rotobadger
Mar 30, 01:23 PM
Thats a pretty good point. But After some research I found they trademarked the phrase "THE Container store" not Container Store.
As posted above, "RoomStore" is trademarked, however.
As posted above, "RoomStore" is trademarked, however.
JAT
Mar 23, 04:55 PM
Always one in a bunch who brings up a personal experience to shock people into shutting up. My sister was eaten by a hyena. No hyena jokes please.
Would you like more? Maybe people should stop DUI.
My sister was run over by a drunk 6-8 years ago, broken leg. I think all the pins have been removed.
A teenage driver was killed in a head-on directly in front of my house (30 mph road) by a guy doing 50+, over the limit on alcohol, and with marijuana in his blood. His mother still keeps a memorial on the corner across the street. That has also been around 10 years.
Would you like more? Maybe people should stop DUI.
My sister was run over by a drunk 6-8 years ago, broken leg. I think all the pins have been removed.
A teenage driver was killed in a head-on directly in front of my house (30 mph road) by a guy doing 50+, over the limit on alcohol, and with marijuana in his blood. His mother still keeps a memorial on the corner across the street. That has also been around 10 years.
p0intblank
Aug 23, 07:33 PM
Damn, that's a lot of money. I hate that Apple gave in... but I guess they kind of had to, right? At least all the hate is over with. :)
bjdku
Sep 13, 08:57 PM
This is stated so matter of fact. There is no ? in the title. How certain is arn? He always uses ?
ciTiger
May 3, 11:15 AM
For a desktop OS, sure.
Ivy Bridge will bring it up to 3 displays. AMD has 6 displays for embedded systems now.
Curly hairstyles for long hair
Long Messy Curly Hairstyle
hairstyles long curly hair
Prom Hairstyles for Long Hair
curly prom hairstyles long
Posted in Curly hairstyles,
prom hairstyles long hair
Curly Long Hair
.jpg "prom hairstyles for curly hair")
prom hairstyles for curly hair
Long Curly Hair
Searching for the perfect prom
Ivy Bridge will bring it up to 3 displays. AMD has 6 displays for embedded systems now.
dsnort
Sep 19, 02:09 PM
Make it 125,001. My wife has been dying to get "Stick It".
MrWinters
Apr 28, 03:46 PM
Microsoft is DEAD. And so is Google.
GO APPLE!
Microsoft just posted a record quarter.
"Microsoft reported strong third-quarter sales and earnings, as the software giant weathered slowing PC sales with strong performances from its Office and Xbox businesses.
Net income in the company's fiscal third quarter climbed 31 percent to $5.23 billion on sales of $16.43 billion, a 13 percent gain.
"We delivered strong financial results despite a mixed PC environment, which demonstrates the strength and breadth of our businesses," Microsoft's chief financial officer, Peter Klein, said in a statement. "Consumers are purchasing Office Xbox, and Kinect at tremendous rates, and businesses of all sizes are purchasing Microsoft platforms and applications."
Read more: http://news.cnet.com/8301-10805_3-20058406-75.html#ixzz1Kqvp0N71"
Just because Apple's profit was higher doesn't dispel the end for Microsoft or Google. Every company in American except one made less profit that Apple, and trust me, they aren't all "doomed or Dead"....
Grow up Mr. Lawyer!
GO APPLE!
Microsoft just posted a record quarter.
"Microsoft reported strong third-quarter sales and earnings, as the software giant weathered slowing PC sales with strong performances from its Office and Xbox businesses.
Net income in the company's fiscal third quarter climbed 31 percent to $5.23 billion on sales of $16.43 billion, a 13 percent gain.
"We delivered strong financial results despite a mixed PC environment, which demonstrates the strength and breadth of our businesses," Microsoft's chief financial officer, Peter Klein, said in a statement. "Consumers are purchasing Office Xbox, and Kinect at tremendous rates, and businesses of all sizes are purchasing Microsoft platforms and applications."
Read more: http://news.cnet.com/8301-10805_3-20058406-75.html#ixzz1Kqvp0N71"
Just because Apple's profit was higher doesn't dispel the end for Microsoft or Google. Every company in American except one made less profit that Apple, and trust me, they aren't all "doomed or Dead"....
Grow up Mr. Lawyer!
G^2
Sep 6, 08:03 AM
Apple just posted new iMacs on their Canada webstore. Bigger brighter faster at 17, 20, and 24 inches with Core 2 Duo processors
http://store.apple.com/1-800-MY-APPLE/WebObjects/canadastore/
http://store.apple.com/1-800-MY-APPLE/WebObjects/canadastore.woa/wo/0.RSLID?mco=CDD6CB86&nclm=iMac
Yay for 24 inch iMacs! Yay for Core 2 Duo! :D
http://store.apple.com/1-800-MY-APPLE/WebObjects/canadastore/
http://store.apple.com/1-800-MY-APPLE/WebObjects/canadastore.woa/wo/0.RSLID?mco=CDD6CB86&nclm=iMac
Yay for 24 inch iMacs! Yay for Core 2 Duo! :D
PhatBoyG
May 3, 11:54 AM
Surely I'm not the only one who's noticed that the i7 is slower than the i5, and that the Radeon HD 6970M is slower than the 6750M.
Whaaaaa? :confused:
The baselines are different when you click the different models. The 6970M is most definitely faster than the 6750M.
Whaaaaa? :confused:
The baselines are different when you click the different models. The 6970M is most definitely faster than the 6750M.
KnightWRX
Apr 24, 04:07 AM
Why does anyone doubt that the new Air will be outstanding? My money is on Apple doing a nice job on the Air as they did with the MBP.
The MBP 13" is not quite the bang up job. It got a GPU downgrade and the benchmarks show it. The MBA won't be any different. There's no doubt about it, if you're looking for a GPU upgrade, go look elsewhere.
It's just the reality Intel forced onto us, why does anyone want to live in denial ?
The MBP 13" is not quite the bang up job. It got a GPU downgrade and the benchmarks show it. The MBA won't be any different. There's no doubt about it, if you're looking for a GPU upgrade, go look elsewhere.
It's just the reality Intel forced onto us, why does anyone want to live in denial ?
Unorthodox
Sep 14, 03:14 PM
September 25th (http://www.macworld.com/news/2006/09/14/photokina/index.php).
Not the 24th.
Not the 24th.
CylonGlitch
Nov 13, 03:58 PM
In a sense, yes. The rules for iPhone development are different than for Mac OS X. I may not always agree with it but there you have it. :)
Exactly, they are technically different operating systems. But even so, just because an OS gives you access to specific images, doesn't give you the rights to take them and use them for something else. Obviously RA had to pull the image from the API and then save it to another file and use it in their iPhone application. Just because it is accessible via API doesn't mean it is free to use. The API is free to use, the data is not.
Example. You buy a CD of a song, you can play it on your CD player. You can use it all you want in your CD player, but try ripping that song off (ie copying the image from the API) and using it in a movie you're making.. Guess what, you can't.
Exactly, they are technically different operating systems. But even so, just because an OS gives you access to specific images, doesn't give you the rights to take them and use them for something else. Obviously RA had to pull the image from the API and then save it to another file and use it in their iPhone application. Just because it is accessible via API doesn't mean it is free to use. The API is free to use, the data is not.
Example. You buy a CD of a song, you can play it on your CD player. You can use it all you want in your CD player, but try ripping that song off (ie copying the image from the API) and using it in a movie you're making.. Guess what, you can't.
ShnikeJSB
Jul 14, 01:18 PM
Does a 1333MHz bus matter? (http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2795&p=6)
Not only is the Anandtech Article one of the better ones, they simulated a 1333 bus speed with the X6800-EE processer, and came up with an overall inprovement of 2.4%, with DivX 6.1 providing a 7.5% boost!
Also, to quote the article:
"If Apple does indeed use a 1333MHz Woodcrest for its new line of Intel based Macs, running Windows it may be the first time that an Apple system will be faster out of the box than an equivalently configured, non-overclocked PC. There's an interesting marketing angle."
WOOHOO!!!
Not only is the Anandtech Article one of the better ones, they simulated a 1333 bus speed with the X6800-EE processer, and came up with an overall inprovement of 2.4%, with DivX 6.1 providing a 7.5% boost!
Also, to quote the article:
"If Apple does indeed use a 1333MHz Woodcrest for its new line of Intel based Macs, running Windows it may be the first time that an Apple system will be faster out of the box than an equivalently configured, non-overclocked PC. There's an interesting marketing angle."
WOOHOO!!!
Jupeman
Mar 23, 07:14 PM
God save us from the nanny state.
suneohair
Sep 14, 11:25 AM
Some ACD love? I need to buy soon.
toddybody
Apr 30, 07:51 PM
people need to catch up, why do people keep asking about crisis... it is old news in the graphical world....
the last 2 generations could play crisis and crisis 2 in bootcamp
Sorry, but you're totally wrong.
Play(load a level under medium settings), and PLAY are two different things;) There is NO MAC (much less the mGPU blessed iMac) that can max Crysis (@ native res) at livable frame rates(>30)...especially not at 2560x1440.
curly hair prom hairstyles
hairstyles for prom for long
prom hairstyles for curly hair
the last 2 generations could play crisis and crisis 2 in bootcamp
Sorry, but you're totally wrong.
Play(load a level under medium settings), and PLAY are two different things;) There is NO MAC (much less the mGPU blessed iMac) that can max Crysis (@ native res) at livable frame rates(>30)...especially not at 2560x1440.
IJ Reilly
Aug 24, 10:20 AM
Ummm, Apple didn't lose. Settling is not "losing" in any legal sense.
No, but they lost in every other sense that matters. I am really failing to understand why some people are having such a tough time comprehending this. Apple capitulated on the patent challenge, Apple paid a huge sum of money to Creative so Apple could continue business as usual. Apple lost. That's all, folks.
No, but they lost in every other sense that matters. I am really failing to understand why some people are having such a tough time comprehending this. Apple capitulated on the patent challenge, Apple paid a huge sum of money to Creative so Apple could continue business as usual. Apple lost. That's all, folks.
hayesk
May 3, 06:56 PM
No matte antiglare screens on the new iMacs. If you need matte screens, there's something you can do - add your voice to 1,300+ petitions at http://macmatte.wordpress.com Unlike personal emails to Apple - which Apple just ignore, asserting everyone loves glossy screens - make it count by adding to the online petition where your voice will remain visible on the net until Apple listens. Remember, adding your comment to transient news articles on the net is fine, but those articles go out of date in a few weeks, and also there is no long-term accumulation and consolidation of numbers, like there is at a petition site.
I've seen you post this same post on every Mac site I've visited today. Here's the problem - those of us who read Mac sites are a tiny minority. Those of us who read the comments on Mac sites are an even tinier minority. We don't represent the vast majority of iMac customers. This petition, while I agree with your preference as I type this on a matte screen MBP, is not going to do anything. Apple won't read it, and even if they do, will not follow it. But good luck.
I've seen you post this same post on every Mac site I've visited today. Here's the problem - those of us who read Mac sites are a tiny minority. Those of us who read the comments on Mac sites are an even tinier minority. We don't represent the vast majority of iMac customers. This petition, while I agree with your preference as I type this on a matte screen MBP, is not going to do anything. Apple won't read it, and even if they do, will not follow it. But good luck.
IJ Reilly
Aug 23, 06:55 PM
I know the bills add up quickly, but just how much does an active case cost? That's a lot of zeroes!
Not that much. Not 100 million smackers. Some seem to believe that patent and copyright lawsuits are slot machines that always pay off. Not so. You settle for big numbers when you think you're likely to lose. You fight when believe the case will be dismissed. Apple easily could have slugged this one out with Creative, and they would have, or settled for a token amount, if they thought they had a chance of prevailing. The result speaks for itself.
Not that much. Not 100 million smackers. Some seem to believe that patent and copyright lawsuits are slot machines that always pay off. Not so. You settle for big numbers when you think you're likely to lose. You fight when believe the case will be dismissed. Apple easily could have slugged this one out with Creative, and they would have, or settled for a token amount, if they thought they had a chance of prevailing. The result speaks for itself.
LaMerVipere
Sep 12, 02:08 PM
I hope Apple releases an iPod software update so those of us who already own 5th generation iPods can take advantage of all these new features.
BRLawyer
Mar 22, 03:06 PM
Nobody wants the 24". That's why they stopped making it. It was useless.
Sure it is useless; I've been using one for what, 2 years now? ;)
Sure it is useless; I've been using one for what, 2 years now? ;)
Yebubbleman
Apr 25, 03:38 PM
Hilarious to all those people who jumped on the THUNDERBOLT bandwagon. No thunderbolt devices yet and they have the hideous old case design.
:rolleyes:
Like that Alienware you've been eying has a prettier design. Where are you going to find a better design?
Great, I've been hungering for a new Macbook Pro for quite some time, and was hoping I could hold out long enough to get a non-ugly model :)
I can't stand the UB look.
Again, I challenge you to find a better looking, better designed laptop chassis on the market.
Thinner, no optical...perhaps SSD only?
I'd prefer a smaller bezel the same color as the MBA. Say, 1/4" or a little smaller? Larger trackpad for more gestures?
It's called the MacBook Air. Go buy one now. Meanwhile us MacBook Pro customers will be happy actually having features.
There is your answer, people think it should be thinner
It's true. And they are the rare few that want only a MacBook Air with a larger screen and a discrete GPU. Good thing those people are in the minority.
Nice. My 17 MBP (Early 2009) will be getting close to the end of its life cycle by then, allowing me to easily slide into a new MBP.
End of its life-cycle? Is there an app you can't run on that thing? Or are you one of those people on here that can't be out of date? An Early 2009 17" MacBook Pro wasn't something to shake a stick at last I checked. Through true, it is older than a week.
Wow, you people...
+1
Let me clarify, i made my decision before this news was posted here. I really dont see nothing wrong with waiting on this refresh especially if it will be a huge step forward(which i believe it will be).
The "step forward" of which you speak, of which is the basis of this article, is only in regards to the exterior design, nothing else. Sure if they improve upon the durability and the ease of servicing, that'll be a decent step forward, otherwise, we're talking about cosmetics, and again while most of the people who lurk these forums care about form over function, function is all that matters and it won't be that different next rev, redesign or not.
They already have that product...it's called the MacBook Air.
This.
Translated: Next macbook pro will be a macbook air. MBA will cease to exist as a discrete product line. Happening late fall 2011 (if we're lucky).
You have a very bass-ackwards definition of luck.
I think it's almost a given that they'll do away with the superdrive. There's no need for it. And if they move to flash storage, they could make it a bit thinner and lighter. It would be like a Macbook air, but with powerful mobile processors.
Right, because I get high-speed internet everywhere! Because my MacBook Pro has 4G (and because 4G, itself, is ubiquitous). Because with a "MacBook Pro", I enjoy the inconvenience of having to have an external optical drive (because after all, the MacBook PRO line is all about conservation of space). Most people with the anti-superdrive arguments don't realize how very selfish and ridiculous their stances are. Luckily for them, there's an app for that, namely the MacBook Air.
This, if it and Ivy Bridge, lower SSD prices/larger capacities come to fruition solidify my decision to stay with my 2010 and wait for the 2012 refresh.
Your computer is only one year old; at that point it'll only be two, maybe two and a half years old. Will you REALLY NEED a new computer at that point?
please get rid of the bezel. make it as small as possible.
please do not make it thinner. rather reduce footprint and keep battery life up.
Laptop design doesn't work that way. They won't make it thicker and if they reduced the footprint, they'd reduce the size (and therefore capacity) of the battery. Nice idea though.
SSD + HD - Optical Drive = Sold
SSD + HD - Optical Drive =! MacBook Pro
Sorry.
Or just get a USB optical drive and have the best of both worlds ... you won't be forced to lug around something you only use once in a while :)
If the ODD is integrated, I'm not forced to lug around an extra part when I need to use it. Or is your definition of inconvenience backwards?
Ehrrrm, a superdrive is what invariably fails first and gives your laptop almost an extra kilogram of weight you need to carry around. Because taking it off means losing warranty.
A superdrive is not a trait of a "Pro" laptop. The speed and reliability are. Imagine a RAID array of SSDs packed together in a package the size of a superdrive. Imagine a pico projector in that slot � this is what Toshiba is going to do real soon now.
A Kilogram? Have you ever held a bare slot-load drive before? They're barely suitable for paperweights. I'll grant you that the slot-load models Apple uses are disgustingly failure proned, but the solution is to design a better one, not throw the bloody baby out with the bath water. A Pro laptop is like a swiss-army knife, equipped with any tool ANY professional could possibly need. Hence why the "MacBook Pro" of any Apple laptop should have the optical drive. Again, if you absolutely can't have one, the MacBook Air is a decent alternative.
The optical drive doesn't make it "Pro" it makes it "outdated" and "unnecessary." If you need an optical drive by an external one, there is no need to hold up the majority that never use them.
Contrastingly, if you need to not have one, you can always buy a MacBook Air. I don't use my FireWire 800 port often, but when I do, I'm thankful it's there. The same goes for the optical drive. Again, if you don't want it, Apple makes the MacBook Air which comes without it for the truly space-concious.
:rolleyes:
Like that Alienware you've been eying has a prettier design. Where are you going to find a better design?
Great, I've been hungering for a new Macbook Pro for quite some time, and was hoping I could hold out long enough to get a non-ugly model :)
I can't stand the UB look.
Again, I challenge you to find a better looking, better designed laptop chassis on the market.
Thinner, no optical...perhaps SSD only?
I'd prefer a smaller bezel the same color as the MBA. Say, 1/4" or a little smaller? Larger trackpad for more gestures?
It's called the MacBook Air. Go buy one now. Meanwhile us MacBook Pro customers will be happy actually having features.
There is your answer, people think it should be thinner
It's true. And they are the rare few that want only a MacBook Air with a larger screen and a discrete GPU. Good thing those people are in the minority.
Nice. My 17 MBP (Early 2009) will be getting close to the end of its life cycle by then, allowing me to easily slide into a new MBP.
End of its life-cycle? Is there an app you can't run on that thing? Or are you one of those people on here that can't be out of date? An Early 2009 17" MacBook Pro wasn't something to shake a stick at last I checked. Through true, it is older than a week.
Wow, you people...
+1
Let me clarify, i made my decision before this news was posted here. I really dont see nothing wrong with waiting on this refresh especially if it will be a huge step forward(which i believe it will be).
The "step forward" of which you speak, of which is the basis of this article, is only in regards to the exterior design, nothing else. Sure if they improve upon the durability and the ease of servicing, that'll be a decent step forward, otherwise, we're talking about cosmetics, and again while most of the people who lurk these forums care about form over function, function is all that matters and it won't be that different next rev, redesign or not.
They already have that product...it's called the MacBook Air.
This.
Translated: Next macbook pro will be a macbook air. MBA will cease to exist as a discrete product line. Happening late fall 2011 (if we're lucky).
You have a very bass-ackwards definition of luck.
I think it's almost a given that they'll do away with the superdrive. There's no need for it. And if they move to flash storage, they could make it a bit thinner and lighter. It would be like a Macbook air, but with powerful mobile processors.
Right, because I get high-speed internet everywhere! Because my MacBook Pro has 4G (and because 4G, itself, is ubiquitous). Because with a "MacBook Pro", I enjoy the inconvenience of having to have an external optical drive (because after all, the MacBook PRO line is all about conservation of space). Most people with the anti-superdrive arguments don't realize how very selfish and ridiculous their stances are. Luckily for them, there's an app for that, namely the MacBook Air.
This, if it and Ivy Bridge, lower SSD prices/larger capacities come to fruition solidify my decision to stay with my 2010 and wait for the 2012 refresh.
Your computer is only one year old; at that point it'll only be two, maybe two and a half years old. Will you REALLY NEED a new computer at that point?
please get rid of the bezel. make it as small as possible.
please do not make it thinner. rather reduce footprint and keep battery life up.
Laptop design doesn't work that way. They won't make it thicker and if they reduced the footprint, they'd reduce the size (and therefore capacity) of the battery. Nice idea though.
SSD + HD - Optical Drive = Sold
SSD + HD - Optical Drive =! MacBook Pro
Sorry.
Or just get a USB optical drive and have the best of both worlds ... you won't be forced to lug around something you only use once in a while :)
If the ODD is integrated, I'm not forced to lug around an extra part when I need to use it. Or is your definition of inconvenience backwards?
Ehrrrm, a superdrive is what invariably fails first and gives your laptop almost an extra kilogram of weight you need to carry around. Because taking it off means losing warranty.
A superdrive is not a trait of a "Pro" laptop. The speed and reliability are. Imagine a RAID array of SSDs packed together in a package the size of a superdrive. Imagine a pico projector in that slot � this is what Toshiba is going to do real soon now.
A Kilogram? Have you ever held a bare slot-load drive before? They're barely suitable for paperweights. I'll grant you that the slot-load models Apple uses are disgustingly failure proned, but the solution is to design a better one, not throw the bloody baby out with the bath water. A Pro laptop is like a swiss-army knife, equipped with any tool ANY professional could possibly need. Hence why the "MacBook Pro" of any Apple laptop should have the optical drive. Again, if you absolutely can't have one, the MacBook Air is a decent alternative.
The optical drive doesn't make it "Pro" it makes it "outdated" and "unnecessary." If you need an optical drive by an external one, there is no need to hold up the majority that never use them.
Contrastingly, if you need to not have one, you can always buy a MacBook Air. I don't use my FireWire 800 port often, but when I do, I'm thankful it's there. The same goes for the optical drive. Again, if you don't want it, Apple makes the MacBook Air which comes without it for the truly space-concious.
peharri
Sep 21, 08:10 AM
Finally, someone gets it right.
CDMA is technically superior to GSM just about any way you care to measure it. GSM's widespread adoption in Europe was by fiat as a protectionist measure for European telecom companies, primarily because the European technology providers did not want to license CDMA from an American company. CDMA was basically slandered six ways to Sunday to justify using GSM. It was nothing more than a case of Not Invented Here writ large and turf protection. This early rapid push to standardize on GSM in as many places as possible as a strategic hedge gave them a strong market position in most of the rest of the world. In the US, the various protocols had to fight it out on the open market which took time to sort itself out.
There's a lot of nonsense about IS-95 ("CDMA" as implemented by Qualcomm) that's promoted by Qualcomm shills (some openly, like Steve De Beste) that I'd be very careful about taking claims of "superiority" at face value. The above is so full of the kind mis-representations I've seen posted everywhere I have to respond.
1. CDMA is not "technically superior to GSM just about any way you care to measure". CDMA (by which I assume you mean IS95, because comparing GSM to CDMA air interface technology is like comparing a minivan to a car tire - the conflation of TDMA and GSM has, and the deliberate underplaying of the 95% of IS-95 that has nothing to do with the air-interface, has been a standard tool in the shills toolbox) has an air-interface technology which has better capacity than GSM's TDMA, but the rest of IS-95 really isn't as mature or consumer friendly as GSM. In particular, IS-95 leaves decisions as to support for SIM cards, and network codes, to operators, which means in practice that there's no standardization and few benefits to an end user who chooses it. Most US operators seem to have, surprise surprise, avoided SIM cards and network standardization seems to be based upon US analog dialing star codes (eg *72, etc)
2. "GSM's widespread adoption in Europe was by fiat as a protectionist measure for European telecom companies, primarily because the European technology providers did not want to license CDMA from an American company." is objectively untrue. GSM was developed in the mid-eighties as a method to move towards a standardized mobile phone system for Europe, which at the time had different systems running on different frequencies in pretty much every country (unlike the US where AMPS was available in every state.)
By the time IS-95 was developed, GSM was already an established standard in practically all of Europe. While 900MHz services were mandated as GSM and legacy analogy only by the EC, countries were free to allow other standards on other frequencies until one became dominant on a particular frequency. With 1800MHz, the first operators given the band choose GSM, as it was clearly more advanced than what Qualcomm was offering, and handset makers would have little or no difficulty making multifrequency handsets. (Today GSM is also mandated on 1800MHz, but that wasn't true at the time one2one and Orange, and many that followed, choose GSM.)
The only aspect of IS95 that could be described as "superior" that would require licensing is the CDMA air interface technology. European operators and phone makers have, indeed, licensed that technology (albeit not to Qualcomm's specifications) and it's present in pretty much all implementations of UMTS. So much for that.
3. "CDMA was basically slandered six ways to Sunday to justify using GSM." Funny, I could have sworn I saw the exact opposite.
I came to the US in 1998, GSM wasn't available in my market area at the time, and I picked up an IS-95 phone believing it to be superior based upon what was said on newsgroups, US media, and other sources. I was shocked. IS-95 was better than IS-136 ("D-AMPS"), but not by much, and it was considerably less reliable. At that time, IS-95, as providing by most US operators, didn't support two way text messaging or data. It didn't support - much to my astonishment - SIM cards. ISDN integration was nil. Network services were a jumbled mess. Call drops were common, even when signal strengths were high.
Much of this has been fixed since. But what amazed me looking back on it was the sheer nonsense being directed at GSM by IS-95 advocates. GSM was, according to them, identical to IS-136, which they called TDMA. It had identical problems. Apparently on GSM, calls would drop every time you changed tower. GSM only had a 7km range! It only worked in Europe because everyone lives in cities! And GSM was a government owned standard, imposed by the EU on unwilling mobile phone operators.
Every single one of these facts was completely untrue. IS-136 was closer in form to IS-95 than GSM. IS-136, unlike GSM and like IS-95, was essentially built around the same mobile phone model as AMPS, with little or no network services standardization and an inherent assumption that the all calls would be to POTS or other similarly limited cellphones as itself. Like IS-95 and unlike GSM, in IS-136 your phone was your identifier, you couldn't change phones without your operator's permission. Like IS-95 at the time, messaging and data was barely implemented in IS-136 - when I left the UK I'd been browsing the web and using IRC (via Demon's telnetable IRC client) on my Nokia 9000 on a regular basis.
No TDMA system I'm aware of routinely drops calls when you change towers. In practice, I had far more call drops under Sprint PCS then I had under any other operator, namely because IS-95's capacity improvement was over-exaggerated and operators at the time routinely overloaded their networks.
GSM's range, which is around 20km, while technically a limitation of the air interface technology, isn't much different to what a .25W cellphone's range is in practice. You're not going to find many cellphones capable of getting a signal from a tower that far, regardless of what technology you use. The whole "Everyone lives in cities" thing is a myth, as certain countries, notably Finland, have far more US-like demographics in that respect (but what do they know about cellphones in Finland (http://www.nokia.com)?)
GSM was a standard built by the operators after the EU told them to create at least one standard that would be supported across the continent. Only the concept of "standardization" was forced upon operators, the standard - a development of work being done by France Telecom at the time - was made and agreed to by the operators. Those same operators would have looked at IS-95, or even at CDMA incorporated into GSM at the air interface level - had it been a mature, viable, technology at the time. It wasn't.
The only practical advantage IS-95 had over GSM was better capacity. This in theory meant cheaper minutes. For a time, that was true. Today, most US operators offer close to identical tariffs and close to identical reliability. But I can choose which GSM phone I leave the house with, and I know it'll work consistantly regardless of where I am.
Ultimately, the GSM consortium lost and Qualcomm got the last laugh because the technology does not scale as well as CDMA. Every last telecom equipment provider in Europe has since licensed the CDMA technology, and some version of the technology is part of the next generation cellular infrastructure under a few different names.
This paragraph is bizarrely misleading and I'm wondering if you just worded it poorly. GSM is still the worldwide standard. The newest version, UMTS, uses a CDMA air interface but is otherwise a clear development of GSM. It has virtually nothing in common with IS-95. "The GSM consortium" consists of GSM operators and handset makers. They're doing pretty well. What have they lost? Are you saying that because GSM's latest version includes one aspect of the IS-95 standard that GSM is worse? Or that IS-95 is suddenly better?
While GSM has better interoperability globally, I would make the observation that CDMA works just fine in the US, which is no small region of the planet and the third most populous country. For many people, the better quality is worth it.
Given the choice between 2G IS-95 or GSM, I'd pick GSM every time. Given the choice between 3G IS-95 (CDMA2000) and UMTS, I'd pick UMTS every time. The quality is generally better with the GSM equivalent - you're getting a well designed, digitial, integrated, network with GSM with all the features you'd expect. The advantages of the IS-95 equivalent are harder to come by. Slightly better data rates with 3G seems to be the only major one. Well, maybe the only one. Capacity? That's an operator issue. Indeed, with the move to UMA (presumably there'll be an IS-95 equivalent), it wouldn't surprise me if operators need less towers in the future regardless of which network technology they picked. The only other "advantages" IS-95 brings to the table seem to be imaginary.
CDMA is technically superior to GSM just about any way you care to measure it. GSM's widespread adoption in Europe was by fiat as a protectionist measure for European telecom companies, primarily because the European technology providers did not want to license CDMA from an American company. CDMA was basically slandered six ways to Sunday to justify using GSM. It was nothing more than a case of Not Invented Here writ large and turf protection. This early rapid push to standardize on GSM in as many places as possible as a strategic hedge gave them a strong market position in most of the rest of the world. In the US, the various protocols had to fight it out on the open market which took time to sort itself out.
There's a lot of nonsense about IS-95 ("CDMA" as implemented by Qualcomm) that's promoted by Qualcomm shills (some openly, like Steve De Beste) that I'd be very careful about taking claims of "superiority" at face value. The above is so full of the kind mis-representations I've seen posted everywhere I have to respond.
1. CDMA is not "technically superior to GSM just about any way you care to measure". CDMA (by which I assume you mean IS95, because comparing GSM to CDMA air interface technology is like comparing a minivan to a car tire - the conflation of TDMA and GSM has, and the deliberate underplaying of the 95% of IS-95 that has nothing to do with the air-interface, has been a standard tool in the shills toolbox) has an air-interface technology which has better capacity than GSM's TDMA, but the rest of IS-95 really isn't as mature or consumer friendly as GSM. In particular, IS-95 leaves decisions as to support for SIM cards, and network codes, to operators, which means in practice that there's no standardization and few benefits to an end user who chooses it. Most US operators seem to have, surprise surprise, avoided SIM cards and network standardization seems to be based upon US analog dialing star codes (eg *72, etc)
2. "GSM's widespread adoption in Europe was by fiat as a protectionist measure for European telecom companies, primarily because the European technology providers did not want to license CDMA from an American company." is objectively untrue. GSM was developed in the mid-eighties as a method to move towards a standardized mobile phone system for Europe, which at the time had different systems running on different frequencies in pretty much every country (unlike the US where AMPS was available in every state.)
By the time IS-95 was developed, GSM was already an established standard in practically all of Europe. While 900MHz services were mandated as GSM and legacy analogy only by the EC, countries were free to allow other standards on other frequencies until one became dominant on a particular frequency. With 1800MHz, the first operators given the band choose GSM, as it was clearly more advanced than what Qualcomm was offering, and handset makers would have little or no difficulty making multifrequency handsets. (Today GSM is also mandated on 1800MHz, but that wasn't true at the time one2one and Orange, and many that followed, choose GSM.)
The only aspect of IS95 that could be described as "superior" that would require licensing is the CDMA air interface technology. European operators and phone makers have, indeed, licensed that technology (albeit not to Qualcomm's specifications) and it's present in pretty much all implementations of UMTS. So much for that.
3. "CDMA was basically slandered six ways to Sunday to justify using GSM." Funny, I could have sworn I saw the exact opposite.
I came to the US in 1998, GSM wasn't available in my market area at the time, and I picked up an IS-95 phone believing it to be superior based upon what was said on newsgroups, US media, and other sources. I was shocked. IS-95 was better than IS-136 ("D-AMPS"), but not by much, and it was considerably less reliable. At that time, IS-95, as providing by most US operators, didn't support two way text messaging or data. It didn't support - much to my astonishment - SIM cards. ISDN integration was nil. Network services were a jumbled mess. Call drops were common, even when signal strengths were high.
Much of this has been fixed since. But what amazed me looking back on it was the sheer nonsense being directed at GSM by IS-95 advocates. GSM was, according to them, identical to IS-136, which they called TDMA. It had identical problems. Apparently on GSM, calls would drop every time you changed tower. GSM only had a 7km range! It only worked in Europe because everyone lives in cities! And GSM was a government owned standard, imposed by the EU on unwilling mobile phone operators.
Every single one of these facts was completely untrue. IS-136 was closer in form to IS-95 than GSM. IS-136, unlike GSM and like IS-95, was essentially built around the same mobile phone model as AMPS, with little or no network services standardization and an inherent assumption that the all calls would be to POTS or other similarly limited cellphones as itself. Like IS-95 and unlike GSM, in IS-136 your phone was your identifier, you couldn't change phones without your operator's permission. Like IS-95 at the time, messaging and data was barely implemented in IS-136 - when I left the UK I'd been browsing the web and using IRC (via Demon's telnetable IRC client) on my Nokia 9000 on a regular basis.
No TDMA system I'm aware of routinely drops calls when you change towers. In practice, I had far more call drops under Sprint PCS then I had under any other operator, namely because IS-95's capacity improvement was over-exaggerated and operators at the time routinely overloaded their networks.
GSM's range, which is around 20km, while technically a limitation of the air interface technology, isn't much different to what a .25W cellphone's range is in practice. You're not going to find many cellphones capable of getting a signal from a tower that far, regardless of what technology you use. The whole "Everyone lives in cities" thing is a myth, as certain countries, notably Finland, have far more US-like demographics in that respect (but what do they know about cellphones in Finland (http://www.nokia.com)?)
GSM was a standard built by the operators after the EU told them to create at least one standard that would be supported across the continent. Only the concept of "standardization" was forced upon operators, the standard - a development of work being done by France Telecom at the time - was made and agreed to by the operators. Those same operators would have looked at IS-95, or even at CDMA incorporated into GSM at the air interface level - had it been a mature, viable, technology at the time. It wasn't.
The only practical advantage IS-95 had over GSM was better capacity. This in theory meant cheaper minutes. For a time, that was true. Today, most US operators offer close to identical tariffs and close to identical reliability. But I can choose which GSM phone I leave the house with, and I know it'll work consistantly regardless of where I am.
Ultimately, the GSM consortium lost and Qualcomm got the last laugh because the technology does not scale as well as CDMA. Every last telecom equipment provider in Europe has since licensed the CDMA technology, and some version of the technology is part of the next generation cellular infrastructure under a few different names.
This paragraph is bizarrely misleading and I'm wondering if you just worded it poorly. GSM is still the worldwide standard. The newest version, UMTS, uses a CDMA air interface but is otherwise a clear development of GSM. It has virtually nothing in common with IS-95. "The GSM consortium" consists of GSM operators and handset makers. They're doing pretty well. What have they lost? Are you saying that because GSM's latest version includes one aspect of the IS-95 standard that GSM is worse? Or that IS-95 is suddenly better?
While GSM has better interoperability globally, I would make the observation that CDMA works just fine in the US, which is no small region of the planet and the third most populous country. For many people, the better quality is worth it.
Given the choice between 2G IS-95 or GSM, I'd pick GSM every time. Given the choice between 3G IS-95 (CDMA2000) and UMTS, I'd pick UMTS every time. The quality is generally better with the GSM equivalent - you're getting a well designed, digitial, integrated, network with GSM with all the features you'd expect. The advantages of the IS-95 equivalent are harder to come by. Slightly better data rates with 3G seems to be the only major one. Well, maybe the only one. Capacity? That's an operator issue. Indeed, with the move to UMA (presumably there'll be an IS-95 equivalent), it wouldn't surprise me if operators need less towers in the future regardless of which network technology they picked. The only other "advantages" IS-95 brings to the table seem to be imaginary.
shurcooL
Apr 22, 12:57 PM
I hope to see the backlit keyboard back also. It should be a standard MacBook feature.
I think I'll be satisfied with gaming on an Air thanks to OnLive. In fact, it's the perfect machine for it. Just plug in a wireless 360 controller (and optionally an external monitor/HDTV) and play.
I think I'll be satisfied with gaming on an Air thanks to OnLive. In fact, it's the perfect machine for it. Just plug in a wireless 360 controller (and optionally an external monitor/HDTV) and play.