First time I saw this ad this weekend, I literally said out loud "Dammmmmmnnn, that's cold!!!" It's probable one of the most effective cell phone ads I've seen in a long time. It uses a scene that EVERYONE has seen sometime in the last 40 years and gives the iPhone backhanded compliments along the way before sticking a dagger in its back. Nice work, Verizon.

One thing I've not heard speculated a lot is that although Verizon is considered the better network, would it really be that much better if they had 20 million iPhones on their network? Would their NYC and San Francisco coverage be that much better that what AT&T is doing now? AT&T clearly started with the iPhone with a big disadvantage in their network coverage and they've spent billions upgrading. But you're not going to upgrade all of your rural cell towers overnight. Phones on Verizon's network clearly don't use the data network like the iPhone, even with all the Blackberries. Droid might change that but they are going to have to sell a lot of Androids for us to find out.

I would agree that OS X Server is great for the home user. I've been using it in my home office situation for over a year now. The problem about using OS X Client in any form as a server is dealing with simple administration things like setting up your file server mount points and other necessary bits. Oh sure, you can do it with OS X Client but there is no interface out of the box to really help you. OS X Server can do all of this nicely within an interface that's not bad to understand. With my connected Drobo for storage and other firewire drives, I've set up mounts points for my remote iTunes library, Installers for my software, Time Machine backups for our client Macs, pyTivo stores for shows transferred from either of our Tivo Series 3s, Bittorrent storage using Transmission running on the server, etc. You can setup file quotas for different mount points, and if you have children, administer the parental access regime from one central secure place.

The server sits in my basement and can be administered from any Mac in the house using Apple Server Admin. Screen sharing is easy if I need to go that route. It provides DNS internal to my network that wasn't hard to setup at all. My problem right now is that I got Leopard Server up and running on an old PowerMac so my energy usage is terrible and i can't upgrade to Snow Leopard which gets the administration angle even easier. The Powermac is also pretty slow for modern services if you want to do anything other than simple file service. I've looked at getting a Mac Mini in this role for some time and Apple just made it easier for a lot of people. I'm old enough to remember when people use to buy Mac SE/30s and stick them in closets for server duty (Appleshare). The Mac Mini Server might not have all the server bits I'd like to see (two Ethernet ports would make iSCSI work much better) but otherwise it will handle most things in a SOHO environment.

The biggest win is not only allowing two hard drives with no optical that isn't a hack, but that they are all but giving away Snow Leopard Server as part of the deal. That's freakin' huge. It used to be that Leopard Server costs $500 bucks just for a 10 user pack (enough for a home not maybe not for some company workgroups). Snow Leopard Server is just $500 unlimited and if you buy this server, you pretty much are getting it almost free. Previously, the cheapest way to get Snow Leopard Server was bundled with a Mac Pro server on university discount (about $250). A Mac Pro server (like an XServe) is overkill for many applications, especially in the home office.

The only other slight disappointment is that it was too early in the product cycle to get USB 3.0 a part of any of these new machines. To Apple's defense, having a couple of peripheral companies introduce external hard drives on USB 3.0 is not a real launch of the technology. No PC manufacturer has USB 3.0 right now. Maybe if we're lucky we'll see it in a spring refresh.

Do I hear a second for resurrections of the Wildcat and Electra nameplates? Anyone? Anyone at all?

I really need this. Contest folks, are you listening? :)

When I was working for Apple 20 years ago, I had one of the original non-backlit versions. The portable was maligned for being too heavy but if you look at it, the Portable was the final act of original portable designs that dated back to the Osborne 1. But the Portable was also class leading in a few respects and was in many ways the missing link between older designs and true laptops. First was that not only did it have a battery but the battery lasted most of the workday (OK, it was a large, heavy lead-acid cell, but you could replace it!). It literally took 20 years for Apple to make another product with that kind of battery life. The active-matrix screen was new for any "laptop" as passive twist screens were more cost effective. Apple wouldn't revisit the technology until the Powerbook 180 and today we take the technology for granted. It had the option of a hard drive, which was a big deal since many desktop computers of the day were only then getting them. It had a trackball which meant you could do the Apple interface without having to carry a separate mouse. Like all Macs of the day, it had built in wired networking (Appletalk). And it was pretty rugged. At Apple, somebody accidentally ran over one with their Jeep. The case was cracked but the unit survived.

The Portable was designed to fill a small niche of buyers and to solve the problem of people hauling SEs, Classics and SE/30s in travel bags. But the high price, heavy chunky design and non-back lit screen kept it from being a winner in the marketplace. When the first true laptops, the Powerbook 100 and 140s would appear in October 1991, many of the innovations of the Portable found their way into those products, and the Portable was forgotten.

Reading some of the comments here make me wonder if many of you even own the previous SRX or any of the vehicles in the class. I do own an SRX (2005) and I have been overall happy with the vehicle because of many of the things that made it stand out in a crowded class.

The outgoing model didn't sell all that well but it frequently either bested or nearly bested everything in comparion tests for years. The main reason why is that Caddy based it on the same Sigma platform that the old CTS and STS were based on. So if there was badge-engineering with that model, it was kept in the Caddy family per se. Like the last one, this model seems to be unique save some suspension parts here and there. This is the Caddy formula. They have enough budget to make unique platform vehicles from the rest of GM in many cases, but aren't afraid to use a part from somewhere else as long as you never see it.

I liked the old styling. It was long and narrow. Yes, it was a tall wagon and that made it a little more butch than many of the CUVs that dominate this segment. Lexus makes no bones about their target audience...female real estate agents. :) I for one liked the face that the car was handsome and not cute.

One of the things I fear I will miss in the old car is the third row seat. Well, not for the seat itself. I've probably only used it three times since purchasing the vehicle. It's the space you get when it's folded down (or deleted as an option). It truly cavernous and unmatched for the class. Costco trips are easy in this car and its a nice compromise between the too small RX class and too big Tahoe style vehicles. The new SRX gives up that advantage for more compact dimensions.

True, the old car has a big honkin' Northstar V8 as an option. But this is one place where Cadillac is ahead of the curve. They are introducing smaller engined vehicles at a time when CAFE standards are being raised and who knows if we see $4 a gallon gas again soon. For years, Volvo and Saab did quite well with smaller, turbocharged engines for family movers. Most Mercedes, BMW, Saab and VW buyers in Europe don't buy engines the size we historically have done. All of those guys can instantly put those engines in US cars at the drop of a hat if needed and Caddy is showing they can not only play that game, but they can take the lead. I like big V8s, but if this mix of engines/drivetrains can make this car sell better and help GM in general, so be it.

The new interior looks like a winner but I'll have to sit in it first. One of the reasons I bought one in the first place was the leg room and head room (I'm nearly seven feet tall). I hope the new one is more like a CTS (which has leg room for days) versus an RX. The original SRX interior was a big fail of the old car (as was the CTS which is was copied from) and was thankfully updated in the '07 model year. This car also uses the CTS interior as inspiration but that's not a bad thing and its not a direct part-for-part copy like the last time.

Going after the Lexus RX bogey isn't so bad as long as Cadillac can still stand out in a crowd. It looks like they may have succeeded. The proof will be in the sales, which will depend a lot on the economy and the ability of GM/GMAC to get their leasing program back on track.

What's missing in this fanboyism war between iPhone and Pre is a lack of perspective about how far the smartphone market has come in two years. Before the iPhone, the smartphone landscape was Blackberry (mostly a glorified but extremely useful email client and some browsing), Palm OS (obsolete and dying) and Windows Mobile (slightly less obsolete but very entrenched in the corporate world).

Nobody thought that it might be a good idea that you might need more than a gig or two of memory in a phone and most had far less than that (

Interesting that my Mac Mini (current generation, purchased last month) is reporting a 3.0 Gbps SATA bus. Now I replaced the stock 120 gig drive with a 500 gig 7200 rpm Seagate Momentus so I have no idea if the stock drive reports 1.5 or 3.0 but I'm getting 3.0 now. The Mac Mini has the same controller as the current MBPs and is largely a laptop without a screen.

Lasting longer using GPS. The GPS chip is a serious power pig.

I actually need a new subwoofer!