@All
Yes, the target date for sales was wrong: it's 10m by the end of the year, not June.
Mea culpa.
839 publicly visible posts • joined 10 Oct 2006
First, unlocking isn't the same thing as allowing the iPhone to run third-party apps. That, in the terminology, is 'jailbreaking'. You can jailbreak an iPhone without unlocking it. You only need to unlock and iPhone - or any other handset for that matter - if you want to use it with an alternative network.
Jailbreaking's worth doing, I'd say, if you want to extend what your iPhone can do. There are hundreds of utilities and apps available via Installer. You can try them and remove them easily enough if you don't like/need them.
Alas, future iPhone updates may break these apps, so they can't be considered entirely permanent, but the upcoming release of Apple's Software Development Kit (SDK) will make it possible for developers to create iPhone apps that'll run on future firmware updates.
For tinkerers like me, it's fun enough just to get into the thing and do what we want to do with it rather than what Apple thinks we should.
I assume you actually own a Mac Mini rather than a Cube, since the latter lacks an Intel processor and won't run Bootcamp at all, let alone well.
Memory requirements depend on what version of Windows you'll be running. Bootcamp needs you to make space on your hard drive for Windows and its applications, and that too will govern whether you can use Bootcamp.
So check what version of Windows Sage and your word processing application run under, then have a look at Microsoft's website for the appropriate system requirements and see if they match up with how much memory you have on the Mac - 512MB - and how much free disk space you have for the OS and the applications you need to run.
You'll need to buy a copy of Windows if you're to stay legal, and that may limit you to Vista. For that, you'll need to upgrade your Mac's memory to 1GB.
The point here is that the s.book's CPU and integrated GPU aren't up to decoding H.264 video. Video-capable iPods can do this because it has a dedicated decoder chip, and the Eee manages by brute force of CPU and GPU. Plenty of older machines can't.
The s.book drops frames because it's sacrificing frames to be able to keep the video running in real time. I kept an eye on the displayed frame rate, which oscillated between about 10fps and 25fps (the test movie was 25fps). The machine was running flat out throughout the test.
Using a standard Eee would have been pointless since, because it runs Linux, I couldn't run a directly comparable benchmark on the two systems.
There is an overhead with using a compressed drive, but not a major one. I don't believe even with an uncompressed solid-state drive, the Eee's 4GB will compare well with the s.book's 80GB HDD.
The point is, if you are going to run XP on a 4GB Eee, you're going to have to turn on drive compression if you want to install more than a few basic apps. I have Firefox, OpenOffice, Skype, Pidgin and Photoshop on mine, for instance, and for that I need *just* more than 4GB.
My point was essentially why trust a bizarrely-named blogger and not a bunch of scientists who've put their names to a published paper?
What I read in relation to the claims of bad science all stated the conclusion as fact without providing any evidence whatsoever of (a) why it was a fact or an opinion, or (b) to what extent the poster is qualified to state that the conclusion is a fact.
So if poster A - let's call him 'squidgy' - says the science is bad because the radiation exposure was way higher than what anyone would get off a mobile phone, we're supposed to treat that on the same basis as poster B - let's call him Cornelius Skrifney, Professor of Electromagnetic Exposure Experimentation, Imperial College - says that the science is bad because the radiation exposure was xxW/kg, higher than the yyW/kg users would get off a mobile phone?
As I said, I'm not arguing that the study was an example of good science, rather that I'm not going to damn it as bad simply because an anonymous blogger claims it is because (s)he says so.
More to the point, perhaps, what most commentators have failed to notice is that the study looking into the effect of making a call and instead assumed it was an investigation of having a phone on in the bedroom while you're sleeping. These are clearly not the same things. So there :-)
We published the story because we think it's of interest to our readers.
Regarding the so-called "critical examination" of the paper on which it's based, it's no such thing. It's just statements from bloggers saying the science must be bad because the researchers have come up with a conclusion the 'examiners' don't like. It's no more rational an assessment than the newspaper reports they deride.
The paper may indeed be example of poor science, but if you're going to say so, you have to say why, not just state that as a fact without giving any evidence.
That's the difference between scientists and bloggers - and journalists, for that matter. The bloggers don't have to back up their opinions with details that others can use to verify or reject those results.
Done it. Turn off paging, reboot and you can delete pagefile.sys.
A corporate IT guy of my acquaintance - cheers, James - suggested re-enabling paging, choosing a custom pagefile size with identical minimum and maximum sizes. This is handy for me, because I need paging enabled in order to run Photoshop, which requires it.
Setting both to 512MB, I now have a 512MB pagefile.sys, which is a long way from gobbling up my C: drive.
But the question remains: how to I get Windows to have pagefile.sys on my E: SDHC card and not on the C: drive?
Ideas?
There is no article. The key giveaway is the word 'video' in the phrase
'CES on video'.
Seriously, for anyone who's not at all keen on video appearing on these pages, I'd suggest you don't click on stories introduced with the word 'video' and leave them to the many thousands of readers who do like to watch some stories and read others.
Cue flames from vocal minority...
The iPod Classic was released in September 2007, so it's less than a year old and well within its guarantee period. Technically, you don't need a receipt, so take your faulty iPod into an Apple Store - there's a list here: http://www.apple.com/uk/retail/ - and book a meeting with the Genius Bar - it's best to book, here: http://www.apple.com/uk/retail/geniusbar/ - to get the player fixed or replaced.
The review unit I had wasn't remotely unreliable, FWIW. I have one of my own now, bought and paid for by myself (Xmas prezzie) so I'll see how that goes.
However, in nearly 20 years of IT journalism, there isn't a single vendor who I've not heard at least one buyer grumble about s**t product, s**t support, s**t customer service, etc, etc.
There will always be duff units, always be staffers who appear unwilling to help you get it replace/fixed. Be patient, and usually you'll get what you want.
FYI, connecting these boys to existing 200Mb/s powerline units is possible, but you will need to upgrade all the older adaptors' firmware to do so. Devolo, for one, has posted updates for its 200Mb/s devices as have other vendors, including Solwise.
I've updated Solwise and Devolo HomePlug AV units, and while the Devolo software just works, the Solwise code took several attempts to update the old adaptors' firmware.
Anyone tried other vendors' firmware update apps?
Doesn't matter if they have, unless you can physically access their adaptors, or they can physically touch yours.
Setting the password requires a button push on the unit that's being added *and* on one of the boxes in the network it's joining. Just plugging in an adaptor and pressing it's button isn't going to reconfigure all the other units on the loop.
Well, since you asked...
The GTS consumes 140W when idling, rising to 210W (standard clock speed) and 220W (overclocked) when running under a full load.
That compares to the tested 8800 GT, which consumed 125W (idle) and 195W (loaded) when it was running at the standard clock speed, and 130W (idle) and 200W (loaded) when overclocked.
What's the verdict, readers - should we be running this kind of data in all future graphics card reviews? Tell us what you think.
HD DVD isn't proprietary. Toshiba may have done much of the work - actually, NEC did a lot too: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2003/11/27/toshiba_blue_laser_tech_chosen/ - but the spec is now maintained independently by the DVD Forum.
Saying HD DVD is proprietary is a bit like saying Linux is too because only one guy wrote the first kernel.
We got an email today from one 'Tom C' telling us that because Reg Hardware has published a piccy of the Venturer showing "an error code", we've clearly got both feet in the Blu-ray camp and are out to "do anything to try and mislead people".
We hadn't spotted the error code, but clearly Tom has a point here - we *must* be Blu-ray Discriminators. Why else would we imply that sophisticated technology sometimes goes wrong?
Mind you, Venturer UK must be secret Blu backers too since they're the ones who... er... gave us the pics to print...
http://www.dvdforum.org/34scmtg-resolution.htm
Point 6 of this says:
Approval of 'HD DVD RPC Ad hoc group to work with appropriate WGs to develop a specification and enforcement plan for RPC on HD DVD-Video including region map and requirements in consultation with the studios'
There's no sign from the DVD Forum that this endeavour has been abandoned.
Region Coding is an established part of the HD DVD specification and has been for some time, so this is likely to become just as much a problem for HD DVD owners as Blu-ray Disc buffs.
Right now, it's unclear whether discs are being stamped as region free or the drives are simply accepting discs from any region - ie. they're not enforcing what's on the disc. If the latter, HD DVD early adopters are potentially going to run into trouble when they upgrade their hardware.
Given this current region freedom could prove a sales advantage over BD, HD DVD backers might choose to maintain this situation, but it's always been the goal of the DVD Forum to enforce HD DVD region coding as soon as possible once HD DVD moves out of the early adopter phase and goes mainstream.
Unless HD DVD is a complete flop, region coding will be imposed on the format, just as it was with DVD and just as it has been with Blu-ray.
The Eee PC's SSD is Flash. The write lifespan issue is overplayed. The drive's likely to last the usable lifetime of the machine.
In any case, it's easy enough with, say, Windows to write temporary files, virtual memory and such to a cheap 4GB SDHC memory card, which is what I've done. That way you (largely) limit writing to the SSD to software installations.
Asus tells me the 3G upgrade's coming by the end of the year and that it'll be offered on its own, as an upgrade technical users can perform themselves.
There's no word on price yet.
Anyone waiting the 8GB model isn't likely to see one before the new year - Asus' Eee PC production is current focused entirely on the 2GB and 4GB models, I'm told.
The other colours - pink, green and blue - will be coming in 2008 too.
Absolutely - and as I say in the piece, I know plenty of people who've upgraded entirely successfully. There's no reason I can see why it *shouldn't* work for me, but it don't.
And I guess the piece is also my nod to all the folk I've metaphorically sneered at in the past who have made similar complaints about OS upgrades while I've sailed on the new version without any trouble at all.
My complacency has come to bite me on the rear end.
The moral of the story: don't get cocky, and take care.
Well, that assumes that's what your neighbour uses, that you know as much, and that there's no meter between your electricity supply and his.
And this'll only work with Solwise kit suitably upgraded, as per the story. Other 200Mb/s HomePlug AV boxes won't change encryption keys if you push the button.
The Golden Disk gets warm during use, but certainly not so hot as to cause concern.
It's not especially noisy either. In an ordinary office environment, with the clack of keys in the background and not much else, I couldn't hear the drive beside my laptop unless it was busily moving the heads around. Even then, it was nothing out of the ordinary.
If you want a truly silent workspace, you might be disappointed. If not, there's nothing to trouble you here.
There's no question, the Squeezbox has the best audio quality of the two boxes - that's one reason why it scored so highly when we reviewed it a few years back - but if quality was the only consideration, I'd stick with my CDs. As it is, bit-rate MP3 is good enough for me.
Then there's a convenience factor as well as the quality factor: the Squeezebox is needs a separate server so it's a two-box solution. Logitech does a Squeezebox with an integrated 2.5in hard drive, they've got themselves a customer. Again.
Slotloading optical drives, as the DVD drive in the L320 is known, can't take optical discs that aren't of the standard 12cm size.
Half-size discs and rectangular, business card-shaped discs will not work - they may go in, but there's no guarantee they'll come out again. And if you can't get the disc out, you won't be able to put any other discs in.
Whoever made your webcam almost certainly offers the software you need in the form of a download, so you should still be able to install your webcam without the mini disc.
You can build a 4TB drive now, but it'd be a chunky boy and probably not fit in the 3.5in form-factor.
The point is, any jump in capacity requires new technology: not only to get more data storage space into that 3.5in-format box, but also to allow the read/write heads to access it. This is just the latest of these jumps, and there'll be more in the future.
Flash is growing fast, but it'll be quite a while before we see reasonably priced 500GB Flash drives, let alone 1TB models.
Where does all this car nonsense come from?
Here's how car warranties - like *every* other warranty for that matter - work:
Something goes wrong during the warranty period. If the fault was due to bad manufacturing, it gets fixed for free. If it was due to wear and tear, you pay for it.
Apply that to an unlocked iPhone. If a firmware update bricks it, Apple will give you a new one, or fix the original product. If you drop your iPhone and the screen breaks, or the handset is stolen, Apple is under no obligation to give you a new phone or fix the old one. It probably will, in the case of breakages, but that's because it's being nice, not because it's obliged to do so.
If you modify a part of your car or introduce a new part that's not to the manufacturer's specification, the garage will simply say that part is not covered by the warranty and will tell you how much extra it's going to cost to fix the car. At that point it's your choice: pay to have it fixed or leave it as is.
With an unlocked iPhone - ie. a device that's not to the manufacturer's specification - the repair shop - Apple itself, in this case - will refuse to do the work, just as a garage might. You're free to take it elsewhere to be fixed, if you can find one. The point is, Apple is under no obligation to do anything about the fault in this instance, and never was.
Folk who've unlocked iPhones know this - or should have done - and live with it. It's the risk they took when they chose to unlock the handset. I did, and I also accept that risk. If my iPhone bricks or breaks, I have no comeback. That's $399 down the pan.
It *is* a bugger for folk who chose not to unlock their iPhones but tried to sneak in a pre-pay deal even though Apple and AT&T don't officially offer one. But the pre-pay deal they uncovered by subterfuge was *not* part of the offered product, and while it's a bummer, they can't really complain. Like an unlocker, they did something beyond the remit of the iPhone's warranty. They should perhaps have read the small print.
Now, I hope Apple cuts them some slack and provides either a software fix or new handsets. Opting for pre-pay isn't the cardinal sin of consumer electronics that hacking your newly bought phone is. Sign up properly this time and get a new iPhone - that's the deal I can see Apple proferring. I wouldn't like it if I'd gone the pre-pay route, but it's a way all sides can come out of it well.
The unlock process, however, directly modifies the software Apple incorporated into the iPhone. It's not like unlocking any other handset, where you just punch in a few 'secret' codes, it's a direct software mod. Again, that takes the device beyond the terms of the warranty and - crucially - what Apple's legally obliged to cover through its warranty.
That's why any class action will fail, though I can see lawyers doing very nicely out of the battle until a judge chucks the case out.
Actually, it's not a no-brainer. The PS3's PS2/PSone emulation is now part of the system software. Sony might well want to leave it out because (a) relatively few consumers actually use it, and (b) it creates a differentiator beyond a mere 20GB of hard drive space with the more expensive console.
Hardcore gamers like the idea of backwards compatibility, but consumers generally don't. Yes, it shouldn't make much if any financial difference if Sony includes PS2 support in the 40GB PS3, but it clearly establishes the more expensive model as 'the one to have' if you're a serious gamer.
Crazy, yes, but understandable.
Whatever firmware updates, there's a distinct possibility some clever folk will work out how to unlock the phone afterward. It was always going to be the case that new firmware updates would re-lock the handset - that's been known since day one. The issue now is Apple's claim that applying an update will 'damage' the iPhone.
Most updates are voluntary - you don't have to apply them. As such, there's no reason why an unlocked iPhone can't stay unlocked - just don't apply Firmware 1.1.1, or whatever.
Or you relock the phone, update then apply the new unlock process once it's been worked out.
The flaw here is the imposition of the firmware update. Can, or would, Apple force users to update their firmware?
It's important not to get paranoid. Are there e-fuses in there? Is there some sort of timebomb in the software with a clock that can only be reset by regular firmware updates? Personally, I doubt it, but you never know.
Bricking is always a risk with third-party modifications. If you can't risk losing your $400, don't apply the unlocking code.
I have to say the iPhone's SMS works exactly the way I - and most of the folk I know; those I asked, anyway. You send message, recipient receives it. Unlike a standard phone - but not, as I noted, the Treo - you get the messages listed by recipient rather than a big pile containing all of them. I don't think it's abyssmal at all.
I *like* having messages appear on the main screen - it saves time. This is a personal preference, not a flaw in the system. Though I'd agree it would be better to be able to adjust this behaviour. Not that I know of phone that does, off the top of my head.
Copy and Paste? Most people use this to get phone numbers etc out of text messages, and it's invariably clunky on many handsets. I don't miss it.
I agree about the iCal categories, however.