort of syncronized email service through .mac. Imagine...having push email from your .mac account, as well as your calendar that automatically syncs with iCal and your contacts auot-syncing with Address Book. They could build in support for pages and the spreadsheet program they're working on.
I have been with Cingular for a long time and have been very satisfied with the service. I have an EDGE connection just about everywhere I go and haven't had any billing problems. Their customer service has always been fairly willing to help me out with specific concerns. My current contract is up in April, so if they come out with a phone in August, they should hopefully have a rev b phone out by April, just in time for me to upgrade and maybe get a discount by signing a new contract. :)
Tomtomnovice
Jan 24, 10:58 AM
I sent an e-mail to Tomtom. We'll see what they say. Funny how this info about temperature range isn't available anywhere, and if it is, I could not find it.
toddybody
Apr 7, 09:37 AM
Ehh, purposeful or not (as a sabotage)...not good news for iPad competition:( Which isnt good news for us iPad users...Apple needs constant pressure to release revolutionary products.
roadbloc
Apr 8, 06:22 PM
Don't apply the phone dynamic to Tablets. Android is not likely to take a lead in tablet market share for a long time if forever.
I disagree. The OS on the most number of devices always ends up "winning" (for a lack of a better word.) It has happened time and time again. Windows beat MacOS after a few years due to it being on a wider range of hardware. The same happened with Android on phones. It will most defiantly happen again; if not with Android, defiantly with an OS which works on the same business model and is not tied to specific hardware.
The 'average user' customer likes choice. The iPad provides none. An iPad is an iPad and that is that. Whereas Android provides a wide range of models and sizes and colours and specs.
I disagree. The OS on the most number of devices always ends up "winning" (for a lack of a better word.) It has happened time and time again. Windows beat MacOS after a few years due to it being on a wider range of hardware. The same happened with Android on phones. It will most defiantly happen again; if not with Android, defiantly with an OS which works on the same business model and is not tied to specific hardware.
The 'average user' customer likes choice. The iPad provides none. An iPad is an iPad and that is that. Whereas Android provides a wide range of models and sizes and colours and specs.
Chupa Chupa
Aug 4, 11:59 AM
So when Apple does ugrade the iMac is it going to use the desktop processer or the mobile one?
You are overlooking heat dissipation. The iMac has the guts of a mobile machine. I doubt the desktop chip (Conroe) could handle being inside an iMac for very long. Also the mobile chip (Merom) is hardly a slouch. It sure beats the Celeron and some of the other weaker chips you see in $1000 PCs.
You are overlooking heat dissipation. The iMac has the guts of a mobile machine. I doubt the desktop chip (Conroe) could handle being inside an iMac for very long. Also the mobile chip (Merom) is hardly a slouch. It sure beats the Celeron and some of the other weaker chips you see in $1000 PCs.
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.
AforAndromeda
Nov 12, 11:10 AM
I've never heard of this company -- are they reputable, does anyone know? I've heard all sorts of stories abut these types of things being spyware or some such, don't want to pollute my Mac with any of that garbage!
Just a quick message.
I am not connected with Sophos in any way. Really.:) .....
It may be that many people outside of the UK have not heard of them.
'Largeist' firm, and well established. Lots of integrity and their Tech bullitins/blogs are quite helpful.
I've used Sophos from the 90's. It was one of the first to give a free monthly trial that worked on NT3.5.
I noticed that it's location was near me in the UK.
For me, it is particularly useful for network administrators as the deployment is graphically useful and easy. Their tech support is quick to answer by phone.
Even now as a mainly home user with 3 PC computers, Ive had 15 good experiences of incidences of asking questions/emails and dealing with samples.
I've even questioned twice in 7 years with them whether a 'true' a/v package is worthwhile on a Mac.
Don't take my word for it.
Check the last 20 years...
Interesting..
Especially some comparisons with Norton...
cheers:cool:
Just a quick message.
I am not connected with Sophos in any way. Really.:) .....
It may be that many people outside of the UK have not heard of them.
'Largeist' firm, and well established. Lots of integrity and their Tech bullitins/blogs are quite helpful.
I've used Sophos from the 90's. It was one of the first to give a free monthly trial that worked on NT3.5.
I noticed that it's location was near me in the UK.
For me, it is particularly useful for network administrators as the deployment is graphically useful and easy. Their tech support is quick to answer by phone.
Even now as a mainly home user with 3 PC computers, Ive had 15 good experiences of incidences of asking questions/emails and dealing with samples.
I've even questioned twice in 7 years with them whether a 'true' a/v package is worthwhile on a Mac.
Don't take my word for it.
Check the last 20 years...
Interesting..
Especially some comparisons with Norton...
cheers:cool:
Phil A.
Apr 18, 03:11 PM
Have you seen Windows GUI? It's also almost identical - rows of icons and task bar at the bottom. Did Microsoft sue Apple? No.
That's a hell of a stretch - there's far more similarity between iOS and OS X (not surprisingly) than between Windows and iOS. Apart from that, Microsoft and Apple have extensive cross licensing agreements in place after the events of the early '90s.
If you decided to release a new OS that looked just like Windows 7, or a UI that was a copy of Windows Mobile 7, you'd have Microsoft's lawyers on your back in the blink of an eye...
That's a hell of a stretch - there's far more similarity between iOS and OS X (not surprisingly) than between Windows and iOS. Apart from that, Microsoft and Apple have extensive cross licensing agreements in place after the events of the early '90s.
If you decided to release a new OS that looked just like Windows 7, or a UI that was a copy of Windows Mobile 7, you'd have Microsoft's lawyers on your back in the blink of an eye...
Eidorian
Aug 11, 10:35 AM
so once these are released, what are the chances if my MBP was broken Apple Care would replace it with a new Core 2 Duo one?It's possible. I've heard of iBooks replaced with MacBooks and iMac G5's with Intel ones.
SiliconAddict
Nov 22, 11:37 AM
iPod Phone == phone + music
Palm Treo == Tool
Threat averted. Life can go on as usual. :rolleyes:
Palm Treo == Tool
Threat averted. Life can go on as usual. :rolleyes:
ticman
Nov 14, 07:42 AM
Interesting Jape. Now let's see if they send us a confirmation email. They have been quite good about it the past.
carlos700
Aug 2, 09:17 PM
http://www.intel.com/pressroom/archive/releases/20060727comp.htm
"Intel Corporation today unveiled 10 Intel� Core� 2 Duo and Intel� Core� 2 Extreme processors for consumer and business desktop and laptop PCs..."
The article later goes on to show the advantages of the Mobile PC Processor.
Merom is officially announced. They just don't say Merom.
You win that one. :D Although I cannot find the product page for laptop Core 2 Duos, only those for the desktop.
"Intel Corporation today unveiled 10 Intel� Core� 2 Duo and Intel� Core� 2 Extreme processors for consumer and business desktop and laptop PCs..."
The article later goes on to show the advantages of the Mobile PC Processor.
Merom is officially announced. They just don't say Merom.
You win that one. :D Although I cannot find the product page for laptop Core 2 Duos, only those for the desktop.