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

In article <[email protected]>, Justin
<[email protected]> wrote:

> They just require you install them on a Mac, which ALWAYS comes with a
> version of the OS installed.

that doesn't make it an upgrade.

---

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

Todd Allcock wrote on [Fri, 14 May 2010 21:41:48 -0600]:
> At 14 May 2010 14:53:30 -0400 nospam wrote:
>> In article <[email protected]>, Todd Allcock
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> > > > 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?
>> >
>> > Firewire, for example, or integrated webcam- certainly nice to have,
> but
>> > not an absolute necessity for many, and easily added.
>>
>> firewire is hardly esoteric. it's faster and more reliable than usb and
>> can provide enough power for bus-powered hard drives (more than one on
>> the same bus). it's *very* useful.
>
> I had a firewire port on the HP PC I just replaced. I never plugged
> anything into it. At least on the PC side, where the ports are less
> common, fireware peripherals are rare, and less reusable- I can move an
> external USB hard drive between all five PCs in the house, but only the
> HP had firewire (and after its untimely demise, none of my PCs have it now,
> which would have obsoleted any firewire peripherals I might have had.)

I have 1394a/USB2 hard drive combos, easy portability

> USB vs. Firewire, at least on the PC side, is like VHS vs. Beta- Firewire
> might have been "better," but it lost.

Different uses. Much better reliability IME for 1394a hard drive connections

nospam wrote on [Sat, 15 May 2010 18:05:54 -0400]:
> In article <[email protected]>, Justin
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> They just require you install them on a Mac, which ALWAYS comes with a
>> version of the OS installed.
>
> that doesn't make it an upgrade.

Yes, it does.

nospam wrote on [Sat, 15 May 2010 18:02:40 -0400]:
> In article <[email protected]>, Justin
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> $49 in 01, 02, 03, 05, 07 and 09? Oh yeah, $49 is the price of snow leopard,
>> which is basically a service pack. Leopard family pack is how much?
>
> it's not a service pack, it's a complete standalone system.

When compared to the prior OS, is certainly is a service pack.

>> Home premium 3 pack was 124 at costco. Single user upgrade pricing is 79.99
>> Which is what your 49 dollar snow leopard pricing is, upgrade pricing.
>
> it's not upgrade pricing, and you're comparing discounted costco with
> full retail. the os x family pack can also be found discounted too, but
> you aren't going to get windows for less than $10 per user, no matter
> what you do.

It is upgrade pricing, since the ONLY reason to buy it and
legally use it is to upgrade from a prior OS.

In article <[email protected]>, Justin
<[email protected]> wrote:

> >> They just require you install them on a Mac, which ALWAYS comes with a
> >> version of the OS installed.
> >
> > that doesn't make it an upgrade.
>
> Yes, it does.

nope. just because the mac comes with os x does not make a system
purchased later an upgrade. it is a *full install*. period. it can even
be installed on hackintoshes for that matter.

In article <[email protected]>, Justin
<[email protected]> wrote:

> >> $49 in 01, 02, 03, 05, 07 and 09? Oh yeah, $49 is the price of snow
> >> leopard,
> >> which is basically a service pack. Leopard family pack is how much?
> >
> > it's not a service pack, it's a complete standalone system.
>
> When compared to the prior OS, is certainly is a service pack.

nonsense. you have no idea what you're talking about. there is a lot
that's new in snow leopard.

'service packs' for os x are dot releases, and occur every few months,
completely free.

nospam wrote on [Sat, 15 May 2010 18:15:46 -0400]:
> In article <[email protected]>, Justin
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> >> They just require you install them on a Mac, which ALWAYS comes with a
>> >> version of the OS installed.
>> >
>> > that doesn't make it an upgrade.
>>
>> Yes, it does.
>
> nope. just because the mac comes with os x does not make a system
> purchased later an upgrade. it is a *full install*. period. it can even
> be installed on hackintoshes for that matter.

Not legally

In article <[email protected]>, Justin
<[email protected]> wrote:

> >> >> They just require you install them on a Mac, which ALWAYS comes with a
> >> >> version of the OS installed.
> >> >
> >> > that doesn't make it an upgrade.
> >>
> >> Yes, it does.
> >
> > nope. just because the mac comes with os x does not make a system
> > purchased later an upgrade. it is a *full install*. period. it can even
> > be installed on hackintoshes for that matter.
>
> Not legally

nope, but it clearly proves that os x is *not* an upgrade of any kind.

nospam wrote on [Sat, 15 May 2010 18:18:34 -0400]:
> In article <[email protected]>, Justin
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> >> $49 in 01, 02, 03, 05, 07 and 09? Oh yeah, $49 is the price of snow
>> >> leopard,
>> >> which is basically a service pack. Leopard family pack is how much?
>> >
>> > it's not a service pack, it's a complete standalone system.
>>
>> When compared to the prior OS, is certainly is a service pack.
>
> nonsense. you have no idea what you're talking about. there is a lot
> that's new in snow leopard.

Yep, lots of service pack like bug fixes. Wooo

nospam wrote on [Sat, 15 May 2010 18:32:36 -0400]:
> In article <[email protected]>, Justin
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> >> >> They just require you install them on a Mac, which ALWAYS comes with a
>> >> >> version of the OS installed.
>> >> >
>> >> > that doesn't make it an upgrade.
>> >>
>> >> Yes, it does.
>> >
>> > nope. just because the mac comes with os x does not make a system
>> > purchased later an upgrade. it is a *full install*. period. it can even
>> > be installed on hackintoshes for that matter.
>>
>> Not legally
>
> nope, but it clearly proves that os x is *not* an upgrade of any kind.

You can EASILY install an upgrade version of Windows on a machine that has never had
an OS on it. So by that logic Windows Upgrades aren't upgrades either.

In article <[email protected]>, Justin
<[email protected]> wrote:

> >> When compared to the prior OS, is certainly is a service pack.
> >
> > nonsense. you have no idea what you're talking about. there is a lot
> > that's new in snow leopard.
>
> Yep, lots of service pack like bug fixes. Wooo

*much* more than that.

In article <[email protected]>, Justin
<[email protected]> wrote:

> You can EASILY install an upgrade version of Windows on a machine that has
> never had
> an OS on it. So by that logic Windows Upgrades aren't upgrades either.

not without circumventing the check.

On Sat, 15 May 2010 15:52:00 -0400, nospam <[email protected]>
wrote:

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

>> while Apple stopped paying dividends in 1995 and is now sitting on $23
>> billion in cash, with zero debt.
>
>over $40 billion, currently.

Sorry. Yahoo Finance said 23.16 billion:
<http://finance.yahoo.com/q/ks?s=AAPL+Key+Statistics>
but that was from 2009. Currently $40 and climbing:
<http://www.businessweek.com/technology/ByteOfTheApple/blog/archives/2010/01/almost_40_billion_in_cash_what_is_apple_waiting_for.html>

My guess(tm) is they're shopping for a company or three to buy.
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mergers_and_acquisitions_by_Apple>

>> I think I can easily guess who got
>> the better part of the iPhone deal. My guess is that Verizon isn't
>> going to jump in with both feet, like AT&T did.
>
>verizon has said they want it.

Sure, they want it, but they don't want all the strings and conditions
that Apple has attached to the AT&T iPhone. Pre-announcements are
cheap publicity. When the iPhone was initially released with the AT&T
exclusive, VZW announced that they didn't want it because of the
strings attached, and were initially treated by the press as being
anti-consumer. They changed their tune immediately for damage
control, but none of the subsequent posturing did much good. If AT&T
hadn't been given an exclusive, leaving VZW hanging, then the Droid
would never have been needed or gotten off the ground.

>personally, i expect a non-att iphone this year, next year at the very
>latest.

Nope. The AT&T contract with AT&T ends in about 2 years during which
time Apple has to pretend that AT&T is their exclusive iPhone
retailer.
<http://www.engadget.com/2010/05/10/confirmed-apple-and-atandt-signed-five-year-iphone-exclusivity-de/>
Meanwhile, Verizon has announced that if there will be an VZW iPhone,
it will probably be in late 2012 which kinda fits with the 5 year
exclusive.

Yet another conspiracy theory... Apple could deliver something that
looks like an iPhone, but is sufficiently different that it would not
appear that Apple is actually selling an iPhone to Verizon. For
example, a two piece phone/PDA combination, where VZW provides the
cellular layer, and Apple provides the PDA. Some kind of a sandwitch
or book type derrangement. Whether Apple wants to risk relations with
it's biggest and most successful customer is probably doubtful.
They'll probably wait until the AT&T contract nearly ends before
releasing something new. Chances are also good that if Apple does
release something new in 2012, Verizon and AT&T will probably both
have versions but not with exclusives. I also wouldn't be surprised
if there's some kind of hidden clause the requires iPhone vendors to
drop their Droid powered models.

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

John Navas wrote:
> On Wed, 12 May 2010 20:51:58 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <[email protected]>
> wrote in <[email protected]>:
>
>> 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.
>
> I'm a big fan of incremental backups -- much more efficient for regular
> use. Image backups are better suited to deployments IMHO.
>

Incremental backups are fine when used intelligently. That means
something like daily incremental backups and a weekly image backup. You
might stretch it to an image backup every two weeks.

On 2010-05-15, nospam <[email protected]> wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, Justin
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> >> >> They just require you install them on a Mac, which ALWAYS comes with a
>> >> >> version of the OS installed.
>> >> >
>> >> > that doesn't make it an upgrade.
>> >>
>> >> Yes, it does.
>> >
>> > nope. just because the mac comes with os x does not make a system
>> > purchased later an upgrade. it is a *full install*. period. it can even
>> > be installed on hackintoshes for that matter.
>>
>> Not legally
>
> nope, but it clearly proves that os x is *not* an upgrade of any kind.

That would make the Apple store a liar (now that I look) since it
says this

Snow Leopard is an upgrade for Leopard users and requires a Mac
with an Intel processor.

and this

Mac OS X v10.5 Leopard users, buy the upgrade. Mac OS X v10.4
Tiger users, buy the Mac Box Set.

and this (after telling you how to find out what version of the
operating system you are running now)

Find out which upgrade is right for you.

* Mac OS X v10.5 (Leopard): Upgrade your Mac by purchasing
Mac OS X Snow Leopard for $29

* Mac OS X v10.4 (Tiger): Upgrade by purchasing the Mac Box Set,
which includes Snow Leopard, iLife ’09, and iWork ’09, for
just $169.

Apparently you are only supposed to buy the $29 upgrade if you are
already running 10.5. If you only purchased 10.4 previously (the
10.4->10.5 upgrade, like all others before that, was $129, $199
for the family pack) you are supposed to buy something more expensive.

Of course there is no technical enforcement of this, just as there
is no technical enforcement to keep you from installing the single
machine version on multiple machines, or on a Hackintosh. This is
something I really like about Apple since it makes their
installs/upgrades/whatever-it-is-you-are-doing much more reliable.

On the other hand if the standard for determining this is what is
technically possible to do, rather than what the seller says you
should and shouldn't do, then (to relate this to a topic we've
discussed before) all of AT&T's data plans are also tethering
plans since AT&T makes no particular effort to prevent you from
doing so. The fact that I've done so on 4 different plans,
including the iPhone data plan, clearly proves that. I guess that
would make the iPhone's inability to tether on AT&T a problem with
the iPhone, rather than AT&T.

Dennis Ferguson