Manic Mouse
Jul 13, 07:33 AM
Conroe might be possible for the iMac. But why redesign the motherboard when you can just DROP IN Merom where Yonah once was?
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.
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.
ddtlm
Oct 7, 03:53 PM
Backtothemac:
Jesus you still don't get it. If you compare Apples to Apples, the 1.6GHZ Dual Athlon is still slower in apps that are multi processor aware. Now, how about the PIV? How does that stack up? The x86 is garbage. Any real IT director would know that.
No, I "get it" fine. Don't bother testing a 1.6ghz dual Athlon when 1.8ghz dual Athlons are readily available. It would do you good to note that this test did not cover all "apps that are multi processor aware", it covered only two apps that are multi-processor aware, and on one of them the Mac looses by a lot. Even on its one win, the dual 1.25 G4 would still loose to a top-of-the-line dual Athlon. Which is slower than a top-of-the-line dual Xeon. Get it?
Jesus you still don't get it. If you compare Apples to Apples, the 1.6GHZ Dual Athlon is still slower in apps that are multi processor aware. Now, how about the PIV? How does that stack up? The x86 is garbage. Any real IT director would know that.
No, I "get it" fine. Don't bother testing a 1.6ghz dual Athlon when 1.8ghz dual Athlons are readily available. It would do you good to note that this test did not cover all "apps that are multi processor aware", it covered only two apps that are multi-processor aware, and on one of them the Mac looses by a lot. Even on its one win, the dual 1.25 G4 would still loose to a top-of-the-line dual Athlon. Which is slower than a top-of-the-line dual Xeon. Get it?
whatever
Oct 25, 10:48 PM
Well based on nothing really except I've been using apple a long time, worked in their retail stores for a while, and know how they like to be cutting edge (yet dependable and pretty), I'd say count on 8 cores for xmas. Maybe not november, but maybe so. I think the thought alone of HP and Dell releasing prosumer workstations with 8 cores leaving Apple behind when Vista launches is just too much to let slide for Apple.
And why is that? Christmas is a big time of year to sell Professional Machines? Nope. Expect all of Apple's energy to be going into consumer products for the rest of the year.
Don't be suprirsed that iTV (or dare I say a video iPod) get's launched in November, right before Thanksgiving.
And why is that? Christmas is a big time of year to sell Professional Machines? Nope. Expect all of Apple's energy to be going into consumer products for the rest of the year.
Don't be suprirsed that iTV (or dare I say a video iPod) get's launched in November, right before Thanksgiving.
-ucc.jpg "Photos of 2009 Mercedes-Benz")
UnixMac
Oct 8, 05:04 PM
We're on the same sheet of music, Java...
I for one don't know a thing about using XP/2000 on a desktop, as I have no desire to learn it. I was a windows man from the days of 3.1 thru 98SE, and then I had to go back to Apple, having left them with my IBM PCXT in 1982. I like the IIe, but IBM seemed to be more serious about software at the time. I missed the whole Mac thing, and only joined in with my lastest rig.
I for one don't know a thing about using XP/2000 on a desktop, as I have no desire to learn it. I was a windows man from the days of 3.1 thru 98SE, and then I had to go back to Apple, having left them with my IBM PCXT in 1982. I like the IIe, but IBM seemed to be more serious about software at the time. I missed the whole Mac thing, and only joined in with my lastest rig.
slate1
Sep 20, 01:13 PM
My thoughts on the hard-drive are very similar to "adamflip's" and "chromos's" in that it's simply a way to get around the video streaming limitations of the 802.11g protocol.
If you've got a movie sitting on your iMac in one room and it can simply transfer the iTunes video file to the iTV in the living room then the iTV could begin playback in a fairly short period of time while it caches the remainder of the movie to the iTV HD during playback. Voila - streaming problem solved.
I'm presuming that all the functionality to stream music (i.e. - airport express like...) will be incorportaed into the device and that no data other than that which is cached to it will be stored on the hard-drive. In other words, you won't store movies, music, etc. on the iTV - you'd continue to do that via your desktop Mac and manage them in iTunes.
I, personally, could care less about any DVR functionality as my HD cable-box already provides me with this functionality.
What I would love to see is DVD playback so that this box could essentially replace my existing DVD player in my home theater system.
If you've got a movie sitting on your iMac in one room and it can simply transfer the iTunes video file to the iTV in the living room then the iTV could begin playback in a fairly short period of time while it caches the remainder of the movie to the iTV HD during playback. Voila - streaming problem solved.
I'm presuming that all the functionality to stream music (i.e. - airport express like...) will be incorportaed into the device and that no data other than that which is cached to it will be stored on the hard-drive. In other words, you won't store movies, music, etc. on the iTV - you'd continue to do that via your desktop Mac and manage them in iTunes.
I, personally, could care less about any DVR functionality as my HD cable-box already provides me with this functionality.
What I would love to see is DVD playback so that this box could essentially replace my existing DVD player in my home theater system.
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.
nehunte
Oct 7, 10:52 AM
Every phone that comes out after the iPhone is supposed to surpass the iPhone by 20**. This is getting old. It took how many years for someone to beat up on Nokia? That's right, it'll be a long time before you see a dent in the iPhone's armor.
I'm going to make a new smartphone next week. It's an iPhone-killer. Guaranteed.
I'm going to make a new smartphone next week. It's an iPhone-killer. Guaranteed.
iStudentUK
Mar 13, 01:55 PM
I had not even been born when Chernobyl happened so I know very little about how it affected us. Like others have said, it's safe as long as it is used by responsible country. From what I've read, Chernobyl used ancient and much more vulnerable technology than today's plants use plus they were performing some kind of an experiment which fought against safety rules.
Yes, Chernobyl (a level 7 disaster) is the worst nuclear power disaster to date, but it was caused by massive negligence and using technology that was considered unsafe in the West. The incident in Japan was nothing like this at all.
A nuclear plant had what is classified as the International Nuclear Event Scale as a "level 4 accident" following an enormous earthquake and then a tsunami. The Japanese government have reacted swiftly and evacuated people. The levels of radiation released are nothing to panic about.
I'd love to see a world powered by wind, sun and rainbows but that isn't realistic yet. I'd much rather we move away from fossil fuels to nuclear and renewable, and slowly shifting the balance further towards renewables over time as technology improves.
Yes, Chernobyl (a level 7 disaster) is the worst nuclear power disaster to date, but it was caused by massive negligence and using technology that was considered unsafe in the West. The incident in Japan was nothing like this at all.
A nuclear plant had what is classified as the International Nuclear Event Scale as a "level 4 accident" following an enormous earthquake and then a tsunami. The Japanese government have reacted swiftly and evacuated people. The levels of radiation released are nothing to panic about.
I'd love to see a world powered by wind, sun and rainbows but that isn't realistic yet. I'd much rather we move away from fossil fuels to nuclear and renewable, and slowly shifting the balance further towards renewables over time as technology improves.
darbus69
Apr 20, 06:57 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8G4 Safari/6533.18.5)
btw, nvm, won't lower myself to ur level...
btw, nvm, won't lower myself to ur level...
M-5
Apr 15, 12:31 PM
I think one thing that would help the Gay community would be instead of focusing on how different they are focus on how much like everyone else they are. I live in one of the largest gay communities outside of San Fransisco, and as a straight male have nothing but the utmost respect and love for the Gay community. Its time though that they stepped up and said hey We are just like all of you!
No, I don't agree with this. The GLBT shouldn't have to try to live up to the heterosexual norms of society in order to be accepted. This is really similar to when heterosexuals say "I'm alright with gay people as long as I don't see them doing gay things." Its like saying that being gay is okay as long as a person's identity is hidden from the rest of society. No, it should be accepted, and the GLBT shouldn't have to live out the heteronormative image to be treated with the resepect and dignity that human beings deserve.
I love the message that it's alright to be who you are, and that you don't have to pretend you're straight to get some damn respect. I mean, I'm taking a university course focusing on Discriminaton in the Marketplace, and we've discussed many issues such as systemic racism primarily focusing on African Americans, or weight and ethnic discrimination. But this past week we were discussing how prevalent discrimination is against the GLBT, and there were some advertisements shown such as the Snickers Superbowl where two men eat the same snickers bar and end up having their lips meet in the middle. The ad ends with the men feeling disgusted and having to express their masculinity by ripping off their chest hair. I have several issues with this ad, such as the fact that homosexuality is still being displayed as something disgraceful and shameful that someone can't be associated with. Another is that the message is relayed that Gay men can't be masculine.
The second ad we saw was a McDonalds commercial where a boy is conversing on the phone with his boyfriend while looking at a class photo of both of them. When the boys father comes back with his McDonalds meals, the boy has to end up call and hear his dad ask him about "the ladies." The ad ends with some message such as "Come as you are." After the ad there were a bunch of giggles coming from guys laughing at the gay nature of the ad. It sickened me because of the fact that it was a class focusing on discrimination and the apparent homophobia was so prevalent amongst my peers. I also had issues with the ad, which actually left me feeling worse about myself at the end of it. First of all, the boy had to secretly speak to his partner and hang up the call before his father returned. Then he had to listen to his father ask him about his relationship with women while the boy has to dismiss his real identity from his father.
Ugh, and I also hate when people say "Why does the GLBT always say that we should be accepting towards them and their beliefs when on the other hand they're against people and religions who are against them; thats so hypocritical." I hate this statement because what the GLBT ask for and believe in is equality and acceptance and don't infringe on the rights of heterosexuals. While the belief that certain heterosexuals take on infringes on the rights of homosexuals and want unacceptance.
And being gay isn't some stupid hipster fad that some of you refer to it as.
No, I don't agree with this. The GLBT shouldn't have to try to live up to the heterosexual norms of society in order to be accepted. This is really similar to when heterosexuals say "I'm alright with gay people as long as I don't see them doing gay things." Its like saying that being gay is okay as long as a person's identity is hidden from the rest of society. No, it should be accepted, and the GLBT shouldn't have to live out the heteronormative image to be treated with the resepect and dignity that human beings deserve.
I love the message that it's alright to be who you are, and that you don't have to pretend you're straight to get some damn respect. I mean, I'm taking a university course focusing on Discriminaton in the Marketplace, and we've discussed many issues such as systemic racism primarily focusing on African Americans, or weight and ethnic discrimination. But this past week we were discussing how prevalent discrimination is against the GLBT, and there were some advertisements shown such as the Snickers Superbowl where two men eat the same snickers bar and end up having their lips meet in the middle. The ad ends with the men feeling disgusted and having to express their masculinity by ripping off their chest hair. I have several issues with this ad, such as the fact that homosexuality is still being displayed as something disgraceful and shameful that someone can't be associated with. Another is that the message is relayed that Gay men can't be masculine.
The second ad we saw was a McDonalds commercial where a boy is conversing on the phone with his boyfriend while looking at a class photo of both of them. When the boys father comes back with his McDonalds meals, the boy has to end up call and hear his dad ask him about "the ladies." The ad ends with some message such as "Come as you are." After the ad there were a bunch of giggles coming from guys laughing at the gay nature of the ad. It sickened me because of the fact that it was a class focusing on discrimination and the apparent homophobia was so prevalent amongst my peers. I also had issues with the ad, which actually left me feeling worse about myself at the end of it. First of all, the boy had to secretly speak to his partner and hang up the call before his father returned. Then he had to listen to his father ask him about his relationship with women while the boy has to dismiss his real identity from his father.
Ugh, and I also hate when people say "Why does the GLBT always say that we should be accepting towards them and their beliefs when on the other hand they're against people and religions who are against them; thats so hypocritical." I hate this statement because what the GLBT ask for and believe in is equality and acceptance and don't infringe on the rights of heterosexuals. While the belief that certain heterosexuals take on infringes on the rights of homosexuals and want unacceptance.
And being gay isn't some stupid hipster fad that some of you refer to it as.
eawmp1
Apr 15, 09:13 AM
However, they should be careful. Moves like this have the potential to alienate customers.
Or perhaps enlighten them.
Good on ya, Apple!
Or perhaps enlighten them.
Good on ya, Apple!
blahblah100
Apr 28, 02:54 PM
As has been stated (literally) hundreds of times:
Any Apple retailer will do your initial sync, free of charge.
And you've just proved my point. The iPad is completely useless until it is synced to a PC.
Any Apple retailer will do your initial sync, free of charge.
And you've just proved my point. The iPad is completely useless until it is synced to a PC.
KnightWRX
May 2, 11:07 AM
To the end user it makes no difference. It's fine if you know, but to a novice quickly correcting them on the difference between a virus, a trojan, or whatever else contributes approximately zero percent towards solving the problem.
Steeming the panic contributes greatly to solving the problem. Half the problem is the panic around it. Once we've educated the user about the difference between different kinds of malware, we can effectively target the actual problem and solve it instead of going "panic mode" and putting in place many "solutions" that don't actually address the problem.
Education is the best prevention for many malwares. Anti-malware companies want to sell you Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt so they can cash in. Fighting this FUD means the users can better protect themselves, rather than spending cash for something that doesn't even address the core issue.
So you're quite wrong.
While I generally agree with whqt your saying, most XP machines I've seen the primary account the owner uses is an Administrator account that allows any application full access to anything on the machine. Very few unix types do that.
You'd be amazed how many Linux distributions still make creating a user account an optional step of installation and how many users just go "with the flow" and just use root all the time.
That's fine, but that's not what most fanboys espouse. "THERE ARE NO VIRUSES FOR OS X!!!" is not the same as "There is no malware for OS X," which confuses the uninformed user.
I have seen no one in this thread do what you say. I have however seen you claim there are viruses for Mac, which is just FUD. I have seen a lot of Mac users here claim that there is Malware for Mac, but that the malware is not viruses.
Frankly, you seem to be part of the problem you describe. Keep the users dumb and spread the FUD my friend.
I'm well aware of UAC. UAC also just happens to be "that annoying popup thing" that has become extremely popular for users to disable entirely since the debut of Vista.
You mean like the OS X pop up that asks for your password for the umpteenth time ? ;)
Users are as conditioned to just enter it on OS X as they are on clicking Allow on Windows.
Steeming the panic contributes greatly to solving the problem. Half the problem is the panic around it. Once we've educated the user about the difference between different kinds of malware, we can effectively target the actual problem and solve it instead of going "panic mode" and putting in place many "solutions" that don't actually address the problem.
Education is the best prevention for many malwares. Anti-malware companies want to sell you Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt so they can cash in. Fighting this FUD means the users can better protect themselves, rather than spending cash for something that doesn't even address the core issue.
So you're quite wrong.
While I generally agree with whqt your saying, most XP machines I've seen the primary account the owner uses is an Administrator account that allows any application full access to anything on the machine. Very few unix types do that.
You'd be amazed how many Linux distributions still make creating a user account an optional step of installation and how many users just go "with the flow" and just use root all the time.
That's fine, but that's not what most fanboys espouse. "THERE ARE NO VIRUSES FOR OS X!!!" is not the same as "There is no malware for OS X," which confuses the uninformed user.
I have seen no one in this thread do what you say. I have however seen you claim there are viruses for Mac, which is just FUD. I have seen a lot of Mac users here claim that there is Malware for Mac, but that the malware is not viruses.
Frankly, you seem to be part of the problem you describe. Keep the users dumb and spread the FUD my friend.
I'm well aware of UAC. UAC also just happens to be "that annoying popup thing" that has become extremely popular for users to disable entirely since the debut of Vista.
You mean like the OS X pop up that asks for your password for the umpteenth time ? ;)
Users are as conditioned to just enter it on OS X as they are on clicking Allow on Windows.
ezekielrage_99
Sep 25, 11:32 PM
And the wait for 8 Core Mac Pros and Merom MacBook Pros/MaBook is on ;)
Waiting for speed bumps means no one buys a dang thing :cool:
Waiting for speed bumps means no one buys a dang thing :cool:
toddybody
Apr 21, 08:41 AM
So why are you here? :confused:
Yeah, I wonder that too sometimes.
[Wallpapers Mercedes CL 600
MEC Design Mercedes CL-Class
coupe | Mercedes CL-Class
2006 Mercedes-Benz CL-Class
Yeah, I wonder that too sometimes.
Multimedia
Sep 26, 10:43 AM
http://www.anandtech.com/storage/showdoc.aspx?i=2480
I know they're making a PCI Express, DDR2, SATA II version though. Old news to me...Thanks but that looks like it's only of PCs. Do you know it works in Mac G5 Quads and Mac Pros?
I went to the GIGA-BYTE TECHNOLOGY CO website and it looks like they don't even make that i-RAM card any more. The link to the above article is from July 25, 2005 more than a year ago.
I know they're making a PCI Express, DDR2, SATA II version though. Old news to me...Thanks but that looks like it's only of PCs. Do you know it works in Mac G5 Quads and Mac Pros?
I went to the GIGA-BYTE TECHNOLOGY CO website and it looks like they don't even make that i-RAM card any more. The link to the above article is from July 25, 2005 more than a year ago.
SirOmega
Sep 26, 12:49 AM
Anandtech already reported the 4 core chips WILL WORK in the Mac Pro.
I can definately see how this is going to work out model wise. We'll see the current $2499 model and the up and down options, plus one quad core model at $3299 or possibly less depending on the dual core price drop.
Also, 8 cores would be insane for rendering workstations. 4 cores for rendering in the background, 2 for OS, 2 for other work.
I can definately see how this is going to work out model wise. We'll see the current $2499 model and the up and down options, plus one quad core model at $3299 or possibly less depending on the dual core price drop.
Also, 8 cores would be insane for rendering workstations. 4 cores for rendering in the background, 2 for OS, 2 for other work.
ClimbingTheLog
Sep 12, 03:58 PM
I would rather have seen a mac mini with core 2 duo, better graphics support, an internal 3.5" hard drive, and HDMI.
Don't count it out, but that's not a mass-market machine worth pre-announcing.
Don't count it out, but that's not a mass-market machine worth pre-announcing.
whatever
Oct 25, 10:44 PM
I just got my mac pro a month and a half ago.
Don't worry about it.
There is no reason for Apple to change the MacPro line at this point. Maybe in January, but even then I doubt it.
Intel is just trying to bury AMD, which they are (AMD closed at $20.83 (just think a few months ago they were trading over $40.00) and Intel closed at $21.72 (a few months ago they were trading at $16.00)).
Apple said it last week, Pros are waiting for CS3 before they upgrade, so expect to hear the announcement of upgraded Mac Pros once Adobe finishes up their applications.
Besides wasn't there a thread a few weeks back which stated that the 8 Core machines run slower than the Quads?
Don't worry about it. I know that my new MacPro has already paid for itself.
Don't worry about it.
There is no reason for Apple to change the MacPro line at this point. Maybe in January, but even then I doubt it.
Intel is just trying to bury AMD, which they are (AMD closed at $20.83 (just think a few months ago they were trading over $40.00) and Intel closed at $21.72 (a few months ago they were trading at $16.00)).
Apple said it last week, Pros are waiting for CS3 before they upgrade, so expect to hear the announcement of upgraded Mac Pros once Adobe finishes up their applications.
Besides wasn't there a thread a few weeks back which stated that the 8 Core machines run slower than the Quads?
Don't worry about it. I know that my new MacPro has already paid for itself.
dawindmg08
Apr 13, 02:34 AM
For those of you complaining that this update isn't "Pro" enough, please read through the list of features on this page:
Supermeet Live Blog (http://www.photographybay.com/2011/04/12/final-cut-pro-user-group-supermeet-liveblog/)
There are tons of great ideas here, and I already see a lot of things that will speed up my workflow. There are tools that I have to buy as expensive plugins which are now standard. And simple, common sense approaches to media management that I'm surprised we've worked without them this long (Video and audio LOCKED from ingest? No more sound out of sync? Yes please).
And yet, you all look at the UI and go "eh, it's iMovie Pro". Bitch, please.
And they haven't 'dropped' all the other apps, they just didn't announce (http://www.loopinsight.com/2011/04/12/apple-says-stay-tuned-for-other-final-cut-studio-apps/) anything yet.Hopefully the pricing will be competitive with the other NLE suites and those of us upgrading from the current FCS won't feel ripped off. So just be patient, wait until June and see how it all shakes out...
Supermeet Live Blog (http://www.photographybay.com/2011/04/12/final-cut-pro-user-group-supermeet-liveblog/)
There are tons of great ideas here, and I already see a lot of things that will speed up my workflow. There are tools that I have to buy as expensive plugins which are now standard. And simple, common sense approaches to media management that I'm surprised we've worked without them this long (Video and audio LOCKED from ingest? No more sound out of sync? Yes please).
And yet, you all look at the UI and go "eh, it's iMovie Pro". Bitch, please.
And they haven't 'dropped' all the other apps, they just didn't announce (http://www.loopinsight.com/2011/04/12/apple-says-stay-tuned-for-other-final-cut-studio-apps/) anything yet.Hopefully the pricing will be competitive with the other NLE suites and those of us upgrading from the current FCS won't feel ripped off. So just be patient, wait until June and see how it all shakes out...
MacCoaster
Oct 12, 06:11 PM
PCUser:
Thanks! Didn't think about clock()!
Though, that gives me 100.8 seconds (assuming 10.08 seconds) when it ran in 10 seconds. Didn't you mean to divide by ten?
Thanks! Didn't think about clock()!
Though, that gives me 100.8 seconds (assuming 10.08 seconds) when it ran in 10 seconds. Didn't you mean to divide by ten?
cwe
Sep 26, 02:01 PM
November or December at the latest. It will simply be a Dual Clovertown Processor option added to the current BTO page with a new processor pricing lineup. It will be a silent upgrade.
You're kidding, right? Here we are sitting around waiting on the C2D and you're saying that in about two months we'll have the option to buy a QUAD? Please say your kidding. PLEASE.
You're kidding, right? Here we are sitting around waiting on the C2D and you're saying that in about two months we'll have the option to buy a QUAD? Please say your kidding. PLEASE.
cr2sh
Oct 7, 12:16 PM
I thought we decided to ignore everything that barefeats has to say? They are not a reputable source at all, their tests are flawed and they have little metadata at all.... why even bother?
bingo1234
Sep 21, 03:26 AM
airport express and airtunes allowed streaming content to a stereo. this just adds video function. that's it. if there is a hd it's for buffer and basic OS/ navigation.
still a very cool solution to sending content
still a very cool solution to sending content
No comments:
Post a Comment