Android challenges Siri and wipes the floor with it

[Max Paper]

also the inbuilt speaker BLOWS the 3gs away

 

[Bozza]

So you had to f*** around for hours of your life and still ended up with a shit result? Dont feel bad i used siri in the states for us location search and the results were hilarious bad.

Do you mind me asking which part of my post were you replying to?

 

[Safeway]

Yep, I printed the guide out, double sided sticky taped it to the sim, then trimmed it with a scalpel, I reckon a sharp stanley knife would do just as well. Didn't want to risk scissors, but Bozza sounds like he didn't have any problems.

Blimey, I knew phones were high tech these days but I didn't realise you needed a Blue Peter badge as well.

 

[Green Cross Code Man]

Blimey, I knew phones were high tech these days but I didn't realise you needed a Blue Peter badge as well.

*like*

 

[Bold Seagull]

Blimey, I knew phones were high tech these days but I didn't realise you needed a Blue Peter badge as well.

Ha ha. GiffGaff only send out normal size sim cards. If your phone takes a micro-sim card, you need to trim the GG card down yourself. Very DIY, but very cheap!

 

[Aadam]

You're basing your argument on Mac Rumours and other Apple forums!? That would be like looking NSC and deriving facts about the Albion.....

Not really. Those sites talk about the components usedbagainst PCs. The opinions were very much objective, and based on fact (from specs released by apple). Most of the rumous here are subjective and based on nothing more than here say and opinion..

 

[Bold Seagull]

Not really. Those sites talk about the components usedbagainst PCs. The opinions were very much objective, and based on fact (from specs released by apple). Most of the rumous here are subjective and based on nothing more than here say and opinion..

I've been using Macs since 1992, these forums when they started have always been littered with both apple fan-boys, apple apologists, apple haters alike, all with an agenda one way or another. You can go on a MS forum and it will be the same in reverse. The facts are irrelevant a lot of the time when taken in isolation.

I can tell you that a Jaguar X-Type chassis for example is the same as a Ford Mondeo. Now on a Jaguar forum site you may well get people complaining about this fact that Jaguar are downgrading their parts, but the fact is the Mondeo chassis suited what the engineers required for the rest of the car.

Ultimately Mac has always done that. The components they chose, and they've not always been right, are to work with the rest of the computer. The trouble with the PC market is that any old manufacturer can put any old component into the machine, and then people get suckered into oh this has a 6Ghz i7 chip it most be good, but the backside memory, the graphics card are all under spec'd and its pointless have the fast chip in the first place.

I still have my MacBookPro Duo2 from 2007 still using intensive CAD and graphics programmes and it still runs as well as it did 5 years ago. That's the difference. Some of the components may not have been as high spec. as was available in 2007, however as a complete machine, it absolutely pissed on most of it's competitors, most of which are most probably on a ship to China to be stripped for parts.

MacRumour sites very much objective and based on fact. Oh boy....

 

[Aadam]

MacRumour sites very much objective and based on fact. Oh boy....

I mean in terms of looking at the iMac having core-2-duo and a cheaper windows PC having a quad core. Of course people are speculating, I mean in reference to comparing like for like in terms of the components put into the machine. Sure the OS X might not need a quad-core, and a Windows 7 does, but what I'm saying is when comparing like for like components, Apple have used cheaper, slower ones than rival PCs. Or at least used to. That IS objective, you can put the two side by side and compare the parts used to put them together, see that Apple machine was twice as much.

I know they've used the components to go with the rest of the computer, but what I'm saying is if they hadn't have been so stingy in giving me 4GB 1067 RAM and an Intel Core 2 Duo to power my OS I wouldn't be experiencing the slowdown I am now. Rather had they given me the available faster RAM and Processor, with better graphics chip, I wouldn't be looking to replace my iMac already for it being too slow now.

I don't think I'm getting my point across too well. The fact is there were better parts available that were being used in budget PCs. If these better parts were used in my iMac it would still be running a dream. At the moment it's too slow.

 

[Bold Seagull]

I mean in terms of looking at the iMac having core-2-duo and a cheaper windows PC having a quad core. Of course people are speculating, I mean in reference to comparing like for like in terms of the components put into the machine. Sure the OS X might not need a quad-core, and a Windows 7 does, but what I'm saying is when comparing like for like components, Apple have used cheaper, slower ones than rival PCs. Or at least used to. That IS objective, you can put the two side by side and compare the parts used to put them together, see that Apple machine was twice as much.

I know they've used the components to go with the rest of the computer, but what I'm saying is if they hadn't have been so stingy in giving me 4GB 1067 RAM and an Intel Core 2 Duo to power my OS I wouldn't be experiencing the slowdown I am now. Rather had they given me the available faster RAM and Processor, with better graphics chip, I wouldn't be looking to replace my iMac already for it being too slow now.

I don't think I'm getting my point across too well. The fact is there were better parts available that were being used in budget PCs. If these better parts were used in my iMac it would still be running a dream. At the moment it's too slow.

My wife (graphic designer) runs her 2006 iMac 2.17Ghz Core 2 Duo, 4Gb 667mhz RAM (max is supposed to be 3Gb but I stuck 2 modules of 2Gb as it's meant to be fast, and you can get the modules for £25 or so), and it copes fine with Photoshop, InDesign etc. Still running nicely. Do need to regularly run maintenance programmes though to repair those permission, clear caches etc.

The only reason your Mac would start to appear too slow is that you've upgraded or using new software, otherwise there shouldn't be any loss of performance if the OS is kept healthy.

I note from Mac Specs that they were still shipping iMac's with Core 2 Duo's up to 2009. Some of these have max RAM capability of 16GB. If I were you I'd upgrade your RAM, it's not that expensive from Crucial or Kingston and will make a big difference. I've got 6Gb in this MBP but it's only meant to go up to 4GB, however it does perform better.

With regard to cheaper components, Macs are what they are. I'm also not sure what these rival PC's are, Dell? Samsung? Sony? who knows what your actually referring to, but of course I suspect some manufacturer will always have a better spec. available. Apple is one company and has a line of computers it will ship for 12 months or so, so will always be partly out of date on certain product lines. I've never been that hung up on processor speeds, I've owned about 7 Macs over the years now, often buying refurbished and out of date. Computers are only as good as the engineering between components and the software they run, not always just on the components themselves.

 

[Colossal Squid]

Here's another video showing just how impressively Google's new voice assistant works when compared to the slower, less accurate Siri.

[yt]grmixtB9dZM[/yt]

(starts at 3:15)

Really looking forward to getting my hands on a new Nexus tab