'4.0'에 해당되는 글 2건

  1. 2010.04.11 EDITOR'S NOTE: Apple Right To Leave Older iPhones Behind by CEOinIRVINE
  2. 2009.02.11 Vmware Fusion 2 vs. Parallels Desktop 4.0 by CEOinIRVINE
EDITOR'S NOTE: Apple Right To Leave Older iPhones Behind 
Editor's Note
Eric Zeman
It was bound to happen eventually. With the impending arrival of iPhone OS 4.0, many iPhone users will be sad to learn that iPhone OS 4.0 may not work for them. Here's why Apple made the right decision.

During Apple's introduction of iPhone OS 4.0, one key fact came that light that is sure to disappoint many iPhone owners: iPhone OS 4.0 will not work with all iPhones.

So far, Apple has been able to update the iPhone OS to support the original iPhone (2007), the iPhone 3G (2008) and the iPhone 3GS (2009). That's something the competition is not doing. Google and its handset/manufacturer partners haven't made Android 2.1 available to every Android handset out there. Many are sadly stuck on Android 1.5. Think of all the BlackBerries released in 2007. Have they all been updated to OS 5.x? No, they haven't.

Now, Apple has to move on. iPhone OS 4.0 will not work at all on the original iPhone. I say this is fine. Why? Because that handset is three years old, and the vast majority of users have already moved on to a more capable model.

The iPhone 3G won't support multitasking, but most other features of iPhone OS 4.0 will work. Apple says the hardware just can't handle it. That's more than fair. iPhone 3G owners are still getting a significant operating system upgrade, even without the multitasking.

There are far more iPhone 3G owners out there than the original iPhone at this point. Those who purchased the iPhone 3G in 2008 have nothing to worry about, however, because new hardware is around the corner. Apple will release a new version of the iPhone this summer, and everyone who bought am iPhone in 2008 will be at the end of their two-year contracts, and can upgrade at a lower cost.

Owners of 2009's iPhone 3GS are good for another year. Their devices will support all of iPhone OS 4.0's features.

Many are bemoaning the fact that older iPhones won't be able to get the full OS upgrade, but there's really no reason for it. Apple made the right call here, and is doing what it needs to do to move the iPhone OS forward.

'IT' 카테고리의 다른 글

OOP Vocabulary  (0) 2010.10.07
iPhone Development (performance-analysis application)  (1) 2010.10.07
The Promise Of E-Commerce  (0) 2010.04.10
iPad app 열전!!!  (0) 2010.04.10
Must-Have iPad Apps For Professionals  (0) 2010.04.09
Posted by CEOinIRVINE
l

VMware Fusion 2 vs. Parallels Desktop 4: Let’s Dance

Written on November 11, 2008 by Darrell Etherington and 60 people have commented

When it comes to OS virtualization on a Mac, there are two major contenders for the title of virtualizer to end all virtualizers.

Likely Parallels and VMware Fusion need no introduction for TAB readers, but you might not be aware of what the latest incarnations that both programs bring to the table. VMware Fusion 2, released in September, and Parallels Desktop 4.0, just released today, have a few new tricks up their sleeves.

Setup

Setting up both machines on my aluminum iMac was incredibly easy. I used Windows XP Media Center Edition from a physical disc for both, although the programs also offer the choice of using an image instead. For both installations I used the default settings. In Parallels 4.0, this consists of a 32 GB hard drive with 512 MB of RAM and 128 MB of video RAM. VMware’s quickstart configurations sets you up with 40 GB of disk space, 512MB of RAM, and although it doesn’t have a video memory slider like Parallels, 3D acceleration is enabled.

Install times were almost exactly the same for Parallels and VMWare, at 24 and 25 minutes respectively. One nice option that Fusion provides, which isn’t available in the Parallels setup, is the ability to import settings from your Boot Camp installation of Windows.

OS X Integration

Yes, it is wrong to run Windows on your beautiful Leopard desktop. Which is why you may be inclined to hide it. You’re in luck, because both Parallels Desktop and VMware Fusion offer the option to run guest OS applications in windowed mode, making it seem like they’re being run in the host system.

VMware’s Unity mode allows Windows applications to behave just like native OS X apps, in windows that can be minimized to and launched from the dock, even without booting the guest OS beforehand.

Parallels’ Coherence mode is similar, though it displays the Windows taskbar at the bottom of the screen, just above the dock.

Both integration modes are functional, and even maintain beveled application windows and shadow effects, but VMware wins out here, for two reasons. First, the taskbar seems out of place and clumsy above the dock with Parallels. Second, dragging and resizing application windows in VMware’s Unity mode is absolutely smooth, while there is some lag in Parallels’ Coherence mode.

Features and User Interface

Both UIs are clean, simple and great improvements over previous incarnations. The layout of the applications in Windowed mode are incredibly similar, as well. Major functions like Suspend, and Settings are in the upper left hand corner, and view mode toggle buttons are in the upper right. The bottom right area in both has a number of icons, which control drives, display drive access indicators, and control sound, sharing, printing, etc.

VMware shows all the devices connected to your Mac via USB, and allows you to click the icons to switch them into Windows. Parallels gains points here by allowing any storage media (USB, external HDs) to be connected to both Windows and Mac operating systems simultaneously. During initial setup, Parallels also prompted me to select which OS I wanted to mount my girlfriend’s Palm Treo in, which is a nice feature, especially for users new to virtualization.

Both programs offer the ability to take Snapshots, which is great if you’re a developer, reviewer, or IT professional, though VMware has a slight advantage here by having a button right in the application window. I also like Fusion’s ability to display the OS X menu bar when you move your cursor to the top of the screen in full mode. Parallels depends on key combinations to return to windowed mode, which offers more immersion, but feels clunky at times. In terms of pure design, I prefer Parallels, since it looks and feels more like a polished Mac application.

Performance

When it comes to general performance, both pieces of software ran Windows at a very usable pace. Applications opened quickly and were instantly responsive, and even running both Fusion and Parallels at once and doing things in OS X didn’t result in any significant slowdown. I should note here that my iMac has a 2.66 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo with 4 GB of RAM installed, so user experience may vary with different setups.

Both programs are boasting improved video performance, so I downloaded QuickTime to test HD playback. Conveniently, the Transporter 3 trailer was a recent addition to Apple’s hi-def content, so I used that in my test.

First, in 720p, video playback was smooth in Fusion, only showing some not very noticeable horizontal lines during fast action sequences. In Fusion, audio was slightly behind video on my first attempt, although video playback itself was mostly smooth, with no horizontal lines. Rewinding to the beginning and starting play again resolved the audio/visual syncing issue, and numerous attempts to recreate the problem failed, so it may have been an isolated event. Also, I was only using 128MB of video RAM, so assigning more may have made a difference. Oddly, Fusion would play only audio, no video, in fullscreen mode in Quicktime, while Parallels had no trouble switching from full to windowed playback.

At 1080p, playback was noticeably more laggy in Fusion, although there were never any syncing issues. Not, overall, very watchable though, and the Quicktime fullscreen bug persisted. Parallels was even more choppy at 1080p than VMWare. In both cases, I would definitely recommend sticking to 720p for HD playback.

Verdict

In the end, both applications are polished, effective ways of bringing Windows into OS X. There are no deal-breaking flaws in either software, and the choice of which to use will likely come down to what you intend to do with your virtual machine. For me, despite the problems mentioned above and features you gain, like simultaneous device mounting, VMWare Fusion wins out, due largely to its much better OS X integration. If I’m using virtualization software, there’s a good chance I want to be able to use Leopard as well, or else I’d just run Boot Camp. Fusion offers the least obtrusive way to bring Windows into your Mac sanctuary, and that’s exactly what I’m looking for.

Both Fusion and Parallels will set you back $79.99.

'IT' 카테고리의 다른 글

Apple director says no change in Jobs' plans  (0) 2009.02.26
Why A $99 iPhone Is Bad For Apple  (0) 2009.02.11
Intel's Chief On His $7 Billion Bet  (0) 2009.02.11
Qwest profit falls 49 pct in 4Q  (0) 2009.02.11
Obama's Stimulus  (0) 2009.02.11
Posted by CEOinIRVINE
l