iFiend
Apr 21, 09:46 AM
It is this quote right here that separates the fan from the fanboi.
win
win
citizenzen
Apr 23, 09:35 PM
citizenzen, there are strong elements of faith involved...
Yes, in theistic belief there are.
However, the thread I was responding to specifically tried to logically deduce the existence of God.
Had it been satisfied with basing its belief simply on faith, I'd have very little to say against it.
Honestly, if you really believe in Christianity or any other religion you won't waste your time posting on some internet forum under anonymous names discussing things which ultimately will benefit no one save providing some cheap entertainment.
Google Christian forums (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&qscrl=1&q=christian+forums&aq=0&aqi=g10&aql=&oq=christian+foru).
Then tell them that they're not true believers.
Yes, in theistic belief there are.
However, the thread I was responding to specifically tried to logically deduce the existence of God.
Had it been satisfied with basing its belief simply on faith, I'd have very little to say against it.
Honestly, if you really believe in Christianity or any other religion you won't waste your time posting on some internet forum under anonymous names discussing things which ultimately will benefit no one save providing some cheap entertainment.
Google Christian forums (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&qscrl=1&q=christian+forums&aq=0&aqi=g10&aql=&oq=christian+foru).
Then tell them that they're not true believers.
firestarter
Apr 23, 06:20 PM
Have we answered the question of why there are so many atheists here?
Was the answer: 'It's Easter weekend, all the theists are off celebrating Zombie Jesus day'?
Was the answer: 'It's Easter weekend, all the theists are off celebrating Zombie Jesus day'?
Huntn
Mar 13, 07:18 PM
'Renewables' are hardly without issue either. To make a decent amount of power you have to do it on a massive scale. What are your thoughts on the Chinese Three Gorges Dam?
Solar plants can be put out in the scrub, they don't destroy what can be some of the most beautiful places on Earth like dams do, and have much less land impact.
Solar plants can be put out in the scrub, they don't destroy what can be some of the most beautiful places on Earth like dams do, and have much less land impact.
alexdrinan
Sep 12, 04:15 PM
I totally agree with this. This is the perfect device for Apple to start selling subscriptions to shows to replace cable. A la cart cable legislation is picking up steam and this will put iTunes in the cable business. Think about how many households have iPods, now compare that number to the HUGE number of houses that have cable. Wouldn't you rather pay for only the shows that you watch?
I don't think any of these services will ever replace cable. Maybe the "premium" packages that offer ondemand and DVR etc., but never just plain old cable TV. Sometimes you want to just turn on the TV and flip around to see what's on, beyond just the local channels you can pick up with an antenna.
I don't think any of these services will ever replace cable. Maybe the "premium" packages that offer ondemand and DVR etc., but never just plain old cable TV. Sometimes you want to just turn on the TV and flip around to see what's on, beyond just the local channels you can pick up with an antenna.
miles01110
May 2, 09:42 AM
Why, do you have proof of a virus for OS X ? Because if you do, let's see it.
This is exactly the kind of ignorance I'm referring to. The vast majority of users don't differentiate between "virus", "trojan", "phishing e-mail", or any other terminology when they are actually referring to malware as "anything I don't want on my machine." By continuously bringing up inane points like the above, not only are you not helping the situation, you're perpetuating a useless mentality in order to prove your mastery of vocabulary.
Congratulations.
This is exactly the kind of ignorance I'm referring to. The vast majority of users don't differentiate between "virus", "trojan", "phishing e-mail", or any other terminology when they are actually referring to malware as "anything I don't want on my machine." By continuously bringing up inane points like the above, not only are you not helping the situation, you're perpetuating a useless mentality in order to prove your mastery of vocabulary.
Congratulations.
AppliedVisual
Oct 20, 02:36 PM
So the high end will no longer be at 3ghz?
How hard can an extra 333mhz be to attain? Especially with these cool-running Intel chips.
It will come, just not with the initial production models. With the quad-core chips, Intel is already running into FSB bandwidth issues as it is. The Clovertowns are essentially dual Woodcrest CPUs stuck on the same die, sharing the same FSB and communication between the first duo-core CPU and the second duo-core CPU on that die must travel onto the FSB and into the other CPU. Between the two cores that are linked directly, data sharing can be handled through the L1 cache. So, depending on your application, the 8-core may be no better than a 4-core system -- if what your'e doing is already maxing out your CPU bus bandwidth. Somwhere down the road as Intel shifts to its 45nm production process and fully integrates all 4 cores on a single CPU (and later, 8 cores on die), we will see massive improvements in inter-core bandwidth. They will have to step-up on the FSB bandwidth though... Possibly by increasing the MHz, but more than likely we'll see some of that combined with increasing the width of the data path and possibly using multiple parallel FSB designs. ...Going to be interesting, that's for sure. And with Intel's new process and the plans for continuously jamming more cores onto a die at higher speeds, I think we're in for a real ride over the next 5 years or so.
How hard can an extra 333mhz be to attain? Especially with these cool-running Intel chips.
It will come, just not with the initial production models. With the quad-core chips, Intel is already running into FSB bandwidth issues as it is. The Clovertowns are essentially dual Woodcrest CPUs stuck on the same die, sharing the same FSB and communication between the first duo-core CPU and the second duo-core CPU on that die must travel onto the FSB and into the other CPU. Between the two cores that are linked directly, data sharing can be handled through the L1 cache. So, depending on your application, the 8-core may be no better than a 4-core system -- if what your'e doing is already maxing out your CPU bus bandwidth. Somwhere down the road as Intel shifts to its 45nm production process and fully integrates all 4 cores on a single CPU (and later, 8 cores on die), we will see massive improvements in inter-core bandwidth. They will have to step-up on the FSB bandwidth though... Possibly by increasing the MHz, but more than likely we'll see some of that combined with increasing the width of the data path and possibly using multiple parallel FSB designs. ...Going to be interesting, that's for sure. And with Intel's new process and the plans for continuously jamming more cores onto a die at higher speeds, I think we're in for a real ride over the next 5 years or so.
Multimedia
Oct 21, 01:11 PM
Anyone know anything about these suppliers, other than Crucial Technology?I know Omni and 1-800-4MEMORY are both suppliers of good ram for less money.
I've never understood why anyone buys RAM from the more expensive Crucial. Can only be marketing 'cause I have no reason to pay more for RAM from just another supplier of the same thing. :rolleyes:
I've never understood why anyone buys RAM from the more expensive Crucial. Can only be marketing 'cause I have no reason to pay more for RAM from just another supplier of the same thing. :rolleyes:
spipenge
Jun 27, 02:31 AM
I have never had a single call dropped. Here in Orlando I get full service and data speeds of about 450Kb p/s!
Haha
See my post later on about this subject. Again, what a shame that we Americans actually think this is acceptable. That speed is pitiful for a 3G network. I will say it here, as I've said a million times other places, the speeds are just too slow and don't measure up. My partner lives in Ottawa, Canada. On June 24, during mid morning, he received download speed of 6 Mbps. During the evening, he receives speeds in the 7-9 Mbps range.
Haha
See my post later on about this subject. Again, what a shame that we Americans actually think this is acceptable. That speed is pitiful for a 3G network. I will say it here, as I've said a million times other places, the speeds are just too slow and don't measure up. My partner lives in Ottawa, Canada. On June 24, during mid morning, he received download speed of 6 Mbps. During the evening, he receives speeds in the 7-9 Mbps range.
MacsRgr8
Sep 20, 06:10 AM
Maybe the HD has a slimmed down version of Mac OS X installed on it, making it necessary to be in there, and it's very likely for caching purposes too.
Wish it did have a DVD-player in it, so that it could replace any ol' DVD player hooked up to the TV aswell. With the iTV you still need one.
That's pretty much what I did with my Mac mini Core Duo.... I have a LCD TV hooked up to the mini via DVI. I use Front Row to watch all my favorite movies I have downladed, and VLC for some HD content. And I use the mini's DVD player for wathcing these. It's great!
Wish it did have a DVD-player in it, so that it could replace any ol' DVD player hooked up to the TV aswell. With the iTV you still need one.
That's pretty much what I did with my Mac mini Core Duo.... I have a LCD TV hooked up to the mini via DVI. I use Front Row to watch all my favorite movies I have downladed, and VLC for some HD content. And I use the mini's DVD player for wathcing these. It's great!
Icaras
Apr 12, 11:01 PM
$300! Makes me think Logic Studio X might be $199.
Amen! Bring on Logic X for said price and on the App store.
Exciting times indeed! I can't wait :D
Amen! Bring on Logic X for said price and on the App store.
Exciting times indeed! I can't wait :D
DrDomVonDoom
May 3, 01:37 AM
I think a few points of mine should be made.
A.) I am sure at least 50-75% of Mac users today, used to be PC users, and of that 50-75% I believe is a more 'aware' group of users, not exactly what the media and PC fanboys try to paint Mac users as. ( dumb, needing simplicity, old etc)
B.) I firmly believe that as a technologically aware group of people, we understand viruses, malware, how they are put on computers and we can see the difference between spam, popups, malware and the lot.
c.) keeping both point A. and B. in mind, the reason Mac's are less likely to be infected comes down to the users. We know what to look for after years of using PC's by force or by choice, and Mac users know what not to download, what sites not to visit etc. This has mostly to do with the quality of users, not the software. All software, all os's can be compromised, but its the user that allows such things to happen, and it doesn't happen all too often to Mac users. Something can be said about that.
What the PC crowd would like the world to think is the only people who use Macs are uneducated, or old people who don't understand computers. I call BS, I know almost nobody who uses a Mac, a few but all of the older computer users I know, use PC's why? Because they Don't understand technology and they see a 200-400 dollar computer solution just what they need. I am sure to a older less technologically adept person, either pc or mac would seem overwhelming.
That ALL being said. My main point is, infections of computers are %100 user responsible. Why do Mac users get less infections? My belief is that the users may be of higher quality, ONLY because of the computers niche-like nature and most Mac users are dedicated, technologically knowledgable.
A.) I am sure at least 50-75% of Mac users today, used to be PC users, and of that 50-75% I believe is a more 'aware' group of users, not exactly what the media and PC fanboys try to paint Mac users as. ( dumb, needing simplicity, old etc)
B.) I firmly believe that as a technologically aware group of people, we understand viruses, malware, how they are put on computers and we can see the difference between spam, popups, malware and the lot.
c.) keeping both point A. and B. in mind, the reason Mac's are less likely to be infected comes down to the users. We know what to look for after years of using PC's by force or by choice, and Mac users know what not to download, what sites not to visit etc. This has mostly to do with the quality of users, not the software. All software, all os's can be compromised, but its the user that allows such things to happen, and it doesn't happen all too often to Mac users. Something can be said about that.
What the PC crowd would like the world to think is the only people who use Macs are uneducated, or old people who don't understand computers. I call BS, I know almost nobody who uses a Mac, a few but all of the older computer users I know, use PC's why? Because they Don't understand technology and they see a 200-400 dollar computer solution just what they need. I am sure to a older less technologically adept person, either pc or mac would seem overwhelming.
That ALL being said. My main point is, infections of computers are %100 user responsible. Why do Mac users get less infections? My belief is that the users may be of higher quality, ONLY because of the computers niche-like nature and most Mac users are dedicated, technologically knowledgable.
javajedi
Oct 8, 04:20 PM
Originally posted by Backtothemac
Why is the PC faster? It is the OS, not the processor. Windblows uses .dll's Dynamic link libraries. They allow programs to load 2.only what is needed (GUI, and primary API's) and then load pieces of the program as the user uses it. Macs on the other hand load all of the program into memory because, Mac's don't use dll files. So. It takes longer to load a program on a Mac, however once loaded the program will actually perform faster.
As far as Macs being slower at everything. Dude, you obviously have not put a PowerBook up against a PC based notebook recentlly have you? See we sell IBM and Apple. We recently put my 667 up against a 2.0GHZ IBM laptop. The 667 was faster at everything in photoshop than the PC, encoded MP3's faster, and the only it did slower was render HTML. Now you say how much faster? Doesn't matter. If it was .1 seconds faster, it still shows the superiority of the PPC design.
Sure OS X is a 25 year old architecture. My reference is to the flaws of the X86 vs the PPC architecture. If you would like to discuss the flaws in Windows compared to OSX. Well, arn would have to make a dedicated topic for us to discuss it.
Macs run slower than winblows machines. So what. Would you really like to run winblows fast? That would be cool. Sure my machine goes 2.8GHZ, but it crashes once a day. I have never crashed X. Not even when it was a PB. Oh, and btw. I am an MCP, and Apple certified, so yes, I do know what I am talking about.
Come on.. lets get real..
1) Macs don't use shared libraries? You must be using System 6. For the folks who aren't familiar with the concept of the shared library (what Microsoft calls a dynamic link library) simply put shared libs are object orientated pieces of code containing functions/methods and other objects that can be invoked upon from other code. Mac OS X being highly object orientated relies almost exclusively on shared libraries. In the modern world of software engineering we rarely find it necessary to statically build an executable. If you look back at OS 7/8/9, while not as much as 10, developers could take advantage of off the shelf code. (eg, sprockets, mp lib, etc). Also you are not accurate in saying OS X is a 25 year old archiecture.
1.5) Microsoft OS's that use versions of the Windows 2000 kernel (2000 itself and XP) just like Mach, have a hardware abstraction layer. The "DLL Hell" days (Windows ME and below) are over. This is no longer an issue with the new kernel. The fact of the matter is that my P4 2.8 machine running XP is equally as stable as my PowerBook G4 800 running Mac OS X. I have not *ONCE* had either one core dump or "blue screen". Sure programs screw up, and when they do, they die, not the OS. Both OS's are very mature.
2.) I have *literally* put my PC up against my PowerBook, and the PowerBook fails miserably. I've wrote a simple stopwatch Java application that iterate through floating point instructions, and if I my PC finished 2.5 times faster than the PowerBook. If you want more details (hell I'll even give you the code) of my app, I'll be glad to share it with the community. Playing/decoding MP3's faster on the Mac? No way in hell. Winamp uses 0-1% CPU, iTunes consumes 8-12%.
3.) You speak of flaws of the "x86 architecture" but do not provide us specifics as to why you say this. The x86 processor began in the late 70's when Intel first offered the 8086 as a CISC successor to it's 4004 line of processors. Many, many things have changed over the course of 20 years. Had they sit still (like the G4/motorola chip) intel wouldn't be selling products today, now would they? The G4 is not much more than an improved G3 series processor with vector processing instructions. Be honest (especially be honest to yourself!) if you look back and compare the G3/G4, you do see improvements, but not drastic improvements. More clock, the maxbus protocol (debatable), and more cache. One of the reasons why you see Apple adding cache like mad to it's recent products is because they are in between a rock and hard place with this Motorola chip. This is exactly the same approach AMD took with their failing processor, the K5/K6. I want you to contrast this to a P4 with an i850e chipset: Insanely high clock speeds, a 533mhz bus, fast memory with RIMMs @ 4.2GB/s, with a next stop of 9.6GB/s -- to MaxBus. You will soon see why the current generation of PowerPC processors is "inferior", dare I say it.
For the most part I think its fare to say that the current Macintosh hardware performance is �status-quo�. The current best of breed of Macintoshes are slower than the current best of bread PCs. Mac�s are slower - just accept it. I don�t like it any more than you do.
Why is the PC faster? It is the OS, not the processor. Windblows uses .dll's Dynamic link libraries. They allow programs to load 2.only what is needed (GUI, and primary API's) and then load pieces of the program as the user uses it. Macs on the other hand load all of the program into memory because, Mac's don't use dll files. So. It takes longer to load a program on a Mac, however once loaded the program will actually perform faster.
As far as Macs being slower at everything. Dude, you obviously have not put a PowerBook up against a PC based notebook recentlly have you? See we sell IBM and Apple. We recently put my 667 up against a 2.0GHZ IBM laptop. The 667 was faster at everything in photoshop than the PC, encoded MP3's faster, and the only it did slower was render HTML. Now you say how much faster? Doesn't matter. If it was .1 seconds faster, it still shows the superiority of the PPC design.
Sure OS X is a 25 year old architecture. My reference is to the flaws of the X86 vs the PPC architecture. If you would like to discuss the flaws in Windows compared to OSX. Well, arn would have to make a dedicated topic for us to discuss it.
Macs run slower than winblows machines. So what. Would you really like to run winblows fast? That would be cool. Sure my machine goes 2.8GHZ, but it crashes once a day. I have never crashed X. Not even when it was a PB. Oh, and btw. I am an MCP, and Apple certified, so yes, I do know what I am talking about.
Come on.. lets get real..
1) Macs don't use shared libraries? You must be using System 6. For the folks who aren't familiar with the concept of the shared library (what Microsoft calls a dynamic link library) simply put shared libs are object orientated pieces of code containing functions/methods and other objects that can be invoked upon from other code. Mac OS X being highly object orientated relies almost exclusively on shared libraries. In the modern world of software engineering we rarely find it necessary to statically build an executable. If you look back at OS 7/8/9, while not as much as 10, developers could take advantage of off the shelf code. (eg, sprockets, mp lib, etc). Also you are not accurate in saying OS X is a 25 year old archiecture.
1.5) Microsoft OS's that use versions of the Windows 2000 kernel (2000 itself and XP) just like Mach, have a hardware abstraction layer. The "DLL Hell" days (Windows ME and below) are over. This is no longer an issue with the new kernel. The fact of the matter is that my P4 2.8 machine running XP is equally as stable as my PowerBook G4 800 running Mac OS X. I have not *ONCE* had either one core dump or "blue screen". Sure programs screw up, and when they do, they die, not the OS. Both OS's are very mature.
2.) I have *literally* put my PC up against my PowerBook, and the PowerBook fails miserably. I've wrote a simple stopwatch Java application that iterate through floating point instructions, and if I my PC finished 2.5 times faster than the PowerBook. If you want more details (hell I'll even give you the code) of my app, I'll be glad to share it with the community. Playing/decoding MP3's faster on the Mac? No way in hell. Winamp uses 0-1% CPU, iTunes consumes 8-12%.
3.) You speak of flaws of the "x86 architecture" but do not provide us specifics as to why you say this. The x86 processor began in the late 70's when Intel first offered the 8086 as a CISC successor to it's 4004 line of processors. Many, many things have changed over the course of 20 years. Had they sit still (like the G4/motorola chip) intel wouldn't be selling products today, now would they? The G4 is not much more than an improved G3 series processor with vector processing instructions. Be honest (especially be honest to yourself!) if you look back and compare the G3/G4, you do see improvements, but not drastic improvements. More clock, the maxbus protocol (debatable), and more cache. One of the reasons why you see Apple adding cache like mad to it's recent products is because they are in between a rock and hard place with this Motorola chip. This is exactly the same approach AMD took with their failing processor, the K5/K6. I want you to contrast this to a P4 with an i850e chipset: Insanely high clock speeds, a 533mhz bus, fast memory with RIMMs @ 4.2GB/s, with a next stop of 9.6GB/s -- to MaxBus. You will soon see why the current generation of PowerPC processors is "inferior", dare I say it.
For the most part I think its fare to say that the current Macintosh hardware performance is �status-quo�. The current best of breed of Macintoshes are slower than the current best of bread PCs. Mac�s are slower - just accept it. I don�t like it any more than you do.
mommy
Sep 12, 04:13 PM
I've been coming to MacRumors since maybe but this product has finally inspired me to register. Welcome, iTV - I can't wait til you're part of our living room.
I'm posting with a request too, because there are so many excellent writers on here. Please, someone needs to write a site/blog about getting media ready for the forthcoming iTV. My iTunes and iPhoto libraries are just a mess, and I have stuff on DVD that I don't have a clear idea of how to rip and catalog. If you have a good "system," create a how-to guide, please!
I'm posting with a request too, because there are so many excellent writers on here. Please, someone needs to write a site/blog about getting media ready for the forthcoming iTV. My iTunes and iPhoto libraries are just a mess, and I have stuff on DVD that I don't have a clear idea of how to rip and catalog. If you have a good "system," create a how-to guide, please!
blindzero
May 5, 05:49 PM
I'm just outside of DC and don't have any issues with dropped calls or missed voicemails.
I did when I was on Edge, but since 3G it's been great.
Call quality on the other hand wildly variesfrom unbearable to decent sometimes within the same call.
I did when I was on Edge, but since 3G it's been great.
Call quality on the other hand wildly variesfrom unbearable to decent sometimes within the same call.
r0k
Apr 11, 09:41 AM
Not that this really matters much, but just for the record:
I was one of the first to own the original iPhone and have an iPhone 4 now. I bought an iPhone 4 for my wife and an iPod Touch for my son. I got my mom an iPad and I'm about to buy one for myself. So I'm certainly not anti-Apple. I'm just not sure I see a clear advantage FOR ME to get a Mac computer over a Windows machine.
But, who knows... maybe some day.
We started with Windows and Linux. Windows was buggy, crashy and the opposite of trouble free while Linux "just works." I had a Palm smartphone and it worked equally well with Windows, Linux. Because I liked Linux, I decided to try OS X. I found that my Palm smartphone worked as well with OS X as it had worked with Linux. One thing I remembered through this process is that Windows phones would only work natively with Windows and I had already decided to put that OS in my rear view mirror.
Then I got a Blackberry phone and had all kinds of sync problems. To be honest, I blame those sync problems on Apple and iSync but I knew that if I went to an iThing my sync problems would go away. Sure enough, I carried an iPod Touch and a Blackberry for about a year and my iPod Touch was always in sync but it was a knock down drag out fight to keep my BB in sync. I was relying on MobileMe to keep things in sync and the only down side is that it is a paid service versus google which is free.
When it came time to replace my aging BB, I considered Android but settled on iPhone so I could bring all my apps and data over from my iPod Touch. Bottom line: I could have chosen to live with a multi platform environment but living in an all Apple environment has provided a flawless end to end user experience for me.
If you like your iPhone and have a desire for an Apple computer, I can tell you the two play very well together. In fact, I can testify from experience that Apple is better at making any two Apple devices play well together than is Microsoft. Heck I remember the days when I was hosting lan parties that WinME, Win2K and WinXP couldn't see one another on a network because of incompatibilities in MS implementation of networking across the 3 OS. And these were similar devices.
When I picked up my iPad, and later my iPhone 4, I had all my contacts and calendar on the devices before walking out of the Apple store. I was not only impressed. I was delighted and I remain delighted in the way my iThings work. I think you can get Mobile Me free on windows (buy purchasing a $99 annual subscription) but as I've never tried it, I don't know how well it works. I don't dislike Outlook but I do resent the fact that unlike Contact.app and Mail.app it is not included with the OS.
BTW, while I've taken an "all Apple" approach, I don't think that's necessary but I do think it is better because of Apple's dedication to a quality end to end user experience.
I was one of the first to own the original iPhone and have an iPhone 4 now. I bought an iPhone 4 for my wife and an iPod Touch for my son. I got my mom an iPad and I'm about to buy one for myself. So I'm certainly not anti-Apple. I'm just not sure I see a clear advantage FOR ME to get a Mac computer over a Windows machine.
But, who knows... maybe some day.
We started with Windows and Linux. Windows was buggy, crashy and the opposite of trouble free while Linux "just works." I had a Palm smartphone and it worked equally well with Windows, Linux. Because I liked Linux, I decided to try OS X. I found that my Palm smartphone worked as well with OS X as it had worked with Linux. One thing I remembered through this process is that Windows phones would only work natively with Windows and I had already decided to put that OS in my rear view mirror.
Then I got a Blackberry phone and had all kinds of sync problems. To be honest, I blame those sync problems on Apple and iSync but I knew that if I went to an iThing my sync problems would go away. Sure enough, I carried an iPod Touch and a Blackberry for about a year and my iPod Touch was always in sync but it was a knock down drag out fight to keep my BB in sync. I was relying on MobileMe to keep things in sync and the only down side is that it is a paid service versus google which is free.
When it came time to replace my aging BB, I considered Android but settled on iPhone so I could bring all my apps and data over from my iPod Touch. Bottom line: I could have chosen to live with a multi platform environment but living in an all Apple environment has provided a flawless end to end user experience for me.
If you like your iPhone and have a desire for an Apple computer, I can tell you the two play very well together. In fact, I can testify from experience that Apple is better at making any two Apple devices play well together than is Microsoft. Heck I remember the days when I was hosting lan parties that WinME, Win2K and WinXP couldn't see one another on a network because of incompatibilities in MS implementation of networking across the 3 OS. And these were similar devices.
When I picked up my iPad, and later my iPhone 4, I had all my contacts and calendar on the devices before walking out of the Apple store. I was not only impressed. I was delighted and I remain delighted in the way my iThings work. I think you can get Mobile Me free on windows (buy purchasing a $99 annual subscription) but as I've never tried it, I don't know how well it works. I don't dislike Outlook but I do resent the fact that unlike Contact.app and Mail.app it is not included with the OS.
BTW, while I've taken an "all Apple" approach, I don't think that's necessary but I do think it is better because of Apple's dedication to a quality end to end user experience.
munkery
May 2, 05:30 PM
so a very small percentage of the market will be using it (the better tech) then?
if IE or FF don't do something similar then it won't really matter from a cybercrime point of view as 'no one' uses Safari and only the foolish use Chrome.
sad really..
I read somewhere that Chrome may drop it's own sandbox in favour of Webkit2 given that Chrome is based on Webkit.
Webkit2 will sandbox plugins, rendering engine, and scripting engine (Javascript) from the UI frame and that sandbox will be the same regardless of the user account type running on the Mac, even root.
IE sandboxes tab processes from each other and the UI frame but it does not sandbox the plugins, rendering engine, and scripting engine from the tab processes.
Also, the Windows sandbox is turned off or lessened if the user turns off UAC or lessens UAC restrictions. This effect of UAC on Windows sandbox also affects Chrome on Windows given that Chrome uses that technology to achieve it's sandbox in Windows. So, do not disable or reduce UAC in Windows!
You have to remember a browsers sandbox is based on the sandbox technology of the underlying OS. Windows sandbox is based on inherited permissions much like the older sandbox technology called Unix DAC that has always been implemented in the default user account in OS X. The newer sandbox in OS X, the TrustedBSD MAC framework, does not function via inherited permissions.
if IE or FF don't do something similar then it won't really matter from a cybercrime point of view as 'no one' uses Safari and only the foolish use Chrome.
sad really..
I read somewhere that Chrome may drop it's own sandbox in favour of Webkit2 given that Chrome is based on Webkit.
Webkit2 will sandbox plugins, rendering engine, and scripting engine (Javascript) from the UI frame and that sandbox will be the same regardless of the user account type running on the Mac, even root.
IE sandboxes tab processes from each other and the UI frame but it does not sandbox the plugins, rendering engine, and scripting engine from the tab processes.
Also, the Windows sandbox is turned off or lessened if the user turns off UAC or lessens UAC restrictions. This effect of UAC on Windows sandbox also affects Chrome on Windows given that Chrome uses that technology to achieve it's sandbox in Windows. So, do not disable or reduce UAC in Windows!
You have to remember a browsers sandbox is based on the sandbox technology of the underlying OS. Windows sandbox is based on inherited permissions much like the older sandbox technology called Unix DAC that has always been implemented in the default user account in OS X. The newer sandbox in OS X, the TrustedBSD MAC framework, does not function via inherited permissions.
Thunderhawks
Apr 21, 09:09 AM
Originally Posted by MH01 View Post
You must live in a alternate univerise if think that Apple users are tech savy. You average user is very happy to have Apple control thier experience, ie they are techtards. And frankly owning an Apple product is the best thing for them, with a PC etc they will just get themselves into trouble.
If your still under some illusion of how tech savy they are read through the macrumors forums...... and remeber they are the more tech savy ones!
I have moved every family member over to mac who has no idea about computer, they are happy. The people I know who work in IT, develop and are really tech savy, still have a PC (and an android, some have both android and iphone)
Oh yes, being elitist by proclaiming to be tech savvy.
For starters the correct way to look at it is that Apple users don't HAVE to be tech savvy.
It all works beautifully the way Apple created it, with almost no learning curve. Unpack your device from the box, hook it up and watch the magic unfold.
I also don't see that I need a badge of being tech savvy. It's like me driving my car and not caring or needing to know how things work.
Do I care about compression, valves, spark plug, clutch etc. ?
I am also sure that there are an equal amount of dumb PC users as there are Apple users.
Only thing we don't know is if the question:
"My cup holder doesn't give my cup back"
(She was talking about a CD drive tray being jammed)
was from an Apple or PC user first:-)
You must live in a alternate univerise if think that Apple users are tech savy. You average user is very happy to have Apple control thier experience, ie they are techtards. And frankly owning an Apple product is the best thing for them, with a PC etc they will just get themselves into trouble.
If your still under some illusion of how tech savy they are read through the macrumors forums...... and remeber they are the more tech savy ones!
I have moved every family member over to mac who has no idea about computer, they are happy. The people I know who work in IT, develop and are really tech savy, still have a PC (and an android, some have both android and iphone)
Oh yes, being elitist by proclaiming to be tech savvy.
For starters the correct way to look at it is that Apple users don't HAVE to be tech savvy.
It all works beautifully the way Apple created it, with almost no learning curve. Unpack your device from the box, hook it up and watch the magic unfold.
I also don't see that I need a badge of being tech savvy. It's like me driving my car and not caring or needing to know how things work.
Do I care about compression, valves, spark plug, clutch etc. ?
I am also sure that there are an equal amount of dumb PC users as there are Apple users.
Only thing we don't know is if the question:
"My cup holder doesn't give my cup back"
(She was talking about a CD drive tray being jammed)
was from an Apple or PC user first:-)
Therbo
May 2, 09:25 AM
I went on a site that downloaded this a few days ago.
It opened up the installer, I simply closed the window. Its only a threat to those who proceed with the installed. Pressing the Red circle is not so hard.
You also need to remember, this software can only infect your user, not the system unless you give it your sudo password. If you can't remove it, just simply make a new user, move over the files you need and switch to that user. It will be clean of this "malware"
Unix Security FTW
It opened up the installer, I simply closed the window. Its only a threat to those who proceed with the installed. Pressing the Red circle is not so hard.
You also need to remember, this software can only infect your user, not the system unless you give it your sudo password. If you can't remove it, just simply make a new user, move over the files you need and switch to that user. It will be clean of this "malware"
Unix Security FTW
JesterJJZ
Apr 12, 10:16 PM
Might be great down the road, but something tells me my FCP7 will be plenty useful for at least the next couple years.
R.Perez
Mar 13, 05:13 PM
No it couldn't. That would require grid energy storage technology that currently hasn't been invented yet.
Look up base load generation. There are only a few sources of generation that fall under this category. Nuclear and coal are among them. Most renewables are not.
I love when people don't read threads....
this was already posted, way to go...
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=how-to-use-solar-energy-at-night
Look up base load generation. There are only a few sources of generation that fall under this category. Nuclear and coal are among them. Most renewables are not.
I love when people don't read threads....
this was already posted, way to go...
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=how-to-use-solar-energy-at-night
jiggie2g
Jul 12, 02:18 PM
any and ever motherboard has been designed with the chips lay out and logic requested by the vendor, in this case apple, the fact that they don't develop their own electronics changes nothing, freescale/IBM made the chipsets before the switch nothing has changed, apple outsourced the design of the board to intel sure but they are paying intel to do so somehow, anyway, the cost of support and manufacture rockets up too.
more i'm disappointed in you, i haven't seen you post in a year or so and your still the same childish n00b who completely misses the point.
the mac pro will be a pro machine, apple has never done a consumer tower and likely never will.
woodcrest is just conroe with SMP, overclocking is exactly the same, as in non existent due to EFI. professionals do not overclock their macs.
go play with your toys.
This coming from a guy who overclocks his AMD chips...... talk about being a hippocrate. I very much doubt apple will deviate much from intel reference design. I expect something similar to the Intel 975x Bad Axe Motherboard for the MacPro.
more i'm disappointed in you, i haven't seen you post in a year or so and your still the same childish n00b who completely misses the point.
the mac pro will be a pro machine, apple has never done a consumer tower and likely never will.
woodcrest is just conroe with SMP, overclocking is exactly the same, as in non existent due to EFI. professionals do not overclock their macs.
go play with your toys.
This coming from a guy who overclocks his AMD chips...... talk about being a hippocrate. I very much doubt apple will deviate much from intel reference design. I expect something similar to the Intel 975x Bad Axe Motherboard for the MacPro.
Mord
Jul 12, 05:00 PM
This thread is getting too funny. Apple has been so far behind on power these past few years and now we get the chance to use Conroe, and suddenly that's not good enough for the Mac snobs. Conroe is an extremely fast chip (especially compared to G5), so I don't get why some people think it's a bad choice for the pro-line up. Sure, it can't do smp, but not everyone needs or want to pay for quad processing.
So, aside from the ability to do multiple processing, what advantages does Woodcrest have that make it mandatory to go in the pro-line? How much "faster" is it going to be over the Conroe? It's my understanding that they are identical in that respect.
if you don't need all the power you can get the mac pro is not for you, apple does not do a consumer tower and most likely never will, they simply must have a quad settup and if they have two configs of them (a 3GHz and a 2.66) they may as well keep the low end option on the same platform, this has been said again and again and again, conroe is not bad it just does not make sense for apple to use it in the mac pro, conroe goes in the imac.
So, aside from the ability to do multiple processing, what advantages does Woodcrest have that make it mandatory to go in the pro-line? How much "faster" is it going to be over the Conroe? It's my understanding that they are identical in that respect.
if you don't need all the power you can get the mac pro is not for you, apple does not do a consumer tower and most likely never will, they simply must have a quad settup and if they have two configs of them (a 3GHz and a 2.66) they may as well keep the low end option on the same platform, this has been said again and again and again, conroe is not bad it just does not make sense for apple to use it in the mac pro, conroe goes in the imac.
PhantomPumpkin
Apr 21, 09:07 AM
You apparently didn't read the article you quoted.
That version of Skype (since fixed) did not itself send any private data, which by the way, it has your permission to access.
It had a bug in the file permissions it used for caching contact etc info, which meant that it was possible for someone to write an app to look at it, since Skype didn't encrypt their cache files. There's no evidence anyone did so, though.
Kind of like how iOS apparently has a bug where our location history is available to anyone who writes an app to look at it.
Skype did a good job of quickly fixing the bug, but that is hardly the case in EVERY app out there. It was one example a potential flaw, of which there have been many on Android devices.
That version of Skype (since fixed) did not itself send any private data, which by the way, it has your permission to access.
It had a bug in the file permissions it used for caching contact etc info, which meant that it was possible for someone to write an app to look at it, since Skype didn't encrypt their cache files. There's no evidence anyone did so, though.
Kind of like how iOS apparently has a bug where our location history is available to anyone who writes an app to look at it.
Skype did a good job of quickly fixing the bug, but that is hardly the case in EVERY app out there. It was one example a potential flaw, of which there have been many on Android devices.
0 comments:
Post a Comment