Posts by Michael C

Finnish regulator calls for iPhone refunds

no issues for me

3 snow storms this year thus far, VERY rare for where I am, and one day at just 7 F, while we spent an hour and a half outside building snow men and playing with our child, iPhone exposed to the elements most of that time since both of our digital cameras refused to work after about 10-15 minutes at that temp.

I found, even at near 10 degrees F, I could not keep the iPhone in my hand more than 5 minutes or so without handing it off the the wife and putting my gloves back on. For several periods of about 10 minutes each, we set it on the porch and continued to play. At no time did I see anything more than a sluggish LCD, and that was only after an extended period of no activity. The phone recoded video, made calls, and uploaded to the net without issue. I can't imagine using it outside in any lower temps for more than a few minutes, especially in contact with one's face to make calls. My bluetooth headset failed quick in those temps.

Super cold, below zero F, I don't imaging anyone's phone is likely to work in those temps for very long unless it has some form of heated casing. If they're making Apple refund phones, they better be making everyone else do so as well, unless the phones are in fact rated to below those temps (which LCD itself can't be, so it would have to be some odd display tech special made for artic temps).

Iomega SSD 128GB USB 3.0 drive

Can we get more tests?

Say, same drive on USB2 as well as same contained SSD (what's inside this chassis) connected to eSATA and Firewire 800. Lets also see USB3 compared based on a common USB3 including chipset, a USB3 card in a 1x slot, and a USB3 card in a full performance PCI configuration.

In 90% of cases, USB3 is capped at PCI1x speed anyway, then add in controller, OS, and CPU overhead, and they perform at barely more (if at all) SATA speeds... Why pay so much more for USB 3 (and add yet another port), where eSATA is so close in speed as to be (in the near term) irrelevant, except for people moving TB at a time, which can;t be done with these small drives anyway....

China Mobile asks Apple for LTE iPhone...

Why VZW has no LTE iOS

simple... LTE chipsets natively support GSM towers and communication. There's no such thing as a dual-radio GSM/LTE device, it;s simple an LTE device. However, adding LTE to a CDMA network DOES require the device to have 2 completely independent systems, merged by a bridge chip. This is highly complicated not just in design, but also software architecture, and easily requires more power than LTE alone (which is not, yet, as power efficient as GSM or CDMA, even though it should in theory use less power in the long run). These costs mean more expensive (and likely bulkier as well) devices compared to LTE-only brethren.

Tim Cook said it: LTE on VZW would require "a radical redesign of the iPhone platform." LTE on AT&T or other GSM native carrier is not an issue.

As for China, TD-LTE is not LTE. Its very similar, and in fact the same chip could use both technologies easily, but its a step down from LTE, lacks full duplex, uses a cheaper swath of airspace, and because they won;t be turning it on for quite some time (and are pushing carriers to roll it out fast), it will probably support Voice as well as data when rolled out, eliminating needs for back compatibility with China's CDMA network. TD-LTE is unlikely to be deployed outside of China, and VZW certainly is not investing in it, so TD-LTE iPhones would do VZW no good, at least for the next few years until there's a VoLTE standard in place.

Mac daddy predicts all-knowing, all-seeing UI

older...

In the book "Snow Crash" the author detailed the Librarian system and that was published in 1992. Isaac Asimov had similar systems used in the Foundation saga published even earierl.

That said, prior "description" is not patentable, unless that description described systems and processes specifically that would lead to how it was DONE, but just what it looks like. If Sci-Fi could be patented that way, we'd still be in the dark ages respective to our current standing, and only the fiction authors would be rich.

Screw flying cars...

I want a librarian, ala "Snow Crash."

Not just find what I'm asking for, but act on it, and present the data the way I want to see it, and adaptively.

The cost of not deduping

cost incurred

I've worked with a lot of SAN disk, at a lot of firms. I've deployed both DeDupe primary storage as well as backup systems that dedupe data on the fly. Block and file level dedupe.

The average savings, for firms on SAN (local storage and DASD is just so cheap it's not worth the cost of the fiber controllers, let alone $10K/TB SAN licensed disk to have it deduped), is about 30%. Yep, not 7:1, 1.3:1.

Fact is, when we're talking TBs of data, we're talking record data, scanned images, e-mail, etc; its highly unique. The number of copies of data circulated that are true duplicates (any people same file) are typically sent via e-mail (which natively dedupes, except when crossing servers, and even Exchange 2010 does that now cross-server. A large enterprise with a DRM system sends links to start with, not raw files. Most of the duplication is on local workstation HDDs, not servers.

30% savings is still significant, when we're talking multi-dozen TB savings, especially in SAN, but the license cost of SAN to start with, vs tying together a bunch of smaller, less advanced, decicated disk clusters (server or node specific) is so much higher, it generally eats the cost savings. You buy SAN for IOPS, and for reliability, not because dedupe can save you money. Adding the dedupe licensing on top of the SAN costs most often rarely breaks even, except for user oriented file systems.

Since e-mail already dedupes, DRM already does as well, and most backup systems too (in the D2D backup world, not so much tape) the cost increase to add dedupe across an entire SAN is not often worth it. For this reason, I've been suggesting most of my clients to buy 2 or more SAN infrastructures, a high performance high reliability SAN for VMs, databases, and app servers, which have little to dedupe, and then getting a smaller SAN without the advanced performance, but with dedupe, to use on file servers hosting user data.

If the license cost of dedupe was cheap, say 5% extra, or better yet a function of the disk savings (save 30% disk, pay 10% more, but only save 3% disk, pay 1% more) then I could more openly agree.

In MASS systems, and especially where you're dealing wit storing mostly identical documents, it works, but most of tyhose are moving to "document on demand" models, and onyl storing the uinique differences in the database to start with, plus a few scanned bits like signature lines, and they re-build the doc when it;s requested, and don't store the whole thing locally anyway. This saved the SAN based dedupe technology for a lot of people.

Publisher takes swipe at StarCraft II game mod

Sorry dude....

but you are mistaken.

Create the tool they did, but they did not give license for you to "do anything" you want with it. Maybe you should have read the EULA sections regarding the mod tool.

Modding a game to add new maps/challenges/items: OK

Modding a game to provide your own unique graphics in place of theirs (think a steam punk mod of Starcraft): typically OK.

Selling, or in any way proffiting from a mod: Not OK.

Modding a game and including another property's IP without express permission: usually bad, depends on who own the IP...

Admitting to the maker you intended to distribute the Mod as a "whole new game": dumb.

Look, there are mod engines for Unreal that are officially supported, but anyone wanting to release a game using the unreal3 engine has to LICENSE it just the same. Also, lest we forget, WoW was an RTS before SC, and though its a massively popular MMO currently, who's to say Bliz does not intend to release their own WoW port on the SC II engine? You crossed a line, you know it, and you're pining for sympathy.

Apple tightens screws on hardware hackers

Torx has been around longer than Apple's use

As an authorized reseller and repair center for numerous vendors, MOST of them were using Torx in some form or fashion, especially on notebooks, and the screws securing the contents of many internal drives, back in 1997.

I've had a set of T6-15 bits since at least 1995, readily available at most hardware stores at the time. Every single screwdriver with replacible tips I've acquired since then has come with torx bits. A recent purchase of a drill bit set came with over 100 different security tips in addition to the hole boring bits, and the penta bit was included.

No, your average schmoe probably isn't going to have these on hand, especially in a generic screwdriver, but a trip to a local hardware store and $10 out to get you the bit set for this.

the bits that are really hard to come by are the ones with pins inside the holes, and other security oriented bits, requiring hollow tip or other specialty drivers, but even those bits are available at loews, sears, and even sometimes target in the larger bit sets.

Worst case, order some replacement screws and use a stripped screw extractor to remove the screw you don't have a bit for. This is a barrier to some home users, but no barrier at all to ANY authorized repair center or even remotely professional repair shop.

Anne Hathaway slips into catsuit

check her resume

She's got the bod, she showed it off well in a few flicks, and she;s also got a good start for the athletic ability. Jolie is gorgeous, but she's too tall and a bit stiff to play Cat Woman (not to mention, no chance of her pretending to be a near 20-something, as is required for Cat Woman).

Keira Knightley?

I seriously hope she was not being consider. She's a great actress, but she does NOT have the body for the cat suit... Even Jessica Biel, one of the sexiest things walking Terra, would not be a good choice (she's not slinky enough). CatWoman requires someone both well endowed to fill the outfit, as well as small in stature and very slender, and also requires someone of fluid-like cat-esque movement capability. Biel also has the current gig with Marvel, so a job with DC might have been a conflict, so I'm also surprised to see her name on this...

Anne H., I can see it. There's a few others I can name as well. The other two suggestions, as much as i reaspect both and want to see them more on screen, would not have been good fits.

Angry Birds to catapult onto TV

Well

Pac Man ran for several seasons. In fact, numerous simple video games made it to TV, and lets not forget Pokemon...

Face it, cute characters, a tiny bit of back story, and a 50m user base to cater to. Goldmine! yea, it'll die in a few seasons, but it will make a ton of money in the short term, and equally turn into merchandising millions too. A franchise this powerful comes alone once every decade if they're lucky.

Apple's Jobs stand-in touts iPad's enterprise reach

its simpler than that

802.11x combines with NAC, and you can MAC address validate devices onto the network. Since iPads can't self-install except through the App store (or a corporate server) software and patch management is a small issue, as is virus security. They can be enabled for full encryption, and both tracked and remote wiped through Exchange (without 3rd party tools added on). Apple has enterprise contracts for iPad through AT&T and Verizon, and most firms don;t use just 1 phone vendor so that's a non-issue. Another important note is that to access email securely, under DoD STIG and many other audit compliance, requires 3rd party servers and additional remote management software costing about $60/device, but iOS 4 meets these out of the box if you run Exchange 2007 or higher....

Cloud access handles file access issues for non-secured data (drop box and other options), and there are file sharing apps that can access file servers once you're on the local network (assuming DNS is set up right you you know IPs of servers). They'll probably just move important files via e-mail anyway, since it's really about always-on email, running presentations, dashboards, internal apps, intranet access, etc, but without needing a laptop to carry around the office. They're GREAT for lower management monitoring a call center, or a sales guy looking up a customer account, HR people, anyone doing a quick presentation in a conference room, anyone talking over a spreadsheet/document, and more.

Many firms are also coding iOS apps for iPads and phones to access internal systems (since its damned easy). the hardware may not be customizable, but it's commodity, and apple stores are around the corner from any major business location. They're easy to back up and resync to a "standby" iPad too in a pinch, meaning a hardware failure doesn't take the employee out of the loop for more than the time to walk another pad to their desk and sync it, and even the iTunes backups can be centrally stored for added protection. $600 is not expensive for a corp user, even a $600 desktop setup is a $2,000 annual cost, once management and maintenance and software plays in.

Finally, move the GUI off the web server and onto the device, and access speeds improve. A lot of java runs behind scenes on servers to make a web site display everything right in the widgets, but move those to the pad, and save a few servers. its also much easier to build a dynamic app on a platform then inside a web browser. Can it work for everything? hell naw, but it does work in a lot of cases.

on costs

well, since iOS and exchange 2007 alone meet most of the security requirements for enterprises, without additional 3rd party servers added to the mix and handset apps that cost $60 each, iOS can in fact cost less than BB or WM 6.5.

For minions, no, but for anyone who would otherwise be expected to have on-the-go e-mail access, possibly. Further, they might even be able to get by with a desktop in place of a laptop, even to access some company systems/dashboards/etc. The cost difference between issuing both a desktop and laptop (and securing both) and an iPad or iPhone and a commodity machine might be a wash.

Opening the door to easy to code platform apps and cheap to acquire SDKs (and a wealth of iOS coders easy to find), is bonus value. Wireless security is easy to handle with NAC (VPN not needed, but it can in fact VPN).

If a user does a lot of e-mail, a phone isn;t going to cut it, but an iPad can, and without having to support remote systems, worry about viruses, need 3rd party servers, or risk HDDs carrying around lots of company data, let alone all the software licensing PCs require. Many of my users could get by with an iPad instead of a notebook to take home, and worst case VPN in, and launch VNC to connect to their desktop, and whip out a BT keyboard to get some work done. Ideal, no, but for those who rarely do it (the IT guy caught off guard, the sales guy headed to a presentation, etc) yea, easy.

Think he meant desktops

More over that you either didn't get it, or are being sarcastic, we're talking replacing desktops or terminals with iPads, not servers.

go further though, and take the rendering load off that front-end server and put it in an app, and give your devs the flexibility to break outside the UI constraints of HTML, without needing security risky flash or making loads even worse with java, and you can probably scale to 6K concurrent connections on that front end, or eliminate a lot of CPU oomph in the app tier properly formatting output for the widgets. Think of the iPad itself being the device in the DMZ tier, pre-authenticated by NAC, or datapower appliances, and making the direct content calls to app engines tat talk to the database. You can entirely eliminate the web tier servers from the equation, moving that load to simple to manage and deploy apps and an authentication mechanism (like DataPower).

useful for all applications? no, heeeeell no. But, there are clear opportunities to put a pad in the hands of an employee who would have no need to have a desktop PC at all. I could see an entire call center run from iPads using a custom integration to a local VoIP system (Shoretel, cisco, etc) no more need for a handset at all, just a bluetooth or wired headset, and a local app handling the customer interaction, handoff from VRUs, queue management, etc, and still giving them e-mail etc. VPN back to the office from the iPad, and all those users could be remote, without needing to have company issued, managed, or maintained PCs at all. This is just one example.

um

You don't think ShoreTel, Cisco, etc are working on ViOP integration apps for iOS? Oh wait: http://www.ifreeware.net/download-shoretel-communicator.html they're done already...

Communicator already back ends into numerous VRU technologies, and you could run a whole call center UI off the iPad without needing web servers, and pass customer data by contact ID into the app UI in real time, manage call queues, and more. This is BIG TIME enterprise stuff. I've deployed call centers that could replace every desktop/laptop with an iPad after just a few months of app development, and the user experience would likely be superior vs an HTML limited dashboard. Since the iPad can VPN as well, remote users no longer need company managed remote PCs, home VPN concentrators, or all the support issues and costs associated with them.

That "expensive brick" plus a keyboard dock costs less than a single ultra-cheap corporate desktop with an Outlook Cal, let alone the ongoing maintenance, plus the $400 IP handset it eliminates, and lets tat user live anywhere in the world and be connected to the corporate system without office space.

...and can we give up on the "hold it right" BS already. I thought that was completely put to bed by field tests from Anadtech and others that proved even holding it "wrong" it still got better signal than the competition, regardless of how many bars were displayed on screen. Droppoff, yes, but still at better signal reception overall = pointless to argue over.

IBM (nearly) hits $100bn in 2010 sales

no surprise

For a $200K buy in, the low end z10s targeted at Z/VM workloads are a steal. Companies I work with familiar with OS390 and Z/VM are buying them like candy, and replacing entire rack rows of blade-centers and VMWare infrastructure with them.

Raised res iPad 2 to sport four-core chip?

Scaling is a non-issue

a 4X resolution bump is not necessary. Going from the low res 3.5" screen to 10" was a huge difference, and a stretched app had easy to see distortion and pixelation. However, stretching from current resolutions at 10" to higher resolution on the same 10" will not be as noticeable. Further, many apps are coded using rendered graphics, and fewer and fewer using bitmap in the first place, and resolution independence has been added for buttons and other items on screen, making adapting to variable resolutions much easier for devs (this was not the case pre-ipad/retina).

going to such extremes of resolution is also unnecessary given the common viewing distance of a pad vs a phone. 300ppi approx is needed to get a phone to have "invisible" pixels, but 240-260 would probably suffice on a tablet. So long as they hit 1080 vertical resolution, I think we'll be satisfied, maybe 1200v to account for wider screen viewing on the not-quire 16:9 screen... Much more and the GPU requirements would exceed that of what the iPhone could support in a given form factor, and that would mean radically different chips for the pad and phone (which Apple does not want). A quad core with voltage control and core power down I can see, but taking out the Marvel for a full GPU that can handle 1500v resolution in 3D, the hear requirements likely won't support it, many desktop chips can't handle that at 30fps...

huh?

They're just getting started on software. Launch page, data aggregation, a user addressable file system, much more printer control, a widget interface in addition to app back-grounding, significantly enhanced cloud integration, Exchange calendar support/meeting creation, enhanced security features, better app management, they have a LOT to do with software yet. You incorrectly assume they're married to the current UI, and much of what i just mentioned would even still work with the current one.

no, it does not

Scaling was a concern going from very low res on 3.5" to full res on 10" however, most apps already look great on 10", so bumping the res more has little impact. Also, the majority of apps are only using bitmaps in either low end apps or in higher end ones for launch screens etc. Your desktop scales just about everything and you hardly notice. Scaling on an iPad to a higher resolution will produce artifacts, sure, but they'll be damned heard to see since the resolution at 10" is already sufficient to ignore pixel density.

I don;t think thats what he meant

I think he meant the new iPad 2 would be $499. That sounds eminently reasonable for a multi-core higher res device with an SD slot, more RAM, lighter weight, and more. Also, there's no reason the believe the 1st Gen will leave the market (the 3GS is still sold after all), and it could easily fall to $299 at this point (in fact, Jobs himself said on stage a year ago the iPad pricing was experimental, and if the market demanded, it was highly flexible). iFixit estimated less than a $250 build cost a year ago.

internesting thing you bring up...

They don't compete in the laptop space... but, a 2GB RAM 4 core ARM with some GPU oomph might actually be enough to run full OS X, iTunes and iPhoto included (maybe not iMovie), and basic functions. Os X is already compiled to run on ARM (has been for a long time inside Apple HQ, they admitted that with the Intel launch and then again at the iPhone launch), and we could actually see that with this CPU,. an 11" ultra-compact Apple "netbook" could some in around $500-600. That, or a heavily redesigned Mini around $350.

I wonder if "one more thing" could be an apple low end machine, or even just a docking clam for the iPad allowing it to access mroe storage and dual-boot Os X. A $300 add-on to make it a notebook, including full keyboard and that glorious track pad, that would be awesome.

US Eye-o-Sauron border scan tower project finally axed

but its not over

They're killing the scanning tech, but not the boarder project.

The camera system was simply too complicated, too expensive, and still needed significant manpower. A much simpler system is a simple array of fences, 3-4 rows deep, combined with heavy, thorny, desert happy brush or other poisonous plants layered in between Make it take both time, and induce pain, to breach the border. Electric fences that bit are impractical, but a few layers of razor-wire with simple sensors to detect tampering is easy. By the time someone could clear through a few levels of fence, we could easily have a Humvee there waiting for them. Better yet, copters and guys with tranquilizer rifles to take out the riff raff and let the Humvees take time getting there. Different tech for different parts of the line are also needed, and were not properly accounted for.

Streamlining the legal admission process would not hurt either. I honestly have no issue with people coming across, legally registering, and taking up whatever job they can get, provided they get no state or federal assistance until they reach certain milestones (with the path to citizenship being only one). Cross the boarder with money to pay the registration fees, cover some basic expenses, and cover rent or shared living space, and you can come in on probation and we'll put you ina job system (if you;re not in it before you cross the boarder). Maintain a job for 6 months without legal troubles and pay your bills on time, and you can start the citizenship process, and get a 1-2 year pass. Stay on pace, we'll keep renewing that pass. Learn English, pass citizenship, continue to stay out of trouble, and you'll gain benefits soon enough. Your family can come with you from day 1 if you can afford it. But, NO unemployment, No SS, no welfare, no support short of housing and job services. You must be on the books, paying taxes (Though we'll exempt Fica since you gain no benefits) Fall off the wagon and back you go.

California's green-leccy price system will stifle plug-in cars

negligible anyway

OK, first, check my other posts regarding the "green" qualities (lack there of) of EVs compared to traditional hybrids and micro-diesels, and you'll know I'm no fan of them.

As for grid relaibility, yea, thats an issue for most people in areas even where electricity itself is green enough to make an EV worth while for the environment.

That said, the overhead costs of this power are not dramatic. a 24KW EV battery (which will never be 100% dead if you made it home), takes about 30KWh on average to fully charge (battery overhead). 30 days times 30KWh is 900. (worst case). The average power bill is already 1500KWh or so. I'm not familiar with CA's tiers, but i do understand off-peak is cheaper, but heavy use raises the tier even off-peak (though some power companies have EV concessions, or separately meter EV charging). Still, a $200 power bill might be $300 with an EV? CA's tiered system might move than $20-40?

Face it, no one buying an EV gives a rats ass about the money. It is impossible to drive an EV enough miles in its life span to recover it's costs vs a micro-diesel or traditional hybrid of the same car class and performance. yes, people argue that if gas goes over $6 a gallon it can work out, but only if gas goes up and power does not (unlikely), only if you're not counting the load overhead (paid cash), and only if the price of gas is over $6 for more than half the life of the car (meaning it needs to hit $6/gallon likely within 5 years, which is an unsustainable price increase. more over, alternative fuels will be entering the market at $4-5/gallon (search for RFTS processing), so gas can't be higher priced than that once it's flowing... Money is not a concern.

unfortunately, so few people realize EVs are in fact anti-green. On our current power infrastructure, they pollute not only more CO2, but more Sulfur, mercury, and other pollutants per mile driven. It will take 20 years for us to overhaul the power infrastructure before EVs are green for even 20% of the places in this country. today 1% tops live in a place where an EV produces less total CO2 and few of those places have reasonable commute distances EVs can handle or a compact car is simply not a viable vehicle in the first place.

I'm all for EV R&D, but lets keep them out of drivers hands with hand picked exceptions for another 15-25 years, please?

not surprising

EVs are not green.

Based on the power deployment of California, EVs will actually not only release more CO2 per mile driven than equivalent sized efficient gas and diesel cars, it releases many times the sulfur, mercury, and several other heavy metals than burning gas (and we're talking wells to wheels total output, not just the actual combustion, face it, 8bls of gas to a gallon, even adding air to the mix, does not equal 19lbs of CO2 + the H20 + the other emissions not counted in that weight). The 19lbs of CO2 per gallon is TOTAL CO2 output from drilling, transport, refining, storage, more transport, pumping, and finally driving. 2lbs of CO2/KWh is generation only, and does NOT include mining, transport, transmission losses, charge overhead (it takes about 29-33KWh to charge a 24KWh battery from 0 to 100% depending on ambient temp, distance from power plant, 2 vs 3 phase charging, and charge rate). Average 85 miles per 24kwh in the leaf, assuming you drive it dead (which you'll never do) and that's without AC or heat and windows up and headlights off, and we're talking more CO2 than 2.5 gallons of gas, and many hybrids and diesels can go well over 120 miles on that.

Even with all of California's efforts to clean gas and coal plants, the chemical and CO2 output is simple still higher. Vs a common car, no, but we're talking people looking for green cars, and a micro-diesel or non-plug-in hybrid is $10k cheaper and more efficient. This is not debatable, look up the numbers. It takes a dozen or so Google's to get all the data, and some math.

So, if it;s less efficient, and also strains CA's already overburdened grid, why are we surprised the most green (in the news, not reality) state is imposing policies that might make EVs cost even more?

Microsoft sends Windows 7 SP1 to OEMs

solid OS

I also am happy with it. It does feel "unfinished" in places (consistency issues across core features, especialyl control panels), and the Win7 backup system still has the same bug as Vista RTM (image backups on HDDs are not recoverable in most cases if they have been overwritten by a later backup or if any permissions on the external HDD change after the backup is made, the boot CD simply doesn't see the backups and will not restore them, its a 3 year old bug, make your image backups on DVD if you care about your OS settings).

Other than that, its damned stable, nice to look at, and only lacks a few features Apple and Linux have (virtual desktops, something like the Apple Finder, Expose, real-time backups, mostly minor features, but I use them all heavily when on Mac/Linux). it is my primary use OS, i mostly use OS X for video and photo editing, and Linux for simlpe servers.

That said, i skipped Ultimate. No real value vs pro. Other (superior) encryption systems cost less to add and I only need one language at a time thanks...

Huh?

I don't even understand where that is coming from. The way i see it, Apple gets a service pack almost monthly... a patch rollup of a bunch of fixes in a single download (with iTunes, Q@uicktime, and a few other apps outside of the core of the OS function patched separately). Os X gets a major update about every 18 months adding major features where Windows only puts out major versions every 3-4 years, so they have larger hops to account for when someone re-installs. I don't think any reasonable person thinks that's a negative for Microsoft...

As for Linux, rarely is there a day when something is not updated. The lack of good, central controls for that is one thing i don;t like about linux. Yes, there's an app process that handles it all, and makes it simple, but there's no "scheduled roll-outs or predictable system to mold IT policy to.

Watson beats humans in Jeopardy! dry run

long time to go

If it takes 8 racks of servers to handle the queries of a single person, at 1-4 seconds per request, we're going to need a lot more nuclear power plants, and a rack farm the size of Long Island, NY to replace Google Search with a Watson system...

Asus NX90Jq 18.4in Core i7 laptop

here's your fish

CPU benchmark was not included.

of the 4 benchmarks it won in:

- HDD: 2x640/5400 in RAID vs 1x500/5400. The Mac can (for still a lower price) have included an SSD and trounced it

- GPU, only a 5% win, less than 1-2FPS in most games, and FAR lower than a gaming notebook could do

- memory, 4GB vs 6GB in the same speed class. Mac could have 8GB (for still less money) and would have won.

- productivity/movies: HDD performance limited applications. Put in SSD and and competitor beats it.

3 of 4 benchmarks, one a near tie and the other 3 the easiest and cheapest thing to upgrade.

Excluded was a CPU benchmark... the only one that really matters in a desktop replacement.

The $2000 UK priced (MSRP) i5 17" MBP has a faster benchmarking CPU, a 1200v line screen, wireless N and blue-tooth (options in excess of the $2500 configured model on the ASUS), longer life, half the weight, and more. Configured with 8GB and an SSD, it beats this acer in every single benchmark and still costs less. The competition can equally be configured with the same of better specs than the Acer for less money too. The Acer only has design, speakers, and inches in its favor. Many gaming notebooks under $2K would slaughter it.

oops

First off, from the article: "only the 17in MacBook Pro had a better overall score" It beat it in some benchmarks, but not enough. Also, MAJOR note, CPU benchmark was not even included!!!!!! its a 1.7GHz processor standing against 2.33s from most and 2.66 from Apple.

it beats the stock 17" i7 MBP. (which is only 2089 in the UK, not 2500...)

1.7GHz vs Apple 2.66 (and 2.8 on offer for $200 more)

6GB vs 4GB (same speed)

1080v vs 1200v resolution ouch, bigger screen and fewer pixels = 25% lower PPI and i can already see the pixels on a MBP.

GT335 vs GT330, not a huge difference directly, but driving fewer pixels it had a bigger advantage

The only real things the Asus trounced apple in were its disk configuration (2X640GB in RAID, but the mac was not tested with an SSD for comparrison on disk performance, and could have been for less than $100 more). The Mac trounced it in screen resolution, battery life, and weight. Note: CPU synthetics were completely omitted from this comparison... probably because its near 1GHz slower! They also noted the Asus had a horrible trackpad.

It does include USB3, but no person has yet given me a use case for a device compatible with USB that can use speeds above 3GHz. not a single device. USB doesn't support RAID, even SSDs don't read that fast, and aidio and video equipment requires FW for latency and CPU reasons (speed is not the issue there, stability and response time is). I see no reason at all for USB3 on a laptop, and little for it on desktops. No one has even presented a use case, let alone tried to argue it.

Other noted misses:

- 802.11n, but no 5GHz support, and N isn't even included in the base 2500 model...

- blue-tooth is optional

- no fiber audio port

- ASUS support...

- for a $2500 unit, it doesn't even compare to gaming laptops using desktop cards, not even close.

This machine is about form over function, and that function falls short of lower priced better configured, lighter, and longer life, mass market units with better support and local repair options. This is a Do Not Buy in my book.

double check the benchmarks....

the CPU is only 1.7GHz in this thing, every system compared has a 2.33 or better, and CPU BENCHMARKS WERE NOT PROVIDED NOT PROVIDED, and still the $400 cheaper i5 MBP, or $100 cheaper i7 2.66 (with better screen at 1200v lines, better battery, 802.11n wireless, bluetooth, better trackpad, and much more) has a significantly higher benchmark in performance. The Toshiba beat the MBP on productivity and video because it was equipped with 2X640GB HDDs. Change the Mac's 5400rpm drive for an SDD (in the i5 still cheaper than the ASUS), and it would have won every benchmark on the list aside from GPU (and it only lost GPU by 5%, less than 1-2FPS).

This is about form over function. it is NOT a 2500 gaming notebook (those would destroy this thing in both GPU and CPU performance) it is an overprices everyday desktop hooked to an 18" low gresolution screen.

Android passes iPhone in mobile ad race

wait a sec fandroid...

this is NOT market-share, its ad-share. No one is measuring number of devices in hands here, or even devices sold in a period, just the total number of ADS served to devices in hands in that period (by this firm and its partners),broken down by OS type.

To marketers, device model doesn't matter, only that the in-app ad was displayed. they break out the tablets and iPods because they're not always connected, and many ads that might be displayed on those platforms are not. Very few PC apps have in-app ads aside from ones required to be used online, and 99% of PC ads are displayed on-line, but many, many android and iOS apps can be used off-line, skewing the results on those platforms, so they were excluded to their own category rightly so. They break out OS because some apps run on one and not the other, or different ad server services are required to support feeding the ads (and they charge more or less by platform and popularity, and exposure). I do not know why they broke out models unless there is some correlation to vendor or device capability to display certain ads (or app compatibility that includes the adds)

Last quarter data, Q3, (ending in oct, we don't have q4 data yet) Android did outsell iOS in the USA. However, total install base is still higher for iOS by a good margin. It will take 3-4 more concurrent quarters of outselling iOS to pass it in total user-base based on q3 sales. however, since iOS is no longer exclusive to AT&T, Android's ability to maintain market sales in Q1 2011 is highly unlikely. (we don't know q4s numbers yet). VZW alone intends to sell more than 10m iOS phones alone (not including pads) in 2011, that's more than the number of android smartphones they activated in 2010. they only predict 25m total VZW smartphones in 2011, so Apple is expected to be about equal share to Android, with RIM and WP7 splitting up the remaining 5m units.

T-Mobile should also have an iPhone announcement soon (June at the latest, they might be waiting for LTE), and Sprint is even rumored to be getting one. The iPhone 5 should be LTE on all carriers but VZW and Sprint. (CDMA/LTE is not really viable, as shown by the limited announcement of LTE devices for Verizon vs 20 for AT&T and others, and numerous complaints about what battery life will be and device form factor, having to support dual chipsets and 5 radios vs the GSM compatible LTE by itself. Tim Cook admitted an LTE Verizon iPhone would require significant architectural and form factor redesign Apple is not committed to.

NOT marketshare

please stop. Reading comprehension FAIL. This is ADSHARE, not marketshare. nothing in this article has any intent of clarifying sales estimates per platform, or number of devices in use, it is simply a count of the number of ads servers to users.

please, troll, go home

You not only are clearly a troll and fandroid, you also displayed complete lack of understanding what this article was about.

this has NOTHING to do with sales totals or install base, it is the number of ads served to people with that platform.

Congratulations, your fewer circulating Android devices served you more than double the number of ads iOS devices served their users. Great stat to run up a flag for...

because...

this is a metric of in-app ad delivery, not web based ads.

PCs don't use in-app ads. They use ads in browsers. RIM also has few if any ad-supported apps, and probably doesn't measure more than 1%, so it was excluded.

The reason tablets and pods were broken out is they are used online and offline, and when offline ads are not served, so they are a statistical anomaly that should be accounted for separately.

This is a press release so this marketing company can start charging more per android served ad, nothing more.

um...

the real figure is real ads served. If you blocked it, it didn't get served.

That actually means the average number of ads servered to android users who don't know how to jailbreak and install custom ROMS to block ads is actually even higher per-device.

its right

The breakdown of Android seems to be representative (at least generally) by highest supported version, or phone capability. Marketing people looking to sell a high CPU game ad supported need to know the percentage of phones that ca run it, and thus the likely number of ads shown. very, very few iOS apps don't run on the 3G in at least some capacity (and they're are not any ad supported ones i can think of at all).

You are right though, other than someone looking to place ads on a platform, this is not very relevant. Clearly, Android users see on average more ads per user than iOS users do, likely do to most of the reasons you listed. Ad companies will likely start paying more for Android placement soon, and ads might even get more frequent as well given higher revunue and thus more incentive, but that will come to a grinding halt as more people seek to block ads using tools due to the inundation by them.

turn off wifi and data to avoid ads? Great, might as well just carry a generic phone then, and a game device. Taking a smartphone offline is simply dumb. its DESIGNED to be 24x7 connected. If you're disconnecting it, you're doing it wrong.

Bingo

Yes, not only is this a marketshare in ads served, not in devices sold, it is marketshare only of ads serverd through marketing firms, and does not include iAds in the total.

A few things can be gleamed here.

1: since there are more iOS phones in use total (let alone total iOS devices) than android phones, (though Android did recently sell more in a single quarter, the iOS base was larger to start with and still has a larger total install base, and with the VZW launch this week is likely to stay that way a while longer) yet the ads served to android users exceed that of iOS, that means each Android user is on average served significantly more ads than iOS user (excluding iAds). Most would view this as a reason not to buy android, but they're promoting it as a plus?

2: its the ad company itself promoting these numbers. Clearly, they want more pennies per ad then they are currently getting from Android. Never forget to consider the source

Beastly Android will batter Apple's iOS beauty

meh

They're gaining devs, but iOS isn't exactly loosing any. they're gaining marketshare, but only because they directly compete in barely half the markets worldwide (and only 40% of the US). A CDMA iPhione, combined with a heavily subsidized push with carriers by M$ and WP7 could shove android back into the 20% range within 6 months. A few more rounds of disenfranchized customers due to being left behind (for the third time), on the OS, and they'll be ready to jump ship fast to almost anything else.

personally, I love android, love the power, love the freedom. I'm no fan of the interface itself, and it has numerous bugs and a hefty virus risk looming (and multiple circulating viruses as we speak). It also can not obtain STIG certification for use by government or private business using secured data, so it can never win that market. Geeks like us WANT android and want it to win, but the reality is the 90% of the general public is either confused or disenfranchized by the platform, has little need for it, and only has it because they asked for a smartphone and VZW said "android, android, android" and shoved one in their hands. When M$'s money convinces carriers to chant "WP7" instead of android, and when people who want iOS can actually get it, android will return to the niche it should have never left.

yup

BS data.

Apple's sales are flat due to a combination of component shortages and postponed releases in many nations, while android added more than 30 additional carriers in the same time-frame.

Compare Android sales within comparable markets, and the tale is different. yes, the combines android activations for VZW, Sprint, T-mobile, AT&T, and others in the US combined does exceed the 5.6 million new iPhones AT&T activated in Q3, but AT&T activated more iPhones alone that total VZW smartphones of all brands, and most of those were sold under BoGo offers, and some were outright free. AT&T signed 2.4m new subscribers to verizon's 900K, and verizon has near half again the customer churn of AT&T.

yes, if you compare what 290m people have access to on one side, with what 60m people have access to on the other, obviously the larger distributed system wins out. If switching carriers was painless and free, and contracts didn't exist, VZW would have lost a hell of a lot more than 1.7% of their customers last quarter. As soon as a VZW and T-mobile iPhone hits the streets, and with WP7's gains almost exclusively at google's loss, Android can only go down hill.

It won;t go away, no, it will always have a good 20% total share, nothing to shake a stick at (unless Sun kills it outright with their court case against Google), but it can not hold the rains so long as the iOS platform continues to improve. If AirPlay devices take off at CES, and having an apple device turns into easier streaming than WHDI and DLNA combined (predicted), and as more providers join the iTunes TV game, and as content providers continue to block google TV, it will quickly become less about simply having a phone, and more about having a PLATFORM. Googl is not yet a platform... far from it.

BS unclarified statistics

WTF, comparing market-share in units sold for two DIFFERENT SIZED MARKETS? Statisticians are a bottom feeding breed to begin with, but are you trolls actually buying this BS?

iOS is sold on one carrier here, out of 5 majors. Less than 40% of the populous can buy one, yet still it's more than half the sales Android claims. AT&T activated more new iPhones in new subscriber hands than VZW activated TOTAL android handsets (new and re-buys) and also in total new customers (with any handset) in the second half of 2010. AT&T carries both iOS and Android and Android sales are but a fraction on AT&T compared to iOS. Look at ANY carrier worldwide that sells both systems and iOS outsells android. The only reason android is selling more is LACK of choice. Pre died and WP7 was late, leaving pretty much Android or Rim as the only options, and few pick RIM who want multimedia. Android is sold in near double the amount of carriers worldwide, the bulk of which only offer Android and Symbian, with a smattering of RIM. Of course it;s the #1 seller in those places.

head to head, android is loosing, only in worldwide numbers, boosted heavily by the US and other places Android does not compete directly with a viable contender on the same carrier, do the numbers switch in Android favor. If switching carriers meant no hassles, and no fees, many more people would have left VZW for AT&T. As it stands, VZW only grabbed 900,000 new customers total in Q3, to AT&Ts more than 2.6 million. 1.6% of Verizon's existing customers left them in Q3. only 1.3% of AT&T customers left in the same time. AT&T activated 5.6m new iPhones in Q3 alone, double the total number of total smartphones sold on VZW in the same period.

As soon as VZW and T-mobile have iOS devices, Android sales will plummet. Combine that with WP7 being heavily pushed by Microsoft and carriers alike, and with some major improvements coming to that platform, it will eat into Android just as well, and only a smidge into iOS. Most android devices are sold in BOGO and other heavily discounted offers (including FREE phones outright), and iOS has no such discounts and is still outselling handsets where both are offered on the same carrier. Guess what, WP7 is soon going to be getting all those BoGo offers, carriers love it, and M$ is heavily subsidizing it, and doing most of the advertising. WP7 uses less bandwidth, the carriers don't have to edit the OS (and deal with disappointed left behind customers), and the phones can't be hacked to bypass tethering and other up-charges as Android can easily do. the carriers will be abandoning Android very soon...

Garmin tells iPhone users where to go

LOOK at this app

OK, yes, you CAN get GMaps, Mapquest, and a few other fairly competent free GPS nav apps.

However, look at what this is offering above and beyond basic and simple "turn now" navigation...

There's a frigging rendering of the street sign, and indicators not just "exit left" but which lane to be in at any point and time to avoid being in exit only lanes, or so that you can know both right lanes will exit so you don;' have to change to the rightmost one.

The route planners are actually customizable beyond "shortest" and "fastest"

Speed limit identification for most roads

Real time traffic (yes some free ones do this, including map quest and Google, but they're not that good)

music controls IN the app (no switching)

integrated weather conditions

portrait and landscape mode (only some do this)

Maps are not only loaded on-the-fly, but also work offline for pre-plotted routes. Free map updates are in fact included, and always up-to-date (no annual updates)

Continues voice prompts in the background even when on a call.

Yes, around my town where i know the major and complex intersections by heart, and simply need to find back roads and the odd store, Google and other free solutions are fine. If I was headed through NY, DC, Hartford, Boston etc? trust me, I've tried (and failed) to use simple turn-only GPS in those cities. Knowing what LANE to be in is a damned important feature if you are not familiar with the city. Getting real time traffic and more, even placing calls from within the app without changing screens, and with continual map updates from the same systems that support the Nuvi? Its a one time $40 investment that is far superior to anything available for less.

Novell's Microsoft patent sale referred to regulators

huh?

Look, I'm no fan of software patents but the idea that the sale of (currently) valid patents is a threat to OSI? Look people, either the OSS you support is free and clear of infringing on patents, or it is not. Your failure to perform due diligence is your own problem if ANYONE comes along and challenges something you put out there in the world that turns out to be patented. If you want something to be open, and ensure it;s non-infringing, PATENT IT YOURSELF, then offer it freely to a patent pool under condition the software is offered under GPL or some such, THAT is how you protect OSS.

These existing patents are simply changing hands. Unless you can prove this is a specific attempt by Microsoft to do something illegal, get off your soap box. The patents in question are known. If you think your stuff might infringe, you might want to start finding out how, and change your code as necessary. The sale isn't a threat to OSS, the existence of OSS that is infringing on valid patents is a threat to OSS. Anyone anytime with an infringed patent could bring a halt to your whole game.

Besides, if the infringement was out there, why didn't Novel sue you themselves? Also, the patents novel has that they chose to open source, great, Microsoft now owns those patents, but that has no legal impact on the fact novel may have already chosen to place the code under OSS licensing, which Microsoft can never repeal (once it;s out, it;s out, and self sustaining). All it changes is who owns an essentially worthless piece of paper.

iPad's biggest rival? Microsoft's dead Courier

Define "issues"

They run the exact same OS (aside the front facing camera support). the anteannagate "issue" is nothing more than troll fodder, and it was scientifically proven (by multiple independent cell phone review companies, plus anandtech, teccrunch, and several others) that the iP4, even when held "wrong" still had better signal strength than the 3GS at its best, or any competing Android device. The other minor hardware issues were solved (fast).

Kinect was no figment

It was an R&D project 5 years in the making, and a completely viable system. The $150 in hardware cost about $30 in parts, and the software is just that, software. it was all very real and very feasible, it just took a long time to develop, then get in the hands of devs to make some games.

The Courier, no way could they put a bloated desktop OS which now lacks the Tablet centric UI features XP tablet edition did have, on x64 hardware with a battery life users expect and with snap and pop they're used to. A netbook class system simply wasn't going to cut it (especialyl crippled to 600 vertical lines), and the Windows Kernel has no sleep state that allows for continued processing like mobile OS do (the iPad gets alerts and e-mails even when "off.")

Windows simply takes WAY too much horsepower (and storage). iOS takes less than 2GB, everything inclusive to run the OS. Win7 install is 5 times that, and that's before it creates 20-40GB of log data, temp files, snapshots and more. a 64GB partition is the minimum for Win7 to reliably operate, inclusive of not less than 30% free space to avoid fragmentation, but iOS is happy in 8GB, and a 32GB iOS system will technically have more available user space than a 64GB Windows drive. Oh, and then there's the I/O limitations...

Even low end (celeron based) PC tablets have been hovering over $1K for years. They just can't make them much cheaper. Also, those intel chips need a heck of a lot more cooling than ARMs do, meaning thicker cases. It just doesn;t work, There must be a custom windows OS to compete with the IPad, a Win7 version of Windows CE. rumor is we'll see one at CES.

huh?

palm graphiti didn't work on the screen for years, it worked in a dedicated area where a keyboard would otherwise be... and it didn't work that well unless you had impeccable handwriting skills, where the Apple Newton that pre-dated it by years worked across the whole screen, in multiple languages, standard and cursive writing, and had a learning engine too.

no issue for me

initially, yes, i drifted a bit, but during my week long extensive review of the iPad, I typed more than 10K words on it. After a few days, "hovering" was precise, and with the keyboard and screen in such close proximity, I found i could keep centered simply using peripheral vision without concentration. After all, your fingertips and the text you;re typing are only a few inches apart...

When at home, i used a rolled towel as a wrist wrest, and that made things even easier, though i probably would have acquires a $30 BT keyboard and used that for extended tying if I kept the iPad. (it was only on load for the review).

I type about 85WPM on full keyed keyboards, about 65WPM on laptop keyboards, 60 on iPad, and about 45 on non-standard keyboards (most netbooks), and barely 30 on phones (and faster on the iPhone than anything else I've used). With continued practice, i could probably hit 80 or 85WPM on the iPad once i learn to trust the predictive typing system and memorize the most common defaults (I'de love to see that ported from phones to desktop publishing and productivity apps!), allowing me to type as many as 1/3rd less letters.

It in no way "pained" me to type on the iPad. Yes, there was a slight adjustment. hell, It took me a good week to adjust from my old work laptop to the new one, and I still fumble keys switching between the work and home systems. I've occasionally been tempted to just carry my Logitech BT keyboard with me everywhere and use it as my only keyboard so i can stop switching all the time. Was the iPad learning curve better or worse than any other? a bit slower on the uptake, but I think if I had another week, I'd have been just as fast.

I'de like to see a "split" keyboard option perhaps, putting a small "right thunb" and "left thumb" versions of the iPhone keyboard split and put on opposing sides of the screen for thumb typing, but that's only helpful times when i can't actually put the iPad on a table or lap to type (and it;s better on a table than a lap, but the same EASILY applies to notebooks too).

Labour moots using speed cameras to reward law-abiding drivers

um, no.

Just because we have data is no indication that we have the CPU power to MINE that data. A look up is one thing, but turning hundreds of millions of disparate data points collected each day into a map noting the pathing of each and every car in the EU, accounting for their travels when the take roads not accommodating speed cameras, track that back to a driver no less (more than one person commonly drives each car), and even then try to use THAT output in some meaningful way?

Look, here in the USA we researched building a national education database to track the performance of each student, teacher, building, and district across the country. nothing more than a repository of grades and what classes each kid took. A few dozen data points on each kid each year, plus some additional data on each schools curriculum and association of student to class to teacher. Something a bit more complex than a medical history database in terms of data volume, and with a lot more cross referencing and trend analysis.

The results? The size of the data-set would have exceeded the IRS database with just a couple of years of collected data on each kid, let alone trying to track a kid across multiple schools and 12+ years. Worse, IRS data is easily dividable to person, county, state, etc, but school data fell into odd divisions, making the architecture of the database itself massive, and meaning that any storage technology even on the horizon to use for that data was not big enough. Further, the CPU estimates for organizing, mining, correlating, and being able to generate person specific reporting from it were ridiculous. Many times what even the biggest mainframes on earth could push out. Only a massively distributed data system (each district storing and mining it;s own data) was feasible. Doing this for cars not only increases the data set by 2 orders of magnitude or more, but also adds significant computations complexity. We're 40 or 50 years from being able to have a system capable of live tracking every car.

What they proposed with this "lottery" system is easy. We get the data, randomly throw a few names in a hat, dump the rest of the data from the buffer, and periodically draw a name. Essentially, you pick a camera and a time, and give a reward to the first person passing it who's doing under the speed limit. no data mining required, no $100B computing system.

get a grip all you paranoid nuts, even if the government (aka, people like us that we elected) wanted to monitor us this way (which short of conspiracy theories no one has an answer, the data is valueless to everyday government operation), IT CAN NOT BE DONE using technology available even coming down the line 10 years from now, and certainly not with costs that can be hidden. Real time traffic management, yes, its possible. historical association of person, car and route looking for habits and cross association to other people? not possible. Not in 25 years.

From Antennagate to WikiLeaks: the year in tech lunacy

wow

Some crazy stuff happened out there. Crazier still was that is the general public actually had a clue, much of this would not have even been major news. Anteannagate for example was a clear misunderstanding of the public that, yes, if you held it a certain way, it had a slight impact, but even impacted it was STILL better. If they had simply added a thin non-conductive clear-coat on the metal, no one would have ever noticed, and it probably would have been lauded as the best antenna on the market.

The SMS of DEATH - Can it crash your phone?

not the iphone...

between AT&T filtering for such messages in the US, and the iPhone OS method for handling SMS, its immune. It wasn't always (they fixed it back in 2.x-something.

troll much?

If your phone is crashing, even at a percentage of that rate, and you have not notified apple to replace it, you've got issues....

Between a 2G, a 3GS and a 4, and more than 3 years of service for me and the wife, we've only dropped 11 calls, combined. I've not rebooted my iPhone on purpose since the early days of OS 2.x. I don't even reboot to install apps unless the app explicitly recommends I do so (and I usually avoid those apps, apple gave devs proper ways to avoid that, which means bad devs....). Typically, unless i forget to plug it in for more than 2 days in a row and completely kill the battery, it never reboots.

Last blackberry I had used to crash about 1-2 times a week, I had it replaced 3 times before they simply gave me a different (higher end) model. I retuned 2 different Palm phones for much the same reason. I do not tollerate flaky hardware or software. iOS and the iPhone platform are rock solid stable, you;re an ass. no one disputes iPhone stability (only features of the phone and the AT&T network).