-aggie-
May 4, 09:52 PM
I'd like to make sure of some things.
The villain started with 0 points. He then earned 2 points by taking two turns.
We did our thing
He took two more turns earning 2 more points for 4 total. He obviously used at least one point to make a goblin. So he had 3 or less points, depending on whether he bought more traps. They could be anywhere, even far from where we currently are (e.g., he could be putting defenses around his lair. )
Do I have that straight?
The villain started with 0 points. He then earned 2 points by taking two turns.
We did our thing
He took two more turns earning 2 more points for 4 total. He obviously used at least one point to make a goblin. So he had 3 or less points, depending on whether he bought more traps. They could be anywhere, even far from where we currently are (e.g., he could be putting defenses around his lair. )
Do I have that straight?
archurban
May 6, 12:26 AM
if apple believes itself to be too much confident or arrogant because they think market share will continue grow, and people will buy Apple stuff, then they will replace their own processor? then all efforts to be build great company will be fallen. they will go back to where they were struggle (say 1997?). it's what they want, go ahead. I don't care. by the way, remember this. there is no number one forever. Apple will be fallen apart someday. this will drive themselves more faster. if I am wrong, I won't buy apple no more.
StarshipTrooper
Nov 2, 03:41 PM
I wonder if it will work on the newer models that are made out of Aluminum, or only the older plastic ones?
they should update their icons.
they should update their icons.
Multimedia
Aug 4, 07:29 PM
The company that really deserves criticism is intuit. They recently released quicken 2007 and it was not UB. They were releasing a new product and they chose to ignore intel Mac users. Makes you wonder if they are going to stay in the mac market at all. Maybe in the future they will just recommend running parallel and windows, to use quicken on an intel mac.That version of Quicken doesn't run fast enough in Rosetta? Seems like it would. :confused: :eek:
Maltz
Apr 25, 09:22 AM
From what I've read, this really isn't that big of an issue. The database is just a list (that's locally stored) of places that you've been to. If it was uploaded to Apple, I would definitely be concerned but if it's a local file, then what's the fuss?
It exists. There's no reason for it to exist. You can't disable it. And there are HUGE privacy implications should the file be accessed without your permission - by thieves, stalkers (or worse), advertisers, police, etc. - none of whom can access your cell company's location records, except authorities, and even then only by subpoena. Which means a judge has to agree that there's a good reason for them to need it.
Why is the file even there in the first place?
It exists. There's no reason for it to exist. You can't disable it. And there are HUGE privacy implications should the file be accessed without your permission - by thieves, stalkers (or worse), advertisers, police, etc. - none of whom can access your cell company's location records, except authorities, and even then only by subpoena. Which means a judge has to agree that there's a good reason for them to need it.
Why is the file even there in the first place?
DJMastaWes
Jul 23, 11:46 PM
Anyone waiting for MBP Merom should be prepared to wait until November/December.
This better not be the case. There is NO way I'm waiting untill then for a MacBook Pro. I don't think apple will wait that long, I think WWDC is likely, and if not I would say at Paris.
This better not be the case. There is NO way I'm waiting untill then for a MacBook Pro. I don't think apple will wait that long, I think WWDC is likely, and if not I would say at Paris.
fxtech
Mar 30, 06:35 AM
Who cares? There are greater things to worry about than iPods at the moment..
Yeah like where the heck is my iPad 2? According to the latest email manifest, at 2:03 am it was somewhere over the pacific. This isn't near enough information. I'm thinking of chartering a jet so I can fly out and track it's progress myself. Anyone else want in?
:D
Yeah like where the heck is my iPad 2? According to the latest email manifest, at 2:03 am it was somewhere over the pacific. This isn't near enough information. I'm thinking of chartering a jet so I can fly out and track it's progress myself. Anyone else want in?
:D
tom5304
May 7, 04:44 PM
Oh and a two letter email address is priceless.
Yes, because typing "gmail.com" is so exhausting. :D
Yes, because typing "gmail.com" is so exhausting. :D
clientsiman
May 3, 02:17 AM
You think you've got it bad? In Britain we have
milk and beer by the pint
coke by the litre
roads by the mile
tablecloths/fabric etc by the metre
petrol/diesel by the litre
fuel efficiency is measured in miles per gallon but carbon emissions are measured in grams per kilometer.
weight of people in stones and pounds
sugar/flour etc in kilograms
fruit by the pound
cheese by grams
bread loaves are labelled in grams, bread rolls sold by the dozen.
height in feet and inches.
and so on. It's a real mess. Basically we started to change, then stopped because people didn't like it. Then the EU decided certain things must be measured imperial, so now we have a have way house where nothing makes sense.
We switched from pricing petrol in gallons to litres when petrol got to 99.9 pence per gallon, and it was easier to change the signs to litres than add another digit. :rolleyes:
I grew up in Greece using only SI so it was very strange for me to measure weight in stones as I haven't heard it before. Luckily everyone in Scotland also knew their weight in kilos too.
My biggest problem was that distances where in miles and therefore everything was way further that I though. It's just an inconvenience but after a while you get used to it.
milk and beer by the pint
coke by the litre
roads by the mile
tablecloths/fabric etc by the metre
petrol/diesel by the litre
fuel efficiency is measured in miles per gallon but carbon emissions are measured in grams per kilometer.
weight of people in stones and pounds
sugar/flour etc in kilograms
fruit by the pound
cheese by grams
bread loaves are labelled in grams, bread rolls sold by the dozen.
height in feet and inches.
and so on. It's a real mess. Basically we started to change, then stopped because people didn't like it. Then the EU decided certain things must be measured imperial, so now we have a have way house where nothing makes sense.
We switched from pricing petrol in gallons to litres when petrol got to 99.9 pence per gallon, and it was easier to change the signs to litres than add another digit. :rolleyes:
I grew up in Greece using only SI so it was very strange for me to measure weight in stones as I haven't heard it before. Luckily everyone in Scotland also knew their weight in kilos too.
My biggest problem was that distances where in miles and therefore everything was way further that I though. It's just an inconvenience but after a while you get used to it.
miles01110
Apr 25, 08:51 AM
Yes. I'm sure that consolidated.db just appeared randomly and it's all a huge media conspiracy.
ppc_michael
May 6, 03:35 AM
...and I think that will be the time to free myself from Apple bondage and return to the Windows fold. Especially if this is a sign that Apple are moving away from "proper" computers and pouring everything into iOS. :(
I jumped back to Windows recently after being Apple-exclusive since 1997 precisely because of the iOS direction everything is taking. Honestly? Not that hard of a transition. :P
As for the ARM thing, Apple has proved its mastery of the architecture with its mobile devices, so however radical it may be, the migration it seems plausible to me. Considering I'm just getting comfortable with x64 Assembly I wish it didn't. ;)
Might piss off the developer base though.
I jumped back to Windows recently after being Apple-exclusive since 1997 precisely because of the iOS direction everything is taking. Honestly? Not that hard of a transition. :P
As for the ARM thing, Apple has proved its mastery of the architecture with its mobile devices, so however radical it may be, the migration it seems plausible to me. Considering I'm just getting comfortable with x64 Assembly I wish it didn't. ;)
Might piss off the developer base though.
Detlev
Aug 4, 08:54 PM
Who cares for Quicken - it's not performance critical. It probably wasn't worth the effort given the gains probaby wouldn't even be noticeable.
The market for small businesses running their office/financials is small indeed but isn't an executive of Intuit on the Apple BOD? They should have been ahead of the game. It is suprising that the 2007 product line is not Universal. Oh, I would argue that it is performance critical. Try crunching numbers all day...
I did not hear of any market research by Intuit on the subject but I'm sure they are aware that their users are using BootCamp or Parallels and using the Windows versions (which are much more developed). Check their forums, users every day are posting they are "switching" away. This comes back to the "doomsday" reports of old when Apple announced the move to Intel. Will developers give up developing for Macs when Mac users themselves are booting up Windows on their machines? Time will tell.
The market for small businesses running their office/financials is small indeed but isn't an executive of Intuit on the Apple BOD? They should have been ahead of the game. It is suprising that the 2007 product line is not Universal. Oh, I would argue that it is performance critical. Try crunching numbers all day...
I did not hear of any market research by Intuit on the subject but I'm sure they are aware that their users are using BootCamp or Parallels and using the Windows versions (which are much more developed). Check their forums, users every day are posting they are "switching" away. This comes back to the "doomsday" reports of old when Apple announced the move to Intel. Will developers give up developing for Macs when Mac users themselves are booting up Windows on their machines? Time will tell.
bhtooefr
Apr 30, 10:56 PM
OK, so a few things about this that I'm seeing...
3200x2000 background: A bit odd choice of resolution, but I think they're making a 16:10 resolution that they'll crop to 16:9 for the machine with an actually 3200px wide display.
But, that does indicate a few things.
3200x1800 makes sense if you're pixel quadrupling a 1600x900 display, which is what a 15.6" 16:9 MBP at current pixel densities would be. But, it DOESN'T make sense for pixel quadrupling the 17" MBP, or any of the desktop displays.
If the 15.6" or 15.4" MBP gets this, and the 17" doesn't... that means that (and this is pure conjecture here) the 17" isn't long for the world. How well do they sell, anyway?
As for display technology supporting a pixel-quadrupled iMac, we've had the technology for a pixel-quadrupled 21.5" iMac since 2001. The IBM T221, a 3840x2400 22.2" monitor, is the same density as that theoretical display. It was $18,000 when it came out, and by the time IBM pulled the plug on IDTech, a Viewsonic-branded version of the T221, the VP2290b, was in the $4000 ballpark in 2005. So, had the T221 followed a curve influenced more by technology improvements than by the market getting saturated with unusable monitors, we'd be seeing these panels in the $2000 range nowadays, as a standalone monitor, I think.
Now, to look at all the machines that Apple has. Keep in mind that I think that only pro hardware will get this, and Apple likes to stick to around 100-110 PPI for desktops, and 110-130 PPI for laptops.
I'll go ahead and speculate on theoretical 16:9 variants of existing models, too.
MacBook Air 11.6": Currently 1366x768, 135 ppi, retina at 25.4" - would be 2732x1536, 270 ppi, retina at 12.7"
MacBook Air 13.3": Currently 1440x900, 128 ppi, retina at 26.9" - would be 2880x1800, 255 ppi, retina at 13.5"
MacBook and MacBook Pro 13.3": Currently 1280x800, 113 ppi, retina at 30.3" - would be 2560x1600, 227 ppi, retina at 15.1"
MacBook Pro 15.4" low-res: Currently 1440x900, 110 ppi, retina at 31.2" - would be 2880x1800, 221 ppi, retina at 15.6"
MacBook Pro 15.4" high-res: Currently 1680x1050, 129 ppi, retina at 26.7" - would be 3360x2100, 257 ppi, retina at 13.4"
MacBook Pro 17.0": Currently 1920x1200, 133 ppi, retina at 25.8" - would be 3840x2400, 266 ppi, retina at 12.9"
iMac 21.5": Currently 1920x1080, 102 ppi, retina at 33.6" - would be 3840x2160, 205 ppi, retina at 16.8"
iMac/Cinema Display 27": Currently 2560x1440, 109 ppi, retina at 31.6" - would be 5120x2880, 218 ppi, retina at 15.8"
Theoretical 13.3" 16:9 low-res: 1366x768, 118 ppi, retina at 29.2" - would be 2732x1536, 236 ppi, retina at 14.6"
Theoretical 13.3" 16:9 high-res: 1600x900, 138 ppi, retina at 24.9" - would be 3200x1800, 276 ppi, retina at 12.4"
Theoretical 15.6" 16:9: 1600x900, 118 ppi, retina at 29.2" - would be 3200x1800, 235 ppi, retina at 14.6"
Theoretical 17.1" 16:9: 1920x1080, 129 ppi, retina at 26.7" - would be 3840x2160, 258 ppi, retina at 13.3"
Hrm. I am noticing a problem here for getting consistent resolutions when getting 16:9 into the mix... and, interestingly, Apple stayed on 16:10 for the 13.3" MBA. So, I wonder if this could even be a red herring of some kind? Because 3200x2000 doesn't really match up with any expected 16:10 resolution...
(Current lineup can do 255-270 ppi, which is fairly tight, ignoring the 13.3" MB(P) and the low-res 15.4" MBP, but going to 16:9, either desktop area would shrink for many users (and even then, the 11.6" and 17.1" wouldn't fit in well), or there would be a wide variance in ppi.)
Another thing to consider is the $3.9 billion that Apple pumped into LCD makers... possibly to secure a supply of retina panels?
(In case you can't tell, I'm SERIOUS about my high ppi displays. Looking at a IDTech IAQX10N, a 2048x1536 15.0" 171 ppi IPS display right now, and I'm stuck on a 5 year old machine because of it. Whoever makes something roughly equivalent or better gets my business, unless they're Sony.)
3200x2000 background: A bit odd choice of resolution, but I think they're making a 16:10 resolution that they'll crop to 16:9 for the machine with an actually 3200px wide display.
But, that does indicate a few things.
3200x1800 makes sense if you're pixel quadrupling a 1600x900 display, which is what a 15.6" 16:9 MBP at current pixel densities would be. But, it DOESN'T make sense for pixel quadrupling the 17" MBP, or any of the desktop displays.
If the 15.6" or 15.4" MBP gets this, and the 17" doesn't... that means that (and this is pure conjecture here) the 17" isn't long for the world. How well do they sell, anyway?
As for display technology supporting a pixel-quadrupled iMac, we've had the technology for a pixel-quadrupled 21.5" iMac since 2001. The IBM T221, a 3840x2400 22.2" monitor, is the same density as that theoretical display. It was $18,000 when it came out, and by the time IBM pulled the plug on IDTech, a Viewsonic-branded version of the T221, the VP2290b, was in the $4000 ballpark in 2005. So, had the T221 followed a curve influenced more by technology improvements than by the market getting saturated with unusable monitors, we'd be seeing these panels in the $2000 range nowadays, as a standalone monitor, I think.
Now, to look at all the machines that Apple has. Keep in mind that I think that only pro hardware will get this, and Apple likes to stick to around 100-110 PPI for desktops, and 110-130 PPI for laptops.
I'll go ahead and speculate on theoretical 16:9 variants of existing models, too.
MacBook Air 11.6": Currently 1366x768, 135 ppi, retina at 25.4" - would be 2732x1536, 270 ppi, retina at 12.7"
MacBook Air 13.3": Currently 1440x900, 128 ppi, retina at 26.9" - would be 2880x1800, 255 ppi, retina at 13.5"
MacBook and MacBook Pro 13.3": Currently 1280x800, 113 ppi, retina at 30.3" - would be 2560x1600, 227 ppi, retina at 15.1"
MacBook Pro 15.4" low-res: Currently 1440x900, 110 ppi, retina at 31.2" - would be 2880x1800, 221 ppi, retina at 15.6"
MacBook Pro 15.4" high-res: Currently 1680x1050, 129 ppi, retina at 26.7" - would be 3360x2100, 257 ppi, retina at 13.4"
MacBook Pro 17.0": Currently 1920x1200, 133 ppi, retina at 25.8" - would be 3840x2400, 266 ppi, retina at 12.9"
iMac 21.5": Currently 1920x1080, 102 ppi, retina at 33.6" - would be 3840x2160, 205 ppi, retina at 16.8"
iMac/Cinema Display 27": Currently 2560x1440, 109 ppi, retina at 31.6" - would be 5120x2880, 218 ppi, retina at 15.8"
Theoretical 13.3" 16:9 low-res: 1366x768, 118 ppi, retina at 29.2" - would be 2732x1536, 236 ppi, retina at 14.6"
Theoretical 13.3" 16:9 high-res: 1600x900, 138 ppi, retina at 24.9" - would be 3200x1800, 276 ppi, retina at 12.4"
Theoretical 15.6" 16:9: 1600x900, 118 ppi, retina at 29.2" - would be 3200x1800, 235 ppi, retina at 14.6"
Theoretical 17.1" 16:9: 1920x1080, 129 ppi, retina at 26.7" - would be 3840x2160, 258 ppi, retina at 13.3"
Hrm. I am noticing a problem here for getting consistent resolutions when getting 16:9 into the mix... and, interestingly, Apple stayed on 16:10 for the 13.3" MBA. So, I wonder if this could even be a red herring of some kind? Because 3200x2000 doesn't really match up with any expected 16:10 resolution...
(Current lineup can do 255-270 ppi, which is fairly tight, ignoring the 13.3" MB(P) and the low-res 15.4" MBP, but going to 16:9, either desktop area would shrink for many users (and even then, the 11.6" and 17.1" wouldn't fit in well), or there would be a wide variance in ppi.)
Another thing to consider is the $3.9 billion that Apple pumped into LCD makers... possibly to secure a supply of retina panels?
(In case you can't tell, I'm SERIOUS about my high ppi displays. Looking at a IDTech IAQX10N, a 2048x1536 15.0" 171 ppi IPS display right now, and I'm stuck on a 5 year old machine because of it. Whoever makes something roughly equivalent or better gets my business, unless they're Sony.)
Jcoz
Mar 28, 12:11 PM
I don't see how anyone has a huge dilemma. If you're saying those that bought a 3GS on launch, didn't upgrade last year, and now are at the end of a 2 year have a "problem", that doesn't sound like much of a problem to me.
Call up AT&T and say your contract is up, you'd like to renew and buy a new iPhone which you qualify for, but you're not buying a new iPhone until iPhone 5 comes out. If they don't allow you a grace period until iPhone 5 is available, tell them you're gone, and that Verizon seems like a good option since AT&T doesn't want you for another 2 years.
The difference between public policy and what they can/will do for you when you're "threatening" to switch, is very different. The only time you have any leverage to get something you want out of AT&T is a once every two years opportunity when you're contract is up and you have the option of switching.
Am I completely missing the point here, or do you and the person you are responding to not understand cell phone contracts?
Your plan is separate from your contract. This is how you have family plans where each line is under a different contract dates.
When a contract is up, nothing changes except that you have the ability to upgrade and sign a new contract OR to cancel your service at any time.
I literally have no idea what you could possibly be talking about in terms of threats and "public policy"....
Call up AT&T and say your contract is up, you'd like to renew and buy a new iPhone which you qualify for, but you're not buying a new iPhone until iPhone 5 comes out. If they don't allow you a grace period until iPhone 5 is available, tell them you're gone, and that Verizon seems like a good option since AT&T doesn't want you for another 2 years.
The difference between public policy and what they can/will do for you when you're "threatening" to switch, is very different. The only time you have any leverage to get something you want out of AT&T is a once every two years opportunity when you're contract is up and you have the option of switching.
Am I completely missing the point here, or do you and the person you are responding to not understand cell phone contracts?
Your plan is separate from your contract. This is how you have family plans where each line is under a different contract dates.
When a contract is up, nothing changes except that you have the ability to upgrade and sign a new contract OR to cancel your service at any time.
I literally have no idea what you could possibly be talking about in terms of threats and "public policy"....
zap2
May 6, 01:25 AM
It wouldn't blow me away for Apple to have an ARM OS X running somewhere in there laps, hell OS X ran on intel from day one.
But any chance of release seems unlikely until ARM locks down a solid preforming CPU. Although is Apple and Microsoft come up with a good was to have x86 and ARM support in one OS, then both chips throughout Apple line might makes sense.
For now, I see Apple being too close(developing Thunderbold, getting chips early) to leave Intel.
But any chance of release seems unlikely until ARM locks down a solid preforming CPU. Although is Apple and Microsoft come up with a good was to have x86 and ARM support in one OS, then both chips throughout Apple line might makes sense.
For now, I see Apple being too close(developing Thunderbold, getting chips early) to leave Intel.
rhinosrcool
Apr 20, 01:29 AM
iPhone 4 with 3.5" screen: 115.2mm x 58.6mm x 9.3mm
weight: 137 grams
HTC Thunderbolt with 4" screen: 122mm x 66mm x 13mm
weight: 164 grams
I am not sure about you, but on composite that HTC with a 4" screen is noticeably larger in every possible way over the iPhone 4.
Sure it is only 5% taller, but 12% wider and almost 50% thicker as well as 15% heavier.
Perhaps you don't know anything about Apple, but they take the size of their devices very seriously.
I also don't understand how some of you think it is possible to have a significantly larger screen without making the phone bigger. It is not like the current iPhone has a lot of space. Again it seems people just read a bigger number and think it must be better. If we left it up to other companies smartphones would all be twice as thick and weigh twice as much as they do now, while being massively unwieldy. Apple actually has an aesthetic set of benchmarks that are important to them as anything else. It is not only aesthetic either, but actually using the device and carrying it around, the size makes a big difference.
My 3.5" iPhone 4 screen is pretty amazing, especially considering the size and weight of the device. Much more impressive than any 4" screened device I have seen.
Edit: In case anyone is wondering the 4" Samsung Galaxy S specs: 122.4mm x 64.2mm x 9.9mm weight 118 grams. It weighs less, but the physical dimensions are larger in ever way.
Please! Make the damn phone bigger! Oh no, it may weigh a few more grams. Currently, the iphone4 is a tiny phone. For us adults, please increase the screen size, and probably, the width.
weight: 137 grams
HTC Thunderbolt with 4" screen: 122mm x 66mm x 13mm
weight: 164 grams
I am not sure about you, but on composite that HTC with a 4" screen is noticeably larger in every possible way over the iPhone 4.
Sure it is only 5% taller, but 12% wider and almost 50% thicker as well as 15% heavier.
Perhaps you don't know anything about Apple, but they take the size of their devices very seriously.
I also don't understand how some of you think it is possible to have a significantly larger screen without making the phone bigger. It is not like the current iPhone has a lot of space. Again it seems people just read a bigger number and think it must be better. If we left it up to other companies smartphones would all be twice as thick and weigh twice as much as they do now, while being massively unwieldy. Apple actually has an aesthetic set of benchmarks that are important to them as anything else. It is not only aesthetic either, but actually using the device and carrying it around, the size makes a big difference.
My 3.5" iPhone 4 screen is pretty amazing, especially considering the size and weight of the device. Much more impressive than any 4" screened device I have seen.
Edit: In case anyone is wondering the 4" Samsung Galaxy S specs: 122.4mm x 64.2mm x 9.9mm weight 118 grams. It weighs less, but the physical dimensions are larger in ever way.
Please! Make the damn phone bigger! Oh no, it may weigh a few more grams. Currently, the iphone4 is a tiny phone. For us adults, please increase the screen size, and probably, the width.
pmz
May 4, 03:06 PM
i intend to get mine on a disc rather then a download.
Why can't you just download it and back it up on a USB key, or a thousand USB keys?
Give me one good reason why you can't do that. If you're posting on Macrumors you have enough bandwidth to get it, just may have to wait a few minutes.
Why can't you just download it and back it up on a USB key, or a thousand USB keys?
Give me one good reason why you can't do that. If you're posting on Macrumors you have enough bandwidth to get it, just may have to wait a few minutes.
spazzcat
Mar 29, 09:06 AM
I dont think so, Amazon cannot get the app needed for the streaming/storing of content on your phone or tablet approved in the appstore since. It violates apples terms, if you or anyone else has an issue with it, contact apple.
/Rock-Musical-Background-
bperboy
Aug 11, 10:05 AM
This is good news for me. I'm an advanced/expert user of winblows, and I've reinstalled XP for the last time! Too many things don't go as it should, and I shouldn't even have to reinstall the operating system every 6 blasted months! I'm planning on getting the high end mac laptop in about a year, but its good to know that progress is being made!
Multimedia
Aug 7, 06:57 PM
That isn't a heatsinked FB-DIMM.
RAM is truly the dealbreaker here. EDU prices bring the 2.0 model down to a reasonable price, but I want 4GB - I'd like to scan my 4x5 film, so the more RAM the better - thanks to Xeon and the need for the ECC heatsinked stuff, I'm looking at $800 from Crucial. No way, man, not gonna do it.
The more I look at it, the more I believe a reasonable mid-tower option has to be in the pipeline.Yeah I know what you mean. I fixed my post #188 to reflect that higher price. How About $770 From Kingston Technology? (http://www.wiredzone.com/itemdesc.asp?ic=32003196&source=froogle)
RAM is truly the dealbreaker here. EDU prices bring the 2.0 model down to a reasonable price, but I want 4GB - I'd like to scan my 4x5 film, so the more RAM the better - thanks to Xeon and the need for the ECC heatsinked stuff, I'm looking at $800 from Crucial. No way, man, not gonna do it.
The more I look at it, the more I believe a reasonable mid-tower option has to be in the pipeline.Yeah I know what you mean. I fixed my post #188 to reflect that higher price. How About $770 From Kingston Technology? (http://www.wiredzone.com/itemdesc.asp?ic=32003196&source=froogle)
kallaway1
Aug 3, 11:20 PM
are people not expecting merom to go immediately into the macbook as well? i don't see a reason for apple to purposely gimp their best-selling notebook when a merom chip is supposed to cost the same as its yonah counterpart.
TalonFlyer
Nov 20, 08:55 PM
It works, it's expensive and it's NOT a great value!!!
I have used my new car kit for a few days and I'm a little disappointed with a few aspects of the device. My iPhone snaps in fairly well and it's easy to rotate. The articulation of the mount is not as desirable as it appears in the advertisements. The rotating lock that suctions it to the window is fairly good. The over all feel and quality of the device seems fair to good, however it should be priced about $30-$40 less to be a good value.
The hands-free works, however it appears that it is not duplexed so road noise and vibrations seems to be causing the device to VOX (switch off the speaker when you are talking). I have mixed feelings with the few calls I have made so far. Looking like it may not be a good hands-free device.
It uses Bluetooth to connect the hands-free and not the GPS. I was hoping to be able to use the bluetooth to connect the GPS to other devices and apparently that is not possible. I was also hoping that I could use the hands-free if not docked. You can't, must dock to connect the bluetooth hands-free. Does not make any sense.
Also, they forgot about the voice control that can be activated with a bump of the answer button on most headsets. The volume button, if you push it, sometime brings up the voice control, however it is well behind the iPhone and not easy to hit while the phone is docked. Why is this not more accessible?
Would have been nice to have a button to start and stop music, like my 5 year old bluetooth headset. Maybe next to the other missing button.
When in horizontal mode the weight of the iPhone and the slightest bump in the road or touching the device will cause it to rotate almost vertical. This is because the swivel is not centered and the iPhone is side heavy. Seems that the resistance force of the swivel is a few ounces to light. You also must remove any cover you have as there is no room for anything except the iPhone itself.
They don't support the iPod touch and now they are coming out with a iPod specific mount, it has even less value because I can't use both devices on the same car kit.
Here is how I grade the Car Kit (1-10):
Mounting: 8
Rotation: 7
Articulation: 3
Hands-Free: 4 (Weak, speaker is facing away from you, VOX'ing problem)
GPS: 6 (Only very slightly better that the built in GPS)
Compatibility: 3 (Can't use iPod Touch)
Bluetooth: 2 (Phone will not pair until docked, can't pair with other devices)
Overall it's a $79.00 retail mount with a questionable hands-free, only a small incremental change in GPS accuracy and a useless bluetooth implementation. I'll give it a generous 5 out of 10 for now.
Cost: 119.00 plus Tax, $40 is a donation to the cause.
That's my 2 cents worth that cost me a Benjamin and then some.
Update: I tried the car kit in different vehicles and in different Major cities with the same result. After exchanging my car kit and found no improvement with the hands-free, I decided to return it for a full refund and wait for the Magellan and see if it is any better. I called TomTom and it took over an hour to get someone on the phone and they were no help at all.
The service rep said "Well it appears that your unit is still in warranty", after I stopped laughing I asked her if she was familiar with the product. This just shows that TomTom does not have it together at all for the US market and I am so glad I didn't waste a hundred bucks on the APP.
My new rating is a 3 because the iPhone looks great when mounted.
TomTom = RunRun!
I have used my new car kit for a few days and I'm a little disappointed with a few aspects of the device. My iPhone snaps in fairly well and it's easy to rotate. The articulation of the mount is not as desirable as it appears in the advertisements. The rotating lock that suctions it to the window is fairly good. The over all feel and quality of the device seems fair to good, however it should be priced about $30-$40 less to be a good value.
The hands-free works, however it appears that it is not duplexed so road noise and vibrations seems to be causing the device to VOX (switch off the speaker when you are talking). I have mixed feelings with the few calls I have made so far. Looking like it may not be a good hands-free device.
It uses Bluetooth to connect the hands-free and not the GPS. I was hoping to be able to use the bluetooth to connect the GPS to other devices and apparently that is not possible. I was also hoping that I could use the hands-free if not docked. You can't, must dock to connect the bluetooth hands-free. Does not make any sense.
Also, they forgot about the voice control that can be activated with a bump of the answer button on most headsets. The volume button, if you push it, sometime brings up the voice control, however it is well behind the iPhone and not easy to hit while the phone is docked. Why is this not more accessible?
Would have been nice to have a button to start and stop music, like my 5 year old bluetooth headset. Maybe next to the other missing button.
When in horizontal mode the weight of the iPhone and the slightest bump in the road or touching the device will cause it to rotate almost vertical. This is because the swivel is not centered and the iPhone is side heavy. Seems that the resistance force of the swivel is a few ounces to light. You also must remove any cover you have as there is no room for anything except the iPhone itself.
They don't support the iPod touch and now they are coming out with a iPod specific mount, it has even less value because I can't use both devices on the same car kit.
Here is how I grade the Car Kit (1-10):
Mounting: 8
Rotation: 7
Articulation: 3
Hands-Free: 4 (Weak, speaker is facing away from you, VOX'ing problem)
GPS: 6 (Only very slightly better that the built in GPS)
Compatibility: 3 (Can't use iPod Touch)
Bluetooth: 2 (Phone will not pair until docked, can't pair with other devices)
Overall it's a $79.00 retail mount with a questionable hands-free, only a small incremental change in GPS accuracy and a useless bluetooth implementation. I'll give it a generous 5 out of 10 for now.
Cost: 119.00 plus Tax, $40 is a donation to the cause.
That's my 2 cents worth that cost me a Benjamin and then some.
Update: I tried the car kit in different vehicles and in different Major cities with the same result. After exchanging my car kit and found no improvement with the hands-free, I decided to return it for a full refund and wait for the Magellan and see if it is any better. I called TomTom and it took over an hour to get someone on the phone and they were no help at all.
The service rep said "Well it appears that your unit is still in warranty", after I stopped laughing I asked her if she was familiar with the product. This just shows that TomTom does not have it together at all for the US market and I am so glad I didn't waste a hundred bucks on the APP.
My new rating is a 3 because the iPhone looks great when mounted.
TomTom = RunRun!
Eduardo1971
Apr 18, 02:47 PM
Has Apple targeted other 'tablet' makers?
Wonder how long until they serve HP with a similar suit?
Wonder how long until they serve HP with a similar suit?
islanders
Jul 22, 10:34 AM
I could see Apple waiting a while (at least through the back to school season) while the prices on the Yonah processors plummet, and Apple's laptop profit margin skyrockets to even higher levels. I'm guessing Merom's in the MBP and iMac in September (along with the new nano), just in time for the holiday shopping season.
The other side of August does sound reasonable enough to me. Although they may have one MBP with the new chip before then.
The other side of August does sound reasonable enough to me. Although they may have one MBP with the new chip before then.
No comments:
Post a Comment