illa romza

As the story says: "A private armed security guard interrupted the burglars and at some point, gunfire was exchanged with the two male burglars, who were also armed, Facicci said."

The burglars were shooting at him also. So the security guard acting in self defense. It wasn't like they were unarmed and while they ran away he shot them.

Go away- just go away.

Can we all just agree not to talk about this thing until it is actually out? There is so much BS about this thing, maybe it does not deserve anything until two weeks after it is out... if ever.


Um...this site is called MacRumors. Perhaps you shouldn't read the threads on the iFon if you aren't interested. Just a thought.

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.

I don't think we're getting the movie store or movie iPod just yet.

The sites that claim to have gotten an invite are French. (Not sure about Your Mac Life, though). Also, this event is being broadcat in London and Paris. This makes me think this announcement will be for downloadable European TV shows and not the iTunes Movie Store.

But - in the spirit of contradicting myself and being hopelessly optimistic, go check out the iPod refurb store. $100 off the 5G iPods instead of $50. That makes me think they're clearing inventory.

---------------

Also - In terms of branding - Quicktime Move Store perhaps?

---------------

I'm also guessing that we'll see speed bumps to the iMac and MacBook Pro (since they're the oldest) this Tuesday. The rest we may see during Apple Expo Paris.

Keep in mind that Steve doesn't do a keynote for speed bumps. Just tech advances.

Well here at work I could replace 4 PC draughting workstations with a Conroe based system. We already have 23" monitors so we are not going to purchase iMacs, and while Mac Pro's are nice they are too expensive for us... A $1500 headless system would do wonders! (and yes the mini is too little).

If Apple cannot release such a system we will have to continue purchasing PCs... :(
Depending on the applications you are going to use, you could cluster some minis.

what do you mean my windows is close not to upgrade??

and also, is there any chance that i might be succeeding in returning it... or even getting a refund??? i mean i took the vinyl cover off and just totally used it... can i return it right back to the apple store??

I meant return window..its just one day. Im not sure about the return but just give it a shot. If they ask, tell them you'd like to buy the new version. Be polite but firm as much as possible and you should be fine. Worst case scenario is they say no BUT you won't feel bad because you're current iPod is definately not out of date from what i see today

I think the building consensus is that PC gaming is wearing. Intel's graphic chip shouldn't detour many with the much improved CPU to boot. I'm totally happy I skipped the 2010 refresh.

PC gaming corners you into a constant cycle of bleeding your checking account dry; console gaming is infinitely more cost-effective. Once you start to appreciate this dynamic, you'll find yourself upgrading all your toys a lot less often and having money to take vacations and such :)

Did anyone notice that it has an IPS display?
http://www.apple.com/imac/features.html#displays

iMac 24's have had IPS displays since their inception in 2006. Every 21.5 and 27 inch iMac has had IPS displays, as evidenced by SwitchResX readouts, and the fact that they have around 178 degrees horizontal and vertical viewing angles.

If allows me to run Starcraft 2 at the insanely high native resolution with all the details set to high at 60 fps, I'd spring for it. (the 2GB upgrade)

You get basically no performance benefit whatsoever going from 1 GB to 2 GB even at 2560x1440, see Anandtechs test of just this:

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/graphics-ram-4870,2428.html

More info on GPU memory in OS X:
http://www.anandtech.com/show/2804

With people putting off for the "next big thing" I wonder how many people will end up buying nothing ;)


Well here at work I could replace 4 PC draughting workstations with a Conroe based system. We already have 23" monitors so we are not going to purchase iMacs, and while Mac Pro's are nice they are too expensive for us... A $1500 headless system would do wonders! (and yes the mini is too little).

If Apple cannot release such a system we will have to continue purchasing PCs... :(

I' SO sick of iPhone rumours:rolleyes:

The iPhone will NOT be released..... EVER!

ok, just made a quick mockup of what i would like to see announced next week :cool:
http://users.pandora.be/blackbox/airport_video.png

and make shure it also works with video_ts folders and avi/divx files (maybe via a front row API for third party developers like VLC?) ;)

this would perfectly complement that itunes movie store
That with a built-in iPod dock that syncs wirelessly. SWEET!!!! :D
That way you could stream wirelessly or play with whatever is on the iPod.

This pretty much sums it up.

What is the App Store? It is a store where you buy apps, an app store.

It's not a "shed where you buy apps", for example.


Wow, great point. Care to pick off any of the other ideas?

The security guard just saved CA taxpayers a nice chunk of change.

go apple!

Fun and games till it's not.

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (Linux; U; Android 2.3.3; en-gb; Blade Build/FRG83) AppleWebKit/533.1 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0 Mobile Safari/533.1)

It'll be interesting to see what the Nokia deal will do for MSFT. As things stand now I can't see this happening but you never know.

Sorry, but that mockup is just stupid. Whoever made it obviously has no concept of Apple's product line. CONSUMER = WHITE OR BLACK. PRO = ALUMINUM. NEITHER = MIX OF IMAC WHITE + ALUMINUM. Every single frickin' product follows these guidelines. Get a clue.

You're doing what Marshall McLuhan described: looking in a rearview mirror to anticipate the future. You might even be being a little arrogant about it. Y'think? I mean, what about those aluminum iPod minis? that same format's suggested for new nanos. Apple's smart to delineate its lines, and you're smart to note that. But neither Apple nor you would be smart to think that delineation has to be sustained...what, forever? Like wide and narrow ties (hair styles, skirt lengths) moving in and out of fashion, Apple, IMHO, will establish distinctions and evolve them over time. It won't always happen: we'll never see a black Apple laptop again, like the early models, but... Oh, wait!!!

bellbottoms forever
peace out

Exactly! I think other potential twists would include a video Airport Express with a built-in TV tuner (to stream tv content back to your iMac/Mac Pro for recording, or an optional built-in HD for local storage when you don't have your Mac on or something.
I'd be surprised if Apple did anything with TV tuners.

With the variety of TV services that people have (analog cable, digital cable, satellite TV, Verizon's TV over fiber, terrestrial HDTV), coming up with a device that can tune most folks TV doesn't sound easy, even for Apple.

I swear, this guy never seems happy about anything. I seem to recall him saying this for other product releases... $10 says he'll say it again once the MBA is released.

I have a friend who swears Apple is gonna turn the MBP into a big MBA. He's pissed and moaned about the 15" loosing the express slot and "forced" him to get the new Sandy Bridge 17" MBP... He doesn't use the slot. He says he simply wants the comfort of knowing he has it if he ever wanted to use it. :rolleyes:

His latest rage is that the next MBP won't have a DVD slot. I forgot my Macs even had a DVD slot but I guess that's the difference between us.

USB3 is dead tech. You'll never see it on a Mac. Would be VERY surprised to see eSATA, as well.

Huh? Where are you getting the idea it's "dead tech"? We just started to see USB 3 thumb drives and HDDs.

I obviously see Thunderbolt's (I hate that new name) superiority. But that doesn't mean consumers do. They eat what they are fed. That's why I said Apple and Intel have to force Thunderbolt into the light and into their computers. If Apple does it first and is noted for having the fastest stuff because they went the extra step people/companies will follow.

Why do people seem convinced Apple won't release something like an SLR or video camera?

If you'd followed the dSLR world at all over the past two years, you wouldn't ask this question. :) Canon and Nikon are doing well; most everyone else is dropping like flies. Sony is trying to pick up the pieces that were Konica-Minolta's dSLR business, but at best they're going to be a distant third behind the Big Two. Pentax and Olympus are holding on as far as I know, but they are not doing well.

It would be a very poor move for Apple, and I have no doubt they realize this. You might think Apple has a rabid fan base to draw on - go read any "Nikon vs. Canon" thread on any photo discussion board sometime to see REAL rabidity. :D

(by the way, they do make 10 megapixel camera phones now) if you buy them online, paying retail prices.


Are they any good? I've never seen a phone with a good camera, 10MP phone sounds like 10MP of grainy nasty pictures to me.

If the iPhone is half of the product that the iPod is, it should have a decent harddrive. I think that this would allow for whatever software, songs, movies,or whatever you want. Just take 2 gigsof the drive and partition it off for the OS. But, I could be wrong.

That would make the phone way too large. Unfortunately, the market has shifted to smaller phones such that they are harder to use than necessary, but that makes them easier to carry. A phone that's a little larger than a nano might be accepted, something that's as large as the 5G probably won't, that would make it the largest phone on the market.