Is sacrificing 8 extra gigs worth the risk?

I have wanted an iPhone for a long time, but my family doesn't exactly have the money to be paying $200+ for a phone. So when I saw that the 8 gig iPhone 4 is now free with an upgrade, I got really excited. But a lot of people are saying that8 gigs isn't enough. I'm not a big app person - the most I'll want is a couple of games like fruit ninja and stuff; I have an iPod touch, so I won't be keeping all my music on my iPhone; and as far as media goes, I do love my ringtones and photos, but it's my understanding that 8 gigs isn't exactly a meager amount. So, advice from anyone? Is it worth the risk, or should I just try to save up the money for 16 gigs to be safe?

That's a good question elinder21. There's plenty of customers who get by quite comfortably with the 8 GB iPhone using what you've described. Most iTunes games are around 100 MB, normal length songs (about 4 minutes long) are only about 3 MB each, and most pictures taken on the iPhones are around 2 MB each. One gigabyte (GB) equals 1,024 megabyte (MB) of data, so 8 GB equals 8,192 MB of data. So the 8 GB iPhone can actually fit quite a bit onto it. Just remember, there is no way to increase the amount of memory available on the iPhones, but you can transfer files to your computer when you find yourself using more than expected. And if you frequently back up your information to your computer instead of leaving hundreds of pictures on your device at all times, there's a good chance the 8GB model will work well.
Whatever you decide, enjoy your new phone!
JenniferH_VZW
Please follow us on Twitter @vzwsupport

Similar Messages

Bootcamp - Worth the Risk?

From reading a lot of the beta discussions and some here with the "final" Boot Camp in Leopard, I'm still wondering if it's worth the risk.
I'm seeing a lot of devastating results being reported here during or after installation of XP.
My copy of XP Professional pre-dates Service Pack 2, but I do have the Service Pack 2 on a separate CD.
So, I established my Boot Camp partition with the Apple software, and carried on to XP installation. However, when I got as far as "Selecting the Windows Partition", my screen was quite different from the one in the Bootcamp installation guide (p11). There was no drive clearly identified as BOOTCAMP, and none of the partitions had a size close to what I had defined (32GB).
So, I decided to bail out of the process before doing any damage to my Mac files.
I guess I'd like to hear from folks who had no trouble installing Bootcamp and are satisfied with the results when using their Windows apps.
I'd also like advice on whether I should have proceeded with my installation, just picking the C: drive for the Windows installation, even though it wasn't clear it was my BOOTCAMP partition?

Its worth the risk if you follow the directions. Apple specifically states you must have a full version of Xp or Vista, an upgrade version will not work, nor will Xp without SP2 work. In your case trying to install the upgrade version would not have worked. You would not have hurt your Mac OS, but windows would not have installed either.

4.6 to 4.7, worth the risk?

Having finally upgraded to 4.6 a couple of months ago I have managed to get everything working (with the exception of having to do manual backups as the normal back up crashes out at the Flexwallet databases).
Now version 4.7 is here I am wondering if its worth the risk\hassle of upgrading again. I cannot find anywhere what the differences are (should RIM not publish some sort of version list?).
So what's the opinion of the Blackberry customer support forums? Is it worth it for some new features or bug fixes or should I take the attitude 'if it is not broken don't fix it'?
Solved!
Go to Solution.

vector007 wrote:
So what's the opinion of the Blackberry customer support forums? Is it worth it for some new features or bug fixes or should I take the attitude 'if it is not broken don't fix it'?
Just to clarify things. This is not the Blackberry "customer support" forums, but "the Blackberry Support" community forum. It means we're are only customers like you, but we answer questions if we can. There are very few RIM representatives here on the forum, and they answer on rare occasions.
What I know from reading the internet :
4.7 = 4.6 + Storm is supported
4.6 = 4.5
+ Bold is supported
+ able to backup the internal memory media files (= no need for Roxio Media Manager anymore)
+ Media Sync is included (the iTunes synchroniser, instead of downloading it separately)
4.5 = 4.3 + ?? + very slow synchronization of events
The search box on top-right of this page is your true friend, and the public Knowledge Base too:

Is firmware 2.0 worth the risk?

Okay just want some feedback. Some are mighty ****** because firmware 2.0 has bricked their ipods or lost functionality...some are happy because the upgrade worked without issue. My question is this.....My IPT works perfectly at the moment with firmware 1.1.4....Are the apps really worth having and risking having terrible battery life, loss of wifi or having it not install at all. If 2.0 went well for you are you really pleased with how much more amazing your ipod has become? Give me a reason I should take the plunge?
Thanks.

OK, disappearing messages is bad. But I've not seen that behavior so it wasn't in the fore of my mind. I have to say the other two sound a bit like a personal wishlist, however. Not that they are bad choices. I usually end up turning off Flash on the road, since I predominantly run across it as advertising. But that is Adobe,not Apple anyhow. And deciding how much of an email is downloaded? I can't get too upset over that.
But as far as a wishlist goes, yes, I can see that those would be reasonable desires. Maybe like cut and paste they will be implemented when Apple gets to that point on their checklist.
As for that last bit about paying only to buy apps, that's just silly. I've already mentioned all the new features in this release. Plus improved wifi for 802.1.x or whatever that one that was giving folks fits in corporate/educational settings was. That is now accessible.
So sure, some of the items you would have liked are not there, but this is really more than "just the app store".

7.4.100.0 and bonjour - worth the risk?

Afternoon
I'm getting pressure from management to sort out a useable bonour gateway for our wireless systems so we can utilise Apple TV, etc.
I've been keeping an eye on 7.4.100.0 and now 7.4.100.60 and in my opinion it's just not ready, there seem to be way too many issues with it.
I would rather wait until 7.4.110.0 or even 7.5.x before I try it out, rather than disrupt our service just to get Apple TV working. I have said as much as the pressure has lessened but give it a day and questions will come in again.
I'm just after other opinions. What do you think? Better to wait?
Thanks

Well it depends. I have run 7.4 with no issues, as long as your not doing HA:) it also depends on what things your are looking for to work with bonjour. v7.5 will have the same fixes as v7.4 but with added feature sets. That is what you need to know. Anyways, you can alway bring up the Avahi bonjour gateway which works well. You just need to see what works best for you. I have no issues when running the Avahi, but the Cisco's bonjour gateway is getting better.
http://www.cisco.com/en/US/products/hw/wireless/ps4570/products_tech_note09186a0080bb1d7c.shtml
Sent from Cisco Technical Support iPhone App

Upgrading to Aperture 3 on Snow Leopard iMac 4gb, worth the risk?

Friends, thanks in advance for your advice. I currently run Aperture 2 on a 2008 iMac, Snow Leopard, 4 GB. I am frozen in doubt to upgrade to Lion and/or Aperture 3 because of the tremendous number of reports of slowness. My new camera is not supported in RAW on Aperture 2, it's a Fuji x10, which is a great street machine. I wanted to upgrade to get RAW support, and slide show capability.
My questions:
1. If I stay with Snow Leopard and move to Aperture 3 will I be okay? I am maxed at 4 GB RAM.
2. If it does work decently, will I have to stay on Snow Leopard or do you think Apple will figure out the problem so I can use Lion with its multitouch advantages?
Final thought: I fear that Apple is just not committed to Aperture because the math does not add up. Market share versus Photoshop is negligible. I enjoy my iMac, but it appears that the money is flowing to the iPad, and iPhone because of the tremendous user base.

Hi Tim,
1. If I stay with Snow Leopard and move to Aperture 3 will I be okay? I am maxed at 4 GB RAM.
I use Aperture 3 on a 2007 MacBook with Snow Leopard. When I upgraded from Aperture 2, I noticed that adjusting pictures is not immediate, like it was in Aperture 2. There is a fractional second delay for most adjustments. This got a bit better in some subsequent release of Aperture 3, but to my recollection, it is not as good as it was in Aperture 2. Depending on which format I am viewing my photos (browser/viewer), the delay may be almost unnoticable or minorly irritating. (Of course, I cannot compare them together anymore, and it has been a year since I used Aperture 2.) Knowing about the delay in adjustments, coupled with the new features of Aperture 3, I still think I am in a better position with Aperture 3 than with Aperture 2.
2. If it does work decently, will I have to stay on Snow Leopard or do you think Apple will figure out the problem so I can use Lion with its multitouch advantages?
When you say "The problem", do mean our perceived lack of performance from Aperture? It's hard to say what Apple is thinking. I have never known a software maker to make software faster in general -- they just wait for people to get faster machines while adding new features to the existing software. We do not know what Apple is working on, but we can all hope they examine their software for inefficiencies and redesign things when they find them.
fear that Apple is just not committed to Aperture because the math does not add up. Market share versus Photoshop is negligible. I enjoy my iMac, but it appears that the money is flowing to the iPad, and iPhone because of the tremendous user base.
Aperture is not in the same niche as Photoshop; Apple knows this, too. We have continued to get minor updates to Aperture since version 3 debuted, including one less than 2 months ago. They are still working on it. That's all we can really say, though. If you want to see a whole lot of pure speculation and people getting angry at what Aperture 4 might bring, see this thread about. Personally, I agree mostly with the comments about Apple dumbing down Aperture, making the advanced features harder to find and use -- sort of like how Microsoft has made Windows 7 for the anti-power-user and left the power-user wondering how to do things effectively. That's just our speculation, though. For me, it's mostly based on inane questions in this forum. In other words, if the Aperture team makes Aperture work for the people asking those inane questions, Aperture will probably not be as useful to me as it is now.
nathan
nathan

Nokia 5500 worth the keypad trouble?

Hi, I was wondering is it worth the risk of investing in a Nokia 5500 considering the keypad issues that are surfacing, one which I've seen myself with a co-workers model. What happens if/when the keypad starts peeling off after the warranty runs out, what then? I want to know has Nokia taken corrective measures to solve this problem for good. So I go ahead and buy one soon? If not then I'll have to settle for an E50...

Ksuuk -- I've read the same thing that Nokia has changed its keypad. I wish Nokia would come out and say this to reassure their customers. But instead, Nokia is not publicly acknowledging this problem.
In fact, I cannot even get responses about peeling 5500 keypads on some Symbian forums, nor do I see any warning articles written by them. Only forum posters are talking about it -- that is, only the real consumers who are spending real, full-price money on their phones.
Really, this is not good customer relations. Yes, a peeling keypad on a phone marketed to be rugged is embarrassing. But it's not as if it's an incident of child labor or poisoning. Nokia as a corporation would be more admirable if they could admit this problem publicly and assure us that it's fixed. Not saying anything says a lot also, but it won't do the company any good.

I am going to buy myself a MacBook Pro in the near future and was wondering if the new Retina Display model would be worth the extra cash. I will mostly be doing photo/video/music editing.

I am going to buy myself a MacBook Pro in the near future and was wondering if the new Retina Display model would be worth the extra cash. I will mostly be doing photo/video/music editing.

if you're not in a big rush - why not hold off until Adobe and Microsoft releases an update to support the Retina Screen.
Don't get me wrong - the Macbook Retina is a good and videos look great - but when it comes to Photoshop, it's a little blurry and the fonts in Excel and Word is pretty blurry too.....I own one....
In any event, if it's something you can live with - then by all means - go for it.....
Otherwise - get the non Retina Macbook Pro - it's cheaper, and it's user upgradeable in both RAM and Hard Drive.
Good luck.

Is the "512GB PCIe-based Flash Storage" on the new mac worth the extra cost? I am comparing with a refurb with better specs (faster CPU, larger hard drive) and from what I undersand the PCIe flash storage is the big differentiator in cost.

hello - i am considering two macbook pros
NEW - http://store.apple.com/us/buy-mac/macbook-pro?product=ME294LL/A&step=config#
REFURB - http://store.apple.com/us/product/G0ML1LL/A/refurbished-macbook-pro-27ghz-quad-c ore-intel-i7-with-retina-display
The refurb actually has a faster processor and a larger hard drive. From what I understand, the big difference in cost is the new macbook pro contains "512GB PCIe-based Flash Storage" versus the refurb "768GB Flash Storage".
Is the PCIe flash storage really worth the extra cost (and smaller size)?
PS - Also I believe the brand new one has 2 GB graphics memory as opposed to 1 GB graphics memory. I don't really care about that as much as I won't be doing a lot of video editing or gaming.

RestonManJavaLuver wrote:
Is she wrong - are these actually going to people's homes, being used, then returned and resold?
Some are some are not. Otherwise Apple has a ton of Mac's sitting around that have been returned by customers under their 14 day No Questions Asked return policy.
But they not just Returned and Resold. They go back to Apple, checked out (Tested) any parts that are not up to spec replaced and then repackaged in a plain white box to be sold as refurbs.

Is the retina display for the new mac book pro worth the extra cost? I'm buying a new mac book pro but not sure about the retina display.

Is the retina display for the new mac book pro worth the extra cost? I'm buying a new mac book pro but not sure about the retina display.

There is a US$10 adapter from old power adapter to new MacBook Pro.
MagSafe to MagSafe 2 Converter
The MagSafe to MagSafe 2 Converter allows you to use the MagSafe connector on your LED Cinema Display, Thunderbolt Display, or MagSafe Power Adapter to charge your MagSafe 2-equipped Mac computer.
For battery life, check the latest Software Update for the fix for most problems.

I backed up then erased 118 gigs worth of photos, but my storage still says I'm full. I emptied the trash and rebooted but my computer won't recognize the empty space. What gives?

I backed up then erased 118 gigs worth of photos, but my storage still says I'm full. I emptied the trash and rebooted, but my computer won't recognize the empty space. What gives? I erased all my iPhoto pictures from the pictures folder in Finder so I could restore a backup from my Time Capsule. When I try to restore the library, I get a message that there's not enough room on my computer to restore. I have a Macbook Pro with 250 gig hard drive. I would greatly appreciate some help. Thanks!

If you're trying to add a large amount of data all at once, and you get an alert of insufficient space, then from the menu bar, select
 ▹ System Preferences... ▹ Time Machine
If the padlock icon is closed, click it to unlock the settings and authenticate. Turn Time Machine OFF, then back ON and close the preference pane. Restart the computer. Test.

Is the GeForce GTX 960 worth the extra cost over the GTX 750 Ti?

Today I acquired an eVGA GeForce 960 FTW card with 2GB of GDDR5 VRAM to test against my main PC's existing GeForce GTX 750 Ti (also with 2GB of GDDR5 VRAM).
But first, here's my impetus:
Despite the fact that the GTX 750 Ti was newer than my now-sold GTX 660, I felt that the GTX 750 Ti was a sizable downgrade from the GTX 660 in some ways, and equal to the GTX 660 in others. In particular, the results of the GTX 750 Ti during the encoding test from the PPBM8 MPEG-2 DVD timeline was nearly 30 percent slower than the GTX 660 (50 seconds versus 36 seconds) - but in the encoding test from the H.264 Blu-ray timeline, the two cards were practically equal in performance (at about 135 seconds).
And today, when I shopped for an eVGA GTX 960, I found four different models: The Superclocked edition (slightly overclocked but with the reference NVidia blower-type cooler), the ACX 2.0 (upgraded cooler but only reference GPU and memory clocks), the SSC edition (overclocked to 1279 MHz on the GPU, with the ACX 2.0 cooler) and the FTW edition (ACX 2.0 cooler, overclocked to 1304 MHz). All the listed clock speeds are the non-Turbo clocks.
Back to my purchase:
At my local chain big-box store, the FTW edition sells for $220 - but another big-box store wants $230 for the SSC edition.
I brought home the FTW edition, and installed it into my i7-4790K main rig. The CPU is set to its default Turbo clocks while the system's DDR3-1600 RAM is set to run at its XMP profile.
Here are the MPEG-2 DVD and H.264 Blu-ray scores with both cards:
MPEG-2 DVD (MPE On)
MSI GTX 750 Ti OC Edition: 50 seconds
eVGA GTX 960 FTW Edition: 44 seconds
H.264 Blu-ray (MPE On)
MSI GTX 750 Ti OC Edition: 135 seconds
eVGA GTX 960 FTW Edition: 114 seconds
As one can see, the GTX 960 is 13.6 to 18.4 percent faster than the GTX 750 Ti. However, while my GTX 750 Ti cost $155 (and still costs that much at the big box store I went to earlier in the day - the one that sells the GTX 960 SSC for $230), is the FTW edition of the GTX 960 worth the extra $65? Well, that depends on which GTX 750 Ti and which GTX 960 that you might be considering for a PC based on a mainstream quad-core Intel platform.
So, based on the particular results that I posted in this post, do you think that the GTX 960 is worth the extra bucks over the GTX 750 Ti? I would love to hear/see your opinion(s).

Randall,
While I certainly value the PPBM6 benchmark to compare various hardware and configuration settings, the GPU performance that is most important to me is simply playing back timelines smoothly with playback set for full resolution (vs. 1/2, 1/4, etc.) and scrubbing with the upmost in responsiveness. It may be difficult to measure playback smoothness, but you can use the dropped frame counter to compare various hardware.
If playback is smooth and I can scrub my timelines effortlessly, then how fast it takes to render a finished project out just really doesn't matter that much.
Even though you are mostly working with 1080 resolution media now, it may not hurt to try some more difficult media as well (aka RED 4k, PPBM H.264 timeline, etc.)
Regards,
Jim

Buying a new Macbook Pro. Deciding b/w this add on: 2.4GHz Quad-core Intel Core i7 vs. 2.5GHz Quad-core Intel Core i7? Is it worth the extra $250?

Buying a new Macbook Pro. Deciding b/w this add on:
2.4GHz Quad-core Intel Core i7 vs.
2.5GHz Quad-core Intel Core i7?
Is it worth the extra $250?
What's the big difference? Thanks.

Upgrade RAM yourself through macsales.com for $60. Use the remaining $140 of Apple's mmeory price and upgrade for $150 to hi-res (1680x1050) and anti-glare. I never regretted that upgrade on mine.
My humble opinion.
Sorry ... I just did the math and that puts you $10 out of pocket ...

Is it worth the extra money to get 256mb video memory?

hi
im waiting for a radeon 9600xt and started to think.
is it worth the extra money to get 256mb memory instead of 128?
i want the card to last a year or 2.
bye

True, the question is when...
I find it hard to spend that kind of money right now since I have a good feel for what's around the corner, but if I must, I would consider sitting on my cash until the 256 version gets a little cheaper.. at newegg its about a $150 difference.
It's all relative to what you want and what you have in your pocket, credit vs cash, the need for bragging rights, especially if you're a benchmark whore
In a few years or give or take, these cards will be more like GF3's and obsolete with PCI express around the corner, "Slowpoke" is an understatement

Buying a new MBP Retina, is the top end Haswell i7 worth the extra $200?

Spec'ing out a brand new 15" MBP… I'm upgrading from my 2008 Core 2 Duo model with 6GB RAM. The question is, specifically:
As a graphic designer who uses Adobe Creative Cloud pretty extensively (Indesign, Photoshop, Illustrator, After Effects), will the extra $200 for any extra 300mhz of processor be worth the added cost?
Already the machine is pretty beefy, just wondering what the community thinks.
Hollah.
B

Benjamin Powers wrote:
will the extra $200 for any extra 300mhz of processor be worth the added cost?
not in my opinion.

Is sacrificing 8 extra gigs worth the risk?

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for