NEWS: Android Outsells Apple iPhone
in [Wireless Internet]
|
Prev: Introducing Poken Take your Social Network Offline
Next: Desperate Help Needed!! WIRELESS SHARING
From: Jeff Liebermann on 12 May 2010 23:51 On Wed, 12 May 2010 20:49:20 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl(a)cruzio.com> wrote: >MS Backup is about the same. Crude would be generous. It fails >miserably if there are bad sectors, read error, or strange characters >in the filenames. I'm a big fan of mirror backups, which is not >supplied by either MS or Apple. If you insist, the cost of a typical >commercial backup program for the PC is about $35. Oops. I'm a big fan of -image- backups, not mirror backups. Sorry. -- # Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D Santa Cruz CA 95060 # 831-336-2558 # http://802.11junk.com jeffl(a)cruzio.com # http://www.LearnByDestroying.com AE6KS
From: nospam on 13 May 2010 00:11 In article <8gqmu5l4kn0uh5v95lg7qo6g5u05qc62pj(a)4ax.com>, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl(a)cruzio.com> wrote: > Nobody does backups until after a major crash and associated data > loss. The Microsoft backup and restore programs are not what I would > call very useful. Most users get their backup programs from 3rd party > vendors or bundled with their backup drives (usually USB or NAT). that's exactly why apple created time machine. as i said, it's ridiculously simple. plug in a new hard drive, it asks if you want to use it for a backup drive. click yes and you're *done*. everything after that is automatic. it will start backing up the drive (a good idea to leave the computer running for the initial backup since it will take a while). the incrementals are hourly thereafter, and they are usually a minute or two. it only copies changed files, hard-linking where appropriate. to restore, you can then roll back to any previous point in time, either the whole machine or a particular file or folder. > >> Does OS/X include any of these? > > > >it includes the first two, and the backup-restore is mind-numbingly > >easy. > > MS Backup is about the same. Crude would be generous. It fails > miserably if there are bad sectors, read error, or strange characters > in the filenames. I'm a big fan of mirror backups, which is not > supplied by either MS or Apple. If you insist, the cost of a typical > commercial backup program for the PC is about $35. well to nit pick, os x includes rsync and dd. they aren't suitable for the typical user but there are free and low cost gui wrappers for them, as well as other software with better copying engines. > MS includes a PPTP and IPSec clients. I'm not sure about L2TP. If > they're not included, I think they can be freely downloaded. os x has pptp, l2tp and ipsec. > How so? What's missing? I agree on the Firewire 800 port, that none > of the PC users will ever need or use. that's because they've never had it. firewire 400 is faster than usb, firewire 800 even more so. it's also more reliable and can source a lot more power, which is very useful for bus-powered drives. i've even seen 3.5" drives bus powered. > >here's an older comparison, very detailed > ><http://www.systemshootouts.org/shootouts/desktop/2007/0807_dt1800.html> > > 3.5 years old. That's forever in this business. both systems were current at the time it was done. > >or you can look at it the other way, why does verizon need to offer two > >for one to move stock? > > To lock in customers into 2 year contracts and to get ahead of what > apparently is going to be a deluge of PDA phones and iClones. If > discounting is what it takes to prevent people from buying iPhones, > then Verizon is willing to take the price hit at the front in order to > grab and hold the customers. it should be interesting to see what happens when they start selling the iphone. :) i don't know if it will happen this year (but there is an awful lot to suggest it might), but it *will* happen when lte is deployed. > If Verizon > gave away the phones for free, would you claim that the phones are > worthless? looking at the phones they *do* give away for free, yes. those are junk.
From: Jeff Liebermann on 13 May 2010 18:09 On Thu, 13 May 2010 00:11:27 -0400, nospam <nospam(a)nospam.invalid> wrote: >In article <8gqmu5l4kn0uh5v95lg7qo6g5u05qc62pj(a)4ax.com>, Jeff >Liebermann <jeffl(a)cruzio.com> wrote: > >> Nobody does backups until after a major crash and associated data >> loss. The Microsoft backup and restore programs are not what I would >> call very useful. Most users get their backup programs from 3rd party >> vendors or bundled with their backup drives (usually USB or NAT). > >that's exactly why apple created time machine. as i said, it's >ridiculously simple. plug in a new hard drive, it asks if you want to >use it for a backup drive. click yes and you're *done*. Sounds exactly like Shadow Protect: <http://www.storagecraft.com/shadow_protect_desktop.php> $90 for the desktop version. I also use Memeo, which is bundled with several USB (i.e. WD) and NAT (i.e. Buffalo) storage devices: <http://www.memeo.com> >everything after that is automatic. it will start backing up the drive >(a good idea to leave the computer running for the initial backup since >it will take a while). the incrementals are hourly thereafter, and they >are usually a minute or two. it only copies changed files, hard-linking >where appropriate. to restore, you can then roll back to any previous >point in time, either the whole machine or a particular file or folder. Both Shadow Protect and Memeo work on similar principles. However, Shadow Protect will do a complete image restore, while Memeo only backs up designated folders and files. >well to nit pick, os x includes rsync and dd. they aren't suitable for >the typical user but there are free and low cost gui wrappers for them, >as well as other software with better copying engines. Windoze includes Briefcase, which can be used to replicate folders across a network. There are plenty of free and cheap utilities that also do this on a PC. When desperate on a Mac, I like to revert to my Unix roots with: find . -depth -print | cpio -ocB | compress | \ rcmd machine_name "dd of=/dev/tape" I also have various Unix like tools (Cygwin, MKS, GNUtools) for the PC for doing the same thing. >> How so? What's missing? I agree on the Firewire 800 port, that none >> of the PC users will ever need or use. > >that's because they've never had it. firewire 400 is faster than usb, >firewire 800 even more so. it's also more reliable and can source a lot >more power, which is very useful for bus-powered drives. i've even seen >3.5" drives bus powered. Yep. Firewire 400 is about 25% faster than USB 2.0. Speed was the idea behind Firewire 800. However, USB 3.0 is out and becoming available on the PC. For reliable and screaming performance, I use eSATA. <http://news.cnet.com/8301-11386_3-10141810-76.html> For versatility and portability, I use USB 2.0 because every machine has one. None of this means much to the average home or business users except that he can go to any box store and buy a USB 2.0 drive, while the other technologies are not quite as common. For example, I have a mess of USB 2.0 Flash drives, about 8 assorted USB 2.0 external drives, one eSATA driver, and nothing else. >> >here's an older comparison, very detailed >> ><http://www.systemshootouts.org/shootouts/desktop/2007/0807_dt1800.html> >> >> 3.5 years old. That's forever in this business. > >both systems were current at the time it was done. We're comparing currently available computer systems, not ancient and historical differences. By the logic, perhaps they should have compared the original IBM PC with the Lisa. Price attrition is a fact-o-life in the computer business and a major factor in determine when people will buy machines. Therefore, pricing must be as up to data as possible. >it should be interesting to see what happens when they start selling >the iphone. :) i don't know if it will happen this year (but there is >an awful lot to suggest it might), but it *will* happen when lte is >deployed. Fortunately, Verizon is not run by total incompetents. When Apple released the 3GS version of the iPhone, Apple stock went up, while AT&T just sat there. That's because ATTWS probably makes very little money on the iPhone and would take a loss if it were not for AT&T corporate subsidies: <http://venturebeat.com/2009/07/29/att-subsidy-of-375-boosts-apples-iphone-profit-margin-to-60-percent/> Building up their 3G network in response to claims of inadequacy is not going to be cheap. <http://802.11junk.com/jeffl/crud/ATT3Gmap.jpg> (2.6MBytes) What AT&T gets is plenty of new customers, that can be later soaked with mandatory data plans, creative billing, constipated downloads, and predatory usage charges. I suspect that Verizon might not want to go the same route as AT&T. Meanwhile: "iPad 3G AT&T SEVERELY SCALES BACK LIMITS YOUTUBE CELLULAR DATA CONNECTION HOBBLED". Skype doesn't work at all on 3G and YouTube is throttled: <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xnHsaYk4eJ8> >> If Verizon >> gave away the phones for free, would you claim that the phones are >> worthless? > >looking at the phones they *do* give away for free, yes. those are junk. They're made to last the typical 18 month junk phone average lifetime. I have a side biz fixing and resurrecting VZW phones. None of the current crop of feature phones or PDA phones are much better in terms of quality construction and performance. None of the phones I play with will survive a 3ft drop test onto concrete. Even the allegedly ruggedize Casio GzOne ends up with broken displays: <http://www.verizonwireless.com/b2c/store/controller?item=phoneFirst&action=viewPhoneDetail&selectedPhoneId=5089 Gotta run... -- # Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D Santa Cruz CA 95060 # 831-336-2558 # http://802.11junk.com jeffl(a)cruzio.com # http://www.LearnByDestroying.com AE6KS
From: nospam on 13 May 2010 18:40 In article <bhqou5dp8nad70fpkupvbts8tfmr9b5pje(a)4ax.com>, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl(a)cruzio.com> wrote: > However, USB 3.0 is out and becoming > available on the PC. not very fast it isn't. <http://news.cnet.com/8301-13924_3-20001891-64.html> USB 3.0 will not see widespread adoption until at least late 2011 because of lack of direct support from Intel. As a result, the new standard may not become as prevalent this decade as USB 2.0 has been through most of the past decade. > For reliable and screaming performance, I use > eSATA. esata is useful too, but no bus power. > >both systems were current at the time it was done. > > We're comparing currently available computer systems, not ancient and > historical differences. By the logic, perhaps they should have > compared the original IBM PC with the Lisa. Price attrition is a > fact-o-life in the computer business and a major factor in determine > when people will buy machines. Therefore, pricing must be as up to > data as possible. it's not any different now as it was then. similar specs = similar prices. what happens is that people start picking what features are important (e.g., don't need windows ultimate, don't need firewire, don't care about ips displays), and end up with a pc that costs less because it does less, not because of the lack of an apple premium. > >it should be interesting to see what happens when they start selling > >the iphone. :) i don't know if it will happen this year (but there is > >an awful lot to suggest it might), but it *will* happen when lte is > >deployed. > > Fortunately, Verizon is not run by total incompetents. unlike at&t :) apple added mms and tethering to iphone os 3.0. it worked just about everywhere, except on at&t who said 'soon.' it took at&t three months to figure out how to get mms to work, even though it worked on other phones and was hacked to work on iphones by jailbreakers. at&t also said tethering soon, and that was a year ago. they know their fragile network would crumble, so they're avoiding it as long as possible. i bet when verizon gets the iphone and offers tethering, at&t will suddenly figure out how to add it. > When Apple > released the 3GS version of the iPhone, Apple stock went up, while > AT&T just sat there. That's because ATTWS probably makes very little > money on the iPhone and would take a loss if it were not for AT&T > corporate subsidies: iphone subscribers have a higher average monthly revenue. at&t does *not* want to lose the exclusive. > I suspect that Verizon might not want to > go the same route as AT&T. verizon has said they want the iphone, it's up to apple. they *are* losing some users to at&t, but some users value a non-sucky network over an iphone, and maybe buy an ipod touch instead. > Meanwhile: > "iPad 3G AT&T SEVERELY SCALES BACK LIMITS YOUTUBE CELLULAR DATA > CONNECTION HOBBLED". Skype doesn't work at all on 3G and YouTube is > throttled: at&t isn't the one who is scaling it back. skype chose to limit voip over 3g. they said they'd support it at some point. video is scaled to 3g data rates.
From: Jeff Liebermann on 13 May 2010 20:29
On Thu, 13 May 2010 18:40:14 -0400, nospam <nospam(a)nospam.invalid> wrote: >In article <bhqou5dp8nad70fpkupvbts8tfmr9b5pje(a)4ax.com>, Jeff >Liebermann <jeffl(a)cruzio.com> wrote: > >> However, USB 3.0 is out and becoming >> available on the PC. > >not very fast it isn't. > ><http://news.cnet.com/8301-13924_3-20001891-64.html> > > USB 3.0 will not see widespread adoption until at least late 2011 > because of lack of direct support from Intel. As a result, the new > standard may not become as prevalent this decade as USB 2.0 has been > through most of the past decade. Yep. Please not the Intel also dragged its feet rather badly with 802.11 chipsets, preferring to buy Philips chips and put their name on it, to doing their own. Other vendors (Broadcom, Atheros, etc) grabbed the customers. Eventually, Intel woke up with the Centrino 2 chipset, which convinced system designer that the wi-fi chip was somehow part of the package with the CPU, video, and glue chips. Brilliant. Since Centrino 2 was a great success for marketing, I suspect Intel will pull of a repeat performance. A Google search will find plenty of USB 3.0 products currently available. >what happens is that people start picking what features are important >(e.g., don't need windows ultimate, don't need firewire, don't care >about ips displays), and end up with a pc that costs less because it >does less, not because of the lack of an apple premium. That's one way to look at it. What I saw in the 1990's was a trend to throw all kinds of useless junk into the system in an effort to create product differentiation. Bundled software, junkware, development systems, trialware, ink jet printers, mouse pads, and printed documentation. Consumers didn't want any of this junk but figured it was "free". There's nothing in the biz that's really free. So, to cut costs and allegedly address consumer complaints about bloatware, vendors began removing all this junk and selling just a basic system. Even MS is finally doing that with Vista and Windoze 7, which come in various flavors varying only in the amount of bundled bloatware. The PC might cost less because MS was able to throw away more bloat than Apple. >they know their fragile network would crumble, so they're avoiding it >as long as possible. i bet when verizon gets the iphone and offers >tethering, at&t will suddenly figure out how to add it. Verizon already offers $15/month tethering and sharing: <http://www.verizonwireless.com/b2c/mobilebroadband/?page=products_connect> No doom and disaster anywhere in sight. For a short time in April, tethering was free with Palm Pre and some other phones. Wi-Fi sharing: <http://www.verizonwireless.com/b2c/mobilebroadband/?page=products_mifi> >iphone subscribers have a higher average monthly revenue. at&t does >*not* want to lose the exclusive. Considering the 3G coverage issues, much of the customer loyalty would evaporate if AT&T loses the exclusive. Hacking the iPhone onto TMobile seems to be rather popular. >verizon has said they want the iphone, it's up to apple. they *are* >losing some users to at&t, but some users value a non-sucky network >over an iphone, and maybe buy an ipod touch instead. That's me. I have an iPod Touch 2G and a junk cell phone on Verizon. I've tried various combinations of smart and dumb phones and this is my current favorite. It's the loyalty of users to Apple that are keeping AT&T from losing most of their iPhone customers. <http://www.changewave.com/alliance/viewreport.html?source=/alliance/reports/2010/cell_service_20100427.html> AT&T drops 4.5% of the calls and 23% indicated that they were satisfied. I just had a talk with a local doctor about his iPhone. I didn't have to ask what he thought because he asked me if Verizon had any better coverage and didn't drop calls. There are some interesting numbers in reference to the potential Verizon iPhone in the above URL. >> Meanwhile: >> "iPad 3G AT&T SEVERELY SCALES BACK LIMITS YOUTUBE CELLULAR DATA >> CONNECTION HOBBLED". Skype doesn't work at all on 3G and YouTube is >> throttled: > >at&t isn't the one who is scaling it back. skype chose to limit voip >over 3g. Nope. In order to get Apple to approve Skype on the iPhone, Skype had to make it so it would only work over Wi-Fi. That's why it doesn't work on the iPad over 3G. AT&T didn't like the potential competition. Skype works just fine with a jailbroken iPhone. I suspect AT&T will apply similar pressure to prevent other VoIP clients from using their wireless network. <http://blog.tmcnet.com/blog/tom-keating/skype/how-to-use-skype-over-3g-on-iphone.asp> >they said they'd support it at some point. Nope. Apple is still protecting AT&T when possible. It's getting rather difficult, especially after the debate over Google Voice, which makes various AT&T value added services look crude, and required FCC intervention to get Apple's attention: <http://www.google.com/mobile/voice/> However, I suspect that Verizon will be no better. VZW alread limits features and functions on their phones: <http://support.vzw.com/pdf/BT_Chart_PDAs.pdf> <http://support.vzw.com/pdf/BT_Chart_Handsets.pdf> If you can find a pattern to what features VZW allows and disabled, I would be interested. >video is scaled to 3g data rates. Yep. -- # Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D Santa Cruz CA 95060 # 831-336-2558 # http://802.11junk.com jeffl(a)cruzio.com # http://www.LearnByDestroying.com AE6KS |