aswitcher
Jul 13, 07:36 AM
I can see the iMac getting a makeover. The switch to intel was a rush job in my mind, and I think they are working on a modified shell to better cope with components and heat for a faster intel line for the next few years.
fivepoint
Mar 16, 08:16 AM
http://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/09/electricalgeneration.png
Nuclear is the only non-fossil fuel which has proven itself capable of producing sizable amounts of electricity. Wind, solar, etc. are a complete joke as of today. Instead of the OP, I guess the question you really need to answer is, should we make decisions based on sound reality based scientific data, or short-term, panic-mode, irrational reactions to the effects of an extremely rare national emergency which could have been better prepared for (like not putting the plant on the ****** BEACH!)
For those of you advocating the elimination or reduction of nuke power, just realize that the only feasible alternative currently is...
Drill baby, drill!
Nuclear is the only non-fossil fuel which has proven itself capable of producing sizable amounts of electricity. Wind, solar, etc. are a complete joke as of today. Instead of the OP, I guess the question you really need to answer is, should we make decisions based on sound reality based scientific data, or short-term, panic-mode, irrational reactions to the effects of an extremely rare national emergency which could have been better prepared for (like not putting the plant on the ****** BEACH!)
For those of you advocating the elimination or reduction of nuke power, just realize that the only feasible alternative currently is...
Drill baby, drill!
leekohler
Apr 15, 09:13 AM
If they alienate customers who think bullying people into suicidal depression is a good thing, then great.
Yep. I see no reason to worry about people like that.
Yep. I see no reason to worry about people like that.
paulypants
Mar 18, 02:27 PM
Oh! There goes the email from Gorog to the Music Labels!
ddtlm
Oct 10, 03:50 PM
MacCoaster:
(Don't be offended if I repeat myself a few times, I want to make sure everyone gets it. Not trying to say anything about you in particular.)
Anyway, you missed my point. I know very well that the G4 is at a hardware disadvantage. I pretty much said that when you see a G4 being beat by margins greater than 4x or 5x, then you can be pretty sure there is ALSO, note ALSO, a software disadvantage. Hopefully everyone will see what I meant that time. :)
I'm glad to see that many people here agree that the G4 isn't really a faster chip than the x86 competition, but I want to see moderation and understanding of the "benchmarks" that have popped up showing an unbelievably bad situation for the G4.
Remember folks, if the test shows a G4 slower than a P4 per clock cycle then the test probably is handing the software advantage to the P4. Note, for perfect clarity, that I said per clock cycle performance and not overall performance.
(Don't be offended if I repeat myself a few times, I want to make sure everyone gets it. Not trying to say anything about you in particular.)
Anyway, you missed my point. I know very well that the G4 is at a hardware disadvantage. I pretty much said that when you see a G4 being beat by margins greater than 4x or 5x, then you can be pretty sure there is ALSO, note ALSO, a software disadvantage. Hopefully everyone will see what I meant that time. :)
I'm glad to see that many people here agree that the G4 isn't really a faster chip than the x86 competition, but I want to see moderation and understanding of the "benchmarks" that have popped up showing an unbelievably bad situation for the G4.
Remember folks, if the test shows a G4 slower than a P4 per clock cycle then the test probably is handing the software advantage to the P4. Note, for perfect clarity, that I said per clock cycle performance and not overall performance.
gerrycurl
Jul 11, 11:31 PM
i don't see a single pci express 16 x slot on any of the dell poweredge servers, what site are you looking at?
even intel's reference 5000 series motherboards for woodcrest lacks 16x pci express.
will be interesting to see.
just wondering, have you not seen my posts on the dell workstation? that has dual woodcrests, and, be still my heart 16X PCI EXPRESS! :) That's how it has the quadro FX 4500 video card. And you can even get a version that has a riser for a 2nd PCI-Express 16X slot so you can have 2x the Quadro 4500!
Also, According to the articles on the appleinsider site, apple has had INTEL doing the logic board.
even intel's reference 5000 series motherboards for woodcrest lacks 16x pci express.
will be interesting to see.
just wondering, have you not seen my posts on the dell workstation? that has dual woodcrests, and, be still my heart 16X PCI EXPRESS! :) That's how it has the quadro FX 4500 video card. And you can even get a version that has a riser for a 2nd PCI-Express 16X slot so you can have 2x the Quadro 4500!
Also, According to the articles on the appleinsider site, apple has had INTEL doing the logic board.
iGary
Aug 29, 04:28 PM
I know where you're coming from, but surely it's a good thing to try and get the companies we use to improve their environmental policy? If Dell does recycle more than Apple, then maybe Apple should recycle more. If Apple's stuff lasts longer, Dell should make their stuff last longer. And yes, at the same time, we should be putting pressure on companies to reduce food packaging and use less power and fuel. I don't really see it as a competition between companies, more that if one company does something environmentally better than another, the other should try and match it, you know?
My point is that Greenpeace would be far better served educating the public how to help. They get even 10% of the world's population to make some radical changes in their lives and the changes to the planet would be amazing.
I agree corporations need to set examples and do teh best they can. I don't think its where environmentalists should be pointing fingers.
You , me and everyone else are the biggest polluters.
I'm as guilty as teh next guy. Nothing stopping me from peddling a mile up the street to Trader Joe's tonight for my dinner. Except laziness. :D
My point is that Greenpeace would be far better served educating the public how to help. They get even 10% of the world's population to make some radical changes in their lives and the changes to the planet would be amazing.
I agree corporations need to set examples and do teh best they can. I don't think its where environmentalists should be pointing fingers.
You , me and everyone else are the biggest polluters.
I'm as guilty as teh next guy. Nothing stopping me from peddling a mile up the street to Trader Joe's tonight for my dinner. Except laziness. :D
rdowns
Apr 24, 12:13 PM
It's about power and control- nothing more.
And Fear.
and money.
And Fear.
and money.
neko girl
Mar 25, 10:16 AM
PS Marriage is a privilege not a right.
No, it's a right. The United States continues to violate human rights. Not a new phenomenon, your opinion or how this country is.
No, it's a right. The United States continues to violate human rights. Not a new phenomenon, your opinion or how this country is.
mpstrex
Aug 30, 10:32 AM
And for the record, of the 12+ Apples and 3+ iPods I've owned, I've:
1. Donated my 1994 Apple Performa (?), of which I got a lot of mileage out of, to a company that fixed it, removed my data for me, and gave the computer to women who were abused.
2. I've sold all my other Apples to new owners who used them for school, work, etc.
3. I have an old Power Book I sold to my old roommate, whose new roomies dropped it (and his new PC notebook, whoops), and I have it back. I may just sell it to an Apple guru who can repair and use it.
4. My old iPod (Gen 2, 2002) is about to become a special OS X bootable disk; my wife's mini now belongs to her Dad; my other iPod (gen 3 or 4--last black and white one) my wife uses; and I love my iPod video.
No need to throw any of it away, no need to recycle it if others can use it, and I can take the money and buy new Apples or pay some bills, etc.
1. Donated my 1994 Apple Performa (?), of which I got a lot of mileage out of, to a company that fixed it, removed my data for me, and gave the computer to women who were abused.
2. I've sold all my other Apples to new owners who used them for school, work, etc.
3. I have an old Power Book I sold to my old roommate, whose new roomies dropped it (and his new PC notebook, whoops), and I have it back. I may just sell it to an Apple guru who can repair and use it.
4. My old iPod (Gen 2, 2002) is about to become a special OS X bootable disk; my wife's mini now belongs to her Dad; my other iPod (gen 3 or 4--last black and white one) my wife uses; and I love my iPod video.
No need to throw any of it away, no need to recycle it if others can use it, and I can take the money and buy new Apples or pay some bills, etc.
skunk
Mar 14, 07:30 PM
How much power does it take to provide and maintain storage of the waste, and to mine the uranium? What impact does the operation of the plant have on the environment? What is the cost to humans and the environment when these plants fail as they have?I have been arguing that the ramifications of catastrophic failure of these plants, quite apart from any energy and pollution costs in building, keeping them running and decommissioning them, those ramifications alone serve to put nuclear power on a wholly different level. The equation has to be considered in its entirety. Taking the other costs into account makes it quite obvious that its just not worth it.
ObsidianIce
Aug 29, 12:50 PM
not sure this is totally accurate...seems like greenpeace is complaining that they don't know what in apple products....so who's to say it does contain the items that Greenpeace is complaining about? Not to mention Greenpeace...can be more than a little over the top at times...not saying Apple's perfect....but we're only seeing one side of the coin here.
Multimedia
Oct 26, 03:42 PM
They run at a slower clock speed than the dual cores.2.66GHz is not slower.So if you have a very well multi-threaded app or are running lots of apps at the same time, having 8 cores might help. But otherwise you're probably better off having less but higher speed cores.
The difference between 1 and 2 cores is sizable, between 2 and 4 is decent, but as you up the number of cores you get a diminishing return because the software has to be written that much better to take advantage of it effectively. It's not like the old days where in 18 months, your system's speed effectively doubled because the clockrate double making any one process run twice as fast no matter how badly written it was.I am astounded by those who drop in here not understanding this technology at all. Read the thread then get back to us. Do you even understand the term Multi-Threaded Workload?
Oh and welcome to MacRumors. ;) :p :D
The difference between 1 and 2 cores is sizable, between 2 and 4 is decent, but as you up the number of cores you get a diminishing return because the software has to be written that much better to take advantage of it effectively. It's not like the old days where in 18 months, your system's speed effectively doubled because the clockrate double making any one process run twice as fast no matter how badly written it was.I am astounded by those who drop in here not understanding this technology at all. Read the thread then get back to us. Do you even understand the term Multi-Threaded Workload?
Oh and welcome to MacRumors. ;) :p :D
Eraserhead
Mar 27, 05:25 PM
Many liberals seem to love ambiguity. Ambiguity confuses me thoroughly.
But that is how the world really is I'm afraid.
But that is how the world really is I'm afraid.
LagunaSol
Apr 28, 02:13 PM
Software might not need that powerful of a processor, but what about OS? Heck Itunes shutters on my bros 2008 Macbook Pro, which is basic software.
Huh? A 2008 MBP should have no problem running iTunes.
Flash can barely run on his computer also.
Flash for Mac sucks even on the most high-end Macs. Why do you think Mac users tend to dislike Flash? It's not the Mac - it's Adobe.
Huh? A 2008 MBP should have no problem running iTunes.
Flash can barely run on his computer also.
Flash for Mac sucks even on the most high-end Macs. Why do you think Mac users tend to dislike Flash? It's not the Mac - it's Adobe.
iJohnHenry
Apr 22, 09:04 PM
I would suggest that most Apple users are willing to look "outside the box", and not be bound by pre-conceived "notions".
Eidorian
Oct 28, 02:07 PM
Know your workload. Do you use applications that are multi-core aware? Do you want to run them simultaneously? Do you want to run several applications simultaneously - each doing work at the same time? Leopard is bound to be very multi-core friendly since 4 cores will be the norm when it ships.
Since you have hung on to the Dual 2GHz model for far past its hayday, I'm thinking you don't need 8 cores. I had a Dual 2GHz G5 back in '04 and got the 2.5 soon as it went refurb early '05. By early '06 I was in a panic with not enough power to do my Multi-Threaded Workload. I was in a cold sweat when I ordered the Quad G5 in early February.
I found its limit within a few months and have been enthusiastically awaiting these 8-core Dual Clovertown Mac Pros since before the 4-core Mac Pro shipped.
Since that does not describe you, you may be happy with the 4 core Mac Pro. But if you can afford it and you do Video, 3D work, lots of heavy Photoshop processes and/or want to run a bunch of single core processes simultaneously in the course of a day and/or nights, you would be much better off in the long run with the upcoming 8-core. Figure with RAM it will run you around or above $4k. Does that work for you?
Oh, and I'm not selling my Quad G5 either. :)I know your love for the only Quad G5 ever made. (There was a quad 604e clone. Does that count? :D )
I haven't hit my performance wall on my Core Duo 2.0 GHz yet. So I'll be keep this thing for longer then my G5. I have Intel's roadmap memorized so I know when to expect a new purchase. Now to wait for 2 GB of RAM...
Since you have hung on to the Dual 2GHz model for far past its hayday, I'm thinking you don't need 8 cores. I had a Dual 2GHz G5 back in '04 and got the 2.5 soon as it went refurb early '05. By early '06 I was in a panic with not enough power to do my Multi-Threaded Workload. I was in a cold sweat when I ordered the Quad G5 in early February.
I found its limit within a few months and have been enthusiastically awaiting these 8-core Dual Clovertown Mac Pros since before the 4-core Mac Pro shipped.
Since that does not describe you, you may be happy with the 4 core Mac Pro. But if you can afford it and you do Video, 3D work, lots of heavy Photoshop processes and/or want to run a bunch of single core processes simultaneously in the course of a day and/or nights, you would be much better off in the long run with the upcoming 8-core. Figure with RAM it will run you around or above $4k. Does that work for you?
Oh, and I'm not selling my Quad G5 either. :)I know your love for the only Quad G5 ever made. (There was a quad 604e clone. Does that count? :D )
I haven't hit my performance wall on my Core Duo 2.0 GHz yet. So I'll be keep this thing for longer then my G5. I have Intel's roadmap memorized so I know when to expect a new purchase. Now to wait for 2 GB of RAM...
goobot
May 5, 11:50 AM
I blame the iphone. Its a hog and kills atts network. If it was a diff phone this wount be happening. Apple needs to make it work with the network better.
flopticalcube
Apr 15, 01:16 PM
Ok, replace "True" for "Orthodox". Mainstream Protestant, Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Greek Orthodox. Pretty much believe the same things. You can even throw some non-orthodox sects in there like the Mormons and still have a huge intersect on beliefs, especially on morality.
Except for the fastest growing contingent of Christians in the world, the evangelicals. Like I said, you are all finger pointing and being smug in your own belief as to the true interpretation. How laughable. If you are all true Christians, why is there more than one church?
Except for the fastest growing contingent of Christians in the world, the evangelicals. Like I said, you are all finger pointing and being smug in your own belief as to the true interpretation. How laughable. If you are all true Christians, why is there more than one church?
hanpa
Oct 7, 03:48 PM
This is by far far the most ridiculous request I have ever read.
You want them to use a programming language other than Objective-C?
I don't even know where to start. LOL.
Ridiculous? The majority of people with developer/programming skills are more familiar with Windows or Linux than Mac OS. The need of first buying a Mac and then learning how to use it, the SDK and Objective-C will stop too many great developers from giving it a try. I suppose Apple could solve this by allowing Mac OS to run on a virtual machine, e.g. VirtualBox, including the SDK. But they don't.
You want them to use a programming language other than Objective-C?
I don't even know where to start. LOL.
Ridiculous? The majority of people with developer/programming skills are more familiar with Windows or Linux than Mac OS. The need of first buying a Mac and then learning how to use it, the SDK and Objective-C will stop too many great developers from giving it a try. I suppose Apple could solve this by allowing Mac OS to run on a virtual machine, e.g. VirtualBox, including the SDK. But they don't.
fleggy
Mar 18, 10:04 AM
Even if your lawyer is somehow able to pull a Harry's Law and convince a court to rule that way, the end result is guaranteed to be that no US wireless carrier will ever offer an unlimited smartphone data plan again.
Big win.
Firstly - I am no lawyer, and will not pretend to be.
Absolutely agree with this (above). AT&T or any other carrier are not required by law to sell you something. "Management reserve the right to sell".
I am also confused by folks stating that "unlimited means unlimited". How are you going to enforce this? By sighting the same contract you think can be ripped up? You can't pick and choose the paragraphs to suit your viewpoint/case.
The outcome will be simple...AT&T will hold their hands up - they got it wrong, and when contracts end, they will refuse to renew them (goodbye GF plans).
Sure - if you manage to win this class action before your contract ends, then you may get a little unlimited tethering for a while, but even if signing today...2 years? No chance. It will take years. Very short sighted, me thinks.
Big win.
Firstly - I am no lawyer, and will not pretend to be.
Absolutely agree with this (above). AT&T or any other carrier are not required by law to sell you something. "Management reserve the right to sell".
I am also confused by folks stating that "unlimited means unlimited". How are you going to enforce this? By sighting the same contract you think can be ripped up? You can't pick and choose the paragraphs to suit your viewpoint/case.
The outcome will be simple...AT&T will hold their hands up - they got it wrong, and when contracts end, they will refuse to renew them (goodbye GF plans).
Sure - if you manage to win this class action before your contract ends, then you may get a little unlimited tethering for a while, but even if signing today...2 years? No chance. It will take years. Very short sighted, me thinks.
matticus008
Mar 21, 02:45 AM
Where are you seeing a difference between digital copyrights and any other kind of copyright in U.S. law? There is no such difference, and current law and current case law says that purchases of copyrighted works are in fact purchases. They are not licenses.
They are purchases of usage rights, not of ownership of the intellectual property contained therein. Review the cases more carefully. If you don't want to call it a license, fine. But it's not ownership of the song. It's ownership of your limited-use copy of that song.
No, you've got it in reverse. The Supreme Court of the United States specifically said that anything not disallowed is allowed. That was (among other places) the betamax case that I referenced.
You seem to be conflating the DMCA with copyright. The DMCA is not about copyright. It's about breaking digital restrictions. The DMCA did not turn purchases into licenses. Things that were purchases before the DMCA are still purchases today.
Yes, the Supreme Court said that, but in reference to all laws, not just copyright laws. Anything not forbidden by law is permissable. What this does is break other laws, as well as the distribution component of the copyright law. The DMCA is about digital copyright law, whether it has other purposes or not. It governs your rights with regard to copyrighted digital works. Your purchase of the CD did not and still does not give you ownership of the digital content of that CD, only ownership of the physical disc itself.
This is a poor analogy. The real analogy would be that you have purchased the car, but now law requires that you not open the door without permission from the manufacturer.
When you rent a car, the rental agency can at any time require that you return the car and stop using it. The iTunes music store has no right to do this. CD manufacturers have no right to do this.
Not true. If you misuse your copy of any copyrighted work, you can be required to surrender your copy of the work and desist immediately. The law does not require you to do anything special with material you OWN. But you don't own the music. The analogy stands.
Music purchases were purchases before the DMCA and they are purchases after the DMCA. There are more restrictions after the DMCA, but the restrictions are placed on the locks, not on what is behind the locks. The music that you bought is still yours; but you aren't allowed to open the locks.
Exactly right about the restrictions placed on the locks, but exactly wrong about the content behind them. You did not own it before the DMCA, and you do not own it now.
Your analogy with "so that anyone can use it" also misrepresents the DMCA: the better analogy is that you can't even open the locks so that *you* can use it.
No, not at all. The DMCA has issues that need to be addressed, but it does not prohibit your fair use of material.
In the sense that you have described it above, books are digital. Books can be copied with no loss and then the original sold. Books are, according to the Supreme Court, purchases, not licenses. Book manufacturers are not even allowed to place EULAs on their books and pretend that it is a license. There is no different law about music. It's all copyright.
Again, read the court cases more carefully. You have rights to do as you please with the physical book. You do not have rights to the content of the books. You never did, and the Supreme Court has never granted you this permission. With your digital file, there is nothing physical that you own and control, only the intellectual property which is owned SOLELY by the copyright holder. Books are purchases of a physical, bound paper product containing the intellectual property of another individual. The Supreme Court has supported this since the implementation of IP law in the 19th century.
Are you claiming that playing my CDs on my iPod is illegal? The file has been modified in ways that it was not originally intended: they were uncompressed digital audio files meant for playback on a CD player. Now they're compressed digital audio played back on an iPod.
It's not illegal by copyright law to put your unprotected music on an iPod. You are not modifying the intellectual property of the owner. You are taking it from what you own (the physical disc) and putting it on something else you own (the iPod hard disk).
That is completely outside of what the manufacturer intended that I use that CD for. I don't believe that's illegal; the U.S. courts don't believe that it's illegal. Apple certainly doesn't believe that it's illegal. The RIAA would like it to be illegal but isn't arguing that any more. Do you believe that it is illegal?
One more time. The copyright law governs the material, your purchase covers the disc. You can do whatever you want with the disc, but you don't have the same freedom with the data on that disc. No one is stopping you from breaking the CD or selling it or doing whatever you want. You are not allowed to take control of the intellectual property that is not yours (the songs). Show ME a case that demonstrates otherwise from the past 50 years. Older cases are not applicable, and I'm being generous with the 50 year window as well given the wealth of more recent cases, all of which support IP rights and consumer ownership of the media but not the content.
They are purchases of usage rights, not of ownership of the intellectual property contained therein. Review the cases more carefully. If you don't want to call it a license, fine. But it's not ownership of the song. It's ownership of your limited-use copy of that song.
No, you've got it in reverse. The Supreme Court of the United States specifically said that anything not disallowed is allowed. That was (among other places) the betamax case that I referenced.
You seem to be conflating the DMCA with copyright. The DMCA is not about copyright. It's about breaking digital restrictions. The DMCA did not turn purchases into licenses. Things that were purchases before the DMCA are still purchases today.
Yes, the Supreme Court said that, but in reference to all laws, not just copyright laws. Anything not forbidden by law is permissable. What this does is break other laws, as well as the distribution component of the copyright law. The DMCA is about digital copyright law, whether it has other purposes or not. It governs your rights with regard to copyrighted digital works. Your purchase of the CD did not and still does not give you ownership of the digital content of that CD, only ownership of the physical disc itself.
This is a poor analogy. The real analogy would be that you have purchased the car, but now law requires that you not open the door without permission from the manufacturer.
When you rent a car, the rental agency can at any time require that you return the car and stop using it. The iTunes music store has no right to do this. CD manufacturers have no right to do this.
Not true. If you misuse your copy of any copyrighted work, you can be required to surrender your copy of the work and desist immediately. The law does not require you to do anything special with material you OWN. But you don't own the music. The analogy stands.
Music purchases were purchases before the DMCA and they are purchases after the DMCA. There are more restrictions after the DMCA, but the restrictions are placed on the locks, not on what is behind the locks. The music that you bought is still yours; but you aren't allowed to open the locks.
Exactly right about the restrictions placed on the locks, but exactly wrong about the content behind them. You did not own it before the DMCA, and you do not own it now.
Your analogy with "so that anyone can use it" also misrepresents the DMCA: the better analogy is that you can't even open the locks so that *you* can use it.
No, not at all. The DMCA has issues that need to be addressed, but it does not prohibit your fair use of material.
In the sense that you have described it above, books are digital. Books can be copied with no loss and then the original sold. Books are, according to the Supreme Court, purchases, not licenses. Book manufacturers are not even allowed to place EULAs on their books and pretend that it is a license. There is no different law about music. It's all copyright.
Again, read the court cases more carefully. You have rights to do as you please with the physical book. You do not have rights to the content of the books. You never did, and the Supreme Court has never granted you this permission. With your digital file, there is nothing physical that you own and control, only the intellectual property which is owned SOLELY by the copyright holder. Books are purchases of a physical, bound paper product containing the intellectual property of another individual. The Supreme Court has supported this since the implementation of IP law in the 19th century.
Are you claiming that playing my CDs on my iPod is illegal? The file has been modified in ways that it was not originally intended: they were uncompressed digital audio files meant for playback on a CD player. Now they're compressed digital audio played back on an iPod.
It's not illegal by copyright law to put your unprotected music on an iPod. You are not modifying the intellectual property of the owner. You are taking it from what you own (the physical disc) and putting it on something else you own (the iPod hard disk).
That is completely outside of what the manufacturer intended that I use that CD for. I don't believe that's illegal; the U.S. courts don't believe that it's illegal. Apple certainly doesn't believe that it's illegal. The RIAA would like it to be illegal but isn't arguing that any more. Do you believe that it is illegal?
One more time. The copyright law governs the material, your purchase covers the disc. You can do whatever you want with the disc, but you don't have the same freedom with the data on that disc. No one is stopping you from breaking the CD or selling it or doing whatever you want. You are not allowed to take control of the intellectual property that is not yours (the songs). Show ME a case that demonstrates otherwise from the past 50 years. Older cases are not applicable, and I'm being generous with the 50 year window as well given the wealth of more recent cases, all of which support IP rights and consumer ownership of the media but not the content.
ubersoldat
Jun 5, 05:08 PM
Not sure this is a good test...
I'm beginning to see that while ATT is the bigger culprit, the iphone itself may play a role in what happens with dropped calls...
My service (as is well documented in these forums) at home was/is terrible.
I recently purchased the microcell, from ATT, and I can now make calls in my house!! Except, when I move exactly 20 feet away from the microcell into my kitchen, my iPhone struggles with itself to pick up the 2 bar distant tower that was the guilty party in dropping my calls... so now, in my house iPhone juggles between a 5 bar microcell and a 1-2 bar tower (which still drops calls). It also drops every call that I'm on if i leave my house during a call, or arrive at my house during a call.
it's absolutely ridiculous that you have to buy a microcell (at&t should provide you one free of charge) to get 5 bars. the technology is there as here in germany we have 5 bars (2G and 3G) without issues even in buildings with tons of armored concrete...
I'm beginning to see that while ATT is the bigger culprit, the iphone itself may play a role in what happens with dropped calls...
My service (as is well documented in these forums) at home was/is terrible.
I recently purchased the microcell, from ATT, and I can now make calls in my house!! Except, when I move exactly 20 feet away from the microcell into my kitchen, my iPhone struggles with itself to pick up the 2 bar distant tower that was the guilty party in dropping my calls... so now, in my house iPhone juggles between a 5 bar microcell and a 1-2 bar tower (which still drops calls). It also drops every call that I'm on if i leave my house during a call, or arrive at my house during a call.
it's absolutely ridiculous that you have to buy a microcell (at&t should provide you one free of charge) to get 5 bars. the technology is there as here in germany we have 5 bars (2G and 3G) without issues even in buildings with tons of armored concrete...
jonnysods
Apr 9, 02:07 PM
Very exciting. Can't wait to see where this is all headed.
Imagine iPhone 7, 8, 9, they are going to be incredible!
Imagine iPhone 7, 8, 9, they are going to be incredible!