More Droid love from real users
Verizon Wireless now charges up to $350 early termination fees per phone on your account
One of the first things I noticed is when I tried to pull data off my
device, in particular photos and videos which are stored on the Micro-
SD card. If you’re a Windows 7 user, the first thing you’ll want to do
is get a Micro-SD card adapter and reader for your PC, because you’ll
go absolutely nuts trying to make Windows 7 see it over a USB
connection.
If he had chosen an iPhone Jason would enjoy seamless USB moving of
videos and photos to and from the iPhone using iTunes on either a Mac
or PC. The iPhone doesn't need an easily lost Micro-SD card or extra
cost reader like the Droid.
--
My First Week With DROID Posted by Jason Perlow ZD NET
If you are used to a BlackBerry and are considering a DROID or other
Android-based touchscreen smartphone, be aware that you really cannot
use an Android device one-handed. The interface is definitely tactile,
so if you are used to thumbing around like you can on a BlackBerry,
and loved the speed in which you could get to your core applications,
be prepared to slow down a little.
Ah the iPhone experienced users can operate easily it one handed. I
have even entered text while using my left hand for something else.
--
My First Week With DROID Posted by Jason Perlow ZD NET
You have to get used to the fact that you are not going to be
“Syncing” the DROID with your PC or Mac, all your data essentially
lives in Google-land.
Ouch, Jason will be dead in th water every time Google has an
outage.
The iPhone syncs with your computer and is automatically backed up
every time you connect it via USB. Apple also stores all your purchase
history on their servers, so if your Windows PC is eaten alive by
viruses and you have to reinstall Windows you do not have to pay for
your applications or any other iPhone content all over again. That is
another huge benefit of the Apple store compared to any would be
contender.
--
My First Week With DROID Posted by Jason Perlow ZD NET
In order to do a file transfer, I had to load the Android SDK in a
Linux virtual machine connected to the USB resources of my Windows 7
system and use the Java-based debugging/developer GUI, which is not
something your regular end-user should ever have to do. Google really
needs to get some decent PC and Mac driver and basic sync/transfer
software.
How many iPhone users want to fire up Linux inside of windows 7 to do
file transfer? The Droid is a hackers wet dream in that they can
diddle around for hours to do something that is so simple with the
iPhone.
I can feel the Droid love.
And this is an iPhone killer?
--
My First Week With DROID Posted by Jason Perlow ZD NET
Other annoyances include erratic Bluetooth connections (I kept
disconnecting from my Jawbone 2 for no apparent reason until I
rebooted the device) and a limitation in the current Android 2.0
software which prevents you from using your Bluetooth headset with the
Voice Dial and Voice Search.
And some wit suggested Bluetooth was the answer for the flaky speakers
already reported to be failing in the Droid? Who wnats to sleep with a
Bluetooth headset in their ear just to be sure to hear an alarm clock
or telephone call while on a trip? I know, I know, a Geek would.
--
My First Week With DROID Posted by Jason Perlow ZD NET
The DROID’s camera, while high-resolution (5MP) and capable of
recording video, is somewhat quirky and has serious focusing issues,
particularly in low-light conditions such as inside a restaurant.
Closeup photos are also a bit of a challenge. If you were thinking of
using the DROID as your primary camera, don’t bother. I suspect the
issue is entirely software related to the “Camera” application or the
camera’s embedded Linux servomotor driver/firmware, which will
hopefully be resolved soon, but I intend on keeping my trusty Canon G7
in my travel bag until it gets fixed.
Could this be a strong clue as to why the iPhone takes better photos
and videos than the Verizon Droid?
--
My First Week With DROID Posted by Jason Perlow ZD NET
Even with these quirks, I am really enjoying my DROID purchase...
We too feel your Droid love Jason. If you also want to share in
Jason's love head over to your nearest Verizon store and sign up for a
new two year Verizon wireless contract and you can have a shinny new
Droid for Xmas for only $200 (net after rebate) plus $70 to $100 a
month,
Larry
on your account" <vic.h...@gmail.com> wrote in news:583ce7a0-e06f-466a-
9146-7cf...@b15g2000yqd.googlegroups.com:
> If he had chosen an iPhone Jason would enjoy seamless USB moving of
> videos and photos to and from the iPhone using iTunes on either a Mac
> or PC. The iPhone doesn't need an easily lost Micro-SD card or extra
> cost reader like the Droid.
>
>
How horrible to have easily removeable memory cards making your total
memory infinite. Oh, wait, that isn't new. My MotoROKR Z6m sellphone does
that. It's how I select which kind of music I want.
I don't know about MACs, but PCs have microSD readers built right into
them. Even my netbook reads them with the little free SD adapter the card
came with. Is that what you mean?
Of course, this wouldn't work with the 1980's style "syncing" like an old
Palm Pilot controlling content.
--
Larry
Verizon Wireless now charges up to $350 early termination fees per phone on your account
> "Verizon Wireless now charges up to $350 early termination fees per phone
> Of course, this wouldn't work with the 1980's style "syncing" like an old
> Palm Pilot controlling content.
>
> --
> Larry
More Droid Love Just In 3:33 PM EST 10-16-09
Droid Users Ask: Can You Hear Me Now?
from Gadget Lab by Priya Ganapati
Verizon Wireless’ vaunted network may not be paying off for some users
of the Droid, who are complaining about problems with call quality on
their smartphones.
“There’s a problem with echo on the phone so when someone calls you,
to them it sounds like they are having a conversation with
themselves,” says Heath Brashier, a Baton Rouge, Louisiana-based
software developer who bought his Droid, which is manufactured by
Motorola, just about a week ago. “It’s happened to me twice so far.”
Similar complaints have been posted on Motorola’s support forums,
where people have posted dozens of comments saying that their voice
sounds ‘tinny’ and ‘clipped.’ Some subscribers have found a way quick
DIY fix to the problem: Quickly turning the speaker phone on the
device on and off makes the echo go away, they say. Others suggest
rebooting the phone.
Verizon
“We stand behind our products,” says the spokesperson. “Customers have
a 30-day return and exchange policy if they are not happy with their
phone.”
__
Generally I have heard the Droid speaker is randomly failing all over
the place with total silence where there should have been audio. The
above suggested fixes work and if you complain Verizon and Motorola
will give you another Droid to keep you locked in during the grace
period. Who is to say the new Droid will not be failure prone too?
===
Droid Users Ask: Can You Hear Me Now?
from Gadget Lab by Priya Ganapati
Separately, a Wired.com reader said in an email note that Droid’s Wi-
Fi connectivity can be unreliable. While the phone connects to a Wi-Fi
network, it doesn’t always connect to the internet from there. It’s no
clear if that’s a problem with just a few phones or a more widespread
issue among Droid devices.
Todd Allcock
> My First Week With DROID Posted by Jason Perlow ZD NET
> One of the first things I noticed is when I tried to pull data off my
> device, in particular photos and videos which are stored on the Micro-
> SD card. If you’re a Windows 7 user, the first thing you’ll want to do
> is get a Micro-SD card adapter and reader for your PC, because you’ll
> go absolutely nuts trying to make Windows 7 see it over a USB
> connection.
Having a reader for removable media always makes sense- it's typically
faster than hooking up a device and dealing with sync software. I've
never, for example, hooked any of my digital cameras to my computer to
drag files via the camera's USB cable. Pop out card, quickly copy,
reinsert card, get on with your life.
> If he had chosen an iPhone Jason would enjoy seamless USB moving of
> videos and photos to and from the iPhone using iTunes on either a Mac
> or PC. The iPhone doesn't need an easily lost Micro-SD card or extra
> cost reader like the Droid.
True. But it does need a computer with iTunes. That limits the number
ofcomputers you can copy stuff to- if I want to transfer photos or videos
to a friend's computer, asking him to install a few dozen MBs of sync
software first is a bit of an imposition!
> My First Week With DROID Posted by Jason Perlow ZD NET
> You have to get used to the fact that you are not going to be
> “Syncing” the DROID with your PC or Mac, all your data essentially
> lives in Google-land.
>
> Ouch, Jason will be dead in th water every time Google has an
> outage.
> The iPhone syncs with your computer and is automatically backed up
> every time you connect it via USB. Apple also stores all your purchase
> history on their servers, so if your Windows PC is eaten alive by
> viruses and you have to reinstall Windows you do not have to pay for
> your applications or any other iPhone content all over again. That is
> another huge benefit of the Apple store compared to any would be
> contender.
How is that an "advantage" when it requires access to your designated
"sync computer?" Cloud-based sync advantages certainly outweigh the
disadvantages, as evidenced by the feature's extra cost (MobileMe) on the
iPhone.
> My First Week With DROID Posted by Jason Perlow ZD NET
> In order to do a file transfer, I had to load the Android SDK in a
> Linux virtual machine connected to the USB resources of my Windows 7
> system and use the Java-based debugging/developer GUI, which is not
> something your regular end-user should ever have to do. Google really
> needs to get some decent PC and Mac driver and basic sync/transfer
> software.
>
> How many iPhone users want to fire up Linux inside of windows 7 to do
> file transfer? The Droid is a hackers wet dream in that they can
> diddle around for hours to do something that is so simple with the
> iPhone.
> I can feel the Droid love.
> And this is an iPhone killer?
Like the iPhone or any platform, the Android platform has its own set of
limitations. Why is this guy hacking his way into forcing USB file
transfer when he can do it via removable storage? Simple- he's trying to
make it work like he THINKS it should, instead of how it actually works,
which I'm constantly told is a Bad Idea(tm) by the Apple Corps here when
I ask why I can't, say, drag and drop files to/from an iPhone.
> Could this be a strong clue as to why the iPhone takes better photos
> and videos than the Verizon Droid?
While that may be true, I've yet to find a cell phone camera, including
the iPhone's, worth bragging about. "It sucks less than the others!" is
hardly the stuff catchy slogans are made of!
> My First Week With DROID Posted by Jason Perlow ZD NET
> Even with these quirks, I am really enjoying my DROID purchase...
And that's the bottom line. All the various mobile platforms have their
advantages and disadvantages. Why not just enjoy your iPhone, Vic?
Serious competition will only make Apple work that much harder to keep
improving it, rather than just sitting on their laurels.
George Kerby
On 11/16/09 9:35 AM, in article Xns9CC56BB22AE...@74.209.131.13,
"Larry" <no...@home.com> wrote:
You should not really be so bitter because you sold you AAPL in 2005.
Larry
ghost_...@hotmail.com:
> You should not really be so bitter because you sold you AAPL in 2005.
>
>
Your concept of how stock is traded by daytraders is way off. We'd
NEVER hold a stock LONG! That's just suicide. Only the suckers "hold"
stock and are loyal to the corporations. They're the ones jumping out
of windows....
I have missed the opportunity to do a little AAPL trading since its $85
bottom the week of March 2. I don't trade expensive stocks very often,
anyway. Money multiplies when a $2.12 stock mysteriously rises to $6.83
on a rumor some big bank is going to buy this bankrupt little bank.
Notice how the multiplier here is 3.22. If AAPL were $100/share, for
similar short-term performance, it's price would have to go to $322 to
match the profit margin of the failed bank. That's just not going to
happen to an expensive stock very often. If you nervously punched the
button for $5000 worth of Harper Valley PTA at 2.12 and it jumped to
just $6.83 by Monday when you guessed WRONGLY it wouldn't go any higher,
your $5000 only became $16,100 (when it could have been over $20K).
This kind of thing happens in DAYS to really cheap stock, not months or
years like AAPL. You could starve by then!
Well Fargo did me a big favor this past year bailing out the failed
Wachovia Bank from Charlotte. I bought Wachovia for only 98c/share the
day it crashed hard, figuring someone would want all those customers and
locations throughout the South. By Friday Wells-Fargo was offering me
$7/share, IF the deal went through, but I wanted to sleep that weekend,
so I dumped it on Friday afternoon at $6.93. My initial investment of
$10K, which pretty much wiped my account dry on this hunch, became
$70,714 that week, wiping out my Social Security checks for several
years after they found out about it....(c;]
I'm only bitter I worked 50 years as an electronics technician, an
honest work, when I could have made MUCH MUCH better money and lived far
better all those years if I sat on my ass in front of this screen and
played with the keys...fixing nothing, contributing nothing to the well
being of the country.
AAPL's too slow, too expensive. It should have been split many times in
the past to a more reasonable price that didn't carry with it the
psychological baggage of being a major investment to the investing
masses. Wall Street loves it because it rises slowly to sell lots of
shares they suck off the commissions from, then crashes hard at regular
intervals causing the suckers to dump it cheap so the cycle can repeat.
Remember when it WAS $194 Dec 3, 2007, then dropped to $124 Feb 11,
2008? Lots of people panicked and lost their ass...LONG INVESTORS.
Then, it recovered to $181 in May and crashed 3 times in 3 weeks to $82
and stayed there from the 2nd week in October to the 2nd week in March.
That must have been just devastating to someone holding on for dear life
to AAPL as during that dark period It didn't appear it was ever going up
again....but it came back as the LIES on TV of a "recovery" kept being
pounded into their heads. I could have bought in March under $100 but
the multipler to today is only 2X what you paid for it because it's SO
expensive. No thanks. Panic sets in to these expensive stocks way too
often when something in the economy glitches....except, of course,
Warren's Berkshire-Hathaway at $101,000+/share, even after he bought the
huge railroad...just so he could drive the train...(c;]
I'm a little guy playing penny stocks. It's very addictive, much more
than a casino where you're guaranteed to lose your ass. Here, you can
actually win regularly if you're attentive.
I'm not very scientific, though. I like to gamble. Otherwise I'd just
follow these guys around:
http://www.daytradingradio.com/
who daytrade very scientifically over a wide range with great results.
On the webpage are his trades and earnings. Take a look. He fails just
like I do, at times. But, he wins a lot more often using scientific
methods you can learn by simply watching him trade when the market opens
in the morning. He even lets you watch for free, hoping to sell you
more. Great fun to listen to while you lose your ass or win....(c;]
--
Larry
Larry
There's a trader's conference in Las Vegas the daytrader is attending.
He's broadcasting what he's hearing you may like to listen to from his
radio station all night. It's on right now. Too bad it's not TV...
George Kerby
On 11/16/09 11:13 PM, in article Xns9CC62522E5...@74.209.131.13,
"Larry" <no...@home.com> wrote:
Tell all that to Warren Buffet. I'm sure he will take your advice, Lar.
(I know it impressed the gals at the Waffle House, tho...)
WindsorFox<[SS]>
> If he had chosen an iPhone Jason would enjoy seamless USB moving of
> videos and photos to and from the iPhone using iTunes on either a Mac
> or PC.
And he has to put up with iTunes, all it's crap istalling everything
Apple ever invented and HAS to keep QuickTime. iTunes is one of teh most
invasive applications I've ever used.
> The iPhone doesn't need an easily lost Micro-SD card or extra
> cost reader like the Droid.
OMG! Are you a complete idiot? "Oh I choose a closed 16 or 32GB
instead of an SD card that would give me an infinite amount of memory
space because some moron might be capable of losing it." Yeah, that's a
solid piece of advice. I used a Moto L7 for a couple of years and never
lost the card, and it was easily accessable, unlike the one on the Droid.
--
.
Well, it was important enough for several folks to
comment on. Fortunately, they were not burdened
by Microsoft shitware which fails to properly
implement a decade-old standard. - Sam
nospam
<windsor.f...@gmail.com> wrote:
> OMG! Are you a complete idiot? "Oh I choose a closed 16 or 32GB
> instead of an SD card that would give me an infinite amount of memory
> space because some moron might be capable of losing it." Yeah, that's a
> solid piece of advice. I used a Moto L7 for a couple of years and never
> lost the card, and it was easily accessable, unlike the one on the Droid.
most users don't fill 16 gig, why would they care to have an infinite
amount of storage?
Richard B. Gilbert
Bragging rights? <evil grin>
Droid Does have 'a fee for that':$3 monthly for Visual Voice Mail
I have been hacking electronics for a little over twenty five years to
make radios, computers and such do things they were not designed to
do.
That is how I go to be known as xxxxx as I did it just for fun, to see
if it could be done.
Did you know Steve Jobs, head of Apple hacked phones as a youth just
to screw with Ma Bell?
Today people who hack devices are often doing it not for fun but for
profit. Criminal organizations have seized on the idea and hack
everything from electronic card readers to you name it including your
'smartphone'.
Fifteen years ago I stopped sharing my knowledge as I didn't want to
be guilty of assisting with what were now bad people doing bad
things.
Today these criminals steal or change electronic data that can ruin
your life, your identity, and your financial accounts. Now they do not
even need to be smart to do it. I now see scum bags who have been
arrested that look like intercity drug dealers who probably have never
even graduated from high school doing sophisticated things. It is
possible that they may have learned the details in prison in what is a
different type of advanced schooling for some.
Detailed helpful information can be found in various corners of the
Internet for any target you choose. You just need to know where to
look. In some cases it helps a lot if you can read languages other
than English.
__
Now that brings me to my current hobby topic the Android and its many
variations. As a phone it is easy, very easy. That is why in good
consciousness I can never recommend it to any of my friends.
I use the iPhone for the very reason it is not easy for outsiders to
hack as it is sold by Apple. Its functions are locked up tight as if
in a jail. Official apps sold or given away by the Apple App store are
in Apple's iPhone jail too.
There is widespread knowledge and scripts available on the Internet to
make it easy to jailbreak the iPhone. But there is no need with
110,000 apps to download to do that. Jail breaking the iPhone also
opens it up to the criminal element. One reason many jail break the
iPhone is that they can run pirated commercial software on a jail
broken phone. Another reason some got into the habit of jail breaking
an iPhone as to add missing functions. Apple has since added these in
various OS firmware updates. And the last and biggest reason for some
was they wanted mufti-tasking so they could have instant text
messages.
That last reason has been addressed with out needing power eating
background message applications multitasking by Apple's inclusion of
Push Notifications that arrive and display even when the phone screen
is off. I do not like to see so many of them when playing my favorite
game on the iPhone so I do not know if that was a good move or not. I
recently deleted one app for too many of them and turned that feature
off in the settings of others.
Jail broken iPhones have been the target of a couple of worms this
month. One was from the evil 'we steal people'. The thieves made use
of a well known password which enable remote root access and were able
to gather user bank data over the cellular network in Europe. The worm
needed phones it wanted to infect to be on the same WiFi network at
the same time to pass itself on. It is sort of like a venereal disease
and how it is passed by easy girls.
Which brings me back again to the Android. Every single Android device
is like a jail broken iPhone. That is the way they are designed. :>) I
can think of so many different ways to screw with an Android it is not
funny. Stealing Android apps can be accomplished by changing a certain
byte in any Android application. What was Google thinking? Could this
be a key reason commercial firms have backed off from porting their
bread an butter to Android after seeing unreasonably low sales?
Well what about the 'we steal people'? IN SPADES! Any criminal can
introduce a legitimate looking Android application what will upload
every bit of your personal data across the cellular network to his
Internet account. That is why I will not recommend the Android to
anyone who I really care about.
Android is easy, too easy.
Larry
<vic.h...@gmail.com> wrote in news:022a10c5-77ac-4c36-ab50-
1bf48b...@h10g2000vbm.googlegroups.com:
> Did you know Steve Jobs, head of Apple hacked phones as a youth just
> to screw with Ma Bell?
>
>
They were boxes of various codename colors. Steve had a Bluebox, used
in phone booths making your call untraceable to you. If you unscrewed
the microphone cover off the handset, you grounded the mic pin to the
case of the payphone to get a dialtone without paying. Now you dialed a
long distance number and quickly reassembled the mic so it could hear
your bluebox's special tones (DTMF are different frequencies than
Touchtones but operate the same way). When you hear the 2nd "click" of
the "tandems", the long lines stations, connecting you pressed a button
that generated I think it was 1700 Hz into the phone mic. The 2nd
tandem thought the first tandem hung up on it and stopped calling who it
was calling. The circuit remained open because your local CO had no
decode of that tone and the first tandem didn't comprehend tandem
control tones coming from a CO...couldn't happen.
The world is now at your fingertips as you DTMF'd the new country code,
area code, phone number into your bluebox keypad. Tandem 2 had already
"cancelled" the call, so the accounting system said the call had
terminated without connect (or charge). After that, no more billing was
done. Tandem 2, however, still responded to your tones, passing the
call along the proper route to as many tandems as necessary between you
and the Melbourne Australia spoken weather service, one of our favorite
demo calls....(c;]
It's all gone, now. Digital replaced this analog system of audio tones
on wires....but, of course, Bell System CONTINUED to CHARGE the same
RATES for a "Long Distance" call as if the old tandem system still
existed....even though on digital it cost the company the same money to
call Australia as it does to call the house across the street your
girlfriend lives in. Long Distance has been a Ma Bell/ATT ripoff since
the 1980s. A new ripoff industry was created by the FCC in
"deregulation". Vast companies sprung up to share in MaBell's long
distance game...simply charging you to complete the digital call out of
town at amazing profit margins....even if they were charging 5c/min.
The game continues on landline. Don't feel sorry for them for the
bluebox calls. One of my 2nd cousins worked at a Long Lines tandem.
Each Christmas eve, he would be at the tandem and call the entire family
into a huge megaconference around the country so everyone could wish
everyone a merry xmas and swap stories for hours at Ma Bell's expense.
Family reunions were better. Telephone conferencing doesn't have 8
tables of home cooked FOOD for us kids to gorge on....(c;]
Thanks for the memories, Vic. Building the boxes was great fun....even
for Steve, I'm sure. Did Woz do it, too?
--
Larry
Droid Does have 'a fee for that':$3 monthly for Visual Voice Mail
> "Droid Does have 'a fee for that':$3 monthly for Visual Voice Mail"
> 1bf48b149...@h10g2000vbm.googlegroups.com:
Yes Larry
Second I guess it doesn't matter now but you went into too much
detail. You have a good memory!
BTW have you ever gotten a visit from the Feds?
One simple detail you were not clear on was that DTMF are dual tones
mixed (4 low and 4 high mixed in pairs) and they are what is called by
AT&T as Touch-Tone. This combination produces a set of sixteen
different possible tones. Twelve of these are used by POTS.
nospam
<no...@home.com> wrote:
> > Did you know Steve Jobs, head of Apple hacked phones as a youth just
> > to screw with Ma Bell?
>
> They were boxes of various codename colors. Steve had a Bluebox, used
> in phone booths making your call untraceable to you.
a blue box made free long distance calls, not untraceable calls, and
they were very traceable.
> If you unscrewed
> the microphone cover off the handset, you grounded the mic pin to the
> case of the payphone to get a dialtone without paying.
that's a different trick and not required for blue boxes.
> Now you dialed a
> long distance number and quickly reassembled the mic so it could hear
> your bluebox's special tones (DTMF are different frequencies than
> Touchtones but operate the same way).
dtmf is touchtone. the blue box used mf, a different set of tones
> When you hear the 2nd "click" of
> the "tandems", the long lines stations, connecting you pressed a button
> that generated I think it was 1700 Hz into the phone mic.
2600 hz.
> The 2nd
> tandem thought the first tandem hung up on it and stopped calling who it
> was calling. The circuit remained open because your local CO had no
> decode of that tone and the first tandem didn't comprehend tandem
> control tones coming from a CO...couldn't happen.
that part is basically correct.
> The world is now at your fingertips as you DTMF'd the new country code,
> area code, phone number into your bluebox keypad. Tandem 2 had already
> "cancelled" the call, so the accounting system said the call had
> terminated without connect (or charge). After that, no more billing was
> done.
wrong. you got charged for the original dialed call, which is why
people usually used 800 numbers because those were toll free.
> Tandem 2, however, still responded to your tones, passing the
> call along the proper route to as many tandems as necessary between you
> and the Melbourne Australia spoken weather service, one of our favorite
> demo calls....(c;]
>
> It's all gone, now. Digital replaced this analog system of audio tones
> on wires....
actually, the blue box era ended by ignoring control tones if they
originated from the caller and not the central office, followed by
separating the control signals completely from the voice path, not
digital signaling. even a 2600hz notch filter was all that was
necessary.
> but, of course, Bell System CONTINUED to CHARGE the same
> RATES for a "Long Distance" call as if the old tandem system still
> existed....even though on digital it cost the company the same money to
> call Australia as it does to call the house across the street your
> girlfriend lives in.
actual cost rarely has anything to do with the final price, and it does
*not* cost the same to call australia as it does across the street.
> Long Distance has been a Ma Bell/ATT ripoff since
> the 1980s. A new ripoff industry was created by the FCC in
> "deregulation". Vast companies sprung up to share in MaBell's long
> distance game...simply charging you to complete the digital call out of
> town at amazing profit margins....even if they were charging 5c/min.
it's actually much, much cheaper after deregulation than before.
> The game continues on landline. Don't feel sorry for them for the
> bluebox calls. One of my 2nd cousins worked at a Long Lines tandem.
> Each Christmas eve, he would be at the tandem and call the entire family
> into a huge megaconference around the country so everyone could wish
> everyone a merry xmas and swap stories for hours at Ma Bell's expense.
> Family reunions were better. Telephone conferencing doesn't have 8
> tables of home cooked FOOD for us kids to gorge on....(c;]
>
> Thanks for the memories, Vic. Building the boxes was great fun....even
> for Steve, I'm sure. Did Woz do it, too?
woz designed and built them.
George Kerby
On 11/24/09 4:17 PM, in article Xns9CCDAFE0E6D...@74.209.131.13,
"Larry" <no...@home.com> wrote:
I knew about the grounding with a paperclip to get the dial tone, but the
rest is something that any Geek would be proud.
Nice story!
Larry
nos...@nospam.invalid:
> 2600 hz.
>
Oh boy...old age sucks...
--
Larry
Salgud
>
snip
>
> And that's the bottom line. All the various mobile platforms have their
> advantages and disadvantages. Why not just enjoy your iPhone, Vic?
> Serious competition will only make Apple work that much harder to keep
> improving it, rather than just sitting on their laurels.
>
>
phone. Any of them. Why do so many hate the iPhone? And why do so many
iPhone owners hate the Droids and Pres? What's to hate? We all have so
many great choices today, why do we have to hate people who make a
different choice? As the comedian Louis CK keeps saying, "We've got all
this great technology, and nobody's happy".
I bought and prefer the iPhone. But this is simply a personal
preference. For someone with smaller hands, the Pre might be a better
choice.
There's no "good" or "evil" here, folks, just our personal preferences!
Can't we all just get along? :)
Probably not.
WindsorFox<[SS]>
> In article <hefbcb$u2g$1...@posting2.glorb.com>, WindsorFox
> <windsor.f...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> OMG! Are you a complete idiot? "Oh I choose a closed 16 or 32GB
>> instead of an SD card that would give me an infinite amount of memory
>> space because some moron might be capable of losing it." Yeah, that's a
>> solid piece of advice. I used a Moto L7 for a couple of years and never
>> lost the card, and it was easily accessable, unlike the one on the Droid.
>
> amount of storage?
Fixed that for ya....
WindsorFox<[SS]>
> Android is Easy
>
> I have been hacking electronics for a little over twenty five years to
> make radios, computers and such do things they were not designed to
> do.
>
Just like the iPhone. I am a member of several forums, I was there
when it happened. The funniest part about the whole jailbreak and unlock
cracks?? The way Apple looked absolutely blind sided by it and looked
shocked and annoyed that it happened. It's as if they had no clue that
phone hackers even existed or that they figured they wouldn't have the
nerve to do it to the iPhone. The most disgusting part? The temper
tantrum Apple threw over it when they bricked all the jailbroken phones
and told anyone who dared ask "Tough shit." I guess you don't mind your
handset manufacturer telling you what you will and will not do with it,
and if you dare break their rules they can brick your $400 handset, but
I don't.
nospam
<windsor.f...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The most disgusting part? The temper
> tantrum Apple threw over it when they bricked all the jailbroken phones
> and told anyone who dared ask "Tough shit."
it's an unsupported modification.
> I guess you don't mind your
> handset manufacturer telling you what you will and will not do with it,
> and if you dare break their rules they can brick your $400 handset, but
> I don't.
apple did not deliberately brick anything. jailbreaking and unlocking
are based on exploits and patching a particular version of the
firmware. the early attempts were fairly buggy and it's not surprising
that they might not work with an updated firmware. it hasn't been a
problem for a couple of years.
Your Name
"WindsorFox<[SS]>" <windsor.f...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:hf18r9$c7n$1...@posting2.glorb.com...
> Droid Does have 'a fee for that':$3 monthly for Visual Voice Mail wrote:
> > Android is Easy
> >
> > I have been hacking electronics for a little over twenty five years to
> > make radios, computers and such do things they were not designed to
> > do.
> >
> > Android is easy, too easy.
>
>
> Just like the iPhone. I am a member of several forums, I was there
> when it happened. The funniest part about the whole jailbreak and unlock
> cracks?? The way Apple looked absolutely blind sided by it and looked
> shocked and annoyed that it happened. It's as if they had no clue that
> phone hackers even existed or that they figured they wouldn't have the
> nerve to do it to the iPhone. The most disgusting part? The temper
> tantrum Apple threw over it when they bricked all the jailbroken phones
> and told anyone who dared ask "Tough shit." I guess you don't mind your
> handset manufacturer telling you what you will and will not do with it,
> and if you dare break their rules they can brick your $400 handset, but
> I don't.
I'd MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH rather have Apple "telling me what I will and will
not do" with a mobile phone than some group of moron hackers and virus
writers getting in to it. That's half the problem with Microsloth and
Windoze.
Not Me
> I'd MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH rather have Apple "telling me what I will and will
> not do" with a mobile phone than some group of moron hackers and virus
> writers getting in to it.
Yet another Stockholm Syndrome victim.
Your Name
"Not Me" <Not...@Home.Base> wrote in message
news:u_6dnann8aWC8onW...@speakeasy.net...
Most people prefer a device that actually works, rather than one you
continually have to fiddle with and re-install to remove idiotic "malware".
The same reason why more and more people are dumping Windoze for Macs.
WindsorFox<[SS]>
If you say so, which has really no bearing on the Android phone but
I've never had a virus or trojan on any Win machine I've ever owned.
WindsorFox<[SS]>
More and more? Again I only "fiddle" with may machine when I want
to. I've always said Macs are great for those who can't and those who
won't. Just be advised that if/when OSX gets a measurable share of the
user pie You will be buyin AVs just like Windows n00bs. If *I* ever
decided to not game anymore and wanted to go Windowless I'd buy a $400
PC and install Linux rather than $1500 for a Mac. The difference between
Myself and Mac fanboi's is that IDGAF what you use or like, many of the
Fanboi's would like to see Win illegal.
Larry
> rather than one you
> continually have to fiddle with
....like iTuney just to load a song onto it any sane player could from the
regular file handler of your choice, not theirs.
You could even copy programs and data and stuff Daddy Apple doesn't want
you to and use it as a file transport to another computer! What a concept!
Duhh...
nospam
<windsor.f...@gmail.com> wrote:
> More and more? Again I only "fiddle" with may machine when I want
> to. I've always said Macs are great for those who can't and those who
> won't.
nonsense.
> Just be advised that if/when OSX gets a measurable share of the
> user pie You will be buyin AVs just like Windows n00bs.
also wrong. people have been saying that for years. mac market share is
growing quite a bit, yet the number of viruses in the wild is still
zero. the only os x malware that exists are ones that the user
downloads, installs and provides their admin password. there's nothing
you can do to prevent someone from being tricked into doing something
stupid.
> If *I* ever
> decided to not game anymore and wanted to go Windowless I'd buy a $400
> PC and install Linux rather than $1500 for a Mac.
the least expensive mac is $599, not $1500, not that your $400 pc would
have anywhere near the same specs as a $1500 mac.
> The difference between
> Myself and Mac fanboi's is that IDGAF what you use or like, many of the
> Fanboi's would like to see Win illegal.
nonsense.
Your Name
"nospam" <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
news:011220091322466721%nos...@nospam.invalid...
> In article <hf3f6a$kam$1...@posting2.glorb.com>, WindsorFox
> <windsor.f...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > More and more? Again I only "fiddle" with may machine when I want
> > to. I've always said Macs are great for those who can't and those who
> > won't.
>
> nonsense.
Don't waste your time. It's just another jealous anti-Apple moron to add to
the killfile. :-(
Not Me
QED
George Kerby
On 12/1/09 12:22 PM, in article 011220091322466721%nos...@nospam.invalid,
"nospam" <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
Give up. You're "Arguing With Idiots". They are as fanatical as any "fanboi"
they could conceive. Funny as hell that they just do not realize how moronic
they sound.
WindsorFox<[SS]>
> In article <hf3f6a$kam$1...@posting2.glorb.com>, WindsorFox
> <windsor.f...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> More and more? Again I only "fiddle" with may machine when I want
>> to. I've always said Macs are great for those who can't and those who
>> won't.
>
> nonsense.
Perfect sense, I work on computers, I know who uses what where I am.
In my computer shop there are two other techs that both use Macs
personally. Obviously they are the "don't wanna's" rather than the
"can'ts." The guy who just retired, poked prodded, fiddled with and
built water cooled rigs. After he retired he decided he didn't want to
anymore and uses a Mac now.
>
>> Just be advised that if/when OSX gets a measurable share of the
>> user pie You will be buyin AVs just like Windows n00bs.
>
> also wrong. people have been saying that for years. mac market share is
> growing quite a bit, yet the number of viruses in the wild is still
> zero. the only os x malware that exists are ones that the user
> downloads, installs and provides their admin password. there's nothing
> you can do to prevent someone from being tricked into doing something
> stupid.
>
Growing, not grown. It's at approximately 6%. In any case under 10%
still. And if you think Mac users can not be tricked....
>> If *I* ever
>> decided to not game anymore and wanted to go Windowless I'd buy a $400
>> PC and install Linux rather than $1500 for a Mac.
>
> the least expensive mac is $599, not $1500, not that your $400 pc would
> have anywhere near the same specs as a $1500 mac.
$599. No kb, no mouse no monitor. 2.6GHz and 4GB of RAM. I referred
to the iMac, a complete system. And yes the system I refer to is
comparable to the mini or the basic iMac and can easily be changed or
upgraded.
>
>> The difference between
>> Myself and Mac fanboi's is that IDGAF what you use or like, many of the
>> Fanboi's would like to see Win illegal.
>
> nonsense.
--
.
"A smorgasbord of tomfoolery" - L0afy
WindsorFox<[SS]>
Me? I'm not anti-anything. Obviously you did not read my entire
post, ie the part where I said IDGAF what you use or like, I work on and
have used all of them. It's the snooty attitude the *some* Apple users
have that I dislike.
WindsorFox<[SS]>
Says the "anti-PC moron...."
>> Most people prefer a device that actually works, rather than one you
>> continually have to fiddle with and re-install to remove idiotic
>> "malware".
>> The same reason why more and more people are dumping Windoze for
>> Macs.
>
--
WindsorFox<[SS]>
>
>
>>> The difference between
>>> Myself and Mac fanboi's is that IDGAF what you use or like, many of the
>>> Fanboi's would like to see Win illegal.
>> nonsense.
> Give up. You're "Arguing With Idiots". They are as fanatical as any "fanboi"
> they could conceive. Funny as hell that they just do not realize how moronic
> they sound.
>
Perfectly as expected, nothing contributory, just a personal attack
and name calling. Yes, *this* "idiot" is one of the people who repairs
your Mac when it gets broken because you can't.
nospam
<windsor.f...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> More and more? Again I only "fiddle" with may machine when I want
> >> to. I've always said Macs are great for those who can't and those who
> >> won't.
> >
> > nonsense.
>
> Perfect sense, I work on computers, I know who uses what where I am.
> In my computer shop there are two other techs that both use Macs
> personally. Obviously they are the "don't wanna's" rather than the
> "can'ts."
based on what?
> The guy who just retired, poked prodded, fiddled with and
> built water cooled rigs. After he retired he decided he didn't want to
> anymore and uses a Mac now.
i don't blame him. who wants to be building and fixing computers all
day long? most people want to use them and actually *do* something.
> >> Just be advised that if/when OSX gets a measurable share of the
> >> user pie You will be buyin AVs just like Windows n00bs.
> >
> > also wrong. people have been saying that for years. mac market share is
> > growing quite a bit, yet the number of viruses in the wild is still
> > zero. the only os x malware that exists are ones that the user
> > downloads, installs and provides their admin password. there's nothing
> > you can do to prevent someone from being tricked into doing something
> > stupid.
> >
> Growing, not grown. It's at approximately 6%. In any case under 10%
> still. And if you think Mac users can not be tricked....
it depends how you tally it, however, the lack of malware has very
little to do with market share. it is *not* easy to write mac malware
that doesn't involve the user installing and authenticating. in other
words, the weakness is the user.
> >> If *I* ever
> >> decided to not game anymore and wanted to go Windowless I'd buy a $400
> >> PC and install Linux rather than $1500 for a Mac.
> >
> > the least expensive mac is $599, not $1500, not that your $400 pc would
> > have anywhere near the same specs as a $1500 mac.
>
> $599. No kb, no mouse no monitor. 2.6GHz and 4GB of RAM. I referred
> to the iMac, a complete system. And yes the system I refer to is
> comparable to the mini or the basic iMac and can easily be changed or
> upgraded.
imacs start at $1199, not $1500, and your mythical $400 machine is in
no way comparable, especially if it includes a display.
nospam
<windsor.f...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Me? I'm not anti-anything. Obviously you did not read my entire
> post, ie the part where I said IDGAF what you use or like, I work on and
> have used all of them. It's the snooty attitude the *some* Apple users
> have that I dislike.
you mean like this?
WindsorFox<[SS]>
> In article <hf5vkg$tgl$1...@posting2.glorb.com>, WindsorFox
> <windsor.f...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>>> More and more? Again I only "fiddle" with may machine when I want
>>>> to. I've always said Macs are great for those who can't and those who
>>>> won't.
>>> nonsense.
>> Perfect sense, I work on computers, I know who uses what where I am.
>> In my computer shop there are two other techs that both use Macs
>> personally. Obviously they are the "don't wanna's" rather than the
>> "can'ts."
>
> based on what?
On that I know them and on what they told me when I asked. They both
are repair techs and we work on computers and related (and not so
related) equipment everyday, so it's obvious none of us are can't dos.
I'm not saying this applies 100%, it's just my general impression. Lord
knows I know of a lot of people who should be on a Mac instead of a PC
or better yet, no computer at all.
>
>> The guy who just retired, poked prodded, fiddled with and
>> built water cooled rigs. After he retired he decided he didn't want to
>> anymore and uses a Mac now.
>
> i don't blame him. who wants to be building and fixing computers all
> day long? most people want to use them and actually *do* something.
>
Lots of people do. I know Mac people people who do it. It was my
hobby before my job entailed repairing them.
>>>> Just be advised that if/when OSX gets a measurable share of the
>>>> user pie You will be buyin AVs just like Windows n00bs.
>>> also wrong. people have been saying that for years. mac market share is
>>> growing quite a bit, yet the number of viruses in the wild is still
>>> zero. the only os x malware that exists are ones that the user
>>> downloads, installs and provides their admin password. there's nothing
>>> you can do to prevent someone from being tricked into doing something
>>> stupid.
>>>
>> Growing, not grown. It's at approximately 6%. In any case under 10%
>> still. And if you think Mac users can not be tricked....
>
> it depends how you tally it, however, the lack of malware has very
> little to do with market share. it is *not* easy to write mac malware
> that doesn't involve the user installing and authenticating. in other
> words, the weakness is the user.
Maybe, but I think you give the black-hats way too little credit.
>
>>>> If *I* ever
>>>> decided to not game anymore and wanted to go Windowless I'd buy a $400
>>>> PC and install Linux rather than $1500 for a Mac.
>>> the least expensive mac is $599, not $1500, not that your $400 pc would
>>> have anywhere near the same specs as a $1500 mac.
>> $599. No kb, no mouse no monitor. 2.6GHz and 4GB of RAM. I referred
>> to the iMac, a complete system. And yes the system I refer to is
>> comparable to the mini or the basic iMac and can easily be changed or
>> upgraded.
>
> imacs start at $1199, not $1500, and your mythical $400 machine is in
> no way comparable, especially if it includes a display.
Sorry, but you are wrong. Now I will admit that the Apple display
looks really good, but the majority of entry level users will never see
any more than the aesthetic differences. My mom uses an entry level Acer
that was $529. It's a dual core 2.8GHz and came with 6GB of RAM. And the
mouse actually has two buttons on it :oP It's also over a year old.
WindsorFox<[SS]>
That's not meant to be anti-Mac. That's an observation. Perhaps I
should have said don't wanna rather than won't. If you think I seem
hostile, consider what I am responding to..
nospam
<windsor.f...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > it depends how you tally it, however, the lack of malware has very
> > little to do with market share. it is *not* easy to write mac malware
> > that doesn't involve the user installing and authenticating. in other
> > words, the weakness is the user.
>
> Maybe, but I think you give the black-hats way too little credit.
not at all. the first person to successfully take down a bunch of macs
with some malware be famous. it's simply *hard* to do without having
the user authenticate.
> >>>> If *I* ever
> >>>> decided to not game anymore and wanted to go Windowless I'd buy a $400
> >>>> PC and install Linux rather than $1500 for a Mac.
> >>> the least expensive mac is $599, not $1500, not that your $400 pc would
> >>> have anywhere near the same specs as a $1500 mac.
> >> $599. No kb, no mouse no monitor. 2.6GHz and 4GB of RAM. I referred
> >> to the iMac, a complete system. And yes the system I refer to is
> >> comparable to the mini or the basic iMac and can easily be changed or
> >> upgraded.
> >
> > imacs start at $1199, not $1500, and your mythical $400 machine is in
> > no way comparable, especially if it includes a display.
>
> Sorry, but you are wrong.
because you say so?
> Now I will admit that the Apple display
> looks really good, but the majority of entry level users will never see
> any more than the aesthetic differences.
it doesn't matter if they can see the difference or not, the specs
*are* different and the better spec machine, not surprisingly, costs
more.
if you don't want to pay for the better specs, that's fine, but that's
a different issue.
> My mom uses an entry level Acer
> that was $529. It's a dual core 2.8GHz and came with 6GB of RAM. And the
> mouse actually has two buttons on it :oP It's also over a year old.
only two buttons? apple's mighty mouse has four buttons, and i'm sure
there are a number of other aspects where that entry level acer pales
in comparison to a mac mini, let alone an imac.
Larry
nos...@nospam.invalid:
> only two buttons? apple's mighty mouse has four buttons, and i'm sure
> there are a number of other aspects where that entry level acer pales
> in comparison to a mac mini, let alone an imac.
>
Isn't it pathetic we're arguing about the number of mouse buttons we have
and gold has passed through $1,214/oz as the money in our pockets simply
melts down and becomes worthless.....
.....as opposed to penis length and girth, I suppose....(c;]
Mine IS bigger'n yours, but my dollar isn't....dammit.
WindsorFox<[SS]>
> because you say so?
>
>> Now I will admit that the Apple display
>> looks really good, but the majority of entry level users will never see
>> any more than the aesthetic differences.
>
> it doesn't matter if they can see the difference or not, the specs
> *are* different and the better spec machine, not surprisingly, costs
> more.
No, it doesn't necessarily cost more and I don't have to say so, I
only have to look at the specs of the machines for sale. The specs on
the Acer I bought are better than the iMac was at that time and still
better than the mini and it came with the peripherals.
>
> if you don't want to pay for the better specs, that's fine, but that's
> a different issue.
>
>> My mom uses an entry level Acer
>> that was $529. It's a dual core 2.8GHz and came with 6GB of RAM. And the
>> mouse actually has two buttons on it :oP It's also over a year old.
>
> only two buttons? apple's mighty mouse has four buttons, and i'm sure
> there are a number of other aspects where that entry level acer pales
> in comparison to a mac mini, let alone an imac.
Well let's see, it has a faster CPU, more RAM and a bigger hard
drive. It came with a monitor that is the same size as the iMac had at
the time and was just over $500. Care to elaborate on what I'm missing
there?
nospam
<windsor.f...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Well let's see, it has a faster CPU, more RAM and a bigger hard
> drive. It came with a monitor that is the same size as the iMac had at
> the time and was just over $500. Care to elaborate on what I'm missing
> there?
you don't list the full specs of the acer, so i have to guess at some
of it.
the imac display is an ips panel and your unnamed display with the acer
is more than likely a cheap tn panel. the imac display has 1920x1080
pixels, and it's fairly likely that your display has fewer pixels, even
if it is the same size in inches. the imac can also drive a second
external display, up to a 30" panel with 2560x1600 pixels, while the
acer is limited to only one display.
the imac has an nvidia 9400m with 256 meg of vram, or optionally, an
ati radeon hd 4670 with 256 meg of vram. i'm going to guess that the
acer has a less capable gpu. a lot of software, as well as the
operating system itself, takes advantage of a gpu, and this is becoming
increasingly more important.
the imac also has firewire 800, gigabit ethernet, 802.11 a/b/g/n,
bluetooth 2.1+edr, an isight camera, built-in stereo speakers, built-in
microphone, sd card slot and optical digital audio in/out. i'm going to
guess that the acer lacks most or all of that, and probably only has
100 base-t for networking and a single speaker.
the imac comes with a bluetooth wireless multitouch mouse with gesture
support. the acer no doubt has a usb mouse, which you already said only
has two buttons.
the imac comes with os x, which is equivalent to windows ultimate, but
the acer no doubt has windows home. the imac also includes the full
ilife suite, while the acer probably has a bunch of demoware.
there are many differences, and that's why one is $500 and the other is
$1199.
and if that's not enough, i'll also point out that the mac mini server
is just $999 for unlimited users, which is slightly less than what
windows server costs *without* a computer at all, and limited to 5
users.
WindsorFox<[SS]>
> In article <hf8t2k$7k4$1...@posting2.glorb.com>, WindsorFox
> <windsor.f...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Well let's see, it has a faster CPU, more RAM and a bigger hard
>> drive. It came with a monitor that is the same size as the iMac had at
>> the time and was just over $500. Care to elaborate on what I'm missing
>> there?
>
> you don't list the full specs of the acer, so i have to guess at some
> of it.
>
> the imac display is an ips panel and your unnamed display with the acer
> is more than likely a cheap tn panel.
It does not say more than Active Matrix WXGA but since 99% of LCDs
are then I'd say yes. But that's pointless to someone buying an entry
level machine.
> the imac display has 1920x1080
> pixels, and it's fairly likely that your display has fewer pixels, even
> if it is the same size in inches.
You are comparing the current 21" iMac, one year+ ago the entry
level iMac was I believe a 20" and I can not find the specs for it.
Regardless more than 16x9 on a 20" WS is pretty useless.
> the imac can also drive a second
> external display, up to a 30" panel with 2560x1600 pixels, while the
> acer is limited to only one display.
Correct, the addition of a $20-$30 card would change that, assuming
any entry level user would want or understand that.
>
> the imac has an nvidia 9400m with 256 meg of vram, or optionally, an
> ati radeon hd 4670 with 256 meg of vram. i'm going to guess that the
> acer has a less capable gpu. a lot of software, as well as the
> operating system itself, takes advantage of a gpu, and this is becoming
> increasingly more important.
nVidia 9200 256MB. Otionally anything that you can plug into the PCI
slot.
>
> the imac also has firewire 800, gigabit ethernet, 802.11 a/b/g/n,
> bluetooth 2.1+edr, an isight camera, built-in stereo speakers, built-in
> microphone, sd card slot and optical digital audio in/out. i'm going to
> guess that the acer lacks most or all of that, and probably only has
> 100 base-t for networking and a single speaker.
You would be wrong. The only thing the Acer lacks is built in
wireless and camera. And I'll mention here that neither I nor anyone I
know has anything that will plug into Firewire. Not even my iPhone.
>
> the imac comes with a bluetooth wireless multitouch mouse with gesture
> support. the acer no doubt has a usb mouse, which you already said only
> has two buttons.
Yes a USB mouse. If it had wireless that would have been a deal
breaker for that user, or I would have had to provide them. That's not
necessarily an upgrade to a lot of people. I can get a USB bluetooth
adapter for less than $5. And this one actually has 3 buttons, one on
the wheel.
>
> the imac comes with os x, which is equivalent to windows ultimate, but
> the acer no doubt has windows home. the imac also includes the full
> ilife suite, while the acer probably has a bunch of demoware.
Moot point. It came with Windows included and OO and Ubuntu are a
free DL.
>
> there are many differences, and that's why one is $500 and the other is
> $1199.
Sorry, not nearly as many differences as you assume. Nothing that
makes any difference to an entry level user looking for an entry level
machine to check email, write a report and look at avon.com. And I could
bring anything lacking up to equal or better for a lot less than more
than double the price.
>
> and if that's not enough, i'll also point out that the mac mini server
> is just $999 for unlimited users, which is slightly less than what
> windows server costs *without* a computer at all, and limited to 5
> users.
Ubuntu server is free for the download.
nospam
<windsor.f...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > the imac display is an ips panel and your unnamed display with the acer
> > is more than likely a cheap tn panel.
>
> It does not say more than Active Matrix WXGA but since 99% of LCDs
> are then I'd say yes. But that's pointless to someone buying an entry
> level machine.
according to wikipedia, wxga is 1280 x 720:
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wide_XGA>
the imac is 1920x1080, ips, versus 1280x720 tn. that alone makes up
much of the difference in price.
> You are comparing the current 21" iMac, one year+ ago the entry
> level iMac was I believe a 20" and I can not find the specs for it.
> Regardless more than 16x9 on a 20" WS is pretty useless.
since we're discussing it today, i'm going by what's available today.
the 20" imac prior to the current model had 1680 x 1050 pixels, still
more than what the acer has:
<http://support.apple.com/kb/SP507>
> > the imac can also drive a second
> > external display, up to a 30" panel with 2560x1600 pixels, while the
> > acer is limited to only one display.
>
> Correct, the addition of a $20-$30 card would change that, assuming
> any entry level user would want or understand that.
an entry level user might not care for two displays but the imac is
targeted at the midrange, not entry level. that's really the main flaw
in your comparison.
> nVidia 9200 256MB. Otionally anything that you can plug into the PCI
> slot.
in other words, a less capable gpu than the imac. that's one more
reason why the acer costs less.
> > the imac also has firewire 800, gigabit ethernet, 802.11 a/b/g/n,
> > bluetooth 2.1+edr, an isight camera, built-in stereo speakers, built-in
> > microphone, sd card slot and optical digital audio in/out. i'm going to
> > guess that the acer lacks most or all of that, and probably only has
> > 100 base-t for networking and a single speaker.
>
> You would be wrong. The only thing the Acer lacks is built in
> wireless and camera. And I'll mention here that neither I nor anyone I
> know has anything that will plug into Firewire. Not even my iPhone.
it might have firewire 400, but i highly doubt it has firewire 800, and
a lot of pcs have 4 pin firewire 400, which can't supply bus power.
since firewire is faster than usb (especially fw800), it's great for
external hard drives. it's also common on camcorders and some scanners
too.
> Yes a USB mouse. If it had wireless that would have been a deal
> breaker for that user, or I would have had to provide them. That's not
> necessarily an upgrade to a lot of people. I can get a USB bluetooth
> adapter for less than $5. And this one actually has 3 buttons, one on
> the wheel.
apple will substitute a wired mouse for those who prefer it, and if you
get a bluetooth adapter you now have one less usb port. you can always
get a hub, but then you have an even bigger jumble of wires.
> Moot point. It came with Windows included and OO and Ubuntu are a
> free DL.
it's not moot at all. it came with windows home, not ultimate, and os x
does a lot more than windows home does.
the ilife suite is nothing at all like openoffice, but even if it was,
is the typical entry level user actually going to download and install
openoffice and ubuntu on their own?
> > there are many differences, and that's why one is $500 and the other is
> > $1199.
>
> Sorry, not nearly as many differences as you assume. Nothing that
> makes any difference to an entry level user looking for an entry level
> machine to check email, write a report and look at avon.com. And I could
> bring anything lacking up to equal or better for a lot less than more
> than double the price.
whether a person wants those features is not the issue. the fact
remains that there are substantial differences in two machines, which
is why one costs more than the other.
> > and if that's not enough, i'll also point out that the mac mini server
> > is just $999 for unlimited users, which is slightly less than what
> > windows server costs *without* a computer at all, and limited to 5
> > users.
>
> Ubuntu server is free for the download.
and it's not even close to the same.
WindsorFox<[SS]>
> In article <hfbbua$eoq$1...@posting2.glorb.com>, WindsorFox
> <windsor.f...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>> the imac display is an ips panel and your unnamed display with the acer
>>> is more than likely a cheap tn panel.
>> It does not say more than Active Matrix WXGA but since 99% of LCDs
>> are then I'd say yes. But that's pointless to someone buying an entry
>> level machine.
>
> according to wikipedia, wxga is 1280 x 720:
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wide_XGA>
>
> the imac is 1920x1080, ips, versus 1280x720 tn. that alone makes up
> much of the difference in price.
Not according to the Acer specs for the 20" monitor, and it still
wouldn't make up the difference.
>
>> You are comparing the current 21" iMac, one year+ ago the entry
>> level iMac was I believe a 20" and I can not find the specs for it.
>> Regardless more than 16x9 on a 20" WS is pretty useless.
>
> since we're discussing it today, i'm going by what's available today.
>
> the 20" imac prior to the current model had 1680 x 1050 pixels, still
> more than what the acer has:
> <http://support.apple.com/kb/SP507>
vs 1600x 900.
>
>>> the imac can also drive a second
>>> external display, up to a 30" panel with 2560x1600 pixels, while the
>>> acer is limited to only one display.
>> Correct, the addition of a $20-$30 card would change that, assuming
>> any entry level user would want or understand that.
>
> an entry level user might not care for two displays but the imac is
> targeted at the midrange, not entry level. that's really the main flaw
> in your comparison.
Okay then you call this whole comparison a wash and say that Apple
has not entry level machines and basically caters to persnickety snobs.
I was trying very hard from just coming out and saying that, but since
you just pretty much did okay.
>
>> nVidia 9200 256MB. Otionally anything that you can plug into the PCI
>> slot.
>
> in other words, a less capable gpu than the imac. that's one more
> reason why the acer costs less.
Hardly. If there's a difference between to two then it's very
little, and again you are comparing a new machine to one 18 mos old.
>
>>> the imac also has firewire 800, gigabit ethernet, 802.11 a/b/g/n,
>>> bluetooth 2.1+edr, an isight camera, built-in stereo speakers, built-in
>>> microphone, sd card slot and optical digital audio in/out. i'm going to
>>> guess that the acer lacks most or all of that, and probably only has
>>> 100 base-t for networking and a single speaker.
>> You would be wrong. The only thing the Acer lacks is built in
>> wireless and camera. And I'll mention here that neither I nor anyone I
>> know has anything that will plug into Firewire. Not even my iPhone.
>
> it might have firewire 400, but i highly doubt it has firewire 800, and
> a lot of pcs have 4 pin firewire 400, which can't supply bus power.
>
> since firewire is faster than usb (especially fw800), it's great for
> external hard drives. it's also common on camcorders and some scanners
> too.
Says the Fanboi, but that I can't tell because nothing uses it.
>
>> Yes a USB mouse. If it had wireless that would have been a deal
>> breaker for that user, or I would have had to provide them. That's not
>> necessarily an upgrade to a lot of people. I can get a USB bluetooth
>> adapter for less than $5. And this one actually has 3 buttons, one on
>> the wheel.
>
> apple will substitute a wired mouse for those who prefer it, and if you
> get a bluetooth adapter you now have one less usb port. you can always
> get a hub, but then you have an even bigger jumble of wires.
So?
>
>> Moot point. It came with Windows included and OO and Ubuntu are a
>> free DL.
>
> it's not moot at all. it came with windows home, not ultimate, and os x
> does a lot more than windows home does.
>
> the ilife suite is nothing at all like openoffice, but even if it was,
> is the typical entry level user actually going to download and install
> openoffice and ubuntu on their own?
>
>>> there are many differences, and that's why one is $500 and the other is
>>> $1199.
>> Sorry, not nearly as many differences as you assume. Nothing that
>> makes any difference to an entry level user looking for an entry level
>> machine to check email, write a report and look at avon.com. And I could
>> bring anything lacking up to equal or better for a lot less than more
>> than double the price.
>
> whether a person wants those features is not the issue. the fact
> remains that there are substantial differences in two machines, which
> is why one costs more than the other.
Only in the fanboi's eyes who refuses to admit Apple's stuff is
expensive.
>
>>> and if that's not enough, i'll also point out that the mac mini server
>>> is just $999 for unlimited users, which is slightly less than what
>>> windows server costs *without* a computer at all, and limited to 5
>>> users.
>> Ubuntu server is free for the download.
>
> and it's not even close to the same.
To whom? It doesn't matter because it has nothing at all to do with
the subject, your just trying to add Window bashing to your fanboi
speech about expensive Apple hardware. You'll never see it but you've
completely failed to prove that the iMac is worth more than double other
entry level hardware or something I can build for a lot less.
nospam
<windsor.f...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> the imac display is an ips panel and your unnamed display with the acer
> >>> is more than likely a cheap tn panel.
> >> It does not say more than Active Matrix WXGA but since 99% of LCDs
> >> are then I'd say yes. But that's pointless to someone buying an entry
> >> level machine.
first you say it's wxga tn...
> > the imac is 1920x1080, ips, versus 1280x720 tn. that alone makes up
> > much of the difference in price.
>
> Not according to the Acer specs for the 20" monitor, and it still
> wouldn't make up the difference.
...then you say that it's not?
> Okay then you call this whole comparison a wash and say that Apple
> has not entry level machines and basically caters to persnickety snobs.
> I was trying very hard from just coming out and saying that, but since
> you just pretty much did okay.
the first part is true. apple does not have products in the bottom
tier. the second part is nothing more than a puerile comment.
it's also completely bogus to compare the budget model of one brand
with a midrange model of another and pretend that's a valid comparison.
> > apple will substitute a wired mouse for those who prefer it, and if you
> > get a bluetooth adapter you now have one less usb port. you can always
> > get a hub, but then you have an even bigger jumble of wires.
>
> So?
some people don't want a huge mess of wires.
> > whether a person wants those features is not the issue. the fact
> > remains that there are substantial differences in two machines, which
> > is why one costs more than the other.
>
> Only in the fanboi's eyes who refuses to admit Apple's stuff is
> expensive.
apparently pc world magazine must be run by mac fanbois because they
found macs to be cheaper:
<http://www.pcworld.com/article/148032/mac_vs_windows_laptops.html>
and comparing last year's imacs, the mac is a better deal:
<http://brainstormtech.blogs.fortune.cnn.com/2009/03/03/oppenheimer-new-
imac-a-better-deal-than-dell-hp/>
...given Apple's reputation for premium pricing: he found the new
iMacs to be "a better value than competing Windows-based products."
> >> Ubuntu server is free for the download.
> >
> > and it's not even close to the same.
>
> To whom?
to anyone who objectively compares the two products.
> It doesn't matter because it has nothing at all to do with
> the subject, your just trying to add Window bashing to your fanboi
> speech about expensive Apple hardware. You'll never see it but you've
> completely failed to prove that the iMac is worth more than double other
> entry level hardware or something I can build for a lot less.
i'm not bashing anything. all i've done is point out a number of specs
where they differ, and that's why one costs more than the other. you're
the one who is ignoring the differences and bashing.
also, i didn't realize the acer was a build it yourself deal. most
people aren't interested in that either.
Your Name
> Only in the fanboi's eyes who refuses to admit Apple's stuff is
> expensive.
Because it isn't. If you actually compare systems with the same specs you'll
discover the Mac is only slightly more expensive and in some cases is
actually cheaper.
Even if that wasn't so, complaining that Apple is "expensive" is like
complaining that Ferraris and Rolls Royces are expensive because India's
Tato sell a $2,000 car. You're comparing Apples to lemons. :-\ You usually
get what you pay for - pay peanuts to the elephants and you'll get crap.
George Kerby
On 12/4/09 2:22 PM, in article hfbqt3$1j0$1...@lust.ihug.co.nz, "Your Name"
<your...@isp.com> wrote:
You are dealing with a deficient individual. It's like trying to converse
with a crustacean. Don't waste the time...
Verizon has a fee for that - $3 for Visual Voice Mail, $350 for ETF
>
> Even if that wasn't so, complaining that Apple is "expensive" is like
> complaining that Ferraris and Rolls Royces are expensive because India's
> Tato sell a $2,000 car. You're comparing Apples to lemons. :-\ You usually
> get what you pay for - pay peanuts to the elephants and you'll get crap.
Great quote of the day "get what you pay for - pay peanuts to the
elephants and you'll get crap"
Second greatest "You're comparing Apples to lemons"
WindsorFox<[SS]>
Well I disagree, but then I'm a builder. This can not be presented
to the *average* Mac user because they apparently can't really
comprehend it. Possibly because they have little to compare. I realize
now I'm trying to explain this to an oak tree, so I'll stop.
WindsorFox<[SS]>
The only deficient individual that I have yet to see in this group
sir, is you. You have never contributed anything of relevance inn any
reply that I have found from you in this group. You are a
pseudo-intellectual troll who apparently know little or nothing about
the equipment being discussed in this group. Please go back to your
quiet state and leave the discussion to those who actually have
something semi-pertinent to say.
WindsorFox<[SS]>
> In article <hfbl63$fl6$1...@posting2.glorb.com>, WindsorFox
> <windsor.f...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>>>> the imac display is an ips panel and your unnamed display with the acer
>>>>> is more than likely a cheap tn panel.
>>>> It does not say more than Active Matrix WXGA but since 99% of LCDs
>>>> are then I'd say yes. But that's pointless to someone buying an entry
>>>> level machine.
>
> first you say it's wxga tn...
>
>>> the imac is 1920x1080, ips, versus 1280x720 tn. that alone makes up
>>> much of the difference in price.
>> Not according to the Acer specs for the 20" monitor, and it still
>> wouldn't make up the difference.
>
> ...then you say that it's not?
I gave you the specs according to the web site on that monitor. You
presented some spec from wikipedia.
>
>> Okay then you call this whole comparison a wash and say that Apple
>> has not entry level machines and basically caters to persnickety snobs.
>> I was trying very hard from just coming out and saying that, but since
>> you just pretty much did okay.
>
> the first part is true. apple does not have products in the bottom
> tier. the second part is nothing more than a puerile comment.
>
> it's also completely bogus to compare the budget model of one brand
> with a midrange model of another and pretend that's a valid comparison.
Purely by those words I agree, but the specs for the $500 Acer I
bought are equal to or better than the specs for the $1000 iMac. You may
call the Acer lower quality if you like, but the fact remains I have
dealt with and supported both and they are IMO equal.
>
>>> apple will substitute a wired mouse for those who prefer it, and if you
>>> get a bluetooth adapter you now have one less usb port. you can always
>>> get a hub, but then you have an even bigger jumble of wires.
>> So?
>
> some people don't want a huge mess of wires.
There is no huge mess of wires on this system. That is just more
attempt to cloud the issue. There are 2 wires for the keyboard and mouse
and they have been perfectly contained and she doe not have to recharge
or replace any batteries.
>
>>> whether a person wants those features is not the issue. the fact
>>> remains that there are substantial differences in two machines, which
>>> is why one costs more than the other.
>> Only in the fanboi's eyes who refuses to admit Apple's stuff is
>> expensive.
>
> apparently pc world magazine must be run by mac fanbois because they
> found macs to be cheaper:
> <http://www.pcworld.com/article/148032/mac_vs_windows_laptops.html>
>
> and comparing last year's imacs, the mac is a better deal:
> <http://brainstormtech.blogs.fortune.cnn.com/2009/03/03/oppenheimer-new-
> imac-a-better-deal-than-dell-hp/>
>
> ...given Apple's reputation for premium pricing: he found the new
> iMacs to be "a better value than competing Windows-based products."
All I can say is he doesn't know how to shop. First, I never did a
laptop comparison, but I would be willing to bet I can buy one with the
same specs as an Mac for the same or less $. If I get bored during the
Holidays I'll do that. As for the Dell and HP that looks correct if it
is still the same, but the only comparison made there is the all in ones
that *look* the same as the iMac. Personally I wouldn't purchase or
recommend one of those anyway as that is one of the reasons I would not
recommend the iMac.
>
>>>> Ubuntu server is free for the download.
>>> and it's not even close to the same.
>> To whom?
>
> to anyone who objectively compares the two products.
Apparently only to people who *need* Windows server or can not use
Linux AFAICT.
>
>> It doesn't matter because it has nothing at all to do with
>> the subject, your just trying to add Window bashing to your fanboi
>> speech about expensive Apple hardware. You'll never see it but you've
>> completely failed to prove that the iMac is worth more than double other
>> entry level hardware or something I can build for a lot less.
>
> i'm not bashing anything. all i've done is point out a number of specs
> where they differ, and that's why one costs more than the other. you're
> the one who is ignoring the differences and bashing.
Except that the specs of this Acer are the same as the iMac that was
available at the time it was bought. I actively compared them before the
purchase. Since she used the Ubuntu machine I had for a month without
the first "How do I do this" question, I considered the iMac as an option.
>
> also, i didn't realize the acer was a build it yourself deal. most
> people aren't interested in that either.
It wasn't. If you want to buy a kit and put it together, the Apple
offering can't come close to touching the spec/price combo, but neither
can a Dell or HP or Acer that comes pre-built.
George Kerby
On 12/7/09 9:03 AM, in article hfj5h4$k6p$3...@posting2.glorb.com,
"WindsorFox<[SS]>" <windsor.f...@gmail.com> wrote:
If only you would, it'd be a blessing.
Most likely, you will continue on with your mindless drivel...
George Kerby
On 12/7/09 9:07 AM, in article hfj5nc$kda$1...@posting2.glorb.com,
"WindsorFox<[SS]>" <windsor.f...@gmail.com> wrote:
pot = kettle
Please get out of your mother's basement and find a job, Kermit.
George Kerby
On 12/7/09 9:25 AM, in article hfj6pt$kgf$1...@posting2.glorb.com,
"WindsorFox<[SS]>" <windsor.f...@gmail.com> wrote:
No one gives a rat's ass about your 'IMO', GameBoy. Reality bites!
nospam
<windsor.f...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I gave you the specs according to the web site on that monitor. You
> presented some spec from wikipedia.
i asked how many pixels the acer display had and you said it was wxga
and a tn panel. since you did not say how many pixels it had, i cited
the definition of wxga.
> > it's also completely bogus to compare the budget model of one brand
> > with a midrange model of another and pretend that's a valid comparison.
>
> Purely by those words I agree, but the specs for the $500 Acer I
> bought are equal to or better than the specs for the $1000 iMac.
they aren't equal at all. there are numerous differences.
> > apparently pc world magazine must be run by mac fanbois because they
> > found macs to be cheaper:
> > <http://www.pcworld.com/article/148032/mac_vs_windows_laptops.html>
> >
> > and comparing last year's imacs, the mac is a better deal:
> > <http://brainstormtech.blogs.fortune.cnn.com/2009/03/03/oppenheimer-new-
> > imac-a-better-deal-than-dell-hp/>
> >
> > ...given Apple's reputation for premium pricing: he found the new
> > iMacs to be "a better value than competing Windows-based products."
>
> All I can say is he doesn't know how to shop.
always an excuse.
> First, I never did a
> laptop comparison, but I would be willing to bet I can buy one with the
> same specs as an Mac for the same or less $. If I get bored during the
> Holidays I'll do that.
go for it. and be sure it's the same specs.
> Except that the specs of this Acer are the same as the iMac that was
> available at the time it was bought. I actively compared them before the
> purchase. Since she used the Ubuntu machine I had for a month without
> the first "How do I do this" question, I considered the iMac as an option.
you only compared a few of the specs and called it equivalent. you even
said that the acer does not have wireless and has a lower resolution
and lower quality display. that's *not* equivalent.
WindsorFox<[SS]>
For someone supposedly so vastly intelligent you seem to be
incapable of skipping over my posts or figuring out how to use the
filter in your news reader. Here, allow me...
http://www.microsoft.com/mac/help.mspx
Richard B. Gilbert
He probably compared the specs that were IMPORTANT TO HIM. This does
not necessarily include all, or even most, specs. Even if he considered
all specs it doesn't mean that all were equally important.
Wes Groleau
> He probably compared the specs that were IMPORTANT TO HIM. This does
> not necessarily include all, or even most, specs. Even if he considered
> all specs it doesn't mean that all were equally important.
After 'nospam' listed many differences, he acknowledged (by saying
those don't matter to the user), yet in a later post said twice that
there were no differences.
OTOH, it is true that most people do not need the features and quality
that Apple offers in hardware. Unfortunately, most of them, due to
lack of expertise DO need features and quality that Microsoft DOESN'T
offer in software.
But if they have a gamer friend, that friend probably uses and
understands Windows, and may be technical enough to reinstall
for them when they need it.
--
Wes Groleau
Always listen to experts. They'll tell you
what can't be done and why. Then do it.
-- Robert A. Heinlein