jessica.
Sep 15, 07:35 AM
og's
251762
You have really small feet. ;)
251762
You have really small feet. ;)
ericinboston
Apr 28, 12:57 PM
Not surprising the iPhone 3GS was #2.
Not surprising...because it sells for $49?
If I were in the market for a smartphone and could choose a $49 iPhone 3GS vs. a $199+ iPhone 4 vs. a $199+ Android...I would very very seriously consider the 3GS since it is AT LEAST 4x cheaper...and in reality, does 99% of the iPhone 4 (I have the 3GS and as far as I can tell the 4 simply added Facetime and a front camera for facetime use).
Not surprising...because it sells for $49?
If I were in the market for a smartphone and could choose a $49 iPhone 3GS vs. a $199+ iPhone 4 vs. a $199+ Android...I would very very seriously consider the 3GS since it is AT LEAST 4x cheaper...and in reality, does 99% of the iPhone 4 (I have the 3GS and as far as I can tell the 4 simply added Facetime and a front camera for facetime use).
Belly-laughs
Apr 29, 06:37 AM
There is very little difference between the two masses. 2.4mg difference. That is less than 2% of 140g.
It is not a matter of "thinking too much" about it but a matter of simply "thinking" about it.
...
It's actually 2.4 grams, which may not be a huge difference per se but in a product with such tight parts tollerance to me suggest differences in parts used. It may be the white casing, it may be a reshaped chassis or even a different chip. iFixit will tell.
It is not a matter of "thinking too much" about it but a matter of simply "thinking" about it.
...
It's actually 2.4 grams, which may not be a huge difference per se but in a product with such tight parts tollerance to me suggest differences in parts used. It may be the white casing, it may be a reshaped chassis or even a different chip. iFixit will tell.
copykris
Nov 10, 07:27 AM
another brand that plasters its name all over their stuff
great
great
more...
KnightWRX
Dec 30, 11:24 PM
We are learning some awfully interesting things about you today, lol.
Whatever floats your boat though lol:D
Things I was trying to encourage him to keep awfully to himself back on page 2... Seriously, we need to stop enabling fat people. I say that as an ex-fat person with a high risk of gaining back my weight.
A huge problem (no pun intended) in America is the gigantic portions masquerading as meals in fast-food and casual restaurants. Some of the dishes available at very popular chains are absolutely ridiculous in size. Yet we buy them because they are a "good value." And let's face it - more often than not, we make a pretty good run at finishing off our plates, don't we? Unfortunately, that's just continuing the validation of the portion sizes...
I was in Reston Virginia for training a year ago. One thing I like about the US, is that all restaurants have their nutritional information posted somewhere. Here you have to almost kill someone to get it.
Anyway, me and the guy I'm with walk into Champps (http://www.champps.com/) at diner time one evening. Here's the nutritional info : http://www.champps.com/Portals/3/Website%20Nutritionals%200710-1.pdf. I had looked it up earlier since I was in full blown weight loss mode and had made my pick (another very important weight control technique, choose what you'll eat ahead of time when going out). I ordered the Salmon BBQ chopped salad (1155 calories) (which was delicious) and ate half of it. Half the salmon, half the actual salad, half the sauce, approximately of course. That was still close to 550 calories.
My co-worker laughs it up, says he'll just get an appetizer instead of a dumb salad and it'll taste better and be less fattening. He ordered the Miles High Nacho, with Chili of course. Luckily, he never managed to eat more than a quarter of it. Yep, a close to a quarter of a 3300 calories. That plate has almost 1 lbs gain for a person!
Whatever floats your boat though lol:D
Things I was trying to encourage him to keep awfully to himself back on page 2... Seriously, we need to stop enabling fat people. I say that as an ex-fat person with a high risk of gaining back my weight.
A huge problem (no pun intended) in America is the gigantic portions masquerading as meals in fast-food and casual restaurants. Some of the dishes available at very popular chains are absolutely ridiculous in size. Yet we buy them because they are a "good value." And let's face it - more often than not, we make a pretty good run at finishing off our plates, don't we? Unfortunately, that's just continuing the validation of the portion sizes...
I was in Reston Virginia for training a year ago. One thing I like about the US, is that all restaurants have their nutritional information posted somewhere. Here you have to almost kill someone to get it.
Anyway, me and the guy I'm with walk into Champps (http://www.champps.com/) at diner time one evening. Here's the nutritional info : http://www.champps.com/Portals/3/Website%20Nutritionals%200710-1.pdf. I had looked it up earlier since I was in full blown weight loss mode and had made my pick (another very important weight control technique, choose what you'll eat ahead of time when going out). I ordered the Salmon BBQ chopped salad (1155 calories) (which was delicious) and ate half of it. Half the salmon, half the actual salad, half the sauce, approximately of course. That was still close to 550 calories.
My co-worker laughs it up, says he'll just get an appetizer instead of a dumb salad and it'll taste better and be less fattening. He ordered the Miles High Nacho, with Chili of course. Luckily, he never managed to eat more than a quarter of it. Yep, a close to a quarter of a 3300 calories. That plate has almost 1 lbs gain for a person!
Toonbay
Apr 28, 05:24 PM
Surely by now there is someone out there with a White iPhone, a messuring tape or calipers that can just tell us these photos are nonsense? Please? Pretty please? Xxx
Surely there is an app for that :):)
Surely there is an app for that :):)
more...
bousozoku
Jul 26, 09:20 PM
Well Apple is using Intel parts now that explains the lower quality. They're taking their parts from the same bin now; quality suffers... :mad:
Their quality was suffering before the move to Intel processors. Ever seen an iBook G3 or iBook G4 in a store for over 2 months? The keycaps are lying all over the place.
Apple have not been interactively checking on the quality and demanding changes quickly enough to suit their problems. Also, the other companies have problems but because they don't have such a presence as a market leader, only Apple's problems reliably make front page news.
Their quality was suffering before the move to Intel processors. Ever seen an iBook G3 or iBook G4 in a store for over 2 months? The keycaps are lying all over the place.
Apple have not been interactively checking on the quality and demanding changes quickly enough to suit their problems. Also, the other companies have problems but because they don't have such a presence as a market leader, only Apple's problems reliably make front page news.
jtara
Apr 14, 11:14 AM
Interesting possibility. It would be extremely difficult to emulate a complete iOS device (custom ASICs and all). But Apple could emulate just enough ARM instructions to emulate an app that was compiled by Xcode & LLVM (which would limit the way ARM instructions were generated), and used only legal public iOS APIs (instead of emulating hardware and all the registers), which could be translated in Cocoa APIs to display on a Mac OS X machine.
There's no need to emulate ARM instructions, though. And they already do emulate all of the complete iOS devices, at least sufficiently to run iOS apps on OSX.
Apple provides developers with a complete emulation package for testing their iOS apps on OSX. Apps are cross-compiled to x86 code. They also provide the complete set of iOS SDKs, cross-compiled to X86 code.
An emulator handles the device hardware - touchscreen, display, sound system, GPS (REALLY simple emulation - it's always sunny in Mountain View...), etc. If an iPhone or iPad are attached via USB cable, the emulator can even use the accelerometer and gyroscope in the device. Obviously, this could be easily changed to use some new peripheral device.
Other than device emulation, the apps suffer no loss of speed, since they are running native x86 code. In fact, they run considerably faster (ignoring, for this discussion, device emulation) than then do on an actual iOS device.
All Apple would need to give consumers the ability to run iOS apps on their Macs would be to provide them with the emulator (or, more likely, integrate it into the OSX desktop. I think end-users would find the picture of an iPhone or iPad that the emulator draws around the "screen" cute for a couple of days, but then quickly tire of it...), and add an additional target for developers.
What we've seen certainly seems to suggest that's what this is. HOWEVER:
1. For a single app to be compatible with both ARM and x86, they would need to introduce a "fat binary" similar to what they did with the transition from PowerPC to x86. This would bloat apps that are compatible with both to double their current download size. Current Universal (iPhone/iPad) apps are NOT fat binaries. They have multiple sets of resources (images, screen layouts, etc.) and the code needs to have multiple behaviors depending on the device. i.e. the code has to check "is this an iPad? If so do this...
Currently, developers have to create separate binaries for use on the emulator or the actual device.
2. Several developers have checked-in here to say that their apps are listed this way. None have offered that they had any advance knowledge of this, or did anything to make it happen. If this is about ARM/x86 fat binaries, the developer would have had to build their app that way. And even if it didn't require a re-build, I think it's highly unlikely that Apple would start selling apps on a new platform without letting the developers know!
3. Apple is *reasonably* fair about giving all developers access to new technology at the same time. They also generally make a public announcement at the same time as making beta SDKs available to developers. (Though the public announcement may be limited in scope and vague.) There are so many developers, that despite confidentiality agreements, most of the details get out to the public pretty quickly, though perhaps in muddled form. While Apple DOES hand-pick developers for early-early access, it's typically not THAT early. A few weeks, max.
I do think that an x86 target for iOS apps is inevitable. Just not imminent.
My best guess is that this was a screw-up by the web-site developers. Perhaps they did a mockup of the app store for the marketing people, selected some apps or app categories that seemed likely candidates, and slipped-up and it went live on the real app store.
There's no need to emulate ARM instructions, though. And they already do emulate all of the complete iOS devices, at least sufficiently to run iOS apps on OSX.
Apple provides developers with a complete emulation package for testing their iOS apps on OSX. Apps are cross-compiled to x86 code. They also provide the complete set of iOS SDKs, cross-compiled to X86 code.
An emulator handles the device hardware - touchscreen, display, sound system, GPS (REALLY simple emulation - it's always sunny in Mountain View...), etc. If an iPhone or iPad are attached via USB cable, the emulator can even use the accelerometer and gyroscope in the device. Obviously, this could be easily changed to use some new peripheral device.
Other than device emulation, the apps suffer no loss of speed, since they are running native x86 code. In fact, they run considerably faster (ignoring, for this discussion, device emulation) than then do on an actual iOS device.
All Apple would need to give consumers the ability to run iOS apps on their Macs would be to provide them with the emulator (or, more likely, integrate it into the OSX desktop. I think end-users would find the picture of an iPhone or iPad that the emulator draws around the "screen" cute for a couple of days, but then quickly tire of it...), and add an additional target for developers.
What we've seen certainly seems to suggest that's what this is. HOWEVER:
1. For a single app to be compatible with both ARM and x86, they would need to introduce a "fat binary" similar to what they did with the transition from PowerPC to x86. This would bloat apps that are compatible with both to double their current download size. Current Universal (iPhone/iPad) apps are NOT fat binaries. They have multiple sets of resources (images, screen layouts, etc.) and the code needs to have multiple behaviors depending on the device. i.e. the code has to check "is this an iPad? If so do this...
Currently, developers have to create separate binaries for use on the emulator or the actual device.
2. Several developers have checked-in here to say that their apps are listed this way. None have offered that they had any advance knowledge of this, or did anything to make it happen. If this is about ARM/x86 fat binaries, the developer would have had to build their app that way. And even if it didn't require a re-build, I think it's highly unlikely that Apple would start selling apps on a new platform without letting the developers know!
3. Apple is *reasonably* fair about giving all developers access to new technology at the same time. They also generally make a public announcement at the same time as making beta SDKs available to developers. (Though the public announcement may be limited in scope and vague.) There are so many developers, that despite confidentiality agreements, most of the details get out to the public pretty quickly, though perhaps in muddled form. While Apple DOES hand-pick developers for early-early access, it's typically not THAT early. A few weeks, max.
I do think that an x86 target for iOS apps is inevitable. Just not imminent.
My best guess is that this was a screw-up by the web-site developers. Perhaps they did a mockup of the app store for the marketing people, selected some apps or app categories that seemed likely candidates, and slipped-up and it went live on the real app store.
more...
mgguy
May 2, 01:23 AM
Oh yeah, the game is over. This will be seen as Obama doing what Bush could not, no matter what. Everyone at Fox News has to be crying in their beer right now.
No. It's still the economy stupid.
No. It's still the economy stupid.
yg17
May 1, 10:06 PM
AMERICA, **** YEAH!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sWS-FoXbjVI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sWS-FoXbjVI
more...
dgree03
Apr 28, 12:04 PM
Why do you keep comparing a single phone model to an entire platform used on 20 some devices?
Oh... that's right... it's all you can hang your hat on. Sorry... let's talk pummeled or badly beaten when any single Android phone outsells the iPhone.
Question should be, why does it matter how many android devices there are? There is still a one to one relationship, one customer buys-one device. Its android smartphones vs Apple Smartphones.
Oh... that's right... it's all you can hang your hat on. Sorry... let's talk pummeled or badly beaten when any single Android phone outsells the iPhone.
Question should be, why does it matter how many android devices there are? There is still a one to one relationship, one customer buys-one device. Its android smartphones vs Apple Smartphones.
plarusa
Nov 7, 02:21 PM
To be honest, I've had more application crashes and restarts on OSX than I have under XP/Windows in the past 3 years. So much for "crash resistant"
bb
Really ? I find that very hard to believe. I have been using a Macbook Pro for a year and I have yet to see what a kernel crash looks like. These types of crashes are regular occurances on all of my Windows machines. And don't get me started on the Virus subject.
bb
Really ? I find that very hard to believe. I have been using a Macbook Pro for a year and I have yet to see what a kernel crash looks like. These types of crashes are regular occurances on all of my Windows machines. And don't get me started on the Virus subject.
more...
Christopher387A
Apr 22, 05:54 PM
That's hideous! :eek:
PCClone
Apr 26, 02:12 PM
Please keep partisan diatribes full of hyperbole and nonsense out of this forum. It's invaded too many aspects of our lives already--so please, give it a rest.
This statement above is hilarious.
There's no way you can stop using all of Google services. Sadly Steve Jobs reality distortion field has messed up the energy around you.
Nice Try , but you've got your head in the cloud, and it's Google's Cloud :)
Name one google service I need to use.
This statement above is hilarious.
There's no way you can stop using all of Google services. Sadly Steve Jobs reality distortion field has messed up the energy around you.
Nice Try , but you've got your head in the cloud, and it's Google's Cloud :)
Name one google service I need to use.
more...
skinned66
Apr 28, 04:50 PM
I just did that, and loaded one of them into Photoshop for a little measurement. Here is what I got:
Image (http://www.marulla.com/files/thickness.png)
The stacked shot is not exactly the one I would have chosen to do that with (the first shot would have been mine). But thank you for taking the time to do it and post it - I actually didn't expect your result for that shot. I don't have photoshop with me ATM, but I'm guessing the same methodology would not have the same result on the other shots just at glance.
Of course, it would be nice to have some better composed and higher quality photos to do it with. Or if anyone is willing to donate an iPhone 4 of each, I'd be glad to give detailed analysis with proper photos :rolleyes:
At this point I guess the best I can be is uncertain.
Image (http://www.marulla.com/files/thickness.png)
The stacked shot is not exactly the one I would have chosen to do that with (the first shot would have been mine). But thank you for taking the time to do it and post it - I actually didn't expect your result for that shot. I don't have photoshop with me ATM, but I'm guessing the same methodology would not have the same result on the other shots just at glance.
Of course, it would be nice to have some better composed and higher quality photos to do it with. Or if anyone is willing to donate an iPhone 4 of each, I'd be glad to give detailed analysis with proper photos :rolleyes:
At this point I guess the best I can be is uncertain.
OdduWon
Jul 22, 12:42 AM
No, that's this guy (http://www.lebonze.co.uk/playground/bunnylove.htm).
more...
from director Danny Boyle,
Stage-wise, “Frankenstein” is
Danny Boyle#39;s Frankenstein
more...
-aggie-
Apr 27, 12:49 PM
I guess I should've bolded Eldiablojoe yesterday.
Plutonius
Apr 26, 04:01 PM
with plutonius holding the tie breaker
if those 2 votes get validated, it is still plutonius with 4, followed by nies and eldiablo with 3
I'll make the assumption that I'm going to lose the vote so I'll get some last analysis in while I can.
Make note of the people who voted for me.
Jav - Still not sure if he voted for me to silence me or because he was still mad at me for the last game. He is acting (voting) the same way he did last game.
Nies - Nothing pointing to him as a WW except his posting was similar (and strange) to last game when he was a WW.
UCF - His vote looks like a vote protecting either Nies or Eldiablojoe. If either Nies or Eldiablojoe is a WW, UCF is the other one.
Eldiablojoe - His vote for me was a vote to save himself but that doesn't mean he is not a WW.
Based on the above info, UCF is the best probability of getting a WW tomorrow. If UCF is a WW, then it's most likely that either Nies or Eldiablojoe is the other one.
if those 2 votes get validated, it is still plutonius with 4, followed by nies and eldiablo with 3
I'll make the assumption that I'm going to lose the vote so I'll get some last analysis in while I can.
Make note of the people who voted for me.
Jav - Still not sure if he voted for me to silence me or because he was still mad at me for the last game. He is acting (voting) the same way he did last game.
Nies - Nothing pointing to him as a WW except his posting was similar (and strange) to last game when he was a WW.
UCF - His vote looks like a vote protecting either Nies or Eldiablojoe. If either Nies or Eldiablojoe is a WW, UCF is the other one.
Eldiablojoe - His vote for me was a vote to save himself but that doesn't mean he is not a WW.
Based on the above info, UCF is the best probability of getting a WW tomorrow. If UCF is a WW, then it's most likely that either Nies or Eldiablojoe is the other one.
Am3822
Oct 24, 07:59 AM
Any news about the latch/hd?
Artful Dodger
Apr 6, 07:34 PM
A bunch of great looking photos and very good work this month from everyone!
Here's hoping that the weather gets better to get a few in here myself :)
Here's hoping that the weather gets better to get a few in here myself :)
Weaselboy
Apr 14, 01:21 PM
http://i.imgur.com/FWQIv.png
666MB for AT&T iPhone 4.
Of course it would be 666mb for AT&T...
;)
Dun dun dun... :D
666MB for AT&T iPhone 4.
Of course it would be 666mb for AT&T...
;)
Dun dun dun... :D
Plutonius
Apr 28, 12:18 PM
Plutonius +1 :D .
Small White Car
Apr 26, 12:29 PM
I'm sure some of that is going to the music companies.
Take heart, though. This might not be bad news. What if we learn that this is a part of MobileMe and it's MobileMe that's changing to $20 per year?
Impossible? I dunno, I think charing $99 per year to sync iPhone data wirelessly is impossible for Apple to maintain. This may be their chance to gracefully deflate that balloon.
Is anyone on here going to delete all the music on their iPhone to be able to pay $20 per year to regain a subpar stream of there very own music? And at a detriment to their limited data amount? Am I missing something??
Again, this may be wishful thinking, but I can imagine Apple strong-arming carriers into exempting this service from their data-cap-measuring systems. Apple sure would like that. Do they have the power to make it happen, though? Maybe.
Take heart, though. This might not be bad news. What if we learn that this is a part of MobileMe and it's MobileMe that's changing to $20 per year?
Impossible? I dunno, I think charing $99 per year to sync iPhone data wirelessly is impossible for Apple to maintain. This may be their chance to gracefully deflate that balloon.
Is anyone on here going to delete all the music on their iPhone to be able to pay $20 per year to regain a subpar stream of there very own music? And at a detriment to their limited data amount? Am I missing something??
Again, this may be wishful thinking, but I can imagine Apple strong-arming carriers into exempting this service from their data-cap-measuring systems. Apple sure would like that. Do they have the power to make it happen, though? Maybe.
TennisandMusic
Apr 28, 11:04 AM
I'm honestly surprised by a lot of you. The whole "no single android phone outsells the iPhone!" argument, is foolish and weak. It's a platform war. You basically get ONE CHOICE with the iPhone. Now it's a great choice, but of course it's going to be a top seller as a result. There are so many good Android choices out there that a single model isn't going to dwarf the others. Since there are, you know, options? As a platform it seems iOS is getting whooped on. Does that not register, or are people that much in denial?
Now myself, I like my iPhone, but come on...in this case we are talking about platforms...So weird...
Now myself, I like my iPhone, but come on...in this case we are talking about platforms...So weird...
Комментариев нет:
Отправить комментарий