ATT doesn't have HSDPA deployed widely as far as I know.

8/14/2007 10:24:40 AM

Quote :

"The ATT 3G network isn't substantially faster than EDGE at present, at least in the triangle region"

Yes, it is. I don't know or care what the numbers say about it, but it is very very noticeably faster. Lack of 3G is one thing I hate about the iphone, but honestly in at least half the places I go 3G isn't supported anyways so I didn't use that as a reason to not buy.

8/14/2007 10:31:25 AM

What speeds do you get on ATT?

8/14/2007 10:32:43 AM

I'll break out my laptop in a second and check..then download the same when I'm down in SC later today on EDGE and see what speeds I get. I know it's close to DSL speeds though and faster than the DSL at my parents house... I was very very surprised at how fast it actually is

8/14/2007 10:34:14 AM

I get about 250kbps on EDGE...last I read ATT's max on the 3G network in this area was around 450kbps.

8/14/2007 10:35:17 AM

I've never gotten anywhere close to that on edge..

8/14/2007 10:36:07 AM

http://www.engadgetmobile.com/2007/06/28/atandt-customers-seeing-sudden-boost-in-edge-speeds/

8/14/2007 10:48:48 AM

Quote :

"how good do those integrated GPS receivers work inside buildings/cars?"

the integrated one on my Mio GPS unit work beautifully in the car...on my lap or sitting in a cupholder. i would hope any phone integrated GPS would work as well.

8/14/2007 11:05:49 AM

Well, GPS units have stronger receivers and bigger antennas.

8/14/2007 11:07:43 AM

Quote :

"As for my upgrades, keep in mind that none of those were required or increased any functionality."

2gb of ram is pretty much mandatory for being able to do anything in OSX.

8/14/2007 11:14:18 AM

^ Nope. The 1GB standard in the macbooks has served me fine. Many PDF's open while using word, web browsing, IM'ing, and listening to music without noticeable slow-down. Granted the PDF's were not open in Acrobat but in preview instead.

8/14/2007 11:15:54 AM

Quote :

"2gb of ram is pretty much mandatory for being able to do anything in OSX."

Please don't post ever again.

8/14/2007 11:16:50 AM

While I wouldn't get a mac anytime soon because I want a machine that will handle high-demand games, I'd definitely replace my parents email machine with a mac mini or an imac. Moms level of tech knowledge is non-existent, and for someone who just wants a machine that will always open her email, always let her browse the web and write a letter or two, a mac is great.

8/14/2007 12:08:48 PM

^^

8/14/2007 12:46:11 PM

Why you rolling your eyes at me?

I mean did you sit back and re-read what you posted about the OSX memory requirements? Did that make sense EVEN to you?

8/14/2007 1:15:22 PM

Maybe he meant anything high-end. I wouldn't dream of running photoshop extended or any of the final cut studio programs with anything less that 2GB. Of course, I wouldn't dream of running word+excel at the same time in vista without 2 GB of RAM either...

8/14/2007 1:44:00 PM

You people underestimate your machines, then.

I am running Outlook+Word+Excel+Eclipse with about 8 open files in 5 projects+antivirus+remote monitoring software

on a Windows XP virtual machine with 1GB RAM running inside OSX Tiger on my Macbook right now.

On my OSX side, I have 24MB free memory+240MB inactive with about 71 running processes which include Firefox, Adium, Mail, and about 15 widgets.

8/14/2007 1:47:14 PM

I was talking about office 2007. Word sucks up 100+MB of ram at times, same for excel. One of my lab writeups was up to about 300mb of RAM use just by word alone. Not nearly that terrible in office 2003 of course.

8/14/2007 1:49:01 PM

The page outs might seem bad to you, but this is basically more than 5 hours of uptime running the VM with 1 GB allocation.

You DEFINITELY don't need 2GB of RAM to do anything worthwhile in OSX.

8/14/2007 1:53:48 PM

Oh yeah, not for most apps. Just don't underestimate the RAM-hungry nature of anything by Adobe; that is a cross-platform issue though. There are some useful high-end applications that would be painful to run on a Mac (at times) with less than 2GB of RAM. Most of those applications would probably be considered high-end professional tools by most users though.

8/14/2007 2:02:59 PM

Quote :

"barely on topic...but i played with an iphone the other day and was immediately filled with tech-lust. don't think its worth $500-$600 without GPS and 3G, but i still want one "

as much as i hate to say it, i did the same thing yesterday and was equally wowed. and although i never used a treo/blackberry/etc. before, i was dual thumb typing on that sucker as soon as i picked it up. i held it like a fucking gameboy and was able to pound out a couple of paragraphs with only a few errors. very intuitive and snappy interface. but i still can't bring myself to pay $500 for the damn thing

8/14/2007 3:05:46 PM

^^^

8/14/2007 5:01:28 PM

I am only using 243MB right now on OSX with Firefox, Adium, iTunes, iPhoto, and Skitch open.

8/14/2007 7:05:14 PM

This is the most amused I have ever been by an esgargs thread since ... ever.

8/14/2007 8:58:50 PM

Kindly state your reasons.

8/14/2007 9:03:13 PM

my macbook has 1gig of ram and not that I don't want for more but it runs real well and I run mostly the adobe suite and vectorworks (a landscape CAD software app)

8/14/2007 9:24:46 PM

I think I have said it 100 times...ignore Noen MOST of the time.

He's like Campusblender's Twatwaffle/Carolinaboy.

8/14/2007 9:33:55 PM

8/14/2007 11:56:56 PM

You're usually pretty good with facts and data, but esgargs is clowning you in this thread, and the rolly eyes are not winning you any supporters.

8/15/2007 12:02:03 AM

there is a noticeable difference in general OS responsiveness between 1gig and 2gig of memory.

He upgraded to 2gig himself only further reinforcing my point. He obviously doesn't understand memory management in OSX, or why double the memory to 2gb actually makes a substantial difference.

It's not the same as doubling memory in Windows, especially from 1 to 2 gb. OSX is a much more memory and process intensive OS than XP (and likely Vista as well).

I'm not even going to argue about it with gargs. There's only years of people who know this and have posted about it thousands of times across the net. Hell even Mr. Anantech made direction mention of it during his switching days.

So

8/15/2007 12:19:06 AM

that's not what you said though

Quote :

"2gb of ram is pretty much mandatory for being able to do anything in OSX"

8/15/2007 12:38:47 AM

yea, i was being facetious.

8/15/2007 12:42:14 AM

obviously

8/15/2007 12:54:44 AM

I mean, i THOUGHT so, but apparently not so much

8/15/2007 1:04:29 AM

Quote :

"there is a noticeable difference in general OS responsiveness between 1gig and 2gig of memory."

That's the point, fool. THERE ISN'T ANY "NOTICEABLE" DIFFERENCE.

In fact you owned yourself pretty bad when you said anything about OSX memory management. Even when I was using 243MB, not more than 500MB was Active+Inactive. Which means, I was still left with more than 1.3GB of FREE MEMORY. On a 1GB system, that would leave you with more than 300 MB absolutely free. How is the system being more responsive when it isn't even using that memory?

Explain to me, oh genius.

Quote :

"He upgraded to 2gig himself only further reinforcing my point"

No. Your point was that "2gb of RAM is mandatory". My point was that it isn't, and while I was able to use a Windows VM with 1GB of total RAM, I wanted more for the Windows VM. In any case, I didn't buy an additional gig because it was mandatory.

Quote :

"OSX is a much more memory and process intensive OS than XP (and likely Vista as well). "

References?

Please come back again, thank you.

8/15/2007 9:18:39 AM

8/15/2007 9:22:13 AM

You win.

As usual

Of course, when all else fails, you can always come back with something like "X doesn't understand ABC in OSX". Then, there's always that "I was being facetious in a tech talk thread".

8/15/2007 9:23:25 AM

No, the thing is, I refuse to argue with you because you are a fucking retard. You can't even read the memory mangement you posted in your own screenshot, so why I am I going to waste my time?

8/15/2007 9:24:56 AM

Refer to my previous post.

8/15/2007 9:25:22 AM

... anyone? .... anyone?

8/15/2007 9:30:04 AM

I think he's saying that my screenshot above would look impressive if I had more RAM, especially because of the page outs. But, how is that an OSX specific situation?

If I close Parallels, my page outs remain 0 throughout the day.

8/15/2007 9:33:03 AM

the next laptop i buy will most def be a mac

8/15/2007 9:50:16 AM

Hey does anybody know if it's possible to use my at&t data plan on a mac? I'm thinking of selling my two laptops I have now and buying a macbook but it's pretty much necessity that I can use the sim card out of my sony for internet access in whatever I buy to replace it. I would be ok with tethering thru a phone if that's how it has to be done..

edit, ah ha

[Edited on August 15, 2007 at 10:05 AM. Reason : http://www.apple.com/downloads/macosx/internet_utilities/gprsscriptgenerator.html]

8/15/2007 10:04:31 AM

whats funny is that i thought the very small mac community would embrace a newly recruited mac fanatic.

8/15/2007 10:31:49 AM

^^ If it's an ExpressCard, sure.

8/15/2007 11:26:04 AM

Quote :

"2gb of ram is pretty much mandatory for being able to do anything in OSX."

I have no where near 1gb of ram, let alone 2gb and I do everything I need to do on my Mac running OSX

[Edited on August 15, 2007 at 3:40 PM. Reason : .]

8/15/2007 3:40:49 PM

ive used your computer before too, and its painfully slow

8/15/2007 3:58:25 PM

Quote :

"OSX is a much more memory and process intensive OS than XP (and likely Vista as well). "

k

8/15/2007 3:59:04 PM

Quote :

"you're admitting they're form over function? weakness MACS BLOW"

They're form AND function.

8/15/2007 6:52:11 PM

Quote :

"ive used your computer before too, and its painfully slow"

That's because it is a 6 year old laptop. Hell, my parents imac doesn't have 1 gb of ram and it runs everything fast and smooth.

8/16/2007 10:31:27 AM