I think you are clearly in a minority. My 3G is faster with 3.0, not earth-shattering but clearly noticeable.
Not sure that puts me in a minority. We should do a poll though. The girl at the iPhone store nodded knowingly when I told her that was the big reason I was upgrading.
It hasn't made mine any faster though I wouldn't say it is slower
I notice a generally snappier behaviour (essentially app launches). I have not seen any formal tests of this but there are formal tests comparing the rendering speed in Safari in 2.x and 3.0 on the old 3G and they show a clear improvement.
How do you define having an e-mail open? I can start writing an e-mail on my iPhone, switch to the phone app, start a call, switch back to the e-mail app and continue writing while I still talk to the person at other end of my call.
And how can you simultaneously type into a twitter client (and read in it) and have an e-mail open at the same time on the Pre? You cannot because the screen is not large enough for it. What you can do is to quickly switch between the two apps, which you can also do with the iPhone, just press the home button and open the other app, it will open exactly where you had left off before.
I am not saying anything bad about the iPhone 3G or 3GS. They are both great phones. But they cannot truly multi-task (yet). I believe that with the new ARM processors coming to both Apple and Palm will spur better invention in the smart phone market and make all of us happier with more productive devices.
But to ridiculously say that the iPhone can Multi-Task (apps running the background) is utterly false.
I am not saying anything bad about the iPhone 3G or 3GS. They are both great phones. But they cannot truly multi-task (yet). I believe that with the new ARM processors coming to both Apple and Palm will spur better invention in the smart phone market and make all of us happier with more productive devices.
But to ridiculously say that the iPhone can Multi-Task (apps running the background) is utterly false.
I'm not sure where you're missing the debate here - there's no disagreement over whether the iPhone can multitask - it runs many tasks all the time. The point that people keep repeating that you seem to be ignoring is that the iPhone can only multitask applications that Apple has allowed it to, and no third party ones.
But the important thing is that switching between apps, whether they are truly running when they are out of sight or not, is a pretty similar process on both phones. It's certainly not enough of a difference that it's going to convince many people that they need to switch from their iPhone to Sprint to get the Pre.
It would be nice to have an IM app running in the background, or maybe Pandora, but most people can't think of other apps that they would like to truly have processing in the background. The ability to hit the home button and leave an app, then open another app, then go back to the first app and have it be exactly as you left it is pretty close to the same end result as "true" multitasking.
What seems missing in this debate is the fact that the Pre cannot do data streams and voice at the same time (without local WiFi) due to network limitations. Many articles reveal this and no one has said otherwise.
If you are talking on the phone with someone and decide to go to a movie, with the Multitasking iPhone you can put them on speakerphone, bring up all the movie listings in your area (using either Safari or an App for movies (true Multitasking)) and read off the show times immediately. With the ?Multitasking? Pre, you cannot. You must hang up and call back after browsing on your Pre.
Also, no Visual Voicemail would be a deal breaker for anyone who?s had it for more than a week.
What seems missing in this debate is the fact that the Pre cannot do data streams and voice at the same time (without local WiFi) due to network limitations. Many articles reveal this and no one has said otherwise.
You're kidding me! That was a huge annoyance with the Edge iPhone! Surely this isn't true with the Pre....
I am not saying anything bad about the iPhone 3G or 3GS. They are both great phones. But they cannot truly multi-task (yet). I believe that with the new ARM processors coming to both Apple and Palm will spur better invention in the smart phone market and make all of us happier with more productive devices.
But to ridiculously say that the iPhone can Multi-Task (apps running the background) is utterly false.
The phone app and the iPod app do truly run in the background (the mail and the appstore apps as well but they don't do much except periodically checking for messages). The messages app in a sense as well, except that it just waiting for notifications (as all other apps can do by now).
Now, why would want apps running in the background on the iPhone anyway? To do folding? Certainly not? Four reasons:
1) To receive notifications (e-mail, IM, Twitter, etc.)
2) To play audio
3) To update location information
4) To control plugged in external third-party devices
5) To speed up switching
The point is an iPhone does not run any applications which would do anything useful while being in the background except for the exceptions listed above.
Why do you have multiple applications running on a computer? Because they calculate something, because they regularly check for something, because you like to have two app's windows visible at the same time, because it makes switching faster.
Would I like the switching between applications be faster and easier? Yes. But does a mail application need to be running while it is the background or can it be just in a frozen state?
Would I like to keep more apps in memory? Yes, but the solution for this more RAM. Even on a computer when you have a lot of applications open, when you run out of RAM they get swapped out and switching to them is like restarting them.
What we want is better way to switch between apps and a way to designate apps to stay in memory. You might say that designating apps to stay in memory is the same as keeping them running, and it is close, but it still mandates the app to use zero processing resources when we know that it should use zero processing resources since it does nothing while in the background.
What would be useful would be a kind of Dock that allows us to place 'preferred' applications. Like the current Dock but allowing for much more applications (ie, it should somehow scale like the Dock in Mac OS X does), and allowing instant access to this Dock with a simple gesture.
Fair enough, I found and corrected some other mistakes in my post, but I'll leave it as it is now. It's hard finding good information on this.
My guess is that Pilot succeeded because it didn't try to do too much, and as such, could keep a small size and better price. Palm did what I needed it to do and the models I've owned actually fit in my pockets.
Well, that was about it. The Pilot was small, light, and cheap.
Those were the only reasons why it did well. The product itself as far as capabilities went, was though of as junk, and it was for years. It was very primitive when compared to the Newton, and if Jobs didn't discontinue it, it would no doubt have seen continuing greater sales.
Apple actually sold over 300,000 of these $1,000 devices when the cost in todays (actually 2008) dollars would be $1,360. About half the sales were from the last model.
That's very true. Apple has been shipipng with POS video cards for ages making games on a Mac completely useless (let alone the fact that they lost that battle to MS on the desktop).
I agree with your on lame video cards, but that is also due to Mac's requiring larger ROM's on their cards. Looks like Nvidia and ATI weren't willing to spend another 50 cents to make all their cards potentially Mac/PC compatible.
That said, Apple had never pursued the gaming market until very recently. It was simply never core to their business model.
McNamee did but then Palm?s lawyers issued a retraction. He never said the term ?iPhone killer? but the sentiment was clear. His comments were hyperbolic enough that I wonder if it wasn?t completely staged to help draw more free media attention.
Step 1: Make outlandish statements about how your device is so much better than competitor.
Result 1: Generate free press.
Step 2: Issue retraction stating that what was said is necessary true.
Result 2: Generate free press.
Maybe he was just overzealous but it just seemed like a PT Barnum move.
He did say something along the lines of; "Every iPhone user will immediately go out and buy a Pre." Almost exactly those words.
They reported $3.42B in sales for 7.8M handsets sold. Broadly, that would imply a revenue of less than $450 per handset. That would be on the low side compared to Apple, no?
In any event, RIMM was down nearly 5% yesterday, after its earnings announcement.
Was that sales figure just for phone sales? I don't think so. They charge for their servers as well as for other support services. That's a large part of their sales.
I am not saying anything bad about the iPhone 3G or 3GS. They are both great phones. But they cannot truly multi-task (yet). I believe that with the new ARM processors coming to both Apple and Palm will spur better invention in the smart phone market and make all of us happier with more productive devices.
But to ridiculously say that the iPhone can Multi-Task (apps running the background) is utterly false.
I find these statements about multitasking just bizarre.
You make it sound like multi-tasking is somehow a new and great technical innovation that Apple, unlike its competitors, hasn't mastered yet.
Multitasking was old stuff 20 years ago.
Apple's OS on Mac's and the iPhone are inherently multi-tasking. Turns out that Apple decided to restrict that use on the phone deliberately for the sake of maintaining battery life.
Why would Apple care to do such a thing? Why would AT&T restrict features for the iPhone that it makes available to other models?
While I certainly don't agree with AT&T's decision, my assumption is the high degree of usability. People simply use more of the features of their phone more of the time.
My personal preference would be that Apple un-restrict multi-tasking via preference setting and allow people to make their choice. Similar to the Energy saver features on the Mac's
Over the air updates are more conveninet but it's not necessarily superior. The reason you plug an iPhone in for updates is because the entire OS is replaced instead of simply adding a patch. Replacing the OS would seem a more stable solution than an OTA patch.
What he didn't think of with the "forced" updates Palm is requiring is that if Apple did that, they would be excoriated for it. More control from BIG BROTHER!
At least, we have the choice to refuse an update. Pre owners don't.
The hacking community (not that I approve of it) won't like this at all. Palm can force an end to their activities at a moments notice, and they won't have a choice in the matter, unlike with the iPhone, where you don't need to download a new update until YOU want to.
What's interesting, is that while articles I've read in the media say that Palm and Sprint are handling this well, the customers here are mostly saying otherwise, requiring the insurance with a $100 upfront cost.
Here's from pre/central.net, where those comments have been coming from.
They would be incredibly funny, if they weren't so sadly real:
Comments
I think you are clearly in a minority. My 3G is faster with 3.0, not earth-shattering but clearly noticeable.
I have seen people say different things
It hasn't made mine any faster though I wouldn't say it is slower
My mother has a storm and likes it
I have used it quite a bit from her and find it fine but just not that great. Not really worth the price she paid for it.
Wat it with Verizon wireless? Did it get crystal clear calls and connections? Just curious.
I think you are clearly in a minority. My 3G is faster with 3.0, not earth-shattering but clearly noticeable.
Not sure that puts me in a minority. We should do a poll though. The girl at the iPhone store nodded knowingly when I told her that was the big reason I was upgrading.
I have seen people say different things
It hasn't made mine any faster though I wouldn't say it is slower
I notice a generally snappier behaviour (essentially app launches). I have not seen any formal tests of this but there are formal tests comparing the rendering speed in Safari in 2.x and 3.0 on the old 3G and they show a clear improvement.
http://forums.appleinsider.com/showthread.php?t=99533
How do you define having an e-mail open? I can start writing an e-mail on my iPhone, switch to the phone app, start a call, switch back to the e-mail app and continue writing while I still talk to the person at other end of my call.
And how can you simultaneously type into a twitter client (and read in it) and have an e-mail open at the same time on the Pre? You cannot because the screen is not large enough for it. What you can do is to quickly switch between the two apps, which you can also do with the iPhone, just press the home button and open the other app, it will open exactly where you had left off before.
I am not saying anything bad about the iPhone 3G or 3GS. They are both great phones. But they cannot truly multi-task (yet). I believe that with the new ARM processors coming to both Apple and Palm will spur better invention in the smart phone market and make all of us happier with more productive devices.
But to ridiculously say that the iPhone can Multi-Task (apps running the background) is utterly false.
Wat it with Verizon wireless? Did it get crystal clear calls and connections? Just curious.
You are really just not funny whatsoever
I am not saying anything bad about the iPhone 3G or 3GS. They are both great phones. But they cannot truly multi-task (yet). I believe that with the new ARM processors coming to both Apple and Palm will spur better invention in the smart phone market and make all of us happier with more productive devices.
But to ridiculously say that the iPhone can Multi-Task (apps running the background) is utterly false.
I'm not sure where you're missing the debate here - there's no disagreement over whether the iPhone can multitask - it runs many tasks all the time. The point that people keep repeating that you seem to be ignoring is that the iPhone can only multitask applications that Apple has allowed it to, and no third party ones.
But the important thing is that switching between apps, whether they are truly running when they are out of sight or not, is a pretty similar process on both phones. It's certainly not enough of a difference that it's going to convince many people that they need to switch from their iPhone to Sprint to get the Pre.
It would be nice to have an IM app running in the background, or maybe Pandora, but most people can't think of other apps that they would like to truly have processing in the background. The ability to hit the home button and leave an app, then open another app, then go back to the first app and have it be exactly as you left it is pretty close to the same end result as "true" multitasking.
If you are talking on the phone with someone and decide to go to a movie, with the Multitasking iPhone you can put them on speakerphone, bring up all the movie listings in your area (using either Safari or an App for movies (true Multitasking)) and read off the show times immediately. With the ?Multitasking? Pre, you cannot. You must hang up and call back after browsing on your Pre.
Also, no Visual Voicemail would be a deal breaker for anyone who?s had it for more than a week.
What seems missing in this debate is the fact that the Pre cannot do data streams and voice at the same time (without local WiFi) due to network limitations. Many articles reveal this and no one has said otherwise.
You're kidding me! That was a huge annoyance with the Edge iPhone! Surely this isn't true with the Pre....
I am not saying anything bad about the iPhone 3G or 3GS. They are both great phones. But they cannot truly multi-task (yet). I believe that with the new ARM processors coming to both Apple and Palm will spur better invention in the smart phone market and make all of us happier with more productive devices.
But to ridiculously say that the iPhone can Multi-Task (apps running the background) is utterly false.
The phone app and the iPod app do truly run in the background (the mail and the appstore apps as well but they don't do much except periodically checking for messages). The messages app in a sense as well, except that it just waiting for notifications (as all other apps can do by now).
Now, why would want apps running in the background on the iPhone anyway? To do folding? Certainly not? Four reasons:
1) To receive notifications (e-mail, IM, Twitter, etc.)
2) To play audio
3) To update location information
4) To control plugged in external third-party devices
5) To speed up switching
The point is an iPhone does not run any applications which would do anything useful while being in the background except for the exceptions listed above.
Why do you have multiple applications running on a computer? Because they calculate something, because they regularly check for something, because you like to have two app's windows visible at the same time, because it makes switching faster.
Would I like the switching between applications be faster and easier? Yes. But does a mail application need to be running while it is the background or can it be just in a frozen state?
Would I like to keep more apps in memory? Yes, but the solution for this more RAM. Even on a computer when you have a lot of applications open, when you run out of RAM they get swapped out and switching to them is like restarting them.
What we want is better way to switch between apps and a way to designate apps to stay in memory. You might say that designating apps to stay in memory is the same as keeping them running, and it is close, but it still mandates the app to use zero processing resources when we know that it should use zero processing resources since it does nothing while in the background.
What would be useful would be a kind of Dock that allows us to place 'preferred' applications. Like the current Dock but allowing for much more applications (ie, it should somehow scale like the Dock in Mac OS X does), and allowing instant access to this Dock with a simple gesture.
Fair enough, I found and corrected some other mistakes in my post, but I'll leave it as it is now. It's hard finding good information on this.
My guess is that Pilot succeeded because it didn't try to do too much, and as such, could keep a small size and better price. Palm did what I needed it to do and the models I've owned actually fit in my pockets.
Well, that was about it. The Pilot was small, light, and cheap.
Those were the only reasons why it did well. The product itself as far as capabilities went, was though of as junk, and it was for years. It was very primitive when compared to the Newton, and if Jobs didn't discontinue it, it would no doubt have seen continuing greater sales.
Apple actually sold over 300,000 of these $1,000 devices when the cost in todays (actually 2008) dollars would be $1,360. About half the sales were from the last model.
Considering that, it wasn't exactly a flop.
That's very true. Apple has been shipipng with POS video cards for ages making games on a Mac completely useless (let alone the fact that they lost that battle to MS on the desktop).
I agree with your on lame video cards, but that is also due to Mac's requiring larger ROM's on their cards. Looks like Nvidia and ATI weren't willing to spend another 50 cents to make all their cards potentially Mac/PC compatible.
That said, Apple had never pursued the gaming market until very recently. It was simply never core to their business model.
McNamee did but then Palm?s lawyers issued a retraction. He never said the term ?iPhone killer? but the sentiment was clear. His comments were hyperbolic enough that I wonder if it wasn?t completely staged to help draw more free media attention.
Step 1: Make outlandish statements about how your device is so much better than competitor.
Result 1: Generate free press.
Step 2: Issue retraction stating that what was said is necessary true.
Result 2: Generate free press.
Maybe he was just overzealous but it just seemed like a PT Barnum move.
He did say something along the lines of; "Every iPhone user will immediately go out and buy a Pre." Almost exactly those words.
Uh, no, it does not truly Multi-Task. Can you run a twitter app, have your email app open and make a call at the same time? No.
Uh, yes it does. You have a limited understanding of what multitasking is.
One example is playing music while doing most everything else. There are others if you want to look.
They reported $3.42B in sales for 7.8M handsets sold. Broadly, that would imply a revenue of less than $450 per handset. That would be on the low side compared to Apple, no?
In any event, RIMM was down nearly 5% yesterday, after its earnings announcement.
Was that sales figure just for phone sales? I don't think so. They charge for their servers as well as for other support services. That's a large part of their sales.
I am not saying anything bad about the iPhone 3G or 3GS. They are both great phones. But they cannot truly multi-task (yet). I believe that with the new ARM processors coming to both Apple and Palm will spur better invention in the smart phone market and make all of us happier with more productive devices.
But to ridiculously say that the iPhone can Multi-Task (apps running the background) is utterly false.
I find these statements about multitasking just bizarre.
You make it sound like multi-tasking is somehow a new and great technical innovation that Apple, unlike its competitors, hasn't mastered yet.
Multitasking was old stuff 20 years ago.
Apple's OS on Mac's and the iPhone are inherently multi-tasking. Turns out that Apple decided to restrict that use on the phone deliberately for the sake of maintaining battery life.
Why would Apple care to do such a thing? Why would AT&T restrict features for the iPhone that it makes available to other models?
While I certainly don't agree with AT&T's decision, my assumption is the high degree of usability. People simply use more of the features of their phone more of the time.
My personal preference would be that Apple un-restrict multi-tasking via preference setting and allow people to make their choice. Similar to the Energy saver features on the Mac's
Over the air updates are more conveninet but it's not necessarily superior. The reason you plug an iPhone in for updates is because the entire OS is replaced instead of simply adding a patch. Replacing the OS would seem a more stable solution than an OTA patch.
What he didn't think of with the "forced" updates Palm is requiring is that if Apple did that, they would be excoriated for it. More control from BIG BROTHER!
At least, we have the choice to refuse an update. Pre owners don't.
The hacking community (not that I approve of it) won't like this at all. Palm can force an end to their activities at a moments notice, and they won't have a choice in the matter, unlike with the iPhone, where you don't need to download a new update until YOU want to.
That's probably one more thing Quadra 610 is blind to.
It's not satirical. Those comments are real.
Here's one thread about the cracks:
http://forums.palm.com/palm/board/me...age.uid=207668
What's interesting, is that while articles I've read in the media say that Palm and Sprint are handling this well, the customers here are mostly saying otherwise, requiring the insurance with a $100 upfront cost.
Here's from pre/central.net, where those comments have been coming from.
They would be incredibly funny, if they weren't so sadly real:
http://www.precentral.net/psb-pre-screen-cracks-emerge
Read this stuff, and come back and comment on it.
Answer the poll if you have a sec:
http://forums.appleinsider.com/showthread.php?t=99533
?
sluggist? lol