mcmarks
May 2, 12:19 PM
A couple of points:
- No computer for which the user can write or install programs will ever be free of Malware (nor, to my knowledge, has the "malware free" term ever been applied to the Mac OS by anyone actually familiar with computer security). All I have to do is write a script that formats your hard drive, call it ReallyFunGame, thereby deceiving you into downloading it and running it, and poof. Malware at its most basic. (Apple addresses this issue with the App Store reviews for iOS apps, but even there, their review is not sufficient to eliminate all possibility of malware). So, the actual presence of malware is no surprise, nor has it ever been. The defense against these types of attacks are user education and OS design (which will be a compromise between usability and security). Personally, I find the compromises on the Mac less annoying than their counterparts on Windows. Furthermore, the frequent inscrutable dialogs on Windows in general cause a certain level of desensitization to all dialogs for the least savvy users undermining their value on Windows because users get used to just clicking through things they don't understand.
- The far more dangerous computer security problem, as has been mentioned in this thread a bit, is viruses (including worms which are a subset) because they can propagate and cause harm without user knowledge and intervention. This new piece of malware is not one of those (as far as I can tell). To my knowledge, Mac OS X remains a more secure operating system because there are no known viruses that have propagated in the wild that attack it. Now, if the same can be said for Windows 7 (I don't know whether it can or not), then it would be equally secure. Is it?
- No computer for which the user can write or install programs will ever be free of Malware (nor, to my knowledge, has the "malware free" term ever been applied to the Mac OS by anyone actually familiar with computer security). All I have to do is write a script that formats your hard drive, call it ReallyFunGame, thereby deceiving you into downloading it and running it, and poof. Malware at its most basic. (Apple addresses this issue with the App Store reviews for iOS apps, but even there, their review is not sufficient to eliminate all possibility of malware). So, the actual presence of malware is no surprise, nor has it ever been. The defense against these types of attacks are user education and OS design (which will be a compromise between usability and security). Personally, I find the compromises on the Mac less annoying than their counterparts on Windows. Furthermore, the frequent inscrutable dialogs on Windows in general cause a certain level of desensitization to all dialogs for the least savvy users undermining their value on Windows because users get used to just clicking through things they don't understand.
- The far more dangerous computer security problem, as has been mentioned in this thread a bit, is viruses (including worms which are a subset) because they can propagate and cause harm without user knowledge and intervention. This new piece of malware is not one of those (as far as I can tell). To my knowledge, Mac OS X remains a more secure operating system because there are no known viruses that have propagated in the wild that attack it. Now, if the same can be said for Windows 7 (I don't know whether it can or not), then it would be equally secure. Is it?
Surely
Apr 15, 10:58 AM
Ha ha! I love when people rationalize all their views through scientific/observable fact...and then use the same subjectivity and bias (they ridicule) to judge opinions they disagree with. Sorry friend, you can no more prove that scripture invalid than MacVault can prove it valid. :rolleyes:
I'm sorry, but any writing that advocates death to someone is wrong.
If you want to preach love, kindness, and being good to thy neighbor, I'm all for that.
Ha ha!:rolleyes:
I'm sorry, but any writing that advocates death to someone is wrong.
If you want to preach love, kindness, and being good to thy neighbor, I'm all for that.
Ha ha!:rolleyes:
Backtothemac
Oct 7, 01:54 PM
Originally posted by ddtlm
Backtothemac:
Does it annoy you to know that even in Photoshop (gasp!) those 25-year old ISA x86 machines kick the snot out of the latest and greatest Mac? Sure seems to.
2.8ghz, by the way.
Um,
Don't know what chart you were looking at, but with both processors being used, the 1.25 kicked the "snot" out of the PC's.
Backtothemac:
Does it annoy you to know that even in Photoshop (gasp!) those 25-year old ISA x86 machines kick the snot out of the latest and greatest Mac? Sure seems to.
2.8ghz, by the way.
Um,
Don't know what chart you were looking at, but with both processors being used, the 1.25 kicked the "snot" out of the PC's.
fatfreddy
Mar 11, 04:46 AM
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=016_1299829101
More footage.
More footage.
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.
Machoo
Jun 15, 06:02 PM
I live in good ole sunny California, down south. I don't have any troubles with dropped calls and I couldn't be happier with my at&t service. I am also totally stoked that the same company will be letting me upgrade early to the iphone 4. How awesome. I wish people all over the country had the same experience that I have that way maybe at&t wouldn't take so much grief for poor service.
ffakr
Oct 6, 12:00 AM
I must love punishment because I scanned this whole tread. We need some sort system to gather the correct info into one location. :-)
Multimedia, you're so far out of mainstream that your comments make no sense to all but .01 % of computer users.
Seriously.. Most people don't rip 4 videos to h264 while they are creating 4 disk images and browsing the web.
I work at a wealthy research university, I set up a new mac every week (and too many PCs). A 1st Gen dual 2.0 G5 is plenty fast for nearly all users. I'm still surprised how nice ours runs considering it's 3 years old. In my experience the dual cores are more responsive (UI latency) but a slightly faster dual proc will run intensive tasks faster.
The reality is, a dual core system.. any current dual core system.. is a fantastic machine for 95% of computer users. The Core2 Duo (Merom) iMacs are extermely fast. The 24" iMac with 2GB ram runs nearly everything instantaneously.
The dual dual-core systems are rediculously fast. Iv'e set up several 2.66GHz models and I had to invent tasks to slow the thing down. Ripping DVD to h264 does take some time with handbrake (half playback speed ((that's ripping 1hour of DVD in 30 minutes) but the machine is still very responsive while you're doing that, installing software, and having Mathematica calculate Pi to 100,000 places. During normal use (Office, web, mail, chats...) it's unusual to see any of the cpu cores bump up past 20%.
I'm sure Apple will have 4 core cpus eventually but I don't expect it will happen immediately. Maybe they'll have one top end version but it'd certainly be a mistake to move the line to all quad cores.
Here's the reality...
- fewer cores running faster will be much better for most people
- there are relatively few tasks that really lend themselves to massively parallelizaton well. Video and Image editing are obvious because there are a number of ways to slice jobs up (render multiple frames.. break images into sections, modify in parallel, reassemble...).
- though multimedia is an Apple core market.. not everyone runs a full video shop or rending farm off of one desktop computer. Seriously guys, we don't.
- Games are especially difficult to thread for SMP systems. Even games that do support SMP like Quake and UT do it fairly poorly. UT only splits off audio work on to the 2nd cpu. The real time nature of games means you can't have 7 or 8 independent threads on an 8 core systems without running into issues were the game hangs up on a lagging thread. They simply work better in a more serial paradigm.
- The first quad core chips will be much hotter than current Core2 chips. Most people.. even people who want the power of towers.. don't want a desktop machine that actually pulls 600W from the wall because of the two 120-130W cpus inside. also, goodby silent MacPros in this config.
- The systems will be far too I/O bound in an 8 core system. The memory system does have lots of bandwith but the benchmarks indicate it will be bus and memory constrained. It'll certainly be hard to feed data from the SATA drives unless you've got gobs of memory and your not working on large streams of data (like video).
http://www.tomshardware.com/2006/09/10/four_cores_on_the_rampage/
Finally, Apple's all about the perception. Apple has held back cpu releases because they wouldn't let a lower end cpu clock higher than a higher end chip. They did it with PPC 603&604 and I think they did it with G3 & G4.
It's against everything Apple's ever done to have 3.0 GHz dual dual-core towers in the mid range and 2.33GHz quad-core cpus in the high end.
I see some options here..
Maybe we'll get the dual 2.66 quad cores in one high end system. The price will go up.
Alternately.. this could finally be a rumored Mac Station.. or.. Apple has yet to announce a cluster node version of the intel XServe.
Geez.. almost forgot.
For most people... the Core2 desktop systems bench better than the 4core systems or even the dual Core2 Xeon systems because the DDR2 is lower latency than the FBDIMMs. To all the gamers.. you don't want slower clocked quad core chips.. not even on the desktop. You want a speed bump of the Core2 Duo.
Multimedia, you're so far out of mainstream that your comments make no sense to all but .01 % of computer users.
Seriously.. Most people don't rip 4 videos to h264 while they are creating 4 disk images and browsing the web.
I work at a wealthy research university, I set up a new mac every week (and too many PCs). A 1st Gen dual 2.0 G5 is plenty fast for nearly all users. I'm still surprised how nice ours runs considering it's 3 years old. In my experience the dual cores are more responsive (UI latency) but a slightly faster dual proc will run intensive tasks faster.
The reality is, a dual core system.. any current dual core system.. is a fantastic machine for 95% of computer users. The Core2 Duo (Merom) iMacs are extermely fast. The 24" iMac with 2GB ram runs nearly everything instantaneously.
The dual dual-core systems are rediculously fast. Iv'e set up several 2.66GHz models and I had to invent tasks to slow the thing down. Ripping DVD to h264 does take some time with handbrake (half playback speed ((that's ripping 1hour of DVD in 30 minutes) but the machine is still very responsive while you're doing that, installing software, and having Mathematica calculate Pi to 100,000 places. During normal use (Office, web, mail, chats...) it's unusual to see any of the cpu cores bump up past 20%.
I'm sure Apple will have 4 core cpus eventually but I don't expect it will happen immediately. Maybe they'll have one top end version but it'd certainly be a mistake to move the line to all quad cores.
Here's the reality...
- fewer cores running faster will be much better for most people
- there are relatively few tasks that really lend themselves to massively parallelizaton well. Video and Image editing are obvious because there are a number of ways to slice jobs up (render multiple frames.. break images into sections, modify in parallel, reassemble...).
- though multimedia is an Apple core market.. not everyone runs a full video shop or rending farm off of one desktop computer. Seriously guys, we don't.
- Games are especially difficult to thread for SMP systems. Even games that do support SMP like Quake and UT do it fairly poorly. UT only splits off audio work on to the 2nd cpu. The real time nature of games means you can't have 7 or 8 independent threads on an 8 core systems without running into issues were the game hangs up on a lagging thread. They simply work better in a more serial paradigm.
- The first quad core chips will be much hotter than current Core2 chips. Most people.. even people who want the power of towers.. don't want a desktop machine that actually pulls 600W from the wall because of the two 120-130W cpus inside. also, goodby silent MacPros in this config.
- The systems will be far too I/O bound in an 8 core system. The memory system does have lots of bandwith but the benchmarks indicate it will be bus and memory constrained. It'll certainly be hard to feed data from the SATA drives unless you've got gobs of memory and your not working on large streams of data (like video).
http://www.tomshardware.com/2006/09/10/four_cores_on_the_rampage/
Finally, Apple's all about the perception. Apple has held back cpu releases because they wouldn't let a lower end cpu clock higher than a higher end chip. They did it with PPC 603&604 and I think they did it with G3 & G4.
It's against everything Apple's ever done to have 3.0 GHz dual dual-core towers in the mid range and 2.33GHz quad-core cpus in the high end.
I see some options here..
Maybe we'll get the dual 2.66 quad cores in one high end system. The price will go up.
Alternately.. this could finally be a rumored Mac Station.. or.. Apple has yet to announce a cluster node version of the intel XServe.
Geez.. almost forgot.
For most people... the Core2 desktop systems bench better than the 4core systems or even the dual Core2 Xeon systems because the DDR2 is lower latency than the FBDIMMs. To all the gamers.. you don't want slower clocked quad core chips.. not even on the desktop. You want a speed bump of the Core2 Duo.
redkamel
Apr 13, 01:16 AM
When Apple's Pro App for photographers, Aperture, hit the App Store, the price dropped from $200 to only $80. Compare this to Adobe's $300 Lightroom app.
Providing Pro Apps at such low prices helps to establish Apple's hardware as more affordable. Today's young computer users bring a sophistication to application utilization that previous generations did not. High school students quickly outgrow iMovie's capabilities in their media classes and are prepared to move up.
Forget "Pro Apps"- these are "Advanced Apps" and, though the pros may not like it, these apps are going to make it into the hands of amateurs and hobbyists.As a professional photographer, I recommend Aperture to even the most novice digital photographer- if you can understand iPhoto, Aperture is within reach.
Ultimately, don't let the low price fool you. Volume of sales and baiting eager pro app users to the Apple OS will do more for Apple than trying to make these apps solely available to professionals. Software-only companies are at a big disadvantage here- selling inexpensive (and great) software will ultimately increase their overall sales as the hardware flies off the shelves.
I think a large part of it has to do with how Aperture is much more visual while PS is more menu based. It makes it much easier to learn.
I'd agree; Apple is dropping software prices for good reasons.
1. Computers are very powerful nowadays. It is stupid to make pro apps out of the reach of people who own prosumer machines...even a mid level macbook pro can run Aperture and FCP to some extent. Might as well use that power and sell software along with giving a halo effect to all your machines. FCP is linked to Apple. Avid, Lightroom are not.
2. It sells computers when amateurs or pros can get pro apps for cheap and vice versa. I know if I was OS neutral and owned a business or was an amateur, I'd rather have reliable, shiny "cool" macs with cheaper pro software, than cheaper windows boxes with expensive software. The functionality is likely equal, but the Apples will end up breaking even (cheaper software) and be more reliable.
3. Cheaper software means more people use it, which means it will eventually become more standard. I remember me and my friend having theories about Adobe "allowing" HS and college kids to pirate software because when they graduated, then that is all they knew...and they would have to buy it if they wanted to work, and businesses would have to buy it if they wanted to hire. A cheaper alternative to legal PS would be out of luck unless it could break that cycle. Ive been using Aperture since it came out. You think I want to work for someone using Lightroom or Aperture? (actually, i guess it doesnt really matter... :p work would be work)
Providing Pro Apps at such low prices helps to establish Apple's hardware as more affordable. Today's young computer users bring a sophistication to application utilization that previous generations did not. High school students quickly outgrow iMovie's capabilities in their media classes and are prepared to move up.
Forget "Pro Apps"- these are "Advanced Apps" and, though the pros may not like it, these apps are going to make it into the hands of amateurs and hobbyists.As a professional photographer, I recommend Aperture to even the most novice digital photographer- if you can understand iPhoto, Aperture is within reach.
Ultimately, don't let the low price fool you. Volume of sales and baiting eager pro app users to the Apple OS will do more for Apple than trying to make these apps solely available to professionals. Software-only companies are at a big disadvantage here- selling inexpensive (and great) software will ultimately increase their overall sales as the hardware flies off the shelves.
I think a large part of it has to do with how Aperture is much more visual while PS is more menu based. It makes it much easier to learn.
I'd agree; Apple is dropping software prices for good reasons.
1. Computers are very powerful nowadays. It is stupid to make pro apps out of the reach of people who own prosumer machines...even a mid level macbook pro can run Aperture and FCP to some extent. Might as well use that power and sell software along with giving a halo effect to all your machines. FCP is linked to Apple. Avid, Lightroom are not.
2. It sells computers when amateurs or pros can get pro apps for cheap and vice versa. I know if I was OS neutral and owned a business or was an amateur, I'd rather have reliable, shiny "cool" macs with cheaper pro software, than cheaper windows boxes with expensive software. The functionality is likely equal, but the Apples will end up breaking even (cheaper software) and be more reliable.
3. Cheaper software means more people use it, which means it will eventually become more standard. I remember me and my friend having theories about Adobe "allowing" HS and college kids to pirate software because when they graduated, then that is all they knew...and they would have to buy it if they wanted to work, and businesses would have to buy it if they wanted to hire. A cheaper alternative to legal PS would be out of luck unless it could break that cycle. Ive been using Aperture since it came out. You think I want to work for someone using Lightroom or Aperture? (actually, i guess it doesnt really matter... :p work would be work)
iindigo
May 2, 12:11 PM
Uh huh. And OSX doesn't ask you to manually enter a password every time you install or change something? Windows only asks you to authorize...which is technically more "annoying"?
I don't know about you, but once I have my Mac set up (apps and updates installed) about the only thing I enter my password for is to unlock the screen saver. Maybe for the occasional random app I install or when I need to change an otherwise permissions-locked file. It's not a super common thing and if a password dialog pops up for seemingly no reason it sends up a red flag.
As for which is more obnoxious, I'd have to say UAC by far. As noted previously, the user is prompted with UAC for many things you'd never see a password dialog in OS X or Linux for. This is partially because due to a design flaw in Windows, many third-party applications won't even run unless they have administrator access (silly, no?).
I actually don't know anyone who has ever disabled UAC.
Our experiences differ, then. A good half or more of the students at my college have theirs disabled. The reason always cited is, "because it was annoying".
I don't know about you, but once I have my Mac set up (apps and updates installed) about the only thing I enter my password for is to unlock the screen saver. Maybe for the occasional random app I install or when I need to change an otherwise permissions-locked file. It's not a super common thing and if a password dialog pops up for seemingly no reason it sends up a red flag.
As for which is more obnoxious, I'd have to say UAC by far. As noted previously, the user is prompted with UAC for many things you'd never see a password dialog in OS X or Linux for. This is partially because due to a design flaw in Windows, many third-party applications won't even run unless they have administrator access (silly, no?).
I actually don't know anyone who has ever disabled UAC.
Our experiences differ, then. A good half or more of the students at my college have theirs disabled. The reason always cited is, "because it was annoying".
Eidorian
Jul 14, 02:09 PM
Dual optical drive slots are a must. I love my Mirrored Drive Door at work for this fact.
iGary
Aug 29, 04:28 PM
I know where you're coming from, but surely it's a good thing to try and get the companies we use to improve their environmental policy? If Dell does recycle more than Apple, then maybe Apple should recycle more. If Apple's stuff lasts longer, Dell should make their stuff last longer. And yes, at the same time, we should be putting pressure on companies to reduce food packaging and use less power and fuel. I don't really see it as a competition between companies, more that if one company does something environmentally better than another, the other should try and match it, you know?
My point is that Greenpeace would be far better served educating the public how to help. They get even 10% of the world's population to make some radical changes in their lives and the changes to the planet would be amazing.
I agree corporations need to set examples and do teh best they can. I don't think its where environmentalists should be pointing fingers.
You , me and everyone else are the biggest polluters.
I'm as guilty as teh next guy. Nothing stopping me from peddling a mile up the street to Trader Joe's tonight for my dinner. Except laziness. :D
My point is that Greenpeace would be far better served educating the public how to help. They get even 10% of the world's population to make some radical changes in their lives and the changes to the planet would be amazing.
I agree corporations need to set examples and do teh best they can. I don't think its where environmentalists should be pointing fingers.
You , me and everyone else are the biggest polluters.
I'm as guilty as teh next guy. Nothing stopping me from peddling a mile up the street to Trader Joe's tonight for my dinner. Except laziness. :D
alust2013
Apr 5, 05:31 PM
You may not like the lack of start menu at first, however, it does end up working with a better flow overall. It's just different at first, and after using windows for many years (little bit of 3.1, a lot of 95 and 98, then ME, XP and 7), it took a little bit to get used to, but honestly not that long. You get the basic idea of where stuff is pretty quick, and it's certainly not difficult, especially if you are reasonably proficient in computers.
citizenzen
Mar 27, 09:35 PM
Fr. Harvey and his colleagues try to help people who feel same-sex attraction live holy, chaste, celibate lives.
Yet he doesn't try to help people who feel opposite-sex attraction to live chaste, celibate lives.
This is a clear distinction that you don't seem to appreciate.
There is no rational reason to steer people away from engaging in gay sexual relations.
Can you argue otherwise?
But what if changed thoughts and changed behaviors would make people even happier than than they would be without the changes?
What if you could make people happier by not condemning their sexual orientation and vilifying their sexual acts?
Would their happiness be as important to you then?
Yet he doesn't try to help people who feel opposite-sex attraction to live chaste, celibate lives.
This is a clear distinction that you don't seem to appreciate.
There is no rational reason to steer people away from engaging in gay sexual relations.
Can you argue otherwise?
But what if changed thoughts and changed behaviors would make people even happier than than they would be without the changes?
What if you could make people happier by not condemning their sexual orientation and vilifying their sexual acts?
Would their happiness be as important to you then?
matticus008
Mar 20, 08:15 PM
I'm a little late to this party, but FWIW I don't see much of a difference between this and buying a CD (apart from its tangible nature). CDs are data discs without rights management, after all. It thus similarly boils down to the consumer's conscience.
[...]
Without going into the legal aspects of it, on the whole I cannot fathom any kind of moral problems with this. You're paying for the product -- and the ITMS pays labels a whole lot more than the other options, whether Russian or distributed.
From an alternate point of view, though, nobody in the 'scene' would consider a 128kbit AAC worthwhile downloading anyway..!
It's more than a copyright/fair use issue. Let's step back from that for a moment and consider this. It is different from buying a CD and ripping it to your hard drive. You created an iTunes account under which you explicitly agreed to abide by the terms of said account. Ignoring the issue of whether the copyright laws are fair and whether breaking the law is morally justified, here's the thing. You AGREED not to bypass or attempt to circumvent DRM, not to redistribute the files in any unauthorized manner, and to use iTunes alone to interface with the iTMS. And not just agreed passively, but EXPLICITLY agreed to those terms, and now you are breaking your word. How is that not morally wrong? If you didn't accept the terms presented, then there is no reason you should have agreed to them. It nullifies your power to complain. You said, "I don't think this business model is right" in your head, but clicked "I agree to these terms and conditions" anyway. Then you decide that the terms are inconvenient for you. Now you are breaking those terms, which in addition to being illegal on two fronts (copyright law and a legal TOS contract), is breaking your word. There's no way to construe that as morally sound.
To your final point, I agree that the quality of music sold is inferior, and most who would agree don't use the iTMS anyway. I use it for the incidental track that I like and come across randomly from various artists or that sounds good in the preview. My actual collection of albums demands a higher quality, and I hope iTunes offers 320kbps or lossless in the future for the same price. Then they'd make a lot more money from me, but I know that I'm not necessarily the target demographic. It certainly won't happen if piracy keeps its current rates, though.
[...]
Without going into the legal aspects of it, on the whole I cannot fathom any kind of moral problems with this. You're paying for the product -- and the ITMS pays labels a whole lot more than the other options, whether Russian or distributed.
From an alternate point of view, though, nobody in the 'scene' would consider a 128kbit AAC worthwhile downloading anyway..!
It's more than a copyright/fair use issue. Let's step back from that for a moment and consider this. It is different from buying a CD and ripping it to your hard drive. You created an iTunes account under which you explicitly agreed to abide by the terms of said account. Ignoring the issue of whether the copyright laws are fair and whether breaking the law is morally justified, here's the thing. You AGREED not to bypass or attempt to circumvent DRM, not to redistribute the files in any unauthorized manner, and to use iTunes alone to interface with the iTMS. And not just agreed passively, but EXPLICITLY agreed to those terms, and now you are breaking your word. How is that not morally wrong? If you didn't accept the terms presented, then there is no reason you should have agreed to them. It nullifies your power to complain. You said, "I don't think this business model is right" in your head, but clicked "I agree to these terms and conditions" anyway. Then you decide that the terms are inconvenient for you. Now you are breaking those terms, which in addition to being illegal on two fronts (copyright law and a legal TOS contract), is breaking your word. There's no way to construe that as morally sound.
To your final point, I agree that the quality of music sold is inferior, and most who would agree don't use the iTMS anyway. I use it for the incidental track that I like and come across randomly from various artists or that sounds good in the preview. My actual collection of albums demands a higher quality, and I hope iTunes offers 320kbps or lossless in the future for the same price. Then they'd make a lot more money from me, but I know that I'm not necessarily the target demographic. It certainly won't happen if piracy keeps its current rates, though.
AidenShaw
Sep 26, 11:18 PM
No I am not kidding. What option to buy a Quad? Clovertowns are Quads used in pairs to make 8-core OctoMacs not Quads. Clovertowns are scheduled to begin shipping in November. This is not news. It's been known for at least 3 months. Did you not see that thread?
Yes, Intel will be shipping Clovertowns then - but when will Apple get around to putting them in systems? (November - well, that can wait for The Lord God Jobs' keynote in January, for sure.)
Most vendors are putting Merom systems in their customers' hands, but Apple is still shipping Yonahs in the MacIntelBooks.
I'm at IDF at Moscone, and most of the booths have Kentsfield or Clovertown systems running. (Apple isn't in the hall.)
I think that you're being very brave in assuming that Apple will ship quads in systems when Intel releases them...
Yes, Intel will be shipping Clovertowns then - but when will Apple get around to putting them in systems? (November - well, that can wait for The Lord God Jobs' keynote in January, for sure.)
Most vendors are putting Merom systems in their customers' hands, but Apple is still shipping Yonahs in the MacIntelBooks.
I'm at IDF at Moscone, and most of the booths have Kentsfield or Clovertown systems running. (Apple isn't in the hall.)
I think that you're being very brave in assuming that Apple will ship quads in systems when Intel releases them...
Pale Rider
Aug 29, 02:52 PM
Notice that one of the things that Greenpeace ranked companies on is the precationary principle: "The company fails to embrace the precautionary principle." I for one would prefer that my technology companies not embrace the Luddite, er, precautionary principle. As principles go, it is philosophically bankrupt, and not a scientifically credible basis for making technological and sociological decisions.
As for the anti-American sentiment out there, please, that bigotry is almost as productive as the fanatacism you purport to oppose. Greenpeace wears no halo; neither do corporations. Neither does the French government that used the South Pacific for nuclear testing; neither does the German government, nor the Chinese pollution complex. I want Apple to be even better at what it does and for which it has been lauded--longer life cycle products and aggressive recycling programs (notwithstanding what Greenpeace said). But like many here, I find the notion that Dell is more "green" than Apple so inherently laughable--look at why Greenpeace says Dell is more green, not because of reality, but because of how Dell interacted with them--that I cannot take this report seriously. "Greenpeace doesn't like Apple's attitude" might as well have been the report title. And on that note, I probably feel better about Apple accordingly.
As for the anti-American sentiment out there, please, that bigotry is almost as productive as the fanatacism you purport to oppose. Greenpeace wears no halo; neither do corporations. Neither does the French government that used the South Pacific for nuclear testing; neither does the German government, nor the Chinese pollution complex. I want Apple to be even better at what it does and for which it has been lauded--longer life cycle products and aggressive recycling programs (notwithstanding what Greenpeace said). But like many here, I find the notion that Dell is more "green" than Apple so inherently laughable--look at why Greenpeace says Dell is more green, not because of reality, but because of how Dell interacted with them--that I cannot take this report seriously. "Greenpeace doesn't like Apple's attitude" might as well have been the report title. And on that note, I probably feel better about Apple accordingly.
Mal
Apr 5, 08:05 PM
One off the top of my head is that everything costs money application wise, there is very little freeware.
Actually, I have rarely been unable to find freeware, usually open source, that cannot more than meet my needs. That doesn't mean there isn't something paid that would have more polish and be easier to deal with, but there's certainly no lack of free software on the Mac.
I guess I should clarify here that I'm not technically a switcher. Last time I used a PC for personal use was when I was about 8.
jW
Actually, I have rarely been unable to find freeware, usually open source, that cannot more than meet my needs. That doesn't mean there isn't something paid that would have more polish and be easier to deal with, but there's certainly no lack of free software on the Mac.
I guess I should clarify here that I'm not technically a switcher. Last time I used a PC for personal use was when I was about 8.
jW
Sounds Good
Apr 5, 06:21 PM
Under the Apple menu on the top toolbar, you can access both recently used programs and recently used files just the same as in the Windows Start menu.
Ahh, good. Thanks. Are we able to put our "favorite" programs or files there too, like on the Windows Start menu? (even if they are not the most recently used?)
It's essentially the same thing, but better.
Why / how is it better?
Ahh, good. Thanks. Are we able to put our "favorite" programs or files there too, like on the Windows Start menu? (even if they are not the most recently used?)
It's essentially the same thing, but better.
Why / how is it better?
Rt&Dzine
Mar 27, 11:23 AM
Of course it is. Gay men don't want to be be women and lesbians don't want to be men. We weren't coddled too much by one parent or another. That NARTH garbage is just that- garbage.
You know the answer to that. People like Bill will never see us as OK, no matter how much proof they're given. The hate us, and disguise their hate as some twisted form of "love". It's sickening.
And why do people who believe that stuff spend so much time and effort concerning themselves with homosexuality? It obviously threatens them in some personal way. The Bible is filled with "sins" that they pay no attention to.
You know the answer to that. People like Bill will never see us as OK, no matter how much proof they're given. The hate us, and disguise their hate as some twisted form of "love". It's sickening.
And why do people who believe that stuff spend so much time and effort concerning themselves with homosexuality? It obviously threatens them in some personal way. The Bible is filled with "sins" that they pay no attention to.
iStudentUK
Apr 24, 11:36 AM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8F190 Safari/6533.18.5)
People don't like the idea of no longer existing, and religion solves that.
Plus, it is a way to control people. A very effective one! That's why it is still here today in the age of science. Religion has been refined over thousands of years to make sure it keeps itself going and keeps people believing without question.
This book says there is an invisible man in the sky who made the earth. We know this because the invisible man wrote the book. He listens to you but doesn't answer. If you do as he says you go to a wonderful afterlife, but if you don't you go to a horrible one.
People don't like the idea of no longer existing, and religion solves that.
Plus, it is a way to control people. A very effective one! That's why it is still here today in the age of science. Religion has been refined over thousands of years to make sure it keeps itself going and keeps people believing without question.
This book says there is an invisible man in the sky who made the earth. We know this because the invisible man wrote the book. He listens to you but doesn't answer. If you do as he says you go to a wonderful afterlife, but if you don't you go to a horrible one.
flopticalcube
Apr 22, 10:58 PM
On other forums, people complain about the word agnostic.
>agnostic theist- I believe in god, but have no knowledge of him.
>agnostic atheist- I don't belief in god, but I don't claim a special source of knowledge for that disbelief
>gnostic theist-I know that is a god!
>gnostic atheist-I know there is no god with the same degree of certainty that the theist knows there is one.
I don't think that many would call themselves a gnostic atheist, I certainly don't.
Dawkins might. As I said before, most atheists are agnostic atheists.
>agnostic theist- I believe in god, but have no knowledge of him.
>agnostic atheist- I don't belief in god, but I don't claim a special source of knowledge for that disbelief
>gnostic theist-I know that is a god!
>gnostic atheist-I know there is no god with the same degree of certainty that the theist knows there is one.
I don't think that many would call themselves a gnostic atheist, I certainly don't.
Dawkins might. As I said before, most atheists are agnostic atheists.
anim8or
Apr 13, 12:46 AM
The BBC is also funded by money stolen from people as a punishment for owning a television. Let's not base conceptualizations of rational thought on their behavior.
Here's a thought...
The BBC is currently tightening it's budgets and making huge cuts to try and help keep the licence fee down. People will lose their jobs due to this fact so keep your greedy opinion to yourself.
The public demand HD television from the BBC but they certainly don't realise the cost implications.
So the licence fee us now fixed for the next 5 years thus causing cuts.
The public can't have it all!!!
And btw BBC staff get the sack immediately for failing to pay their own licence fee!
Back on point, I don't think the BBC have purchased that amount of adobe licences or hardware to go with... I would know.
Here's a thought...
The BBC is currently tightening it's budgets and making huge cuts to try and help keep the licence fee down. People will lose their jobs due to this fact so keep your greedy opinion to yourself.
The public demand HD television from the BBC but they certainly don't realise the cost implications.
So the licence fee us now fixed for the next 5 years thus causing cuts.
The public can't have it all!!!
And btw BBC staff get the sack immediately for failing to pay their own licence fee!
Back on point, I don't think the BBC have purchased that amount of adobe licences or hardware to go with... I would know.
inkswamp
May 2, 01:32 PM
As I understand it, Safari will open the zip file since it's a "safe" download. But that doesn't mean it'll execute the code within that zip file, so how is this malware executing without user permission?
That's what I'd like to know. I can't even open HTML pages downloaded from my own website without OS X warning me before opening it, and yet this story makes it sound as if the file contained in the zip is somehow launching on its own without any user notification. Sounds like BS to me. What is the source for this?
Edit: I see. It starts an installer that the user has to go along with willingly, and therefore it's nothing even remotely similar to the stealth install crapware on Windows. Next.
That's what I'd like to know. I can't even open HTML pages downloaded from my own website without OS X warning me before opening it, and yet this story makes it sound as if the file contained in the zip is somehow launching on its own without any user notification. Sounds like BS to me. What is the source for this?
Edit: I see. It starts an installer that the user has to go along with willingly, and therefore it's nothing even remotely similar to the stealth install crapware on Windows. Next.
SactoGuy18
Mar 14, 07:47 AM
My opinion: it's time to end the age of light-water cooled pressurized uranium-fueled reactors. There's so many drawbacks to this design it's not funny.
Meanwhile, the new liquid fluoride thorium reactor (LFTR) is a vastly superior design that offers these advantages:
1) It uses thorium 232, which is 200 times more abundant than fuel-quality uranium.
2) The thorium fuel doesn't need to be made into fuel pellets like you need with uranium-235, substantially cutting the cost of fuel production.
3) The design of LFTR makes it effectively meltdown proof.
4) LFTR reactors don't need big cooling towers or access to a large body of water like uranium-fueled reactors do, substantially cutting construction costs.
5) You can use spent uranium fuel rods as part of the fuel for an LFTR.
6) The radioactive waste from an LFTR generated is a tiny fraction of what you get from a uranium reactor and the half-life of the waste is only a couple of hundred years, not tens of thousands of years. This means waste disposal costs will be a tiny fraction of disposing waste from a uranium reactor (just dump it into a disused salt mine).
So what are we waiting for?
Meanwhile, the new liquid fluoride thorium reactor (LFTR) is a vastly superior design that offers these advantages:
1) It uses thorium 232, which is 200 times more abundant than fuel-quality uranium.
2) The thorium fuel doesn't need to be made into fuel pellets like you need with uranium-235, substantially cutting the cost of fuel production.
3) The design of LFTR makes it effectively meltdown proof.
4) LFTR reactors don't need big cooling towers or access to a large body of water like uranium-fueled reactors do, substantially cutting construction costs.
5) You can use spent uranium fuel rods as part of the fuel for an LFTR.
6) The radioactive waste from an LFTR generated is a tiny fraction of what you get from a uranium reactor and the half-life of the waste is only a couple of hundred years, not tens of thousands of years. This means waste disposal costs will be a tiny fraction of disposing waste from a uranium reactor (just dump it into a disused salt mine).
So what are we waiting for?
