NEWS: iPhone hastens death of CDMA2000, SMS looks even more silly

On Wed, 12 May 2010 20:49:20 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <[email protected]>
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 [email protected]
# http://www.LearnByDestroying.com AE6KS

---

› See More: NEWS: iPhone hastens death of CDMA2000, SMS looks even more silly

In article <[email protected]>, Jeff
Liebermann <[email protected]> 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.

On Thu, 13 May 2010 00:11:27 -0400, nospam <[email protected]>
wrote:

>In article <[email protected]>, Jeff
>Liebermann <[email protected]> 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/s...edPhoneId=5089

Gotta run...


--
# Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D Santa Cruz CA 95060
# 831-336-2558
# http://802.11junk.com [email protected]
# http://www.LearnByDestroying.com AE6KS

nospam wrote on [Thu, 13 May 2010 18:40:14 -0400]:
> In article <[email protected]>, Jeff
> Liebermann <[email protected]> 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.

You can get it on plenty of PCs and motherboards already

>> For reliable and screaming performance, I use
>> eSATA.
>
> esata is useful too, but no bus power.

USB 2 doesn't have enough bus power anyway
nore does 1394a

In article <[email protected]>, Jeff
Liebermann <[email protected]> wrote:

> >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:

at&t offers tethering too, just not for iphone users.

> No doom and disaster anywhere in sight. For a short time in April,
> tethering was free with Palm Pre and some other phones.

there aren't enough palm pre phones to matter

the problem is that iphone users consume a *lot* more bandwidth than
other users (10x as much by some reports) and at&t is terrified with
what will happen if they offer tethering. their network is already
buckling under the stress, why make it worse?

> Wi-Fi sharing:
> <http://www.verizonwireless.com/b2c/mobilebroadband/?page=products_mifi>

mifi is a cool product.

i'm considering a zoom 4506 3g router, with a usb port for a 3g modem.
it's a lot like a cradlepoint, but offers 802.11n, works with a *lot*
more usb modems and is much less expensive. what are your thoughts on
that one?

> >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.

an iphone on t-mobile is easy, but with no 3g. however, even 2g on
t-mobile can be faster than at&t, especially when there is no at&t
service at all.

> >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.

you and a lot of people.

> 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.

no, it's satisfaction with the iphone. you cite a changewave study,
they're the ones that found 99% of iphone users are satisfied or very
satisfied, the highest of any phone. it's going to be *really*
interesting when other carriers get it.

> >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.

originally. that changed not that long ago.

<http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/tech...says-new-3g-ip
hone-app-coming-really-soon-will-have-cdquality-sound.html>

After the news last week that Apple and AT&T are now allowing VoIP
apps to make phone calls over the 3G network, Skype said it's still
waiting to release a new 3G-ready version of its software for the
iPhone.

> However, I suspect that Verizon will be no better. VZW alread limits
> features and functions on their phones:

true, verizon is well known for that, plus brew is so tightly
controlled it makes apple look like a paradise.

In article <[email protected]>, Justin
<[email protected]> 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.
>
> You can get it on plenty of PCs and motherboards already

just not from intel...

> USB 2 doesn't have enough bus power anyway
> nore does 1394a

firewire is rated at 45 watts maximum. most computers don't source that
much though. apple used to do 15 watts (and higher long, long ago) but
lately their laptops and even the imac are 7 watts, compared to 2.5
watts for usb. you can use two, sometimes three bus-powered drives on
firewire.

nospam wrote on [Thu, 13 May 2010 22:07:05 -0400]:
> In article <[email protected]>, Justin
> <[email protected]> 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.
>>
>> You can get it on plenty of PCs and motherboards already
>
> just not from intel...

Nope, but that hasn't stopped 3rd party chips from being integrated on Intel based motherboards.

In article <[email protected]>, Todd Allcock
<[email protected]> wrote:

> > 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.
>
> Or, Apple adds a bunch of esoteric features few users need to justify a
> higher MSRP, like a luxury car that includes leather seats.

such as? and how is it they are selling so well if nobody needs those
extra features?

> > iphone subscribers have a higher average monthly revenue. at&t does
> > *not* want to lose the exclusive.
>
> They had a higher average monthly revenue because it was AT&T's first
> phone that carried a mandatory $30 data plan. Kudos to AT&T and Apple on
> that, BTW- it's now the standard policy for all smartphones on all major
> American carriers. Of course that means iPhone users no longer has a
> higher ARPU- the playing field was leveled when all smartphone users were
> hit with mandatory data.

it's still higher than dumbphone users but yes, android users have a
high arpu too.

In article <[email protected]>, Jeff
Liebermann <[email protected]> wrote:

> >i'm considering a zoom 4506 3g router, with a usb port for a 3g modem.
> >it's a lot like a cradlepoint, but offers 802.11n, works with a *lot*
> >more usb modems and is much less expensive. what are your thoughts on
> >that one?
>
> Sorry, but no experience with the Zoom.

i thought you knew everything about every router. there's an
identical version under the aluratek and netcomm names if that makes a
difference.

> >no, it's satisfaction with the iphone. you cite a changewave study,
> >they're the ones that found 99% of iphone users are satisfied or very
> >satisfied, the highest of any phone.
>
> Well, most people that pay an arm and a leg for something are not
> going to admit that they made the wrong decision or that there are
> problems.

except that they can sell them for more than they paid on ebay,
significantly so in some cases. it's basically a risk-free decision.

> I see the same thing with Apple desktops, where nobody
> complains, but most still buy AppleCare to cover the inevitable
> failures.

what inevitable failures are those?

<https://www.rescuecom.com/2010-annual-computer-reliability-report.html>

Apple finished the year with a higher score than Asus; however it was
Asus who won the spotlight with its impressive 190.7% growth, year
over year. Due to Asusą excellent performance, we have awarded them
with Second place, even with their tied reliability score to IBM /
Lenovo.

> Thanks. I didn't realize that had changed. eBay unloaded 56% of
> Skype to Silver Lake Partners. eBay kept 30% with the rest going to
> the original founders and various smaller investors. Needless to say,
> many things have changed (including possibly adding advertising to the
> software).

that was one of the more idiotic business decisions.

In article <[email protected]>, Dennis
Ferguson <[email protected]> wrote:

> Actually, for price comparison purposes, I think the details of software
> features are a big red herring. If you want to get a software-equivalent
> Mac and PC to compare just factor in the price of buying Windows for
> the Mac and OS X for the PC so that each has both operating systems.
> I don't know what Windows costs, but Apple sells OS X for $29 these days
> (my brother just bought a copy for a Hackintosh he built). I don't
> know of any better way to put a dollar value on software features than
> accepting the manufacturer's pricing as an estimate.

and if you really want to tilt the scales, a 5 user family pack for mac
os x is $49. how much is 5 windows licenses going to cost? heck, that's
still cheaper than a 1 user license of windows.

nospam <[email protected]> wrote in news:140520101453305335%
[email protected]d:

> the problem is that apple has holes in their lineup.
>

....and the rationalizing fanboiz have holes in their heads....(c;]

How many firewire Apple gadgets you got your new Macbook won't connect to
because it has those horrible USB ports everybody ELSE uses?



--
Creationism is to science what storks are to obstetrics.

Larry

nospam wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, Dennis
> Ferguson <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Actually, for price comparison purposes, I think the details of software
>> features are a big red herring. If you want to get a software-equivalent
>> Mac and PC to compare just factor in the price of buying Windows for
>> the Mac and OS X for the PC so that each has both operating systems.
>> I don't know what Windows costs, but Apple sells OS X for $29 these days
>> (my brother just bought a copy for a Hackintosh he built). I don't
>> know of any better way to put a dollar value on software features than
>> accepting the manufacturer's pricing as an estimate.
>
> and if you really want to tilt the scales, a 5 user family pack for mac
> os x is $49. how much is 5 windows licenses going to cost? heck, that's
> still cheaper than a 1 user license of windows.

One PC can be used by one, ten, or one thousand users. The restriction
is ONE AT A TIME. My wife has a login on my PC and we don't pay
anything extra. She doesn't use it much, she has a PC of her own. I
think I have a login on hers but I never needed to use it. I've heard
mention of PCs shared by a whole family.

My local library has half a dozen PCs with Windows for patrons to use.
I haven't inquired about the licensing.

In article <[email protected]>, Richard B.
Gilbert <[email protected]> wrote:

> One PC can be used by one, ten, or one thousand users. The restriction
> is ONE AT A TIME. My wife has a login on my PC and we don't pay
> anything extra. She doesn't use it much, she has a PC of her own. I
> think I have a login on hers but I never needed to use it. I've heard
> mention of PCs shared by a whole family.

multiple machines, not multiple users per single machine.

On 2010-05-14, nospam <[email protected]> wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, Dennis
> Ferguson <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Actually, for price comparison purposes, I think the details of software
>> features are a big red herring. If you want to get a software-equivalent
>> Mac and PC to compare just factor in the price of buying Windows for
>> the Mac and OS X for the PC so that each has both operating systems.
>> I don't know what Windows costs, but Apple sells OS X for $29 these days
>> (my brother just bought a copy for a Hackintosh he built). I don't
>> know of any better way to put a dollar value on software features than
>> accepting the manufacturer's pricing as an estimate.
>
> and if you really want to tilt the scales, a 5 user family pack for mac
> os x is $49. how much is 5 windows licenses going to cost? heck, that's
> still cheaper than a 1 user license of windows.

One person's "tilt the scales" is another's "identically configured",
I guess. If you want to insist that a comparison is only valid
for identical software then buying identical software for both
machines seems like the only way to make it so. I'd be happy
with just a comparison of similar hardware, actually, since I
have PC's which don't run Windows (all of them) and Macs which
don't run OS X (some of them), so I don't have to spend anything
extra to configure them with identical software.

I personally believe Macs currently sell at a premium to PCs
for similar hardware, actually, but I'm also starting to believe
the "residual value" theory that you can get the difference (and
more) back on eBay when you are done with the machine. I have a
project for which I needed to acquire several G5's and while 5 year
old PCs are nearly worthless the prices people expect to get for
5 year old Macs that are no longer supported by current software
are rather amazing. I could buy brand new higher performance
PC hardware at better prices (and with a smaller effect on my
power bill) but I really needed PowerPCs.

Dennis Ferguson

In article <[email protected]>, Dennis
Ferguson <[email protected]> wrote:

> >> Actually, for price comparison purposes, I think the details of software
> >> features are a big red herring. If you want to get a software-equivalent
> >> Mac and PC to compare just factor in the price of buying Windows for
> >> the Mac and OS X for the PC so that each has both operating systems.
> >> I don't know what Windows costs, but Apple sells OS X for $29 these days
> >> (my brother just bought a copy for a Hackintosh he built). I don't
> >> know of any better way to put a dollar value on software features than
> >> accepting the manufacturer's pricing as an estimate.
> >
> > and if you really want to tilt the scales, a 5 user family pack for mac
> > os x is $49. how much is 5 windows licenses going to cost? heck, that's
> > still cheaper than a 1 user license of windows.
>
> One person's "tilt the scales" is another's "identically configured",

my point is that if you consider a family who has five macs (mom, dad
and three kids), your software costs will be $49 for os x or $1424.95
for windows 7 ultimate, based on newegg's price of $284.99 each:

<http://www.newegg.com/product/product.aspx?Item=N82E16832116718>

but since some people believe that home premium is 'good enough', it's
only $899.95, based on newegg's price of $179.99 each:

<http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16832116716>

or maybe mom & dad get ultimate and the kids get home premium, putting
the actual cost in between.

that's for *just* the operating system, independent of any hardware.

however, most people aren't configuring five computers for their
family, so that comparison is deliberately and heavily skewed in favor
of the mac. nevertheless, for those who do have multiple machines, it's
still valid.

> I personally believe Macs currently sell at a premium to PCs

not when configured similarly.

> for similar hardware, actually, but I'm also starting to believe
> the "residual value" theory that you can get the difference (and
> more) back on eBay when you are done with the machine.

there is that too. macs retain their value quite well.