EricNau
Sep 20, 12:40 AM
If it contains a HDD (a fact I am not entirely convinced of), I doubt it would be used for recording TV shows.
Programming such a device with a basic remote like the ones Steve Jobs previewed would be near-to-impossible.
If Apple did introduce the ability to record TV shows (which I also doubt), I believe it would be at the computer, only to be streamed to the iTV later.
Programming such a device with a basic remote like the ones Steve Jobs previewed would be near-to-impossible.
If Apple did introduce the ability to record TV shows (which I also doubt), I believe it would be at the computer, only to be streamed to the iTV later.
Wetapples
Jun 12, 11:29 PM
I find this topic to be really interesting I have called the AT&T service department enough times they said there is nothing they can do to fix the problem and recomended that I look into porting my number and changing providers!! AT&T has me cornered though because the next best option is verizon and they do not carry the iPhone!!! Please Steve Jobs divorce at&t they are doing very little to promote your product image! I know there are thousands like me who would drop AT&T in a heart beat if another company aquired the iPhone!!
itickings
Apr 15, 02:50 PM
What do you windows-people use it for, I want to understand, what sense it makes marking a file or folder on the desktop (Finder) and selecting "cut" (which does actually not work on a Mac).
Moving files of course...
Moving files of course...
KnightWRX
May 2, 05:51 PM
Until Vista and Win 7, it was effectively impossible to run a Windows NT system as anything but Administrator. To the point that other than locked-down corporate sites where an IT Professional was required to install the Corporate Approved version of any software you need to do your job, I never knew anyone running XP (or 2k, or for that matter NT 3.x) who in a day-to-day fashion used a Standard user account.
Of course, I don't know of any Linux distribution that doesn't require root to install system wide software either. Kind of negates your point there...
In contrast, an "Administrator" account on OS X was in reality a limited user account, just with some system-level privileges like being able to install apps that other people could run. A "Standard" user account was far more usable on OS X than the equivalent on Windows, because "Standard" users could install software into their user sandbox, etc. Still, most people I know run OS X as Administrator.
You could do the same as far back as Windows NT 3.1 in 1993. The fact that most software vendors wrote their applications for the non-secure DOS based versions of Windows is moot, that is not a problem of the OS's security model, it is a problem of the Application. This is not "Unix security" being better, it's "Software vendors for Windows" being dumber.
It's no different than if instead of writing my preferences to $HOME/.myapp/ I'd write a software that required writing everything to /usr/share/myapp/username/. That would require root in any decent Unix installation, or it would require me to set permissions on that folder to 775 and make all users of myapp part of the owning group. Or I could just go the lazy route, make the binary 4755 and set mount opts to suid on the filesystem where this binary resides... (ugh...).
This is no different on Windows NT based architectures. If you were so inclined, with tools like Filemon and Regmon, you could granularly set permissions in a way to install these misbehaving software so that they would work for regular users.
I know I did many times in a past life (back when I was sort of forced to do Windows systems administration... ugh... Windows NT 4.0 Terminal Server edition... what a wreck...).
Let's face it, Windows NT and Unix systems have very similar security models (in fact, Windows NT has superior ACL support out of the box, akin to Novell's close to perfect ACLs, Unix is far more limited with it's read/write/execute permission scheme, even with Posix ACLs in place). It's the hoops that software vendors outside the control of Microsoft made you go through that forced lazy users to run as Administrator all the time and gave Microsoft such headaches.
As far back as I remember (when I did some Windows systems programming), Microsoft was already advising to use the user's home folder/the user's registry hive for preferences and to never write to system locations.
The real differenc, though, is that an NT Administrator was really equivalent to the Unix root account. An OS X Administrator was a Unix non-root user with 'admin' group access. You could not start up the UI as the 'root' user (and the 'root' account was disabled by default).
Actually, the Administrator account (much less a standard user in the Administrators group) is not a root level account at all.
Notice how a root account on Unix can do everything, just by virtue of its 0 uid. It can write/delete/read files from filesystems it does not even have permissions on. It can kill any system process, no matter the owner.
Administrator on Windows NT is far more limited. Don't ever break your ACLs or don't try to kill processes owned by "System". SysInternals provided tools that let you do it, but Microsoft did not.
All that having been said, UAC has really evened the bar for Windows Vista and 7 (moreso in 7 after the usability tweaks Microsoft put in to stop people from disabling it). I see no functional security difference between the OS X authorization scheme and the Windows UAC scheme.
UAC is simply a gui front-end to the runas command. Heck, shift-right-click already had the "Run As" option. It's a glorified sudo. It uses RDP (since Vista, user sessions are really local RDP sessions) to prevent being able to "fake it", by showing up on the "console" session while the user's display resides on a RDP session.
There, you did it, you made me go on a defensive rant for Microsoft. I hate you now.
My response, why bother worrying about this when the attacker can do the same thing via shellcode generated in the background by exploiting a running process so the the user is unaware that code is being executed on the system
Because this required no particular exploit or vulnerability. A simple Javascript auto-download and Safari auto-opening an archive and running code.
Why bother, you're not "getting it". The only reason the user is aware of MACDefender is because it runs a GUI based installer. If the executable had had 0 GUI code and just run stuff in the background, you would have never known until you couldn't find your files or some chinese guy was buying goods with your CC info, fished right out of your "Bank stuff.xls" file.
That's the thing, infecting a computer at the system level is fine if you want to build a DoS botnet or something (and even then, you don't really need privilege escalation for that, just set login items for the current user, and run off a non-privilege port, root privileges are not required for ICMP access, only raw sockets).
These days, malware authors and users are much more interested in your data than your system. That's where the money is. Identity theft, phishing, they mean big bucks.
Of course, I don't know of any Linux distribution that doesn't require root to install system wide software either. Kind of negates your point there...
In contrast, an "Administrator" account on OS X was in reality a limited user account, just with some system-level privileges like being able to install apps that other people could run. A "Standard" user account was far more usable on OS X than the equivalent on Windows, because "Standard" users could install software into their user sandbox, etc. Still, most people I know run OS X as Administrator.
You could do the same as far back as Windows NT 3.1 in 1993. The fact that most software vendors wrote their applications for the non-secure DOS based versions of Windows is moot, that is not a problem of the OS's security model, it is a problem of the Application. This is not "Unix security" being better, it's "Software vendors for Windows" being dumber.
It's no different than if instead of writing my preferences to $HOME/.myapp/ I'd write a software that required writing everything to /usr/share/myapp/username/. That would require root in any decent Unix installation, or it would require me to set permissions on that folder to 775 and make all users of myapp part of the owning group. Or I could just go the lazy route, make the binary 4755 and set mount opts to suid on the filesystem where this binary resides... (ugh...).
This is no different on Windows NT based architectures. If you were so inclined, with tools like Filemon and Regmon, you could granularly set permissions in a way to install these misbehaving software so that they would work for regular users.
I know I did many times in a past life (back when I was sort of forced to do Windows systems administration... ugh... Windows NT 4.0 Terminal Server edition... what a wreck...).
Let's face it, Windows NT and Unix systems have very similar security models (in fact, Windows NT has superior ACL support out of the box, akin to Novell's close to perfect ACLs, Unix is far more limited with it's read/write/execute permission scheme, even with Posix ACLs in place). It's the hoops that software vendors outside the control of Microsoft made you go through that forced lazy users to run as Administrator all the time and gave Microsoft such headaches.
As far back as I remember (when I did some Windows systems programming), Microsoft was already advising to use the user's home folder/the user's registry hive for preferences and to never write to system locations.
The real differenc, though, is that an NT Administrator was really equivalent to the Unix root account. An OS X Administrator was a Unix non-root user with 'admin' group access. You could not start up the UI as the 'root' user (and the 'root' account was disabled by default).
Actually, the Administrator account (much less a standard user in the Administrators group) is not a root level account at all.
Notice how a root account on Unix can do everything, just by virtue of its 0 uid. It can write/delete/read files from filesystems it does not even have permissions on. It can kill any system process, no matter the owner.
Administrator on Windows NT is far more limited. Don't ever break your ACLs or don't try to kill processes owned by "System". SysInternals provided tools that let you do it, but Microsoft did not.
All that having been said, UAC has really evened the bar for Windows Vista and 7 (moreso in 7 after the usability tweaks Microsoft put in to stop people from disabling it). I see no functional security difference between the OS X authorization scheme and the Windows UAC scheme.
UAC is simply a gui front-end to the runas command. Heck, shift-right-click already had the "Run As" option. It's a glorified sudo. It uses RDP (since Vista, user sessions are really local RDP sessions) to prevent being able to "fake it", by showing up on the "console" session while the user's display resides on a RDP session.
There, you did it, you made me go on a defensive rant for Microsoft. I hate you now.
My response, why bother worrying about this when the attacker can do the same thing via shellcode generated in the background by exploiting a running process so the the user is unaware that code is being executed on the system
Because this required no particular exploit or vulnerability. A simple Javascript auto-download and Safari auto-opening an archive and running code.
Why bother, you're not "getting it". The only reason the user is aware of MACDefender is because it runs a GUI based installer. If the executable had had 0 GUI code and just run stuff in the background, you would have never known until you couldn't find your files or some chinese guy was buying goods with your CC info, fished right out of your "Bank stuff.xls" file.
That's the thing, infecting a computer at the system level is fine if you want to build a DoS botnet or something (and even then, you don't really need privilege escalation for that, just set login items for the current user, and run off a non-privilege port, root privileges are not required for ICMP access, only raw sockets).
These days, malware authors and users are much more interested in your data than your system. That's where the money is. Identity theft, phishing, they mean big bucks.
ArizonaKid
Aug 29, 11:08 AM
Why do these "tree-huggers" have to interfere with business?
Apple does what they can to have more "enviornmentally-friendly" ways of processing their products. But 4th worst?
As a business professional, there most certainly is a capitalistic argument for environmentally friendly businesses.
I will provide the link this time:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons
This is something Apple can improve. So why not go for it?
Apple does what they can to have more "enviornmentally-friendly" ways of processing their products. But 4th worst?
As a business professional, there most certainly is a capitalistic argument for environmentally friendly businesses.
I will provide the link this time:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons
This is something Apple can improve. So why not go for it?
faroZ06
May 2, 06:22 PM
About as huge as most windows ones!
No, I'd much rather be hit with this than some virus that comes in through an eMail and takes over my system.
No, I'd much rather be hit with this than some virus that comes in through an eMail and takes over my system.
edifyingGerbil
Apr 24, 05:37 PM
If I even dare comment on the last thing, the thread topic will change.
I think it's a bit late to worry about that :D
I think it's a bit late to worry about that :D
appleguy123
Apr 22, 09:55 PM
You're assuming truthful answers.
Potential confounding variables still stand.
Do you have some more reliable source? Mind reading?
We're not making life-altering decisions here, and as such I don't think that it would be too hazardous to assume that the poll takers were being truthful.
By this logic, every poll ever taken is not a reliable source of information.
Potential confounding variables still stand.
Do you have some more reliable source? Mind reading?
We're not making life-altering decisions here, and as such I don't think that it would be too hazardous to assume that the poll takers were being truthful.
By this logic, every poll ever taken is not a reliable source of information.
CaoCao
Mar 25, 03:20 PM
Damn right. What are we supposed to say- "Oh, you don't like us and want to deny us rights? Ok, that's just your opinion! Cool!" **** that. Sorry, not gonna happen.
You have to prove the rights existed in the first place otherwise I could argue the government is denying my right to drive a tank
It is entirely relevant. The leadership of the Catholic Church, as one very significant representative of a multitude of peer sects that engage in similar behavior, uses its political and rhetorical power to promote the attitudes that spread their own prejudice and enable prejudiced people, including a subset of extremists, to excuse themselves from the obligation to treat those people with fundamental dignity and respect.
*snip*
Do you even understand how the Roman Catholic Church much less the Catholic Church works?
No argument except as to the point. This would only be a relevant criticism if I were holding Catholics responsible for an attitude held by some Christian sects, but not by Catholics themselves. On the contrary, the Catholic attitude towards homosexuality in question is common across much of Christendom.
This thread is about the Catholic Church, so I name the Catholic Church, but the criticism is properly aimed at the attitude they share ecumenically. The consequences of prejudice against homosexuality as rationalized by Christian dogma are shared among all who promote that prejudice. The Catholic Church is neither singled out (except contextually) nor excused on that account.
As I said, you want to reserve to the church the right to disclaim responsibility for those who act on the principles it promotes.
I doubt you could find a sect who murdered homosexuals for fun. To return to the analogy, the Klan did not murder black people for fun. They murdered those who stepped out of line, who challenged the social status white people of the era carved out for black people.
The mainstream hierarchy of the Catholic Church espouses the belief that homosexuals must be made to conform to Catholic prejudice regarding their proper place in society, and that Catholic belief grants them the right to do so. The premise is wrong before we even get to the method. The mainstream Catholic Church pursues this agenda in ways which do not currently involve terrorist action, but they do pursue it. The obscure terrorist sect you've hypothesized would be operating based on the same flawed premise as the "mainstream" church, arguably even more consistently, since a common interpretation of the Bible does demand the death penalty for homosexuals.
As I keep saying, the immorality lies in the idea that one's prejudice gives one the right to force other people to live their own lives within the boundaries of that prejudice, whatever form that force may take.
This is about the Roman Catholic Church not Christendom. Also the attitude is not shared, many Protestant groups see people as evil and wicked, the Roman Catholic Church sees homosexuals as people in need of love and support.
By mainstream Catholic I mean someone who follows all the rules of the Catholic Church.
The Catholic view does not demand the death of homosexuals, instead it seeks to change the behavior for they are lost sheep.
You have to prove the rights existed in the first place otherwise I could argue the government is denying my right to drive a tank
It is entirely relevant. The leadership of the Catholic Church, as one very significant representative of a multitude of peer sects that engage in similar behavior, uses its political and rhetorical power to promote the attitudes that spread their own prejudice and enable prejudiced people, including a subset of extremists, to excuse themselves from the obligation to treat those people with fundamental dignity and respect.
*snip*
Do you even understand how the Roman Catholic Church much less the Catholic Church works?
No argument except as to the point. This would only be a relevant criticism if I were holding Catholics responsible for an attitude held by some Christian sects, but not by Catholics themselves. On the contrary, the Catholic attitude towards homosexuality in question is common across much of Christendom.
This thread is about the Catholic Church, so I name the Catholic Church, but the criticism is properly aimed at the attitude they share ecumenically. The consequences of prejudice against homosexuality as rationalized by Christian dogma are shared among all who promote that prejudice. The Catholic Church is neither singled out (except contextually) nor excused on that account.
As I said, you want to reserve to the church the right to disclaim responsibility for those who act on the principles it promotes.
I doubt you could find a sect who murdered homosexuals for fun. To return to the analogy, the Klan did not murder black people for fun. They murdered those who stepped out of line, who challenged the social status white people of the era carved out for black people.
The mainstream hierarchy of the Catholic Church espouses the belief that homosexuals must be made to conform to Catholic prejudice regarding their proper place in society, and that Catholic belief grants them the right to do so. The premise is wrong before we even get to the method. The mainstream Catholic Church pursues this agenda in ways which do not currently involve terrorist action, but they do pursue it. The obscure terrorist sect you've hypothesized would be operating based on the same flawed premise as the "mainstream" church, arguably even more consistently, since a common interpretation of the Bible does demand the death penalty for homosexuals.
As I keep saying, the immorality lies in the idea that one's prejudice gives one the right to force other people to live their own lives within the boundaries of that prejudice, whatever form that force may take.
This is about the Roman Catholic Church not Christendom. Also the attitude is not shared, many Protestant groups see people as evil and wicked, the Roman Catholic Church sees homosexuals as people in need of love and support.
By mainstream Catholic I mean someone who follows all the rules of the Catholic Church.
The Catholic view does not demand the death of homosexuals, instead it seeks to change the behavior for they are lost sheep.
dscuber9000
Mar 24, 07:42 PM
So they can't do it to you, but you can do it to them?
Remind me how that makes one different from them?
That's hypocritical at best. :rolleyes:
1. I'm not gay. Just putting that out there. :D
2. I guess it is hypocritical in a sense: They hate gays for being gay and I hate bigots for being bigoted. Whether or not that puts me on the same level as them is up to you, I guess.
As cool as that poster might be..
3. Don't wear sunglasses for nothing. :cool:
Remind me how that makes one different from them?
That's hypocritical at best. :rolleyes:
1. I'm not gay. Just putting that out there. :D
2. I guess it is hypocritical in a sense: They hate gays for being gay and I hate bigots for being bigoted. Whether or not that puts me on the same level as them is up to you, I guess.
As cool as that poster might be..
3. Don't wear sunglasses for nothing. :cool:
Oneand0
Jun 24, 02:48 AM
Do a lot of travel around the U.S., about 25 trips a year. I have a Verizon phone with the US GOVT. and my cool Iphone. Let's just say that with every four or five dropped calls on Iphone, I get maybe 1 on the Verizon overall. Recently dropped a friend four times in a row using IPHONE at home, and I have no landline phone. As much as I like Apple and the Iphone, this DROID X is too beautiful of a screen for me to avoid July 15th, since I watch so many movies during travel on my iphone, not to mention the better service with Verizon.
Iphone it was nice knowing Ya!
I am going to keep my macbook pro and Hackintosh beast at home though! :)
Iphone it was nice knowing Ya!
I am going to keep my macbook pro and Hackintosh beast at home though! :)
Mac'nCheese
Mar 16, 02:04 PM
Naturally we should just hedge our bets on one right? :confused:
Here in reality, its pretty obvious to anyone paying attention that in the interim until renewables are able to take the stage as our top producers we have to go with an "all in" approach. There is no silver bullet at this point in time.
I don't understand the point in subsidizing any of them. I guess the point is, if we don't, power would be too expensive for people to buy but if our taxes are used for the subsidizing, then stop 'em, don't tax us and then we would have that money for the more expensive power. Does that make sense? Here's what I think: oil and gas powered everythings aren't going away in our lifetime. Period. Drill as safely as possible and try to get off of mid-east oil. Meanwhile, learn the lessons of design flaws from past accidents and start building some nuke plants in safe areas of the USA. No new gas/oil/coal plants unless they make a difference in pollution or amount of power generator per fuel used. If they don't, whats the point? Just keep the old ones going. Let the market demands slowly bring us more and more electric cars and better options for charging them (someday: solar powered home/business charging stations). Listen to that crazy oil tycoon in Texas, and stop producing gas powered trucks and vans and the like; make natural-gas powered trucks. Let those who want to invest in true solar and wind power go for it; maybe in fifty/hundred years, that will be the way, who knows? If climate change is truly as dangerous and man-made as some say it is, there's no way we can flip a switch and solve this problem in just a few years. So stop trying. Little by little, new tech will get us to where we want to be.
Here in reality, its pretty obvious to anyone paying attention that in the interim until renewables are able to take the stage as our top producers we have to go with an "all in" approach. There is no silver bullet at this point in time.
I don't understand the point in subsidizing any of them. I guess the point is, if we don't, power would be too expensive for people to buy but if our taxes are used for the subsidizing, then stop 'em, don't tax us and then we would have that money for the more expensive power. Does that make sense? Here's what I think: oil and gas powered everythings aren't going away in our lifetime. Period. Drill as safely as possible and try to get off of mid-east oil. Meanwhile, learn the lessons of design flaws from past accidents and start building some nuke plants in safe areas of the USA. No new gas/oil/coal plants unless they make a difference in pollution or amount of power generator per fuel used. If they don't, whats the point? Just keep the old ones going. Let the market demands slowly bring us more and more electric cars and better options for charging them (someday: solar powered home/business charging stations). Listen to that crazy oil tycoon in Texas, and stop producing gas powered trucks and vans and the like; make natural-gas powered trucks. Let those who want to invest in true solar and wind power go for it; maybe in fifty/hundred years, that will be the way, who knows? If climate change is truly as dangerous and man-made as some say it is, there's no way we can flip a switch and solve this problem in just a few years. So stop trying. Little by little, new tech will get us to where we want to be.
fewture
Jul 12, 11:15 AM
have to agree with Manik and generik,
Doesn't make business sense to hold out the Macbook with just Yonah when all the other companies will be filling their 13.3/14 laptops with 64bit Meroms as soon as possible. Apple has to compete with the other companies now, and if it doesn't fill Macbook with Merom, it doesnt have a small laptop with latest specs - while its competitors will.
Unless they introduce a smaller Macbook Pro which no one is suggesting. Makes business sense to throw the same price Merom into the Macbook.
Could someone please explain, other than this 'we must make some distinction' between MB and MBP (which already exists) why apple wouldn't put in Meroms into the Macbook asap?
Doesn't make business sense to hold out the Macbook with just Yonah when all the other companies will be filling their 13.3/14 laptops with 64bit Meroms as soon as possible. Apple has to compete with the other companies now, and if it doesn't fill Macbook with Merom, it doesnt have a small laptop with latest specs - while its competitors will.
Unless they introduce a smaller Macbook Pro which no one is suggesting. Makes business sense to throw the same price Merom into the Macbook.
Could someone please explain, other than this 'we must make some distinction' between MB and MBP (which already exists) why apple wouldn't put in Meroms into the Macbook asap?
Wayazo
May 5, 09:03 PM
As much as I want to say that it s a grass is always greener type situation, in Phoenix AT&T is considered the worst. Especially indoors. They really must stretch the towers out here in the desert. I can;t even use my iphone in my home.
I live just north of Seattle. I have an AT&T cell tower (sign on tower base identifies it as such) within line of sight less than a quarter mile away in a residential area. Inside my house I have never had a single call successfully completed on my iPhone. They have all dropped out. If I step outside where I can see the tower, about half the calls drop out. I also have delayed reception of SMS and voice mail. For example, this morning I received a voicemail that was left for me the previous evening. I've replaced my phone and cards twice without luck. My neighbor has Verizon. He can stand inside my house right next to me, get full bars, chat up a storm, SMS, browse Internet.
Go figure.
I live just north of Seattle. I have an AT&T cell tower (sign on tower base identifies it as such) within line of sight less than a quarter mile away in a residential area. Inside my house I have never had a single call successfully completed on my iPhone. They have all dropped out. If I step outside where I can see the tower, about half the calls drop out. I also have delayed reception of SMS and voice mail. For example, this morning I received a voicemail that was left for me the previous evening. I've replaced my phone and cards twice without luck. My neighbor has Verizon. He can stand inside my house right next to me, get full bars, chat up a storm, SMS, browse Internet.
Go figure.
Abulia
Sep 26, 06:41 PM
I think beyond a certain level all these Cores are only going to be good for building up your ePeen, speaking of which where can I get one? :D
Nevermind they are only 1.66Ghz each, there are 8 of them!
It's not the speed of your cores that makes you a man, it's how many you have! :D
Nevermind they are only 1.66Ghz each, there are 8 of them!
It's not the speed of your cores that makes you a man, it's how many you have! :D
eric_n_dfw
Mar 19, 10:46 PM
You're all far too willing to accept the RIAA's iron grip over downloading music. Apple's DRM is disgusting - but you want to say "shut it down! or our prices will go up! or they'll make the DRM worse!" Well, you've got to do better than that - because they owe it to us to sell a better product. I want to own my music - I know the paradigm is new, I know it's a virtual product any way you slice it, but DVD Jon is doing the right thing, and we need to send a message.They owe it to us? The only people Apple owes anything to is their shareholders.
balamw
Apr 12, 11:07 AM
I don't care for the difficulty involved in sharing files across OS X/Windows/Linux, but that's hardly the fault of the Mac.
Stick shared files on a NAS or in the cloud. Problem solved.
Other nags:
-Requiring 3rd-party software to stay awake when closed
My last PC laptop decided not to go to sleep one one trip, I put it away in my backpack and when I took it out the battery was drained and the sleeve was discolored by the heat.
Plus, I just love trying to shut down or log off and be told that Windows needs to install updates. Right now? WTF! If I need to shut you down it's because I need to go. Now.
This is really better?
The hilarious hillarious way that iTunes and iPhones work. It's the same way on Windows, but I think they sacrificed function for increased integration.
Here I'm with you. I keep hoping that Apple will return to their senses and split iTunes up into iMusic, iVideo, iBooks, iApps, iSync etc... Maybe they will with a fully Cocoafied iTunes replacement in Lion.
B
Stick shared files on a NAS or in the cloud. Problem solved.
Other nags:
-Requiring 3rd-party software to stay awake when closed
My last PC laptop decided not to go to sleep one one trip, I put it away in my backpack and when I took it out the battery was drained and the sleeve was discolored by the heat.
Plus, I just love trying to shut down or log off and be told that Windows needs to install updates. Right now? WTF! If I need to shut you down it's because I need to go. Now.
This is really better?
The hilarious hillarious way that iTunes and iPhones work. It's the same way on Windows, but I think they sacrificed function for increased integration.
Here I'm with you. I keep hoping that Apple will return to their senses and split iTunes up into iMusic, iVideo, iBooks, iApps, iSync etc... Maybe they will with a fully Cocoafied iTunes replacement in Lion.
B
tyr2
Sep 20, 08:45 AM
This must be a US-centric view. Here (UK) PVRs with twin Freeview (DTT) tuners and 80GB HDs are everywhere. And they are very cheap now (120 quid upwards).
I'm thinking of ditching my cable provider (NTL, I only get it for Sky One, which is just Simpsons repeats) and going with something like this:
http://www.topfield.co.uk/terrestrialequipment.htm
Apparently you can DL what you record to your Mac (USB). I suspect you'll then be able to play that on iTV.
I have one of these devices, it's excellent. Especially with the user community at http://toppy.org.uk/.
There's some good info on using one with a Mac here http://www.mtop.co.uk/intro.html
The stock EPG on the unit is a bit crufty but it's deffinetly improving. I'd recommend one to anyone looking for a decent PVR.
I'm thinking of ditching my cable provider (NTL, I only get it for Sky One, which is just Simpsons repeats) and going with something like this:
http://www.topfield.co.uk/terrestrialequipment.htm
Apparently you can DL what you record to your Mac (USB). I suspect you'll then be able to play that on iTV.
I have one of these devices, it's excellent. Especially with the user community at http://toppy.org.uk/.
There's some good info on using one with a Mac here http://www.mtop.co.uk/intro.html
The stock EPG on the unit is a bit crufty but it's deffinetly improving. I'd recommend one to anyone looking for a decent PVR.
Iconoclysm
Apr 20, 08:01 PM
Android is to Windows, as iOS is to Mac OS.
The similarities are astounding � Google is doing the same thing Microsoft did back in the day.
As much as Apple cares about marketshare, the experience is more important to them then the product itself. That's really something.
Nonsense - Microsoft did not give away Windows for free, and certainly never gave the source code to OEMs to develop in their own way. Windows Phone 7 is to Windows...and that's about it. There's no point in even trying to make this comparison since Android as a platform is not as prolific as iOS anyway, is HORRIBLE for use in the enterprise (blackberry is the real competition there), and is also used on phones that aren't even capable of running apps.
The similarities are astounding � Google is doing the same thing Microsoft did back in the day.
As much as Apple cares about marketshare, the experience is more important to them then the product itself. That's really something.
Nonsense - Microsoft did not give away Windows for free, and certainly never gave the source code to OEMs to develop in their own way. Windows Phone 7 is to Windows...and that's about it. There's no point in even trying to make this comparison since Android as a platform is not as prolific as iOS anyway, is HORRIBLE for use in the enterprise (blackberry is the real competition there), and is also used on phones that aren't even capable of running apps.
macfan881
Feb 23, 05:10 PM
The droid Phones are great but the one problem that remains with them that makes the iPhone so much better are the Apps I have not seen one app on the droid market place that says wow that looks great, granted the market place is new but still even the iPhone had better working/Looking apps in its first release than the android.
Macnoviz
Sep 26, 03:59 AM
My bet? Specialized cores. You've got some that are optimized for floating point, some for application logic, some for media. This is where Cell gets it right, I think-- they're a step too far ahead for now though.
Biggest problem is getting the system to know what threads to feed to what core, and to get application writers to specialize their threads.
The Cell ? You mean we'll have to switch BACK to PowerPC ?:eek:
Biggest problem is getting the system to know what threads to feed to what core, and to get application writers to specialize their threads.
The Cell ? You mean we'll have to switch BACK to PowerPC ?:eek:
javajedi
Oct 13, 05:48 PM
ddtlm,
I have my theory as to why java took the lead over C in the sqrt example. There is quite a common misconception about Java that it's always slow, and there is a reason for it. Back in the early days prior to 1.2, it wasn't uncommon to see something like we did here run 10,20, or even 30 times slower then C. VM's today (1.4 /w hotspot) are much smarter than they were years ago. IMO, Hotspot makes the conventional "just in time compilers" look like a thing of the past.
Anyways, when you really think about it, Java really has an extra card up it's sleeve. Sure we tell GCC we want max optimizations, (03, etc), but GCC is limited to compile-time optimization. I think since java has adaptive runtime optimizations, specifically hotspot, the runtime optimization is what really makes the difference.
The reason why it's called "HotSpot", is literally because it looks for "hot spots" by profiling on the fly at runtime. Pretty cool, huh? Your first adaptive optimizations kick in second time the loop is ran. Not to mention the conventional JIT optimizations... code will natively compile and so you eliminate the costly overhead of bytecode translations.
Lastly, I am going to do the matrix operation you spoke about, I have to finish up some course work, so I may not get to it tonight, but as soon as I can devote some time to it, I will.
I have my theory as to why java took the lead over C in the sqrt example. There is quite a common misconception about Java that it's always slow, and there is a reason for it. Back in the early days prior to 1.2, it wasn't uncommon to see something like we did here run 10,20, or even 30 times slower then C. VM's today (1.4 /w hotspot) are much smarter than they were years ago. IMO, Hotspot makes the conventional "just in time compilers" look like a thing of the past.
Anyways, when you really think about it, Java really has an extra card up it's sleeve. Sure we tell GCC we want max optimizations, (03, etc), but GCC is limited to compile-time optimization. I think since java has adaptive runtime optimizations, specifically hotspot, the runtime optimization is what really makes the difference.
The reason why it's called "HotSpot", is literally because it looks for "hot spots" by profiling on the fly at runtime. Pretty cool, huh? Your first adaptive optimizations kick in second time the loop is ran. Not to mention the conventional JIT optimizations... code will natively compile and so you eliminate the costly overhead of bytecode translations.
Lastly, I am going to do the matrix operation you spoke about, I have to finish up some course work, so I may not get to it tonight, but as soon as I can devote some time to it, I will.
jiggie2g
Jul 13, 08:07 AM
Because Conroes are faster, better value for money and competitive with what non-Apple desktops will offer. I don't get the bubble that many Apple fans seem to live in, where Apple can short-change you with crippled hardware at premium prices (which they have done) and get away with it. Would you be happy, as a consumer, if Apple decided to give you a Merom based iMac rather than a Conroe iMac just because they couldn't be bothered designing a new MoBo for the new chip? I wouldn't, which is why I intend to buy a new iMac only if they're Conroe based.
Even the top-end Merom (2.33Ghz) will not be able to keep up with the standard Conroe (2.4Ghz) and costs nearly twice as much. Which would mean the only consumer Apple desktop would not be able to keep up with even bog standard Conroe PC's from DELL (or whoever) and still cost much more. It simply makes no sense for Apple or consumers.
For example, a 2.4Ghz Conroe will cost Apple $316 however a 2.33Ghz Merom will cost Apple over $600 or a 2.16Ghz Merom $423. Now why would Apple pay over $100 more for a 2.16Ghz Merom compared to a 2.4Ghz Conroe? Merom is slower and more expensive, it makes neither logical or financial sense for Apple to use them in the iMac if they have the option of Conroe with a new MoBo. End of.
I am now convinced you have no idea what u are talking about , Merom is not faster per mhz then conore regrardless of FSB crap , and i have seen this 1st hand on xtremesystems , Merom makes perfect sense. This is jjust wishuful thinking from spoild mac brats wanting to measure thier ePenises.
The reason is cost more is because it's a more efficient chip per watt then conore. If apple were to use conore then would have to build a completely diffrernt board , with an even hotter CPU plus lets now add a hotter custom GPU. It would still use a notebook mobo as a standard one would not fit in the enclosure. This was also the case with the iMac G5 , the only thing Desktop about the iMac is the standard Hard Drive and CPU. It will still use an intergrated GPU like a notebook , Slim DVD Burner , and lower FSB for heat restraints. They did this with the iMac G5 as well.
Even the top-end Merom (2.33Ghz) will not be able to keep up with the standard Conroe (2.4Ghz) and costs nearly twice as much. Which would mean the only consumer Apple desktop would not be able to keep up with even bog standard Conroe PC's from DELL (or whoever) and still cost much more. It simply makes no sense for Apple or consumers.
For example, a 2.4Ghz Conroe will cost Apple $316 however a 2.33Ghz Merom will cost Apple over $600 or a 2.16Ghz Merom $423. Now why would Apple pay over $100 more for a 2.16Ghz Merom compared to a 2.4Ghz Conroe? Merom is slower and more expensive, it makes neither logical or financial sense for Apple to use them in the iMac if they have the option of Conroe with a new MoBo. End of.
I am now convinced you have no idea what u are talking about , Merom is not faster per mhz then conore regrardless of FSB crap , and i have seen this 1st hand on xtremesystems , Merom makes perfect sense. This is jjust wishuful thinking from spoild mac brats wanting to measure thier ePenises.
The reason is cost more is because it's a more efficient chip per watt then conore. If apple were to use conore then would have to build a completely diffrernt board , with an even hotter CPU plus lets now add a hotter custom GPU. It would still use a notebook mobo as a standard one would not fit in the enclosure. This was also the case with the iMac G5 , the only thing Desktop about the iMac is the standard Hard Drive and CPU. It will still use an intergrated GPU like a notebook , Slim DVD Burner , and lower FSB for heat restraints. They did this with the iMac G5 as well.
CaoCao
Mar 25, 09:59 AM
Subtract the individuals affiliated with gangs and the mentally unstable and we're staring at a long list of homosexuals murdered by "mainstream" individuals, many of whom attended church on a regular basis and were in fact catholic. That their religious affiliations are not immediately telegraphed is not evidence of absence, but rather of the fact that 76% of the population self-identifies as Christian.
Aren't we having a thread about religion dying?
Don't forget to subtract the victims who we aren't sure about them being killed because they were homosexual.
So, how many can you prove were Catholic, mentally stable and not in gangs?
People can BELIEVE whatever they want.
The reason why people have a problem with what the Vatican BELIEVES it is because it is so frequently converted into something that PHYSICALLY restricts the rights of other adults.
Stop imposing on people's rights, and you can go ahead and continue believing whatever you do.
Whether or not their beliefs are bigoted are a side issue and only strays from the actual reason people don't like the Vatican.
"so frequently" ORLY? Prove it. To prove that the Catholic Church restricts rights you have to prove that the rights existed before.
PS Marriage is a privilege not a right.
To stretch my own analogy, it also ignores that the men who put on white hoods and terrorized black people were not "mainstream" white people either, but they were nevertheless acting on the attitudes held by "mainstream" white people. They were radical, but saw themselves as the ones with the strength of will to enforce the true will of the "mainstream." It's all very well to believe that the darkies should keep their place, but somebody's got to do the work of keeping them there when they step out of line.
However, I will return to what I touched on before: the Catholic Church (and Christian churches generally in the United States) currently have no need for terrorist thugs. They have great political influence and have convinced a significant plurality (seemingly no longer a majority, I am gratified to point out) that they are entitled to subjugate others bloodlessly and anonymously through the democratic process.
At least this is so until the courts clearly state once and for all that this is incompatible with our law and our society. Incidentally, that's also when the thugs will really come out, and you watch how many of them claim to be doing the Lord's work.
The Klan was basically an organization with the express purpose of keeping Negroes in line, can you prove an equivalent organization in the Catholic Church?
I did not miss the fact that you tried to expand the discussion point. ;)
Unfortunately, none of that is relevant to the original point of the thread. Looking back through the thread, Catholics and Catholicism were/ are the discussion. Not all 'Christians' and the 'mainstream'.
If we constantly expand the topic, none of what was previously said is relevant.
Had a more conservative member of this board attempted to 'stretch' the original point of the thread to included all 'Christians' and the 'mainstream', I would bet my life that ones attempting to 'stretch' the original point of this thread would jump down his or her throat in a second.
You forgot the fact that many "Christians" in the US are fundamentalist nuts
Aren't we having a thread about religion dying?
Don't forget to subtract the victims who we aren't sure about them being killed because they were homosexual.
So, how many can you prove were Catholic, mentally stable and not in gangs?
People can BELIEVE whatever they want.
The reason why people have a problem with what the Vatican BELIEVES it is because it is so frequently converted into something that PHYSICALLY restricts the rights of other adults.
Stop imposing on people's rights, and you can go ahead and continue believing whatever you do.
Whether or not their beliefs are bigoted are a side issue and only strays from the actual reason people don't like the Vatican.
"so frequently" ORLY? Prove it. To prove that the Catholic Church restricts rights you have to prove that the rights existed before.
PS Marriage is a privilege not a right.
To stretch my own analogy, it also ignores that the men who put on white hoods and terrorized black people were not "mainstream" white people either, but they were nevertheless acting on the attitudes held by "mainstream" white people. They were radical, but saw themselves as the ones with the strength of will to enforce the true will of the "mainstream." It's all very well to believe that the darkies should keep their place, but somebody's got to do the work of keeping them there when they step out of line.
However, I will return to what I touched on before: the Catholic Church (and Christian churches generally in the United States) currently have no need for terrorist thugs. They have great political influence and have convinced a significant plurality (seemingly no longer a majority, I am gratified to point out) that they are entitled to subjugate others bloodlessly and anonymously through the democratic process.
At least this is so until the courts clearly state once and for all that this is incompatible with our law and our society. Incidentally, that's also when the thugs will really come out, and you watch how many of them claim to be doing the Lord's work.
The Klan was basically an organization with the express purpose of keeping Negroes in line, can you prove an equivalent organization in the Catholic Church?
I did not miss the fact that you tried to expand the discussion point. ;)
Unfortunately, none of that is relevant to the original point of the thread. Looking back through the thread, Catholics and Catholicism were/ are the discussion. Not all 'Christians' and the 'mainstream'.
If we constantly expand the topic, none of what was previously said is relevant.
Had a more conservative member of this board attempted to 'stretch' the original point of the thread to included all 'Christians' and the 'mainstream', I would bet my life that ones attempting to 'stretch' the original point of this thread would jump down his or her throat in a second.
You forgot the fact that many "Christians" in the US are fundamentalist nuts
No comments:
Post a Comment