I should refine my last statement that I do not use the 3.5mm jack during the day while I am at work. However, I DO use the 3.5mm jack quite extensively when I am mowing the grass, going for a walk, or listening to music when falling asleep (and leaving my lightning port connected to a charger overnight). I would like a slightly thicker phone if more battery life could be had - as it is now I can only get by always charging my phone overnight, AND by topping it off while I am at work by leaving it connected to a dock, AND I always have it plugged into my car stereo via USB. Even with all that, sometimes late in the evening I will dip below 20% battery.
The problem with an external adapter, and with lightning connector headphones, is that the DAC has now been moved from inside the phone to the external dongle or headphone.
For audiophiles, this was standard practice (to use an external DAC) even with the 3.5mm jack, because the iPhone's internal DAC was limited to 24-bit/48kHz. But now with cheap dongles and cheap headphones, the built-in DACs could be quite inferior for audio quality, or if decent, raise the cost (rather than one decent DAC in the phone, now every connected headphone/dongle has to provide it's own DAC and draw power from the phone).
I don't like Apple removing the 3.5mm jack, but now that I use Sennheiser's as my primary headphones at work, I no longer use the 3.5mm audio jack and use an external dock to charge my phone and drive my headphones (still have to turn the volume to near max to drive them). I think the market for external DACs with added bonus of phone battery charging capability will be on the rise (see Oppo HA-2 and the like). Incorporating such features into a phone case even better.
Isn't the GPS receiver already doing a better job of that?
There are a lot of features you could not possibly change faster than the time it takes to pull out a cell phone that given that they are buried in a menu somewhere. I'm not suggesting everything be offloaded but I think it's pretty safe to take something like the filename formatting out of the camera menu. You're not going to change that in a hurry. And frankly the argument that every feature of a camera needs to be in a menu just doesn't match reality. NOBODY needs every possible feature of the camera on the little screen. NOBODY is going to change a lot of those settings "quickly while holding the camera with both hands". Some they will. Most they will not.
You are joking right? From hitting the menu button, I can usually find what I want to change and change it in about 2-3 seconds. WiFi to cellphone? First I have to go into the menu to enable WiFi (I don't leave it on due to battery drain). Then you have to download the app onto your smartphone. Then you have to find the camera's WiFi on your phone and connect to it. Once you do that, you can start the app, which will search for the camera. Once it finds it, then you have access to your camera. I have found that this takes about 10-15 seconds, if it was previously setup. For a first time setup, try several minutes, since you'll have to create and enter a password, pair the devices, etc.
If I am going to use my smartphone to take pictures of family (use it as a remote trigger since they are expensive), I make sure to get my camera and phone setup ahead of time so people don't get upset that it's taking too long to take the pictures. But the menu? Mere second or two. The smartphone access is a nice feature, but it is NOT a replacement for on-camera features. I mostly use the WiFi feature for sending photos from camera to phone to online (facebook or photo share), rather than having to use the old school approach of connecting to computer, or even removing SD card and using SD card readers.
I have a EOS 6D and think the menus are just fine. The menus are grouped by function and color coded, and customization options are all at the end on three pages (microfocus adjustment, button assignments, etc.). And if that's too much, there is one user customizable menu page where you can assign any function you want to that page and re-order them as you please. Most settings are done from the buttons on the body (ISO, drive mode, AF points, etc). When I do use the menu, I use my custom menu the most, which includes things such as turning on/off the WiFi and GPS, mirror lock, and create new SD folder.
And talk radio channels are so heavily compressed it is sometimes hard to understand over the road noise.
However, that's in my wife's car. In my car, I do not have SiriusXM capable radio, but I have a USB input into a 3rd party headend. So I use the SiriusXM app on my iPhone and stream over LTE. In the app you can select "Maximum" for streaming audio quality. This setup actually sounds really good, better than any FM radio station (even ones supporting HD Radio). And it doesn't even dent my monthly usage at high quality, since it's still just an audio stream, not video.
The only advantage the satellite signal has is that you can receive it anywhere, whereas my solution only works where I have 4G/LTE service (which drops off quickly once you travel off the Interstate and outside of city limits where I live).
Except that with modern TVs you would almost always want different display settings and profiles for watching movie content vs game content. Having it combined into a single input to the TV makes it impossible to tweak the TV for best picture modes for both. Most TVs have the best picture quality with more complicated calibration settings and PQ algorithms, all of which add enough video lag to be detrimental to playing a video game.
I would have found the second HDMI port to be much more useful as a second output, actually.
So... the camera will be disabled in Airplane mode then?
So will we all be forced to be a new computer every two-three years when the new version of the OS is not compatible with older hardware? That is my biggest complaint against iOS. I have several Apple devices that I would have continued using, except for certain key apps that I want to use that: 1) stop working unless I update to the latest version of the app, 2) the latest version of the app requires upgrading iOS, and 3) the version of iOS required is not supported on that iOS device ==> device now becomes junk (in as little as 3 years).
I have computers that are still functional that are 10 years old, some which cannot run Windows, but perfectly fine still running older versions of Linux, and still get patches. And when its time to upgrade my main computer, I usually upgrade the guts of it (mainboard/CPU/RAM) and keep the rest. Laptops are rather hard to upgrade anymore (soldered RAM, CPUs, inaccessible hard drives), but I wouldn't like the idea of having to re-purchase something like a Carbon X1 every three years because MS doesn't want to support anything older than a few years old or the new version doesn't have drivers for that legacy/unsupported "stuff".
I agree. There was a time when workstation meant a computer used for technical/business stuff, and a PC was a "toy". And during those times workstations were Sun, HP, DEC, etc. I remember using HP-UX machines with "unheard" amounts of RAM (128MB), while a typical PC was still playing games with Expanded vs Extended memory in DOS, typically 4 or 8MB maximum RAM. Linux was not a thing yet. PC's could run Windows 3, but "real" work which needed a Unix workstation meant, Sun, HP, IBM or DEC.
The Sparc/UltraSparc was a very good processor (and so was PA-RISC and the DEC Alpha) and supported 64-bit long before x86 did, but eventually the evolution of the larger x86 PC market grew to where x86 CPUs caught up to, and then outperformed the workstations of old, and made custom RISC processor development costly and irrelevant.
As all the RISC CPUs migrated to IA-64, and then got beat by x86-64, there was also the movement away from the different Unices (HP-UX, Solaris, VMS, etc.) to Linux. It was the combination of x86-64 performance and cost improvements coupled with the explosion of Linux on PC hardware that made the old Workstation model obsolete (SPARC/Solaris, PA-RISC/HP-UX --> x86_64/Linux).
I often include code snippets or shell text in my emails, which I can format as Fixed Space (only one fixed space font, thanks Google), but there is no way I can tell in the web interface of GMail to insert tabs into email text to column align data. (Tab being used to navigate, not enter text).
How hard is to make TAB work like normal tab when inside a text entry box, or just be able to assign some other key sequence to tab (ctl+tab) or something and leave tab for what it was intended to do?
I have heard the old ALT+NUM_KEY pad works to insert a tab character, but that's a hack and useless for me anyway, since I primarily use a tenkeyless keyboard.
If there is a way, someone please enlighten me. Whenever I want to send a technical email, I compose it first in VIM and then I have to use copy/paste in Gmail. How they can't fix this oversight after years of being requested in the forums is beyond me.
Regarding number 3, I have always wondering why, after all these years, Microsoft still has the window close button right next to Maximize, and worse, why Eject is still right next to Format.
Actually, my son has lately been more interested in playing the original Legend of Zelda and Super Mario Bros on my dragged-it-out-of-the-closet-and-it-still-works-after-30-years NES console than his WiiU. I even have the itch to go back and play Metroid all over again.
The late-80s, early-90s was the pinnacle of gaming. Not just a console / hardware issue, or PCs, the games themselves, the studios, they were were just much better then. I very much miss Westwood Studios, Origin and Sierra On-Line. Offline play, especially adventure games, are just dead now. Game development has just gotten so stagnant and repetitive. Most games out there are rehashes/repeats, next sequel in a bad series (EA Sports). Miss the King's Quests, LSL, Wing Commander, Command and Conquer days... (yeah, when "online multiplayer" meant you had a $200 external 28.8 modem - heh).
There are lots of reasons for not doing so. Lack of support for SHA-2 is one of them. Given the myriads of different OSes and platforms I have run filechecks on, MD5 is always available, and usually SHA-1. Only on recent Linux machines do I have sha256sum and sha512sum, but that doesn't do me much good if someone is using an old Solaris machine and only has access to MD5.
Also, I am not transferring files over the public Internet, so MD5/SHA1 is reasonably fine on a private internal only network. I would agree that files obtained over the public Internet should use SHA-256/512, but that doesn't make the older ones completely useless. I find SHA-1 the most useful for file checksums internally where I work, because then my checksums also match all the checksums used by Subversion.
I judge a religion as being good or bad based on whether its adherents become better people as a result of practicing it. - Joe Mullally, computer salesman