Microsoft never supported PalmOS. Apple did. Apple are now dropping their support for the product of a third party vendor who barely supported their operating system to begin with and has started to abuse their platform. They used to have to write their own drivers for MP3 players to hook into iTunes as well because nobody wanted to support their operating system. Palm have for all of these years been able to write their own conduit for iSync and Palm Desktop but didn't. They barely updated Palm Desktop in the last decade, the last change was to recompile it as universal.

Now Palm are going through the backdoor, being lazy and not writing their own code - instead relying on tricks to use Apple's work with their device. Microsoft never supported PalmOS. Palm barely supported Mac OS X. Apple did the hard yards to make up for Palm and now that Palm have started to subvert their hard work they've decided they're not going to bother.

As someone who is still holding onto his Zire (five years now?) and is about to upgrade to Snow Leopard: this isn't going to impact me because it only changes syncing the Apple calendars and contacts. Sure it would be nice if Apple supported the conduit but I figure it simply: Microsoft never supported ActiveSync for PalmOS, why are people getting concerned when Apple is dropping support for PalmOS since they were the ones writing it themselves not the product vendor? Given Palm's recent bout of laziness in abusing iTunes to support their device, I can't fault Apple for not wanting to support Palm's unsupported proprietary device.

It would be nice if it was all integrated but I'm still going to be able to sync my device using the ancient Palm Desktop tool. There is the Missing Sync which provides support for the Palm under Mac. All that is happening is that Apple isn't shipping some code they wrote probably because it was going to be a pain to port it to 64-bit.

To be quite honest, so far they've gone above and beyond.

And more poetically you will have to upgrade to Vista or Windows 7 because XP can't address all of your RAM either.

This isn't an acknowledgement of Linux, its something to use as ammo to prove that they don't have a monopoly. Don't get the warm fuzzies over Microsoft acknowledging Linux because its just marketing and politics.

Yes, it holds a favourite place for me as well. There is a new one which appears to be even more destructive to the game environment. The first one had the Geo-Mod stuff but it really didn't feature at all beyond a single point where you needed to make a hole around a door - most of the time the game environment was static. Multiplayer was awesome though. But I think what helped it was the combination of weapons that was in it as well as the game play. I was thinking about playing the original just before too!

I had a similar case where the controller decided it wanted to die and started writing spurious data to the disks. RAID won't protect you from the controller itself dying - and that also can occur for software RAID as well, the controller can still bork your data.

Reminds me of the week when we had all sorts of "issues" with our blackberry server. We had a tech who rebuilt our BES system three times in the week only to find out that after the week long blaming of us it was actually a problem on their end. First they claimed it wouldn't work in a whole heap of situations, claimed we didn't build the server right and then claimed that it wouldn't work properly in a virtual machine. This is after we'd had it running smoothly for a few months. Turns out they had a fault network card on one of their authentication servers that you need to talk to otherwise it locks you out of your device which randomly killed our BES servers. Yes, works great for millions. There are other issues with servers dying around the world and taking blackberry devices with them, the last organisation I was with almost always had one device that was being shipped to the manufacturer - perhaps you haven't had enough devices yourself or always received good batches?

A three year old phone with no where near the same features is about half the price of a new iPhone? How is that even a comparison?

Microsoft seems to think that a 32-bit kernel can address up to 64GB of RAM (http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa366778.aspx), not that they'll actually let you do that on anything that isn't supposed to run a server (http://www.geoffchappell.com/viewer.htm?doc=notes/windows/license/memory.htm). Limiting the amount of memory that a system can hold is something that has been around for a while on the part of a manufacturer, it is just that these days memory is getting cheaper and cheaper to the point that we can regularly hit those limits without costing a small fortune.

So by that token does the state own a portion of any profit that the institution generates from their research? If you are arguing the student's code is not their own because they used the resources of the university then his code is the property of the state (or others who fund the university), not the university, as they are the ones providing the resources. And thus if it is the property of the state, it is in fact the property of the public and should be open and out there. Of course no where does it state whose resources he used to produce the code. For myself when I went to university I predominantly used my own resources for assignments and I only used the universities resources when I was required to attend practical classes. More over you miss out that in this case not only is the student paying money to attend (perhaps not the full cost but still an amount none the less) but they are also contributing their time which has a cost as well. Unless you're paying for everything the question of ownership becomes quite complicated. It would be different if the student was a post-grad who was working at the university and paid/supported to work on research by the university but this isn't the case here.

Its a shame he's dead then isn't it.

Andy said at LCA2007 it was a 30% hit, I don't see a 30% performance hit being 'slightly' slower.

Apple ran 9 and 10 together for a period of time as well, plus they released the Carbon API back to OS 9 as well as having it available to 10. They killed a whole heap of API's from 9, kept some that they're only just getting around to killing and then created a new one which they ported back to 9 so that you could get over the gap even easier.

Apple have changed architecture twice in their lifetime AFAIK and have done a great job of maintaining things.

9 to 10 had its own emulation stuff, the "Classic" layer, and the PPC to Intel transition had Rosetta.

The thing people are missing is that Microsoft is admitting that they stuffed up so badly that they're willing to ship copies of XP to the corporates whilst still getting their latest version out and bought. This is about ensuring they don't continue to go backwards because whilst Apple went forward Microsoft went back - and that must scare someone at Redmond.

You mean Nixon doesn't count?

I once had my old iBook drop from a table of that height when the small backpack it was in fell off the table. It survived and lived for another 6 months until I replaced it with a shiny new MacBookPro. It certainly wasn't 'ruggedised' and the cheap backpack that I had it in had no padding with the exception of the back area and the bag landed on its side. I was quite worried about it, and I did replace the hard drive in the laptop however I did get everything off and it did survive.