No you're wrong. For a primarily mouse and keyboard (primarily) gamer like me, the "precise control of a d-pad" is inadequate. Yet the vast majority of people game with a Dpads and are happy. Games for DPads are designed for auto-aim and loose control. Similar will happen with the move to touch screen games. Sure there will be dpad games for the hard core, but the majority will play touchscreen games on the go.
At the end of the day the cheap and fun aspect of mobile games like Angry Birds and PvZ will win people over.
This is a Samsung Epic review, not a comparison with other phones, as far as I can tell.
Err is that why other phones are in the graphs? For a more detailed and IMO better review this page on Anandtechhas wifi only comparison including the iphone 3gs and 4.
It is unlikely that it is much worse than most smallish p&s cameras. The sensor size (1/3.2") is worse, but there are a number of advances over regular point and shoots. http://arstechnica.com/apple/news/2010/06/sizing-up-the-iphone-4-for-shutterbugs.ars
Personally I think the HDR camera mode is really cool.
It could be useful if you could install an app while denying it some of the rights it wants. Of course that could make the app unstable and useless, but at least you had the option to do so and it was your own free choice.
I agree in principle, but I think this would make life suck for developers. Would you really want to deal with the inevitable people saying "I paid for this app and it doesn't work" when the only reason your app doesn't work is because these same people didn't grant it the necessary rights? Supporting software is hard enough as is; we don't need to make it even easier for well-intentioned—but not technically-minded—folks to break things.
Sorry, but this is how it works on iOS. Your app downloads fine. If it tries to use the GPS the phone prompts you for permission. If it tries to message you, the phone prompts you to allow messaging. etc. Works great, maybe google will copy this too.
OS/2: Originally Microsoft developed Windows NT as OS/2 - a microkernel which was OS/2 on the front backward compatible with DOS and Windows, and switched to Windows, only after IBM started to show less and less interest in coding, and more interest in their process.
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_NT)
Wikipedia disagrees and claims it was due to Windows 3.0's runaway success that MS felt bold enough to go on its own. My own recollection is in accordance with that.
Java: Microsoft did not develop
These license "issues" were embrace, extend extinguish by extending Java which was against the licensing agreemmt.
A story is rarely single sided, but it's very hip to hit on MS on Slashdot...
Judging by your 5 rating, it is very hip to defend MS on
I like truecrypt and MSE for windows systems myself but I am not an IT director.
He has not acquired a fortune; the fortune has acquired him. -- Bion