Compile 'em all
May 31, 07:14 AM
I blame the iphone. Its a hog and kills atts network. If it was a diff phone this wount be happening. Apple needs to make it work with the network better.
So all other carriers of the world don't have issues with the iPhone on their network and now because AT&T is garbage it becomes Apple's problem?
I have had an iPhone since 2007 and might have had less than 10 dropped calls. In 3 years. The catch? I don't live in the states.
And please don't give me, "but the states is bigger". No, it is not. The largest carriers in the world per # of subscribers are not in the states. Go look at China and Japan.
So all other carriers of the world don't have issues with the iPhone on their network and now because AT&T is garbage it becomes Apple's problem?
I have had an iPhone since 2007 and might have had less than 10 dropped calls. In 3 years. The catch? I don't live in the states.
And please don't give me, "but the states is bigger". No, it is not. The largest carriers in the world per # of subscribers are not in the states. Go look at China and Japan.
the Rebel
Mar 20, 10:15 PM
I do agree that it is effectively the break of a promise. Hell, it's the breaking of a contract... which is certainly quite wrong. But what if you believe the original terms and conditions to be morally wrong in themselves?
If you believe the original terms are morally wrong, then you should never agree to abide by them. Once you choose to agree to the terms, then you are morally bound to abide by them.
If you believe the original terms are morally wrong, then you should never agree to abide by them. Once you choose to agree to the terms, then you are morally bound to abide by them.
Amazing Iceman
Apr 28, 11:20 AM
It's too expensive. as a business, why buy an imac when I could but a dell or hp for a fraction of the price to do the same job?
Please, don't buy Macs for your business. we IT support people love PCs, as these generate a lot of revenue for us.
We love it every time a PC user calls us with problems and we get to charge $100's to solve them.:D
Please, don't buy Macs for your business. we IT support people love PCs, as these generate a lot of revenue for us.
We love it every time a PC user calls us with problems and we get to charge $100's to solve them.:D
whatever
Oct 25, 10:44 PM
I just got my mac pro a month and a half ago.
Don't worry about it.
There is no reason for Apple to change the MacPro line at this point. Maybe in January, but even then I doubt it.
Intel is just trying to bury AMD, which they are (AMD closed at $20.83 (just think a few months ago they were trading over $40.00) and Intel closed at $21.72 (a few months ago they were trading at $16.00)).
Apple said it last week, Pros are waiting for CS3 before they upgrade, so expect to hear the announcement of upgraded Mac Pros once Adobe finishes up their applications.
Besides wasn't there a thread a few weeks back which stated that the 8 Core machines run slower than the Quads?
Don't worry about it. I know that my new MacPro has already paid for itself.
Don't worry about it.
There is no reason for Apple to change the MacPro line at this point. Maybe in January, but even then I doubt it.
Intel is just trying to bury AMD, which they are (AMD closed at $20.83 (just think a few months ago they were trading over $40.00) and Intel closed at $21.72 (a few months ago they were trading at $16.00)).
Apple said it last week, Pros are waiting for CS3 before they upgrade, so expect to hear the announcement of upgraded Mac Pros once Adobe finishes up their applications.
Besides wasn't there a thread a few weeks back which stated that the 8 Core machines run slower than the Quads?
Don't worry about it. I know that my new MacPro has already paid for itself.
KnightWRX
May 2, 05:51 PM
Until Vista and Win 7, it was effectively impossible to run a Windows NT system as anything but Administrator. To the point that other than locked-down corporate sites where an IT Professional was required to install the Corporate Approved version of any software you need to do your job, I never knew anyone running XP (or 2k, or for that matter NT 3.x) who in a day-to-day fashion used a Standard user account.
Of course, I don't know of any Linux distribution that doesn't require root to install system wide software either. Kind of negates your point there...
In contrast, an "Administrator" account on OS X was in reality a limited user account, just with some system-level privileges like being able to install apps that other people could run. A "Standard" user account was far more usable on OS X than the equivalent on Windows, because "Standard" users could install software into their user sandbox, etc. Still, most people I know run OS X as Administrator.
You could do the same as far back as Windows NT 3.1 in 1993. The fact that most software vendors wrote their applications for the non-secure DOS based versions of Windows is moot, that is not a problem of the OS's security model, it is a problem of the Application. This is not "Unix security" being better, it's "Software vendors for Windows" being dumber.
It's no different than if instead of writing my preferences to $HOME/.myapp/ I'd write a software that required writing everything to /usr/share/myapp/username/. That would require root in any decent Unix installation, or it would require me to set permissions on that folder to 775 and make all users of myapp part of the owning group. Or I could just go the lazy route, make the binary 4755 and set mount opts to suid on the filesystem where this binary resides... (ugh...).
This is no different on Windows NT based architectures. If you were so inclined, with tools like Filemon and Regmon, you could granularly set permissions in a way to install these misbehaving software so that they would work for regular users.
I know I did many times in a past life (back when I was sort of forced to do Windows systems administration... ugh... Windows NT 4.0 Terminal Server edition... what a wreck...).
Let's face it, Windows NT and Unix systems have very similar security models (in fact, Windows NT has superior ACL support out of the box, akin to Novell's close to perfect ACLs, Unix is far more limited with it's read/write/execute permission scheme, even with Posix ACLs in place). It's the hoops that software vendors outside the control of Microsoft made you go through that forced lazy users to run as Administrator all the time and gave Microsoft such headaches.
As far back as I remember (when I did some Windows systems programming), Microsoft was already advising to use the user's home folder/the user's registry hive for preferences and to never write to system locations.
The real differenc, though, is that an NT Administrator was really equivalent to the Unix root account. An OS X Administrator was a Unix non-root user with 'admin' group access. You could not start up the UI as the 'root' user (and the 'root' account was disabled by default).
Actually, the Administrator account (much less a standard user in the Administrators group) is not a root level account at all.
Notice how a root account on Unix can do everything, just by virtue of its 0 uid. It can write/delete/read files from filesystems it does not even have permissions on. It can kill any system process, no matter the owner.
Administrator on Windows NT is far more limited. Don't ever break your ACLs or don't try to kill processes owned by "System". SysInternals provided tools that let you do it, but Microsoft did not.
All that having been said, UAC has really evened the bar for Windows Vista and 7 (moreso in 7 after the usability tweaks Microsoft put in to stop people from disabling it). I see no functional security difference between the OS X authorization scheme and the Windows UAC scheme.
UAC is simply a gui front-end to the runas command. Heck, shift-right-click already had the "Run As" option. It's a glorified sudo. It uses RDP (since Vista, user sessions are really local RDP sessions) to prevent being able to "fake it", by showing up on the "console" session while the user's display resides on a RDP session.
There, you did it, you made me go on a defensive rant for Microsoft. I hate you now.
My response, why bother worrying about this when the attacker can do the same thing via shellcode generated in the background by exploiting a running process so the the user is unaware that code is being executed on the system
Because this required no particular exploit or vulnerability. A simple Javascript auto-download and Safari auto-opening an archive and running code.
Why bother, you're not "getting it". The only reason the user is aware of MACDefender is because it runs a GUI based installer. If the executable had had 0 GUI code and just run stuff in the background, you would have never known until you couldn't find your files or some chinese guy was buying goods with your CC info, fished right out of your "Bank stuff.xls" file.
That's the thing, infecting a computer at the system level is fine if you want to build a DoS botnet or something (and even then, you don't really need privilege escalation for that, just set login items for the current user, and run off a non-privilege port, root privileges are not required for ICMP access, only raw sockets).
These days, malware authors and users are much more interested in your data than your system. That's where the money is. Identity theft, phishing, they mean big bucks.
Of course, I don't know of any Linux distribution that doesn't require root to install system wide software either. Kind of negates your point there...
In contrast, an "Administrator" account on OS X was in reality a limited user account, just with some system-level privileges like being able to install apps that other people could run. A "Standard" user account was far more usable on OS X than the equivalent on Windows, because "Standard" users could install software into their user sandbox, etc. Still, most people I know run OS X as Administrator.
You could do the same as far back as Windows NT 3.1 in 1993. The fact that most software vendors wrote their applications for the non-secure DOS based versions of Windows is moot, that is not a problem of the OS's security model, it is a problem of the Application. This is not "Unix security" being better, it's "Software vendors for Windows" being dumber.
It's no different than if instead of writing my preferences to $HOME/.myapp/ I'd write a software that required writing everything to /usr/share/myapp/username/. That would require root in any decent Unix installation, or it would require me to set permissions on that folder to 775 and make all users of myapp part of the owning group. Or I could just go the lazy route, make the binary 4755 and set mount opts to suid on the filesystem where this binary resides... (ugh...).
This is no different on Windows NT based architectures. If you were so inclined, with tools like Filemon and Regmon, you could granularly set permissions in a way to install these misbehaving software so that they would work for regular users.
I know I did many times in a past life (back when I was sort of forced to do Windows systems administration... ugh... Windows NT 4.0 Terminal Server edition... what a wreck...).
Let's face it, Windows NT and Unix systems have very similar security models (in fact, Windows NT has superior ACL support out of the box, akin to Novell's close to perfect ACLs, Unix is far more limited with it's read/write/execute permission scheme, even with Posix ACLs in place). It's the hoops that software vendors outside the control of Microsoft made you go through that forced lazy users to run as Administrator all the time and gave Microsoft such headaches.
As far back as I remember (when I did some Windows systems programming), Microsoft was already advising to use the user's home folder/the user's registry hive for preferences and to never write to system locations.
The real differenc, though, is that an NT Administrator was really equivalent to the Unix root account. An OS X Administrator was a Unix non-root user with 'admin' group access. You could not start up the UI as the 'root' user (and the 'root' account was disabled by default).
Actually, the Administrator account (much less a standard user in the Administrators group) is not a root level account at all.
Notice how a root account on Unix can do everything, just by virtue of its 0 uid. It can write/delete/read files from filesystems it does not even have permissions on. It can kill any system process, no matter the owner.
Administrator on Windows NT is far more limited. Don't ever break your ACLs or don't try to kill processes owned by "System". SysInternals provided tools that let you do it, but Microsoft did not.
All that having been said, UAC has really evened the bar for Windows Vista and 7 (moreso in 7 after the usability tweaks Microsoft put in to stop people from disabling it). I see no functional security difference between the OS X authorization scheme and the Windows UAC scheme.
UAC is simply a gui front-end to the runas command. Heck, shift-right-click already had the "Run As" option. It's a glorified sudo. It uses RDP (since Vista, user sessions are really local RDP sessions) to prevent being able to "fake it", by showing up on the "console" session while the user's display resides on a RDP session.
There, you did it, you made me go on a defensive rant for Microsoft. I hate you now.
My response, why bother worrying about this when the attacker can do the same thing via shellcode generated in the background by exploiting a running process so the the user is unaware that code is being executed on the system
Because this required no particular exploit or vulnerability. A simple Javascript auto-download and Safari auto-opening an archive and running code.
Why bother, you're not "getting it". The only reason the user is aware of MACDefender is because it runs a GUI based installer. If the executable had had 0 GUI code and just run stuff in the background, you would have never known until you couldn't find your files or some chinese guy was buying goods with your CC info, fished right out of your "Bank stuff.xls" file.
That's the thing, infecting a computer at the system level is fine if you want to build a DoS botnet or something (and even then, you don't really need privilege escalation for that, just set login items for the current user, and run off a non-privilege port, root privileges are not required for ICMP access, only raw sockets).
These days, malware authors and users are much more interested in your data than your system. That's where the money is. Identity theft, phishing, they mean big bucks.
Lesser Evets
Apr 15, 10:11 AM
Why does bullying have to be attached to GLBT?
I was never L, B, G, or T, and my 7th and 8th grade were a constant fist fight as I went from class to class... kinda cool, now that I look back at it. Never a dull moment.
I was never L, B, G, or T, and my 7th and 8th grade were a constant fist fight as I went from class to class... kinda cool, now that I look back at it. Never a dull moment.
pdjudd
Oct 7, 03:31 PM
Just like Mac OS X would gain market share if you could install it on any PC.
No, they most likely wouldn't. There is no reason to think that it would - it's conjecture. (http://daringfireball.net/2004/08/parlay)
No, they most likely wouldn't. There is no reason to think that it would - it's conjecture. (http://daringfireball.net/2004/08/parlay)
Kid Red
Sep 12, 06:40 PM
Honestly though, who would want to stream HD??
1st, if the iTV did support HD, apple would "probably" have to sell HD content - and like hell I'm downloading a 9GB movie!!
2nd, HardDisk space disappears fast enough as it is...!
3rd, Why??? I have an HDTV and I barely see the difference between DVDs and 720p HDTV... (1080i is another matter).
What!! HAHA, do you know your TV is downrezzing to 720? So, how does 1080i look better than 720? You can see the difference between downrezzed to 720p-1080i and 720p, but you can't see a difference between HD and a 480p DVD?!!
Either you need a new HD set, or a new HD provider. There is simply no comparison, really. HD is night and day, leaps and bounds better than DVD.
Apple's iTV would NEVER do HD, it simply is a chain between your HD tv and your mac that DOES do HD. Your computer is the player, so yes, I'd suspect I could record HD off my g5, and stream it to my HD set.
Can't wait!!!
1st, if the iTV did support HD, apple would "probably" have to sell HD content - and like hell I'm downloading a 9GB movie!!
2nd, HardDisk space disappears fast enough as it is...!
3rd, Why??? I have an HDTV and I barely see the difference between DVDs and 720p HDTV... (1080i is another matter).
What!! HAHA, do you know your TV is downrezzing to 720? So, how does 1080i look better than 720? You can see the difference between downrezzed to 720p-1080i and 720p, but you can't see a difference between HD and a 480p DVD?!!
Either you need a new HD set, or a new HD provider. There is simply no comparison, really. HD is night and day, leaps and bounds better than DVD.
Apple's iTV would NEVER do HD, it simply is a chain between your HD tv and your mac that DOES do HD. Your computer is the player, so yes, I'd suspect I could record HD off my g5, and stream it to my HD set.
Can't wait!!!
shawnce
Jul 12, 11:44 AM
As for Conroes being too hot for an iMac, that strikes me as ridiculous. From what I've read, conroes use 40% less power than Pentium D's and are very efficient in terms of power to performance.
Pentium D has horrid heat output. :)
Merom is a laptop chip and I'm not sure it will ever end up in a desktop system, even if it is the same socket as the Yonah.
Yonah is a laptop chip yet it is in Apple's desktop iMac. :)
Anyway...
The Merom (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Intel_Core_2_microprocessors#endnote_MeromSpeculation) has a TDP (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_Design_Point) of 35 W and the Conroe (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Intel_Core_2_microprocessors#endnote_ConroeSpeculation) has a TDP of 65 W (or 80 W for the X6xxx) ...and that isn't counting the difference in heat produced by the chipset (Apple is using a laptop chipset in the Intel iMac).
So the question is can Apple use a chip and chipset that will have a peak thermal load that is likely more then double (if they used Conroe) what is in the current Intel iMac (the Yonah has a TDP around 27 W). Also in theory the Conroe should come out a little cheaper then a Merom based system because of volume and binning.
Likely they can (given the iMac contained a G5 at one point, granted low clock rate) but it will come at the cost of more constant use of fans.
Apple could go either way on this...
Pentium D has horrid heat output. :)
Merom is a laptop chip and I'm not sure it will ever end up in a desktop system, even if it is the same socket as the Yonah.
Yonah is a laptop chip yet it is in Apple's desktop iMac. :)
Anyway...
The Merom (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Intel_Core_2_microprocessors#endnote_MeromSpeculation) has a TDP (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_Design_Point) of 35 W and the Conroe (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Intel_Core_2_microprocessors#endnote_ConroeSpeculation) has a TDP of 65 W (or 80 W for the X6xxx) ...and that isn't counting the difference in heat produced by the chipset (Apple is using a laptop chipset in the Intel iMac).
So the question is can Apple use a chip and chipset that will have a peak thermal load that is likely more then double (if they used Conroe) what is in the current Intel iMac (the Yonah has a TDP around 27 W). Also in theory the Conroe should come out a little cheaper then a Merom based system because of volume and binning.
Likely they can (given the iMac contained a G5 at one point, granted low clock rate) but it will come at the cost of more constant use of fans.
Apple could go either way on this...
BenRoethig
Oct 26, 07:19 AM
If the pricing is any indication, the (low end) Quad Core 2.33GHz Clovertown is the same price as the (high end) 3.0GHz Dual-core Xeon...
so unless the bottom of the line Mac Pro is expected to start at $3298, the current Dual-Core Xeon Mac Pros will stick around.
arn
Then again, the way Apple's pro segment machines have been going up in both power and price...
so unless the bottom of the line Mac Pro is expected to start at $3298, the current Dual-Core Xeon Mac Pros will stick around.
arn
Then again, the way Apple's pro segment machines have been going up in both power and price...
The Beatles
Apr 9, 12:49 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_2_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8C148 Safari/6533.18.5)
Ahhh. A Gamer. Thanks.;) What you are seeing is called RDF. That field will not be around forever.
wallpaper pemandangan alam
wallpaper pemandangan
Ahhh. A Gamer. Thanks.;) What you are seeing is called RDF. That field will not be around forever.
iJohnHenry
Apr 23, 11:02 PM
I am not sure what all that other rambling on you were going on about ... most of it made no sense
Thank you. I thought it was only me.
We don't have the answers, so why must we persist in this feckless inquiry??
No, we are not the centre of the Universe, as was believed not-so-long-ago, but still our delusions of grandeur carry us forward, along this path to nothingness.
Thank you. I thought it was only me.
We don't have the answers, so why must we persist in this feckless inquiry??
No, we are not the centre of the Universe, as was believed not-so-long-ago, but still our delusions of grandeur carry us forward, along this path to nothingness.
Drewnrupe
Sep 21, 12:08 PM
[LIST]
Wallpaper Pemandangan Alam
Islamic wallpapers
wallpaper pemandangan pedesaan
wallpaper pemandangan
wallpaper pemandangan alam dan
Wallpaper+pemandangan+laut
damienvfx
Sep 12, 06:03 PM
and this was a smart move on Steve's part. He is trying to garner support for his movie download service, just like a producer would try and hedge his/her film to a few different production companies.
Makes people more excited about the possibilities ahead. Which in tun production companies will want to jump on the bandwagon and reap some of the benefits.
The preview wasn't for you and me per se. It was for Universal, Paramount, MGM, & Fox to see just how interested the market is in such a peripheral. Steve's got their attention now.
Makes people more excited about the possibilities ahead. Which in tun production companies will want to jump on the bandwagon and reap some of the benefits.
The preview wasn't for you and me per se. It was for Universal, Paramount, MGM, & Fox to see just how interested the market is in such a peripheral. Steve's got their attention now.
Sounds Good
Apr 5, 06:31 PM
My only dislike of OS X: You can't cycle between windows that are open with command+tab, you can only cycle between applications.
How does this work, exactly?
How does this work, exactly?
After G
Sep 12, 08:05 PM
I don't watch TV - the market for it is not me ... TV these days is too full of crap. No DVR because I don't want to save crap.
My watching model is: I watch it once, I know what happened, I don't care for keeping it. Because of this, I don't buy DVDs. I don't want to pay $20 for a watch-once movie. And most of the $5-11 deals aren't. The theater is a better offer for me, but the environment sucked a long time ago, and still does.
Hmm ... I find myself doing more with the computer ... and less everywhere else. Sounds like I fit right in to the iTV demographic, that "digital hub" thing.
My watching model is: I watch it once, I know what happened, I don't care for keeping it. Because of this, I don't buy DVDs. I don't want to pay $20 for a watch-once movie. And most of the $5-11 deals aren't. The theater is a better offer for me, but the environment sucked a long time ago, and still does.
Hmm ... I find myself doing more with the computer ... and less everywhere else. Sounds like I fit right in to the iTV demographic, that "digital hub" thing.
firestarter
Apr 23, 06:20 PM
Have we answered the question of why there are so many atheists here?
Was the answer: 'It's Easter weekend, all the theists are off celebrating Zombie Jesus day'?
Was the answer: 'It's Easter weekend, all the theists are off celebrating Zombie Jesus day'?
BJNY
Nov 1, 04:08 AM
Clovertons to run hot until 2007 according to:
http://www.reghardware.co.uk/2006/11/01/intel_fwives_core/
http://www.reghardware.co.uk/2006/11/01/intel_fwives_core/
LightSpeed1
Apr 22, 12:48 AM
It was only a matter of time.
matticus008
Mar 20, 05:22 AM
As the argument for abortion rights goes; "Against abortion? Don't have one." If you are a Linux sysadmin and do not agree that using this app is "good", then do not use it.
Abortion isn't even on the same plane of existence as this issue, and as for the legal sphere, abortions are not illegal. I'm not advocating a stance against something that is legal to do, and I'm not arguing for reducing your personal rights to take something that you can do legally and make it illegal. I am stating that what this software does is illegal and that it's not DRM use/the law interfere with legitimate exercise of rights. It is not the law that made iTunes music incompatible with other MP3 players, it's the file format and DRM design. Further, Apple has done nothing illegal in its choices and implementation. There is therefore no legitimate reason to break the law--your rights are what you agreed to when purchasing the music and nothing more. If you need a different sort of DRM or no DRM for your uses, then you need to buy that product instead.
DRM does not, in theory, infringe on your license rights. In practice, you might come across incompatibilities due to the individual designs of the DRM models and a competitive, segmented market. The law has provisions for your rights to use the content and that DRM is used to protect against infringement on those rights. There is not just one DRM that works for everything, so when you buy music with DRM, you the consumer are responsible for making sure it works with what you intend to use it for. Your freedom of choice comes with certain sacrifices and restrictions, none of which have been imposed on you illegally or prohibit you from legal use of the product. The only reason to break the law here is for the purpose of breaking the law, not for any delusions of your rights to do as you wish with music.
Abortion isn't even on the same plane of existence as this issue, and as for the legal sphere, abortions are not illegal. I'm not advocating a stance against something that is legal to do, and I'm not arguing for reducing your personal rights to take something that you can do legally and make it illegal. I am stating that what this software does is illegal and that it's not DRM use/the law interfere with legitimate exercise of rights. It is not the law that made iTunes music incompatible with other MP3 players, it's the file format and DRM design. Further, Apple has done nothing illegal in its choices and implementation. There is therefore no legitimate reason to break the law--your rights are what you agreed to when purchasing the music and nothing more. If you need a different sort of DRM or no DRM for your uses, then you need to buy that product instead.
DRM does not, in theory, infringe on your license rights. In practice, you might come across incompatibilities due to the individual designs of the DRM models and a competitive, segmented market. The law has provisions for your rights to use the content and that DRM is used to protect against infringement on those rights. There is not just one DRM that works for everything, so when you buy music with DRM, you the consumer are responsible for making sure it works with what you intend to use it for. Your freedom of choice comes with certain sacrifices and restrictions, none of which have been imposed on you illegally or prohibit you from legal use of the product. The only reason to break the law here is for the purpose of breaking the law, not for any delusions of your rights to do as you wish with music.
Anuba
Jun 7, 07:35 AM
My husband has been an AT&T user for over a decade. He never experienced dropped calls until we started dating and he was talking to me (I'm on an iPhone, he is not).
Right, and during that decade there were no iPhones overloading the networks. Barely anyone used the data traffic capacity back then. With the iPhone, usage of the onboard internet browser on smartphones went up from 15% to 85%. Steve has unleashed hell and now he's poured gasoline on the whole thing by introducing the 3G iPad.
What you have now is a situation with millions of people overloading the network by utilizing their wireless devices in ways the networks won't be able to handle for at least another 5 years, and it's only going to get worse. Netbooks, iPhones, iPads, Androids... sorry, guess we'll have to discontinue voice traffic services, please go back to your land phone.
"Explosion of wireless devices causing data traffic jam" (http://www.physorg.com/news185457426.html)
It's not only a capacity problem, it's also a spectrum problem. AT&T could put up a dozen cell towers in a ring around your house, it ain't gonna do much about the dropped calls. The data traffic jamming is the reason for dropped calls. Voice and data are different services but it's the same network infrastructure equipment handling both services. This equipment uses dozens of different technologies to maximize capacity. Adaptive Multi Rate codecs, Cell Load Sharing, Dynamic Half-Rate Allocation, Frequency Hopping, Intra Cell Handover, DTX Discontinuous Transmission, Fractional Load Planning, Multiple Re-use Pattern... all these technologies are band-aids that milk more capacity out of the network. Each time one of these technologies kicks in during a call, there's a slight risk of the call being dropped, and this risk increases ten fold if the infrastructure is so busy with data traffic it really doesn't have the resources to manage voice traffic properly. As long as the carriers don't get more spectrum, they're stuck in this situation.
"Currently, wireless companies have 534 megahertz of spectrum allotted to them, with an additional 50 megahertz in the pipeline. The industry says it needs at least 800 megahertz more within six years to accommodate demand.
"Spectrum for us is our highway," said Christopher Guttman-McCabe, vice president of regulatory affairs for CTIA-The Wireless Association, a trade group. "But the volume of traffic is picking up. Without more lanes, we'll have more traffic and more congestion," which will result in slower service."
So who are the real culprits in this mess? Well, 1) naive carriers who introduced services the networks weren't built for (they have the technology but not the capacity for this massive volume), and 2) these customers:
"Limited spectrum is only part of the problem, experts say, though an important part. Often, slow cell service is caused by a handful of bandwidth hogs -- watching videos on their iPhones, for example -- in a small area between cell phone towers.
"You have a few users clogging up capacity -- that is not something which can be solved just by providing more spectrum," said Aditya Kaul, director of mobile networks for ABI Research, a technology research firm."
Wanna get rid of dropped calls before 2015? Find the bandwidth hogs in your neighborhood and tell them if they don't stop using 3G like it was regular broadband, you will shoot them. Tell them it's because of them that everyone else who had an unlimited plan will soon have a capped plan, and if they don't stop, everyone will soon be on a plan where they pay by the megabyte.
Right, and during that decade there were no iPhones overloading the networks. Barely anyone used the data traffic capacity back then. With the iPhone, usage of the onboard internet browser on smartphones went up from 15% to 85%. Steve has unleashed hell and now he's poured gasoline on the whole thing by introducing the 3G iPad.
What you have now is a situation with millions of people overloading the network by utilizing their wireless devices in ways the networks won't be able to handle for at least another 5 years, and it's only going to get worse. Netbooks, iPhones, iPads, Androids... sorry, guess we'll have to discontinue voice traffic services, please go back to your land phone.
"Explosion of wireless devices causing data traffic jam" (http://www.physorg.com/news185457426.html)
It's not only a capacity problem, it's also a spectrum problem. AT&T could put up a dozen cell towers in a ring around your house, it ain't gonna do much about the dropped calls. The data traffic jamming is the reason for dropped calls. Voice and data are different services but it's the same network infrastructure equipment handling both services. This equipment uses dozens of different technologies to maximize capacity. Adaptive Multi Rate codecs, Cell Load Sharing, Dynamic Half-Rate Allocation, Frequency Hopping, Intra Cell Handover, DTX Discontinuous Transmission, Fractional Load Planning, Multiple Re-use Pattern... all these technologies are band-aids that milk more capacity out of the network. Each time one of these technologies kicks in during a call, there's a slight risk of the call being dropped, and this risk increases ten fold if the infrastructure is so busy with data traffic it really doesn't have the resources to manage voice traffic properly. As long as the carriers don't get more spectrum, they're stuck in this situation.
"Currently, wireless companies have 534 megahertz of spectrum allotted to them, with an additional 50 megahertz in the pipeline. The industry says it needs at least 800 megahertz more within six years to accommodate demand.
"Spectrum for us is our highway," said Christopher Guttman-McCabe, vice president of regulatory affairs for CTIA-The Wireless Association, a trade group. "But the volume of traffic is picking up. Without more lanes, we'll have more traffic and more congestion," which will result in slower service."
So who are the real culprits in this mess? Well, 1) naive carriers who introduced services the networks weren't built for (they have the technology but not the capacity for this massive volume), and 2) these customers:
"Limited spectrum is only part of the problem, experts say, though an important part. Often, slow cell service is caused by a handful of bandwidth hogs -- watching videos on their iPhones, for example -- in a small area between cell phone towers.
"You have a few users clogging up capacity -- that is not something which can be solved just by providing more spectrum," said Aditya Kaul, director of mobile networks for ABI Research, a technology research firm."
Wanna get rid of dropped calls before 2015? Find the bandwidth hogs in your neighborhood and tell them if they don't stop using 3G like it was regular broadband, you will shoot them. Tell them it's because of them that everyone else who had an unlimited plan will soon have a capped plan, and if they don't stop, everyone will soon be on a plan where they pay by the megabyte.
appleguy123
Apr 23, 12:34 AM
Unchecked in what sense of the word "unchecked?"
Not checked for efficiency or flaws.
Not checked for efficiency or flaws.
MacRumors
Sep 12, 03:16 PM
http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com)
In a rare move, Apple provided a sneak peak of the long rumored Apple media center. Currently without a final product name, it has been codenamed iTV and has the apperance of a flattened Mac mini.
Providing various audio and video outputs, it is intended to be connected to a TV, communicating wirelessly with your Mac or PC and displaying a Front Row like interface for the content on your computer.
Key features:
� Built-in power supply (no power brick)
� USB, Ethernet and 802.11 wireless connectivity
� HDMI, optical audio, component video and RCA (phono) audio outputs
� Works with the Apple Remote
The 'iTV' is to be available in Q1 priced at $299.
In a rare move, Apple provided a sneak peak of the long rumored Apple media center. Currently without a final product name, it has been codenamed iTV and has the apperance of a flattened Mac mini.
Providing various audio and video outputs, it is intended to be connected to a TV, communicating wirelessly with your Mac or PC and displaying a Front Row like interface for the content on your computer.
Key features:
� Built-in power supply (no power brick)
� USB, Ethernet and 802.11 wireless connectivity
� HDMI, optical audio, component video and RCA (phono) audio outputs
� Works with the Apple Remote
The 'iTV' is to be available in Q1 priced at $299.
ArnehWB
Sep 26, 08:31 AM
I'd pay for them to try and do a low voltage Clovertown like they did Woodcrest with the 5148LV. That one had a TDP not far off of Merom.
Intel do have a LV Clovertown planned. Its a 4x1.6Ghz with 8MB L2 (2x4MB) part with a 50W TDP. See http://www.hkepc.com/bbs/itnews.php?tid=671378&starttime=0&endtime=0 for more info.
-Arneh
Intel do have a LV Clovertown planned. Its a 4x1.6Ghz with 8MB L2 (2x4MB) part with a 50W TDP. See http://www.hkepc.com/bbs/itnews.php?tid=671378&starttime=0&endtime=0 for more info.
-Arneh
No comments:
Post a Comment