New version is unlikely to be final before June and the update will probably be $10. But for peace of mind wait until Tuesday.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple to Preview iPhone OS 3.0 on March 17th
- Thread starter CheesePuff
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
New version is unlikely to be final before June and the update will probably be $10. But for peace of mind wait until Tuesday.
Just curious...what are your "Delay until repeat" settings in System Prefs>Keyboard Mouse>Keyboard settings? Is it set to Off or really short? Also, is your "Key repeat rate" set really Fast?
Why would the settings on my desktop computer make a difference on the iPhone?
Whew!
Made it to page 11 last night before bed. And just now finished reading up to page 27!
...can't wait until next Tuesday...that's all I'll add for now, my eyes need a rest.
Made it to page 11 last night before bed. And just now finished reading up to page 27!
...can't wait until next Tuesday...that's all I'll add for now, my eyes need a rest.
Because all iPhone apps are designed for a resolution of 320x480... and a 320x480 app on a higher resolution screen wouldnt work.
They COULD work, Why wouldn't the top bar stretch to fill the width of the screen like it does when you turn the iPhone sideways? Then, why wouldn't the buttons be able to stick to either side of the screen? I think by tiling the graphics, you can have a bigger screen with the same resolution dpi. Back in the days of Mac OS 9 (long before resolution independence) the graphics would fit on different display sizes, it didn't scale up or down, the graphics were made to tile so that windows could be any size and the menu bar could be any width... that doesn't mean they have to be vector graphics.
I really don't understand what you mean.
The top bar could stretch to fill the width. But what about apps? They are DESIGNED for a specific resolution. If you just stretch things out (which will only even look half right some of the time) then all you'll be doing is making things smaller, like this:
Can you imagine trying to use that? That's what it would be like with an iPhone with 150% of the resolution displaying old apps the way you suggest.
For things to be the same size at higher resolutions you need resolution independence.
I really don't understand what you mean.
The top bar could stretch to fill the width. But what about apps? They are DESIGNED for a specific resolution. If you just stretch things out (which will only even look half right some of the time) then all you'll be doing is making things smaller, like this:
Can you imagine trying to use that? That's what it would be like with an iPhone with 150% of the resolution displaying old apps the way you suggest.
You wouldn't make the interface smaller if they made the screen bigger and also match the 160ppi resolution of the iPhone. The interface size would stay the same, it would just be spanned horizontally and vertically. The interface would adapt to whatever size screen it's on. If the app is on an iPhone, it would be 320 pixels wide and if it was on a tablet that's 500px wide, it would stretch to fill that.
So we're not talking an iPhone with higher PPI we're talking about a bigger device?
Well for a bigger device to have the same PPI as the iPhone, and to display things the same size as the iPhone you would need resolution independence.
Hey Genius, not all of us sit there, watching the sync screen while our ipods sync. Also, I usually dont need it to sync as fast as possible. If most people are like me, they do other **** while the iPhone is syncing. And, like me, they would appreciate the convenience of not having to look for the damn cable, plug it into their laptop, then the iphone, then unplug it, just to update a couple songs or transfer some information. USB syncing can, and should definitely be left as an option, or even the default option.
Your LOLOLOLOLOL is rather pathetic and shows how closed-minded your are.
320x480 on a higher resolution screen would work just fine. Every time you multi-touch pinch and zoom in Safari, you're viewing a web site at the "wrong" resolution, and people like that experience far far better than, say, the BlackBerry browsers.
No reason not to do exactly the same with apps.
Really? Well your idea of Wifi syncing shows how short-sighted YOU are.
Like most people, when considering a feature, you consider how it would benefit YOU, and then leave the rest of the details to Apple. Doesn't matter if the very core of your idea has a problem, it creates a solution for you and is therefor a worthwhile feautre, in fact a "missing" feature, one that you feel Apple continues to wrong people with by not including.
The fact remains that WiFI syncing could not be implemented in a way Apple would be satisfied with.
1. It would be SLOW ( the very idea of a new feature with SLOWER syncing is completely backwards. We need FASTER syncing of content)
2. It would be unstable (you can just imagine the people who drag a playlist of 10 gigs of music and video, a nice small amount, and then begin walking around the house with iPhone, watching the screen with no idea of progress, wondering why its not done yet.)
3. Its inconvenient (the only purpose of WiFi sycning vs. simple usb connection is "convenience" of no wires. Well, when speed and stability are both compromised, all convenience has long since been lost).
4. Would require an entirely new app for managing your content from the iPhone. (Tell me, with this new "feature" would you have to sit down at your computer anyway and drag and drop content? And this is MORE convenient than had you done the same the thing, just with a connected iPhone......)
5. WiFi is a restriction not a feature. (So in this hectic lifestyle you have where you'd be searching all over for your iPhone cable, you'd have to assure both devices were simultaneously connected to WiFi BEFORE thinking about your sync. Fine at home. What about not at home? On the road, out to lunch, out working somewhere, etc...by the time you figure this out you could have plugged in the damn phone).
Next you'll tell me we need wireless charging as well.
There will be a new iPhone with everything on it that everyone wants and a lot of features no one has even thought of before.
But, to get all these features, you must buy a new phone.
SMS/MMS have nothing to do with the email system.
SMS/MMS are based on the phone paging system, normally used to find and ring a cellphone. Signals are sent over the inter-carrier control lines. The target phone is found wherever it is in the world because it has registered with a local tower by number. Because it is a paging system, texts are charged by the call connection.
Email is based on IP over the internet. The phone is responsible for initiating a data connection TO an email server. Never the other way around. Otherwise email servers would have no idea what your current IP address is. Because it uses the data connection, email is charged per byte (unless unlimited).
Many carriers do support an email<->SMS gateway, however.
If it's just syncing delta changes, what's the issue? Wifi sync would be very practical and useful in addition to USB.
You appear to think it syncs the whole device every time, which it doesn't.
How do you know it's not already resolution independant? It seems like it is, but I don't theme so I don't know.
Thats the thing, if people see there is wifi syncing but only for small items it unfairly gets labeled "crippled" because people would expect it to be a viable alternative to regular syncing.
In short: Apple won't implement it until it can FULLY replace regular syncing.
Some of the iPhone UI elements already act resolution independent (e.g. some image views and web views). But it's not uniform for all UI elements (e.g. a sight-impaired person can't zoom into any button to see it's label more clearly), and the API for handling alternate and changing resolutions currently isn't straight forward, or even exposed.
It would be good if the keyboard is always displayed in landscape (for thousands of frustrated users)
I hope the update affects ipod touch too... i have one and i would really like some of the new features
Look, i suggest you just go ahead and buy one, because it's only an software update, not a new iPod Touch.
i Think it will affect iPods anyway, take 2.0, it was for both, 2.1 and 2.2 were both for iPods so i guess 3.0 will be for iPod Touch