or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by Euphonious

  What's impressive is that Apple has managed to top the Android devices' performance, using a CPU which has much lower core count and clock speed. That can only bode well for power usage and hence battery life. The mobile game is about efficiency, not just pure performance - otherwise we'd all just have an i7 in our phones and forget about it!
  It's also utter nonsense. 790 hours? That's 33 days - more than a month on standby! Nobody got that long in the days of dumbphones which only had calls and texts to watch for, let alone on a modern smartphone. I seriously think that it's impossible on the S3 even if you don't use the phone at all.   Apple's figure is about 9.5 days. I once got 6 days out of my iPhone when I only used it for about 2 hours during that period. If you didn't use the phone at all and put it...
  And I will feel entirely justified in using it as little as possible, because one of the most useful features of Google Maps - Street View - is quite simply impossible for Apple to replicate in any reasonable timeframe, even if they wanted to.   The only loser here is the consumer.
  ... because the '3G' clearly referred to the 3G capability, not to a version number. (Which you know, but you're being deliberately obtuse.)
Of course it was going to be the iPhone 5.   Why are people arguing it based on generation numbers? You forget that 99% of the public has no idea what gen the phone is, and doesn't really care. For them, going from 4 to 6 would simply seem bizarre. And if there's one thing which sets Apple apart from other manufacturers, it's that it does what suits the customer rather than the tech geek.
  I agree. It's fairly normal for companies as large as Apple and Samsung to develop business relationships with other companies even when certain arms of the two companies are involved in ongoing litigation. If a company as vast and multi-faceted as Apple refused to trade with any businesses it had litigated against, business would become more difficult and expensive.
  What?     Yup. Microsoft definitely borrowed that logo from Boot Camp, introduced in 2006.
  Apologist? I'm just trying to correct false statements. Saying that MS has done 'nothing' in the last 7 years is obviously a false statement.
  Q: How do you know if somebody doesn't have a Facebook account? A: They'll tell you.
I quite like the new logo. More to the point, it was urgently needed - the previous MS logo looked really dated and gave the impression of a 20th-century company.     Well, for a start, Windows 7 has been released - an acclaimed and highly successful operating system whose sales dwarf those of OS X.   Call that 'nothing' if you want to.
New Posts  All Forums: