Ipod out.. when will ford use this?

[BrewfanGRB]

One of the things I learned to accept with Sync is that Ford does have a bit of a very difficult job on their hands. Cell phone technology advances probably more rapidly than anything else in the personal electronics space right now. My prior phone, a Spyder (strangely, I simply can't remember if that was an LG or a Samsung?), did not really like Sync. Sometimes, they found each other, sometimes they didn't. It was annoying.

 

I now have an HTC Hero (an Android phone). From the very moment I paired the phone to Sync, it's worked flawlessly. But, I don't use my phone for music at all. I don't need to stream Pandora, because I have Sirius (a whole lot better than Pandora, notwithstanding that Pandora is free). And I don't store music files on my phone because that's what my iPod is for.

 

Only gripe I really have w/ Sync: It seems to ME, at least, that it's more difficult to upgrade/update the software than it should be. (And to get the update for 911 Assist, etc...I have to pay the dealer to do it? Why are some updates done via the USB and some need the dealer?) Like I said, I love the feature anyway, so I can't really complain--just the gripe I have.

[rmc523]

Just to let everyone know, the OS 4.0.1 (not 4.1) does NOT allow audio control through the car's radio controls (steering wheel/center console/nav system buttons). You can pause/play the song, but you can't skip through songs or anything like that through the car.

[sullynd]

Just to let everyone know, the OS 4.0.1 (not 4.1) does NOT allow audio control through the car's radio controls (steering wheel/center console/nav system buttons). You can pause/play the song, but you can't skip through songs or anything like that through the car.

 

All 4.0.1 does is change the bars to make it look like you have a better signal than you do. 4.1 is the version which is supposed to add Bluetooth control (As I said up above).

[rmc523]

Oh, well then 4.1 is not out yet I guess. I thought you mistyped or just shortened it.I did notice the bars looked different!

[sullynd]

Oh, well then 4.1 is not out yet I guess. I thought you mistyped or just shortened it.I did notice the bars looked different!

 

Right, not out yet, but in beta. It's beta testers who are reporting that 4.1 has the necessary profile. I suppose it could be pulled from the actual release if it causes some other issues. Not sure about the timing of 4.1, but I'm looking forward to it as it is also supposed to address the proximity sensor issue I'm having with my 4.

[rmc523]

Well here's to hoping 4.1 comes out soon! LOL

[sullynd]

Well here's to hoping 4.1 comes out soon! LOL

 

4.1 is out, and is supposed to allow control via the the wheel over bluetooth (I've updated my phone, but haven't tried yet)

[Locutus of Borg]

Assimilation? Is that like the Borg?

"I am Locutus... of Borg. Resistance... is futile. Your life as it has been... is over. From this time forward... you will service... us."

[Mark B. Morrow]

However you will not be able to touch the steering wheel at the lower left corner or the car will stall.

 

 

According to Steve Jobs that only happens because you don't know how to hold a steering wheel.

[aneekr]

Not enough complaints to do anything about it.

Correct. By contrast, the complaints about the ISRV mirror mounted microphone being too sensitive to noise (to cite one example) led Ford to issue a TSB with an actual fix, 09-13-5.

[sullynd]

Correct. By contrast, the complaints about the ISRV mirror mounted microphone being too sensitive to noise (to cite one example) led Ford to issue a TSB with an actual fix, 09-13-5.

 

Yeah, that one's a pain too. Have you seen the FIX? YUCK! Fortunately the running change to the microphone (though late) looks better.

 

I'm conflicted. The sound sucks on my microphone, but I don't want that zit on my car, it looks like something the kid at bestbuy would have installed a decade ago.

Edited September 12, 2010 by sullynd

[ANTAUS]

Well its about time BMW got with the times... I didn't know Ford wasn't there yet, I've been listening to my music thru my Iphone thru Sync for quite awhile now without any issues. I'm not sure other than the visual screen, BMW has to add to this.

[Versa-Tech]

Highly unlikely seeing as most of the Sync software is licensed from Microsoft.

 

How about a Kin or Zune integration ?

Waste of time. Windows will be all but dead within the next decade. Microsoft has been riding the coat tails of the gaming market for well over a decade at this point and has already implemented an exit strategy to exfiltrate from the PC market. The advent of relatively cheap HDTVs was the latest nail in the coffin. The implementation of sophisticated IR cameras in consoles is the final nail. Microsoft will be relegated to building high performance gaming consoles and offering online resources to support them. The irony is insurmountable. I can't think of a better example of cutting one's nose off to spite their face.

[silvrsvt]

Waste of time. Windows will be all but dead within the next decade. Microsoft has been riding the coat tails of the gaming market for well over a decade at this point and has already implemented an exit strategy to exfiltrate from the PC market. The advent of relatively cheap HDTVs was the latest nail in the coffin. The implementation of sophisticated IR cameras in consoles is the final nail. Microsoft will be relegated to building high performance gaming consoles and offering online resources to support them. The irony is insurmountable. I can't think of a better example of cutting one's nose off to spite their face.

 

WTF are you talking about? I guess you don't use one of those new flanged computers at work do you?

 

Windows isn't going to be dead, its just going to change to a more 'cloud" based (oh how I hate that term) system

[aneekr]

Waste of time. Windows will be all but dead within the next decade. Microsoft has been riding the coat tails of the gaming market for well over a decade at this point and has already implemented an exit strategy to exfiltrate from the PC market. The advent of relatively cheap HDTVs was the latest nail in the coffin. The implementation of sophisticated IR cameras in consoles is the final nail. Microsoft will be relegated to building high performance gaming consoles and offering online resources to support them. The irony is insurmountable. I can't think of a better example of cutting one's nose off to spite their face.

Versa-Tech, do you think Windows based platforms for the server and embedded systems (e.g., WinCE, Microsoft Auto) markets will await that fate?

[Versa-Tech]

WTF are you talking about? I guess you don't use one of those new flanged computers at work do you?

 

Windows isn't going to be dead, its just going to change to a more 'cloud" based (oh how I hate that term) system

Yes, but as always Microsoft's interpretation of aformentioned "cloud" will be an overpolished GUI covering shoddy bondo filled framework. Google is the real "cloud" keymaster. Their first OS will probably see mixed reception, but their second should render Windows obsolete... if it isn't already.

 

 

Versa-Tech, do you think Windows based platforms for the server and embedded systems (e.g., WinCE, Microsoft Auto) markets will await that fate?

IBM and SUN Microsystems are already poised to take over the server market. Microsoft could retain a large portion of the embedded market. However, the very nature of embedded OS is rapidly changing as functionality takes a back seat to mobile device compatibility... which coincidently brings us back on topic. Sync is functionally the best product in it's market, but all people really want is something that interfaces with their iPhone.

 

IMO, dash mounted iPad implementation is the holy grail of ICE. Climate controls and driver aids will still be integrated, but all media and communication tech will take shape as downloadable apps specific to each auto manufacturer. I'm not saying this is going to happen tomorrow, but it is inevitable.

 

 

 

[RichardJensen]

Yes, but as always Microsoft's interpretation of aformentioned "cloud" will be an overpolished GUI covering shoddy bondo filled framework. Google is the real "cloud" keymaster. Their first OS will probably see mixed reception, but their second should render Windows obsolete... if it isn't already.

 

 

IBM and SUN Microsystems are already poised to take over the server market. Microsoft could retain a large portion of the embedded market. However, the very nature of embedded OS is rapidly changing as functionality takes a back seat to mobile device compatibility... which coincidently brings us back on topic. Sync is functionally the best product in it's market, but all people really want is something that interfaces with their iPhone.

 

IMO, dash mounted iPad implementation is the holy grail of ICE. Climate controls and driver aids will still be integrated, but all media and communication tech will take shape as downloadable apps specific to each auto manufacturer. I'm not saying this is going to happen tomorrow, but it is inevitable.

 

 

 

Google? Seriously?

 

Have you *used* Gmail? Those people have about as much business designing a user interface as I have designing a suspension bridge.

 

The reality is: desktops aren't going anywhere, therefore Windows isn't going anywhere. Apple doesn't want to be a major player in the desktop OS-----and their conduct with the iPhone & iPad suggests that they'd bully businesses around even worse than Microsoft.

 

Further, Windows Server has gotten dramatically better, rather than worse, over the past ten years. Seven years ago, Windows had nothing to offer me. Today, I'm building my company's next server on Windows Server 2008, and I'm not using Apache as a proxy redirect server, I'm using IIS. I'm not using some 3rd party FTP client, I'm using IIS. I'm still using Tomcat, Railo, and MySQL, but that's because Tomcat & MySQL are exceptions to the rule--they are open source applications that are easy to install and easy to manage.

 

I won't go back to Linux, and Solaris 10 is just *not* as easy to administer as Server 2008, and believe me, I didn't come to this conclusion willingly. I was hauled kicking and screaming to it.

[Versa-Tech]

Google? Seriously?

 

Have you *used* Gmail? Those people have about as much business designing a user interface as I have designing a suspension bridge.

 

The reality is: desktops aren't going anywhere, therefore Windows isn't going anywhere. Apple doesn't want to be a major player in the desktop OS-----and their conduct with the iPhone & iPad suggests that they'd bully businesses around even worse than Microsoft.

 

Further, Windows Server has gotten dramatically better, rather than worse, over the past ten years. Seven years ago, Windows had nothing to offer me. Today, I'm building my company's next server on Windows Server 2008, and I'm not using Apache as a proxy redirect server, I'm using IIS. I'm not using some 3rd party FTP client, I'm using IIS. I'm still using Tomcat, Railo, and MySQL, but that's because Tomcat & MySQL are exceptions to the rule--they are open source applications that are easy to install and easy to manage.

 

I won't go back to Linux, and Solaris 10 is just *not* as easy to administer as Server 2008, and believe me, I didn't come to this conclusion willingly. I was hauled kicking and screaming to it.

I'd rather have a second-rate GUI based on an OS that actually works as opposed to a sleek GUI that turns suicidal once a year. Like I said, the first iteration of Google's OS will have mixed reception. It's the second version that will capture the market.

 

As far as servers go, I agree that Windows Server is dramatically better today than it was at the turn of the millenium... but then again, that really isn't saying much. All of my systems are Unix based running on IBM hardware. That's just my personal preference. As far as FTP servers go, I use dedicated 3rd party systems, but once again that's a matter of preference.

 

 

 

[RichardJensen]

I'd rather have a second-rate GUI based on an OS that actually works as opposed to a sleek GUI that turns suicidal once a year. Like I said, the first iteration of Google's OS will have mixed reception. It's the second version that will capture the market.

No. The problem with Google is that they're too complacent. Bing is a better search engine for a variety of tasks.

 

No Google OS will be suitable for mass consumption because Google doesn't have the staff, the resources, or the corporate willpower to refine anything past a perpetual beta state---which is unacceptable for people who want their desktops to function like appliances.

 

Furthermore, Windows 7 is hardly 'suicidal'.

 

Microsoft did some incredibly stupid things with Vista--chief of which was designing a lousy UI (and it *is* a lousy UI) that consumes an incredible amount of memory and processor cycles--this as more and more systems are using shared system/graphics memory.

 

They let their UI designers work on high end machines and then they released the product with a 'minimum requirements' spec that just about guaranteed failure. Then they implemented a 'fall back' UI that wasn't XP based it was '95 based, meaning that your choices were either a UI that looked bad and clunky or a UI that made everything on your computer exasperatingly slow------and THIS with a system that was 'certified' to run Vista.

 

I'm not carrying Microsoft's water on this one. They screwed up big time with Vista's UI, and they didn't fix that with Windows 7 either.

 

But Vista's UI is better than *anything* that Google has ever cooked up--and Google is so self-gratulatory on their UI work that it seems impossible that they will ever collectively pull their heads out of their rear-ends and realize how ugly and unfriendly their UIs are.

 

As far as servers go, I agree that Windows Server is dramatically better today than it was at the turn of the millenium... but then again, that really isn't saying much. All of my systems are Unix based running on IBM hardware. That's just my personal preference. As far as FTP servers go, I use dedicated 3rd party systems, but once again that's a matter of preference.

 

And the difference between you and me is that I don't want to spend hours figuring out how to setup proxy forwarding by hand edited conf files (HTTPD), or trying to make the FTP server play nice with the LDAP server. I don't have the patience and I don't think it's a worthwhile investment of my time to figure out a bazillion different READMEs, man pages, and the conflicting ideas of how UIs should look that goes hand in hand with using the BEST server *nix out there (Solaris 10).

 

If Solaris 10 came bundled with Apache, and an Apache control panel that worked as well as the IIS control panel, if Solaris 10 came with an LDAP server that integrated with an FTP server as well as Active Directory and IIS, I'd use Solaris in a heartbeat, as I consider *nix to offer far better permission management than Windows Server.

 

The thing is, Windows Server '08 is quite secure, it's quite stable, and it's quite easy to use.

 

And Solaris 10 is only two of those things.

 

----

 

I'd use Apple OS X Server if they weren't so idiotic as to marry it to their ridiculously overpriced hardware.

Edited September 13, 2010 by RichardJensen

[Versa-Tech]

No Microsoft OS has ever be suitable for mass consumption because Microsoft refuses to use their staff and resources to refine anything past a perpetual beta state- which has been the case since the IBM PS2.

 

 

Every version of Windows since the end of the cold war has consistently corrupted itself beyond repair within the first year of use forcing users to suffer insanely slow load times, along with self destructive "illegal operations", registry errors and BSODs. The only way to avoid such suicidal tendencies has been to back up all files, completely reformat the hard drive, and reinstall every program and driver which usual takes about as long as it does for Windows to start corrupting itself... again.

 

Microsoft did some incredibly stupid things with Vista- chief of which was designing a lousy UI (and it *is* a lousy UI) that consumes an incredible amount of memory and processor cycles- What else is new?

I fixed it for yah.

 

Sorry, my mother was a systems analyst. I've pretty much been on the bleeding edge of Windows since it came out. Microsoft did alright up until it ran out of stolen ideas (circa windows 3.1). Ever since then... it's been a complete f***ing disaster. Xerox should have taken them down when they had a chance. The world would have been better off.

[RichardJensen]

I fixed it for yah.[/b]

 

Sorry, my mother was a systems analyst. I've pretty much been on the bleeding edge of Windows since it came out. Microsoft did alright up until it ran out of stolen ideas (circa windows 3.1). Ever since then... it's been a complete f***ing disaster. Xerox should have taken them down when they had a chance. The world would have been better off.

 

Windows Server 2008 is about as secure as Unix and orders of magnitude easier to manage.

 

That's hardly a disaster.

[Versa-Tech]

Windows Server 2008 is about as secure as Unix and orders of magnitude easier to manage.

 

That's hardly a disaster.

Alright, I'll give you that. The business end of Windows actually has been quite stable and secure, whether we're talking about NT (4.0), Windows 2000, or Windows Server 2008. My negative opinion of Microsoft is based on their bread and butter offerings including Windows 95, '98, 'ME, 'XP, 'Vista, and Windows 7. I spent good money on every last one of those operating systems and always had the exact same problems. Now I use Unix based systems exclusively including my Macs, the first of which I bought only a year ago. I guess my argument is a little emotionally charged in that respect. I'll never go back to Windows. Perhaps my argument is emotionally charged to the point that it clouds my judgement.