Back when I was in school, I always had something against timetables. If I think well, I always had something against any form of preplanned activities, and maybe that's why I am not crazy about time scheduling software these days. Don't get me wrong - I am planning my long term activities, but being too organized may force you to miss some opportunities. These being said, it's clear I am not crazy about Google Tasks, despite the fact I should plan my time, at least some sketchy planning. Anyway, since Google just made it more "iPhone friendly," I guess I have a good subject on my hands!

The reason to say that should be obvious - first, Google removes iPhone support from iGoogle, and then they add it to Google Tasks. That's a bit strange, don't you think? Well, I am not the one to question Google's strategy, so let's leave that aside now and move to Google Tasks, iPhone version, boiling hot!

This is no rumor, we're talking about news published right on Google's Gmail team blog, and the story goes like this - "starting today, you can manage your task list from your iPhone or Android device, and access it from any xhtml enabled phone. (Mine's always with me, in whichever jeans I'm wearing.) Just go to gmail.com/tasks from your phone's browser and log in. If you already use the version of Tasks in Gmail Labs, you'll see the same task list that's always in sync. We focused on making it super easy and fast to update your Gmail task list -- you can add new tasks and check off completed ones, no matter where you are."

Yes, I know, it seems too easy - no setup package to download via some App Store link, no special settings to change on your mobile, nothing even your grandmother won't be able to do! Way to go, Google, maybe next thing you'll put (back) on the iPhone is iGoogle...what do you think?

Each time I see discussions on various forums about a new computer, I get a headache. Why? Well, I still have a computer lying around using some "ancient" AMD Palomino 1700+ processor and 1GB of DDR memory running at 400MHz, and that bastard is the perfect Web browsing machine. You can also add Warcraft 3 to that, and some other games from the first half of this decade, and you get the idea. Now, I see people who "heard" that quadcore machines would be a better choice, so they end up with a monster CPU, combined with some onboard graphics chip and low performance memory. "Wow, I got a quadcore now!"

The iMac is a good computer for office work, but I simply don't think a quadcore configuration can find its place inside it. I know, it isn't that hard to make it work, but considering how cluttered are those components inside it, wouldn't be a pity to waste a great CPU with a lot of overclocking potential inside a case that's completely opposed to this purpose?

According to Kaufman Bros. analyst Shaw Wu, quoted by AppleInsider, "In our experience, when Apple sends an advisory to its channel partners of limited availability and inventory of existing models are drawn down, it is highly likely that a product refresh is within a few weeks," so this should explain the iMac shortages recorded in the past few weeks.

Anyway, most chances are we'll get to see iMacs using both duocore and quadcore setups, but my suggestion would be to also have a lower priced single core setup available, since I am sure those using the iMac for daily office tasks and Web browsing simply don't need all that power provided by Intel dualcore and quadcore processors.

Oh, well, I guess we should live and see what this month will bring us from Apple. If only they would come up with a smart priced, inspired configuration for those hordes of people simply browsing the Web and watching some movies, that would be a great move. Anyway, at least that's how I see things...

A lot of iPhone detractors laughed at the flashless phone, and when I say "flashless," this has two meanings, unfortunately for Apple - first, its camera doesn't have a flash, and second, it doesn't have support for Adobe Flash Web content. Since a lot of iPhone users are browsing the Web, this last "flash issue" seems pretty serious, but - at least so far - nothing happened. Only rumors, and nothing more.

Interviewed by Bloomberg, Adobe chief Shantanu Narayen said the entire development of Flash for iPhone is a hard two-way-process, and it also depends on App Store approval before it makes it to our iPhones: "It’s a hard technical challenge, and that’s part of the reason Apple and Adobe are collaborating. The ball is in our court. The onus is on us to deliver."

Damn, others are developing entire mobile phones with their software in less than a year, and when I see all these iPhone flash news... it makes me think "WTF are these guys doing, after all?" and nothing more. Come on, Apple, come on, Adobe!

Just think about this - Apple is advocating HTML 5 as a replacement to Flash, while working with Mozilla and Opera to get things on the move with HTML 5 instead of Flash. Ehem...so, is this betrayal, or not? It would be a pity to see Flash for iPhone appearing just in time to be severely owned by HTML 5, don't you think?

Well, that's for today's iPhone Flash news - nothing really special, as usual, only a reiteration of what we already knew - Adobe's Flash for iPhone is still "work in progress," or, who knows, maybe even worse - "work in regress..."