Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
This is just a guess, but perhaps because that slight offset between the glass and aluminum sort of creates a "notch" along the edge that helps slightly with grippability.

I suppose. There would still be a bevel there tho. I was thinking about it again the other day and realized it could have to do with the symmetry of the ports and buttons in relation to the sides of the phone. It probably came down to the lowest common denominator, lightening port would be my guess, and they then centered everything according to that dimension which just happened to be slightly thinner than overall. Just another guess... Either way it's so weird.
 
I'm using a 4s right now (my first smartphone), and nothing has been introduced in the 5 or 5s that compels me to upgrade.

If I want to take photos, I use my Leica iiif or Leica M2 and Tri-X.

If I want to scan these photos and process them, I use Photoshop and my Macbook Air (which in terms of processing power and screen real-estate, is the bottom limit, but since I'm switching from scanning to making actual wet prints, I don't feel the need to upgrade).

The 4s screen is clear enough for its purpose; that is, I'm not left saying, "If only it had better contrast ratio or higher resolution."

For whenever I might want a larger screen, I'll go to my laptop, or better yet, my TV---and maybe in the future, my 27-inch computer monitor. Going from 3.5 inches to 4 inches or even 6 inches isn't going to make a difference in terms of watching a movie, for example.

Don't care about making videos; and the camera in the 4s is more than sufficient for snapshots.

If I want to play computer games, the 4s is good enough to keep me entertained on the subway, but for all other applications, I'll use my PlayStation 3 (and actually, I only have one game, a flight simulator thing that would flop on a small screen).

Newer iPhones (6 on up) might actually get larger, which I consider a liability, not bonus. As it stands, I like the size and weight of the 4s.

The 4s is fast enough for what I need, particularly since the main role of my smartphone is, perhaps unbelievably, its ability to serve as a phone. I also use calendar, reminders, and text messaging. I'll also check the weather, certain sports scores, Google, Google maps, and less and less, Facebook. The 4s handles all of this with aplomb. I suspect some earlier iPhone models do so as well.

Granted, 3G is a speed hit, but for any heavy downloading (whatever that might be since I don't download movies or songs; still believe in buying lossless format), I use WiFi.

By the time iOS 10 appears, then maybe I'll upgrade to whatever Apple's US$200 (plus contract) offering is.

Let me make it perfectly clear that I'm expressing my personal preference here, and that I'm NOT making any universal or absolute declarations. Choice is generally good, and if someone believes that there is so much as just one thing on the 5s, such as that fingerprint thing, that justifies its purchase, then fine. For that matter, if someone just likes to collect iPhones or wants to buy 100,000 of them to construct an igloo, that's fine too...it's personal prerogative.

However, while I'm not a power user, I do use computers for more than just email and web search, and in such case, there are ergonomics involved that will always keep me more focused on what a Mac has to offer. Even something simple as a PowerPoint presentation is something I would not want to do on an iPad, let alone a phone. Again, I realize that I'm only speaking for myself here, but I also believe that I'm not exactly alone.

In the future, will the iPhone have enough processing power to serve as a high-end server; maybe. Convergence could occur, using these devices as 'pods' that are placed in a dock attached to larger screens, keyboards, 3D holographic projectors, automaton producing machinery, etc., nothing really new about that potential (PowerBook Duo). Until then, though, if I'm going to get excited about power and video, I'll look to the higher offerings: the desktop/laptop computer.

Agree. 4S = perfection IMO. I am warming up the the larger screen of the newer phones, but miss the ability to easily work the whole phone with one hand. Also, stainless > aluminum
 
It's a wise move for Apple to spend more on iPhone ads. They may need it with the current line to keep sales up, especially as the much anticipated iPhone 6 gets closer to launch time. It's no secret there's nothing extra compelling about the current models. Good phones, but not Apples best work.
 
Maybe at one point with one of the earlier versions, but DOS was never limited to just 640k throughout its entire lifespan. It's been awhile, but I could remember it being able to address at least 16 meg of memory there towards the end.



Registers don't have anything to do with 64-bit, that's all physical processor design. For instance, if you run a 32-bit OS on a current Core i7, the processor itself doesn't suddenly lose access to half its registers. It's still the same CPU as before, only now its executing 32-bit code exclusively instead of a mix of 32 and 64-bit.

As a general word of advice, it's best to actually know what you're talking about before you go and call someone else clueless.
:eek: :eek: :eek:
DOS was 17 bit using three banks of 128K to get up to 640K. When you discount the memory used for this switching scheme it was actually only able to use less than 640K.

I suggest you follow your own advise and read up on this before trying to correct people who need no correction.

Oh, and you're wrong about 64-bit processing too. I won't bother with the details. Anyone interested can easily search and find how wrong you are.
 
Last edited:
I won't bother with the details.

That's convenient. Say I'm wrong, then don't do anything to back up your statement.

As for DOS, I'll say I'm half right, half wrong. DOS was before my day, and the vagaries of it are beyond me. There might've been a point when it could only address 640k of memory. But at some later point, either due to trickery, hackery, or whatnot, it was able to address more. Considerably more. It was never limited to just 640k of memory throughout its lifespan.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.