All in the name
Didn't Apple have a little trouble with Cisco over the name "iPhone"?
115 publicly visible posts • joined 4 Dec 2009
Their grasp on reality must be pretty fragile if they think this is worth 800 quid. It looks like it needs more development and a corresponding drop in price. I do like recorders with a built in optical drive to archive recordings (I have a Sony one myself) but this looks anything but the finished article and that terrible programme guide would be an absolute deal breaker for me.
I can't imagine that the iPod Touch will have many more features similar to the iPhone, if you make the devices too similar they'll just cannibalise each other's sales. I would think though that adding a camera to the Touch would be a big draw, I'd also like to see a 128Gb version but I doubt I'll be replacing my 64Gb this year...
It really does look like a machine in search of a purpose. It looks typically well designed but doesn't scratch an itch you already have. If I want media on the telly I'll use Apple TV. If I want a computer I'll use my Macbook Pro. If I want a portable device I have an iPhone. It doesn't really do anything I don't already have. It isn't revolutionary in the way the iPod was -- the iPod was another step on from a device we already had and wanted. There's no doubt it will do things better than say the DS or PSP but where this device sits in fulfilling an established need is something I can't say. Marketing may create a demand for something, but whether it can sustain is something else altogether.
There doesn't seem to be much to be worth upgrading for. There may be less noise but I'm not sure if that in itself is worth spending another 500 quid barely a year after the G10 came out. It still sounds like it's a poor performer in low light -- the full auto mode on the G10 can be hugely frustrating as by the time it decides focus and exposure is okay the subject has moved. It seems to have much the same chassis design as the G10, a mistake I think as I find it clunky and inelegant to use. Much smaller compacts for far less money are catching up fast and unless the G12 is a significant upgrade I can't see this going on selling for much longer.
Outside the kind of budget the Pentagon has at its disposable, this project can only be an epic fail. I don't even know if this technologically feasible, given the resources Google uses just to index the web, copying the contents for permanent storage would be an even bigger task. Given many UK web sites don't use UK domains or are hosted here, huge amounts of content will be missed. it all just sounds and impossible and impractical task. I bet no one even asks the most basic question: is half the crap on the web even worth hoarding?
I've got one of these and it cost £69.95. It has a lot going for it - my iPod Touch can use the Internet wherever I am and it boosts the speed of my non-3G BlackBerry. It's better than relying on wi-fi hotspots, it's cheaper and much more readily available. I mean you don't get wi-fi on buses yet. Three's 3G coverage is also pretty good, I haven't had any problems yet. It's big plus point is its agnostic, it works with almost any device (through the management software is Windows-only).
At least going back to NT 4/Exchange 5.5 Microsoft have often recommended not scanning certain files with A/V products as they may corrupt them or make the system very slow. I'd say this is more an issue for A/V vendors. Certain files like transaction logs should never be scanned with file-level A/V as it will corrupt them beyond repair if it attempts cleaning/removing malicious software.
I can't see this ever running into terabytes of wasted space. Microsoft have got a point - the single instance ratios have been declining for years; most of the time I rarely see this above 1:12 and and sometimes it's worse than 1:3 which is next to useless. It's becoming fairly clear that SIS isn't as useful as it was; Exchange can handle up to something like 50 databases per server. The computing power required to manage SIS is probably much more resource instensive than just adding extra storage. Besides which, SIS is of very little use to inbound Internet mail which is nearly all unique to users. It's probably a change for the better, overall.
One of the central strengths of DNS is that it's distributed, centralising DNS is just asking for a bigger single point of failure. I can imagine ISPs will start blocking these IP addresses, to simplify support if nothing else (you really wouldn't want to spend an hour trying to solve a name resolution problem only to find it isn't even your DNS being used...)