I like that last word. Acceptance. Just because it has become accept doesn't mean it's good. How is being single user good? Well, it's not good for everyone for sure. But for me it's my computer. Why did I need all the over head that comes with "multiuser". No registry, no software "installing". Program is in folder. I want to back up a program, I copy the folder. I want to backup the OS. I just copy it.

I think it is ridiculous that you need "Special Software" to back up your OS on Windows. or that is it almost impossible to back up a program in Windows with out reinstalling it. (Sure there are some programs that are an exceptions)
But a lot of that has to do with it installing 1000s of keys in the registry in case multiple people might use the software.

The "OS", not the computer system (hardware) still brings a lot of things to the table. Though it many ways (software) it is behind.

What drives the interest for me (not a daily OS for me or anything anymore) is the simplicity of the OS.

The concept is this. A Single User OS.

The entire OS is not "installed". It's simply in some folders. Commands in the Commands folder, Libraries in the Libraries folder, Drivers in the Drivers, etc.
The entire start up process is a Text file, that you can easily look at and modify.


How is this good?
It's easy to control your OS. Want to back up you OS? Just copy it to a thumb drive. Heck run it from a thumb drive. Run it from a network drive. There is no registry for software. All software is separate from the OS, like "Portable Apps".

Why is this bad? Probably bad for security if it ever did get popular. Harder for companies to use DRM.

JEJ? The voice of "Darth Vader".

Oh yes. Very soothing!

But hey, maybe that works for a library.

Patron:"I swear! I'll pay my late fees by the end of the week!"
Automated Voice:"I hope so for your sake, the Head Librarian is not as forgiving as I am."

Reminds me of Conan the Librarian. :)

Sure there is a point where you can't go to big, but that article only talks possibly that Apple kept 3.5" because of it's usefulness?

One of the great things about 4" or bigger screen is that it's more useful because it's easier to type on. That article doesn't even bother to cover that.

Of course, the other other obvious benefits are browsing and watching videos on a larger screen. Really I don't think the size would even have to change much to get a 4" screen anyway as there is wasted space with plastic on the front of the iPhone.

Still think it is a major flaw to put a dual core CPU into something with a 3" screen. WTF?

For me the problem is the screen. 3.5"? I know there are bunch 1280x720 3D phones headed our way like the Aquas, but even Sony and HTC have 4.7" phones coming. Still what's a standard smart phone size these days 4.3"?

or!!
http://www.antennabooster.net/

Take a hammer a give them a whack.

The platters inside will shatter. It doesn't take much ( you don't have to beat them to death or anything) and you be able to easily hear all the glass/ceramic inside.

This doesn't work with all hard drives. Some platters are aluminum, but it's worth a quick test before you go through the trouble of doing anything else. Use to do this in the shop I worked in. Interestingly all the 2.5" drives I have ever run across have all been glass/ceramic.

The OGO had something similar with it "Clips" that slid in and out. There was all kinds of things you could slide out. There was even a bottle opener, a tiny tiny blue tooth hand set so you didn't have to hold the whole phone to your head, a slide out blue tooth camera, one that was just to add some flashing lights for fun, etc.

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2159119,00.asp

ha ha!

Forget requiring a google account wouldn't these require a "Cell Tower"? How many of those are in Kenya? ;)

Actually, I think Nairobi is fairly modern with over 3 million people.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Nairobi_NIGHT.jpg

Maybe you could explain it? Before there was no limit. ATT gave me a phone that could stream Youtube with an app pre-installed for example to stream video. No limit.

Now, if they throttle the bandwidth part way threw the month I am "limited" in that I can no longer stream video using the Youtube app they gave me. But they told me I could stream as much Youtube as I wanted!

Seems like a restriction or a condition. Hence it goes against the definition of unlimited, no? I realize, there is still no limit on data. But I didn't buy unlimited data, I bought "Unlimited 3G Speed!" and the amazing things they told me I could do on their network if I went with them. They are limiting a bunch of the activities I can possibly do partway through the month. Hench the things they said were unlimited before are no longer unlimited.

Are you serious??

Yes, they are limiting your access. Maybe not limiting the "quantity", but they ARE limiting your ACCESS.

Read again what ATT writes again on their website:

Ok, so if they throttle your speed then you "no longer" have access to stream video or maybe even audio. How can you say that is not limiting ACCESS?

There's some obscure stuff on Spotify that is really easy to find. Remastered stuff that you can't easily find anywhere else, etc. Takes a few seconds on Spotify and may take a long while searching for the torrent if it even exists. Not saying I recommend it for everything, but was responding to the poster that said you can't record.

Plus it may be legal this way.

I guess you mean you can't "save" the stream?

You can certainly record it as is streams in. Just grab Audacity, select Stereo mix, and Record to your hearts content.

How legal is this? I don't know, I mean, it's streaming to my computer so I guess I can save it. It's like recording a TV show on a VCR tape right?

NASA or the Syfy channel?