Blackcat
Sep 20, 10:49 AM
No tv inputs on the iTV. No DVR capability. Please stop "wishing", "hoping", "suggesting."
Perhaps, a SECOND device could perform this, but it's not what the $300 no service fee device is for. It's for conveniently streaming content from the computer to a TV that can be watched from the couch. It fills the desire of many people, but not all. (Nor should it try to be everything to everyone. That's part of what makes it an Apple product, like it or not.)
But EyeHome, Neuston MC500 and lots of others already do this. My EyeHome happily squirts anything on my Macs on to my TV or Hifi and lets me browse the web too.
Why is iTV special?
Perhaps, a SECOND device could perform this, but it's not what the $300 no service fee device is for. It's for conveniently streaming content from the computer to a TV that can be watched from the couch. It fills the desire of many people, but not all. (Nor should it try to be everything to everyone. That's part of what makes it an Apple product, like it or not.)
But EyeHome, Neuston MC500 and lots of others already do this. My EyeHome happily squirts anything on my Macs on to my TV or Hifi and lets me browse the web too.
Why is iTV special?
The Beatles
Apr 21, 03:02 AM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_2_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8C148 Safari/6533.18.5)
Its amazing how all those "smart" Android users are still poorer than the average iOS user, and spend less than the average iOS user.
Amazing that all these "smart" people just make so much less money...
Are you ****ing serious?
I don't use Apple products but oh my god I feel bad for you guys. Having a fanboy like this must be ridiculously crappy.
Hey addicted, I agree. Who ever posted that comment has s*** for brains. It's such an ignorant comment. And that my friend is why America sucks, American citizens still don't realize why some have and others have not. I'm guessing he takes on consumer debt to buy his apple products. Good American robot.
Its amazing how all those "smart" Android users are still poorer than the average iOS user, and spend less than the average iOS user.
Amazing that all these "smart" people just make so much less money...
Are you ****ing serious?
I don't use Apple products but oh my god I feel bad for you guys. Having a fanboy like this must be ridiculously crappy.
Hey addicted, I agree. Who ever posted that comment has s*** for brains. It's such an ignorant comment. And that my friend is why America sucks, American citizens still don't realize why some have and others have not. I'm guessing he takes on consumer debt to buy his apple products. Good American robot.
AJsAWiz
Sep 2, 12:27 AM
Did a funny bit on the new iPod Touch announcement. He said it was like an iPhone except it doesn't make calls . . . then he said, oh that IS an iPhone!
Sad but true :o
Come on, Apple . . . open this thing up to other cell phone providers. Perhaps those (like me) getting terrible reception and dropped calls might get better phone service. AND maybe we'll see a drop in rates for everyone. Competition is good for the market ;)
Sad but true :o
Come on, Apple . . . open this thing up to other cell phone providers. Perhaps those (like me) getting terrible reception and dropped calls might get better phone service. AND maybe we'll see a drop in rates for everyone. Competition is good for the market ;)
PeterQVenkman
Apr 13, 11:47 AM
Reading the comments about $299 being a pretty good deal truly makes me laugh. Ten years ago a system of such capacity would be > $50K and you're downplaying $299.
Grow some perspective.
Did you ever think that their perspective is that of a younger person newer to the industry who never had to pay those ridiculous prices? Sounds like you could take your own advice.
Back on topic:
I'd love to see Shake revitalized in the same way. There is some power lurking beneath the rewrite of FCP that can be spread elsewhere.
Grow some perspective.
Did you ever think that their perspective is that of a younger person newer to the industry who never had to pay those ridiculous prices? Sounds like you could take your own advice.
Back on topic:
I'd love to see Shake revitalized in the same way. There is some power lurking beneath the rewrite of FCP that can be spread elsewhere.
Pilgrim1099
Apr 10, 10:28 AM
You mean Microsoft, right? And the interesting part is, Gates is still alive.
Two problems with your pseudo-intellectual response.
1. Gates has retired from Microsoft. Who's running the show now?
2. Who is the sicker of the two? Jobs or Gates?
Two problems with your pseudo-intellectual response.
1. Gates has retired from Microsoft. Who's running the show now?
2. Who is the sicker of the two? Jobs or Gates?
stcanard
Mar 18, 08:41 PM
Apple sells music only to sell iPods. People are locked into their iPods because their iTunes music can't be played on any other brand of player.
And if you look at the number of iPods sold compared to the number of ITMS songs sold, it is plainly obvious this statement is pure bull.
And if you look at the number of iPods sold compared to the number of ITMS songs sold, it is plainly obvious this statement is pure bull.
*LTD*
Apr 10, 09:17 AM
And it still won't work.
Except . . . it is.
The REAL story here isn't whether mobile gaming - the likes of which we see *currently* and the likes of which we will see in the *near future* (this is just the tip of the iceberg) will be a major force in gaming (it already is) but rather, that "hardcore gamers" feel so threatened by this.
And here's an even deeper fear of theirs, buried in the subtext: that in time, console gaming will shift to a touch-based tablet paradigm - possibly not in terms a complete replacement for consoles, but in terms of the way developers (and big-name developers) shift their attention to mobile gaming at the expense of consoles, in order to enjoy possibly far greater profits thanks to a much larger audience. After all, consoles are severely limited in their current state. Gaming and maybe Blu Ray playback. Mobile devices, however, offer a galaxy of possibilities - soon to be indispensable tools for nearly everyone.
Imagine big-name, premier titles appearing on mobile devices first before being ported over to that box you hook up to the TV with the big-button controller that RROD'd just last month?
It's really amusing.
Welcome, gamers.
Seriously.
And think about this. When Steve drops to the grave, Apple's DNA of 'forward thinking' will falter. It's not so much different when you see the great Roman Empire get eaten up by internal in-fighting from ego and greed after the great Emperor dies, all the while being circled by Visigoths ready to take it down.
You mean Microsoft, right? And the interesting part is, Gates is still alive.
Except . . . it is.
The REAL story here isn't whether mobile gaming - the likes of which we see *currently* and the likes of which we will see in the *near future* (this is just the tip of the iceberg) will be a major force in gaming (it already is) but rather, that "hardcore gamers" feel so threatened by this.
And here's an even deeper fear of theirs, buried in the subtext: that in time, console gaming will shift to a touch-based tablet paradigm - possibly not in terms a complete replacement for consoles, but in terms of the way developers (and big-name developers) shift their attention to mobile gaming at the expense of consoles, in order to enjoy possibly far greater profits thanks to a much larger audience. After all, consoles are severely limited in their current state. Gaming and maybe Blu Ray playback. Mobile devices, however, offer a galaxy of possibilities - soon to be indispensable tools for nearly everyone.
Imagine big-name, premier titles appearing on mobile devices first before being ported over to that box you hook up to the TV with the big-button controller that RROD'd just last month?
It's really amusing.
Welcome, gamers.
Seriously.
And think about this. When Steve drops to the grave, Apple's DNA of 'forward thinking' will falter. It's not so much different when you see the great Roman Empire get eaten up by internal in-fighting from ego and greed after the great Emperor dies, all the while being circled by Visigoths ready to take it down.
You mean Microsoft, right? And the interesting part is, Gates is still alive.
skunk
Mar 27, 04:38 AM
That's why you can translate a sentence from one language to another language. If I'm only beginning to learn French, I may say something that may be ungrammatical literally meaningless. But my teacher or another expert in the French language may know what it is I'm trying to say with it. Skunk seems to be talking mostly about a signifier, the group of words, when I'm talking mostly about what Caocao intended to signify with it. You have completely missed the point.
takao
Mar 15, 07:30 AM
Irresponsible politicking. Trading off the nation's future for the short term expediency of a group of politicians. Disgraceful.
nuclear power hadn't got a long term future in germany before this event though. the discussion is only about the running time of existing nuclear plants (after all 6 reactors were originally destined to be shut down originally in the 2010-2013 time frame)
the politicking here will be that after the elections the reactors will be turned _on_ again .. against the will of the voting population
nuclear power hadn't got a long term future in germany before this event though. the discussion is only about the running time of existing nuclear plants (after all 6 reactors were originally destined to be shut down originally in the 2010-2013 time frame)
the politicking here will be that after the elections the reactors will be turned _on_ again .. against the will of the voting population
840quadra
Apr 28, 07:30 AM
Actually iPad sales were most likely down due to people waiting in expectation of the new model, and that new model not having enough units to satisfy demand.
Regardless, it still was strong sales for Apple, and other manufacturers. Good sign in this economy right now to be honest.
Regardless, it still was strong sales for Apple, and other manufacturers. Good sign in this economy right now to be honest.
torbjoern
Apr 24, 06:16 PM
Fundamentalists who have taken an extreme point of view. Are you saying that Islam is not allowed any extremists? All religions have then. But not Muslims are extremists.
The muslim extremists in my country always get supported by those who call themselves "moderate muslims". Probably because of some "solidarity" (blind obedience) code in the ummah. When they gang up together like that on issues that are controversial even within the ummah, it's very easy to see them all as extremists. That's how they strive to appear, even when they're not.
The muslim extremists in my country always get supported by those who call themselves "moderate muslims". Probably because of some "solidarity" (blind obedience) code in the ummah. When they gang up together like that on issues that are controversial even within the ummah, it's very easy to see them all as extremists. That's how they strive to appear, even when they're not.
boncellis
Jul 12, 06:16 PM
The upcomming WWDC has everything to be the coolest, most agressive WWDC ever. If Apple is up to it, we are set to see the strongest Apple line up ever. And thats saying a bit, since the current lineup is already mighty all by itself
I hope so, maybe we'll even see a slight MBP upgrade/speed bump. If not, I anticipate Apple referring to some new features of Leopard as well and that should get this crowd excited.
Even if it turns out to just be the Mac Pro unveiled, that should tide folks over until MWSF--assuming the Paris Expo doesn't see anything new.
I hope so, maybe we'll even see a slight MBP upgrade/speed bump. If not, I anticipate Apple referring to some new features of Leopard as well and that should get this crowd excited.
Even if it turns out to just be the Mac Pro unveiled, that should tide folks over until MWSF--assuming the Paris Expo doesn't see anything new.
Multimedia
Jul 12, 11:33 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?I wholeheartedly agree. It's just a question of how soon Apple will pull the trigger on the switch to Merom in mini and MacBook not if they will. I'm not sure Apple thinks they are competing with PC specs yet. But what's the upside to sticking with Yonah in anything until next year? I don't get it. Aren't we better off in the long run retiring Yonah ASAP?
Is it:
1. Low Supply of Meroms until next year?
2. Lower Cost of Yonahs until next year?
Am I out of line for not believing either of the above? I can't understand Apple not wanting to lose Yonah as soon as they can. I don't see anyone buying a different model because one is Yonah and another is Merom. MacBooks are way too different from MacBook Pros in many other ways than their processor's speed and 32/64 bitness. :confused:
I'm confused for now. Maybe we're being too pessimistic about Apple's willingness to drop Yonah ASAP. :confused:
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?I wholeheartedly agree. It's just a question of how soon Apple will pull the trigger on the switch to Merom in mini and MacBook not if they will. I'm not sure Apple thinks they are competing with PC specs yet. But what's the upside to sticking with Yonah in anything until next year? I don't get it. Aren't we better off in the long run retiring Yonah ASAP?
Is it:
1. Low Supply of Meroms until next year?
2. Lower Cost of Yonahs until next year?
Am I out of line for not believing either of the above? I can't understand Apple not wanting to lose Yonah as soon as they can. I don't see anyone buying a different model because one is Yonah and another is Merom. MacBooks are way too different from MacBook Pros in many other ways than their processor's speed and 32/64 bitness. :confused:
I'm confused for now. Maybe we're being too pessimistic about Apple's willingness to drop Yonah ASAP. :confused:
SandynJosh
May 2, 03:44 PM
All macs do have built-in anti-malware:
http://www.macworld.com/article/142457/2009/08/snowleopard_malware.html
Don't know how good it is, though.
NOTHING built-in or installed later will protect a computer if the user is stupid.
You, as a user, have to be wary of allowing yourself to do what the malware creator needs you to do to circumvent whatever protection your computer has. Oddly enough, there's a large enough number of village idiots with computers of any OS to make it worth writing malware.
http://www.macworld.com/article/142457/2009/08/snowleopard_malware.html
Don't know how good it is, though.
NOTHING built-in or installed later will protect a computer if the user is stupid.
You, as a user, have to be wary of allowing yourself to do what the malware creator needs you to do to circumvent whatever protection your computer has. Oddly enough, there's a large enough number of village idiots with computers of any OS to make it worth writing malware.
matticus008
Mar 20, 03:14 PM
No, this is completely wrong. Copyright is nothing more nor less than a monopoly on distribution of copies of the copyrighted work.
Anyone purchasing a copy of the copyrighted work owns that copy. They do not have a license to that copy, they own that copy. They don't need a license to do anything with that copy except for re-distributing copies of it. Because the copyright holder holds the copyright monopoly, only the copyright holder may copy the work in question and then distribute those copies. Anyone else who wants to re-distribute further copies must get a license from the copyright holder.
But no license is required to purchase a work or to use that work once it is purchased. Copyright is a restriction on what you can do with the things you have purchased and now own.
This is how the various open source licenses work, for example. They only come into play when someone tries to redistribute copies. That's the only time they *can* come into play; without any redistribution of copies, copyright law has no effect.
For example, you can, and have every right to, sell things that you have purchased. No license is required to sell your furniture, your stereo equipment, or the CDs that you have purchased or the books that you have purchased. At the turn of the century, book publishers tried to place a EULA inside their books forbidding resale. The courts--up to the Supreme Court of the United States--said that the copyright monopoly does not cover that, and thus no EULA based on the copyright monopoly can restrict it.
In the Betamax case, the Supreme Court used the same reasoning to say that time-shifting is not a copyright violation. The copyright monopoly is a restriction on what owners can do with the things that they have purchased and now own, and must be strictly interpreted for this reason.
When you buy a book, a CD, or anything else that is copyrighted, you own that copy, and may do whatever you want with that copy, with the exception that you cannot violate the copyright holder's monopoly on making copies and redistributing those copies. You can make as many copies as you want, as long as you don't distribute them; and you can distribute the original copy as long as it is the original. Neither of those acts infringes on the copyright holder's monopoly on copying and redistributing.
This is why the DMCA had to be so convoluted, making the act of circumvention illegal, rather than going to the heart of what the RIAA, etc., wanted.
No, you're not at all correct here. Digital copyrights are licenses. You do not own the copy. When you buy a CD, you own the CD and can burn it [EDIT: literally] or sell it if you want, provided you don't retain a copy. When you buy a book, you can sell the book or highlight the pages or do what you want to your copy, but you can't change three words and republish it. When you buy a music download, you have every right to use it, make short clips of it, make mix CDs from those files and give them to a few friends (as long as you are not making the CDs in bulk or charging for them). Your license does not allow you to modify the contents such that it enables you to do things not allowed by law. You can't rent a car and break all the locks so that anyone can use it without the keys. If you OWN the car, you can do that.
But you do not OWN the music you've bought, you're merely using it as provided for by the owner. Because digital files propagate from a single copy, and that original can be copied and passed along with no quality loss or actual effort to the original copier (who still retains his copy), the law supports DRM which is designed to prevent unauthorized copying. If you could put a whole retail CD and magically duplicate it exactly, including the silk-screen label, professional quality insert printing, an exact molecule-for-molecule duplicate, and if you could do this for zero cost to you and give them away to anyone over the internet, what you would be doing is against the law. Copying the digital files gives you an exact replica, at no cost, and requires no special hardware or software--which is exactly why the artists and labels feel they need DRM. They're within their rights to protect their property.
Copying for your own uses (from device to device) is prefectly within your rights, but modifying the file so it works in ways it was not originally intended IS against copyright law. It's like taking a Windows license and installing it on Mac OS. You can't do it, regardless of the fact that you own a copy of it for Windows. You bought that license for Windows and have no right to use it on a Mac (except through VPC, and only if that's the one installation you've made). Beyond the DMCA, your legally-binding Terms of Service specifically state that you are not to circumvent the protections on the files you buy and you are not to access the iTMS from anything but iTunes. Those are the terms you agreed to, and those are the terms that are enforceable in court, independent of the DMCA. If you think that the copyright owners who forced these terms to be included in Apple's software are wrong, tell them. But breaking the iTunes TOS is breaking the law. The DMCA is convoluted, I agree, and much of it can be spun to be inappropriate and restrictive. But you have to work to change it, not break the law because you don't like it. You have no right to do so, but you have the option to, and you must deal with the consequences if you choose that path. Breaking DRM is a violation of copyright law and the DMCA (or whatever similar legislation says so in your country). Steal if you want to, but know that it IS against the law and it IS stealing.
Anyone purchasing a copy of the copyrighted work owns that copy. They do not have a license to that copy, they own that copy. They don't need a license to do anything with that copy except for re-distributing copies of it. Because the copyright holder holds the copyright monopoly, only the copyright holder may copy the work in question and then distribute those copies. Anyone else who wants to re-distribute further copies must get a license from the copyright holder.
But no license is required to purchase a work or to use that work once it is purchased. Copyright is a restriction on what you can do with the things you have purchased and now own.
This is how the various open source licenses work, for example. They only come into play when someone tries to redistribute copies. That's the only time they *can* come into play; without any redistribution of copies, copyright law has no effect.
For example, you can, and have every right to, sell things that you have purchased. No license is required to sell your furniture, your stereo equipment, or the CDs that you have purchased or the books that you have purchased. At the turn of the century, book publishers tried to place a EULA inside their books forbidding resale. The courts--up to the Supreme Court of the United States--said that the copyright monopoly does not cover that, and thus no EULA based on the copyright monopoly can restrict it.
In the Betamax case, the Supreme Court used the same reasoning to say that time-shifting is not a copyright violation. The copyright monopoly is a restriction on what owners can do with the things that they have purchased and now own, and must be strictly interpreted for this reason.
When you buy a book, a CD, or anything else that is copyrighted, you own that copy, and may do whatever you want with that copy, with the exception that you cannot violate the copyright holder's monopoly on making copies and redistributing those copies. You can make as many copies as you want, as long as you don't distribute them; and you can distribute the original copy as long as it is the original. Neither of those acts infringes on the copyright holder's monopoly on copying and redistributing.
This is why the DMCA had to be so convoluted, making the act of circumvention illegal, rather than going to the heart of what the RIAA, etc., wanted.
No, you're not at all correct here. Digital copyrights are licenses. You do not own the copy. When you buy a CD, you own the CD and can burn it [EDIT: literally] or sell it if you want, provided you don't retain a copy. When you buy a book, you can sell the book or highlight the pages or do what you want to your copy, but you can't change three words and republish it. When you buy a music download, you have every right to use it, make short clips of it, make mix CDs from those files and give them to a few friends (as long as you are not making the CDs in bulk or charging for them). Your license does not allow you to modify the contents such that it enables you to do things not allowed by law. You can't rent a car and break all the locks so that anyone can use it without the keys. If you OWN the car, you can do that.
But you do not OWN the music you've bought, you're merely using it as provided for by the owner. Because digital files propagate from a single copy, and that original can be copied and passed along with no quality loss or actual effort to the original copier (who still retains his copy), the law supports DRM which is designed to prevent unauthorized copying. If you could put a whole retail CD and magically duplicate it exactly, including the silk-screen label, professional quality insert printing, an exact molecule-for-molecule duplicate, and if you could do this for zero cost to you and give them away to anyone over the internet, what you would be doing is against the law. Copying the digital files gives you an exact replica, at no cost, and requires no special hardware or software--which is exactly why the artists and labels feel they need DRM. They're within their rights to protect their property.
Copying for your own uses (from device to device) is prefectly within your rights, but modifying the file so it works in ways it was not originally intended IS against copyright law. It's like taking a Windows license and installing it on Mac OS. You can't do it, regardless of the fact that you own a copy of it for Windows. You bought that license for Windows and have no right to use it on a Mac (except through VPC, and only if that's the one installation you've made). Beyond the DMCA, your legally-binding Terms of Service specifically state that you are not to circumvent the protections on the files you buy and you are not to access the iTMS from anything but iTunes. Those are the terms you agreed to, and those are the terms that are enforceable in court, independent of the DMCA. If you think that the copyright owners who forced these terms to be included in Apple's software are wrong, tell them. But breaking the iTunes TOS is breaking the law. The DMCA is convoluted, I agree, and much of it can be spun to be inappropriate and restrictive. But you have to work to change it, not break the law because you don't like it. You have no right to do so, but you have the option to, and you must deal with the consequences if you choose that path. Breaking DRM is a violation of copyright law and the DMCA (or whatever similar legislation says so in your country). Steal if you want to, but know that it IS against the law and it IS stealing.
Aduntu
Apr 23, 02:16 AM
the word day is used over 2000 times in the old testament, and you want to change the meaning of only six of them? Especially since the creation passages define the light as "day" and the darkness as "night", day is clearly defined as 24hrs
The six creative "days" occurred after the creation of the "heavens and the earth." That means the universe (and the earth) was in existence for an indefinite amount of time before the creative days began.
The word translated "day" can mean various lengths of time, not just a 24-hour period. Genesis 2:4 refers to God creating the "heavens and the earth" in a single day, yet Exodus 20:11 says it took six days to create the "heavens and the earth." By calling light day and darkness night, it's actually showing that only a portion of a 24-hour period is defined by the term "day." When the sun comes up at your house and then goes down, does that equal an entire day, lasting 24 hours? Psalms 90:4 says that a thousand years to man is merely a day to God. So how can you logically conclude that the term "day" is strictly indicating a 24-hour period?
The six creative "days" occurred after the creation of the "heavens and the earth." That means the universe (and the earth) was in existence for an indefinite amount of time before the creative days began.
The word translated "day" can mean various lengths of time, not just a 24-hour period. Genesis 2:4 refers to God creating the "heavens and the earth" in a single day, yet Exodus 20:11 says it took six days to create the "heavens and the earth." By calling light day and darkness night, it's actually showing that only a portion of a 24-hour period is defined by the term "day." When the sun comes up at your house and then goes down, does that equal an entire day, lasting 24 hours? Psalms 90:4 says that a thousand years to man is merely a day to God. So how can you logically conclude that the term "day" is strictly indicating a 24-hour period?
ChrisA
Sep 26, 09:56 AM
My 2.66GHz MacPro doesn't use all four cores except on rare occassions (e.g. benchmarks, quicktime, handbrake, etc.) and even then it doesn't peg them all. What I'm most interested in is offloading OpenGL to a core, the GUI to another core, etc.
Are you trying to say that you spent to much for a computer and should have bought an iMac? What do you do with your computer. Web and email or editing HD video?
Are you trying to say that you spent to much for a computer and should have bought an iMac? What do you do with your computer. Web and email or editing HD video?
jefhatfield
Oct 12, 05:51 AM
Originally posted by alex_ant
The kind of Mac that's adequate now (say an 800MHz TiBook) will probably seem quite slow in three years, whereas if you buy a top-of-the-line PC notebook today, it could easily last 5 or more. With OS X, the days of Macs lasting 5+ years are gone, at least for the moment. We do things with our computers today that we didn't do with them 5 years ago - mainly due to the trickle-down effect.
Alex
because the way the pc software gets so overbloated so fast, any pc laptop is rendered too slow in two years and any pc desktop (with the desktop's higher specs and expandability) is rendered too slow in three years
i can't see any pc lasting four years comfortably, unless it's an ultra sparc, sun, or silicon graphics unit
i am assuming this for someone who would sometimes need to use photoshop, autocad, or a fifty dollar high end game
.....
as for macs, i give them the same time frame even though they are behind the pc speed curve
i don't see mac software titles pushing the mac hardware off the planet like in the pc world, which is seen more as a throwaway consumer electronic
thank god that macs are not seen or built as throwaway consumer electronics
even the "now" lowly crt imac is a sturdy machine that will outlast, on the physical level, most pcs on the market
.....
when i got my ibook, even though the single usb port left me stranded peripheral wise two years later, it was built to last and last
when i got my pc laptop, made by compaq, the thing was definitely sold as a throwaway unit
the rubber feet fell off which i had to glue back on
one screen hinge kept on popping off so i have to avoid touching it on that left side
when i close the pc laptop unit, i have to do it slowly since that particular model had thin plastic latches that broke off easily and the ribbon cable connecting the lcd had a tendency to get unplugged inside the unit
and the battery was useless after a year and wouldn't hold a charge anymore
i never shelled out the $199 bucks to get a new battery and now i just use the short length ac adapter
.....
in contrast, my ibook's only deterioration has been the battery's ability to hold a 4 1/2 hour charge...the thing never got 6 hours in real world everyday use like advertised...using just word processing with the lcd dimmed way down, a reviewer got five hours on a new rev a. ibook battery
now the laptop's battery, after 34 months of daily use, holds a 2 3/4 hour charge...actually, not bad compared to the pc laptop whose battery died after just a year
.....
when i looked at a computer accessories catalog, they recommended that i replace my pc model's battery after one year of part time use
but they also recommended that i replace my rev. a ibook's battery after just one year, also...how wrong they were...ha:p
if i still have my 300 mhz ibook two years from now, even if i wouldn't likely be using it much, i will give it a five year birthday party on macrumors...ibook's in late-2004 will be at 1.9 ghz by then if apple still has an ibook on the consumer end...this is based on average speed climb in industry
right now, the earliest rev. a ibooks are now 3 1/4 years old, originally had os 8.5, and i bet most are still working:D
The kind of Mac that's adequate now (say an 800MHz TiBook) will probably seem quite slow in three years, whereas if you buy a top-of-the-line PC notebook today, it could easily last 5 or more. With OS X, the days of Macs lasting 5+ years are gone, at least for the moment. We do things with our computers today that we didn't do with them 5 years ago - mainly due to the trickle-down effect.
Alex
because the way the pc software gets so overbloated so fast, any pc laptop is rendered too slow in two years and any pc desktop (with the desktop's higher specs and expandability) is rendered too slow in three years
i can't see any pc lasting four years comfortably, unless it's an ultra sparc, sun, or silicon graphics unit
i am assuming this for someone who would sometimes need to use photoshop, autocad, or a fifty dollar high end game
.....
as for macs, i give them the same time frame even though they are behind the pc speed curve
i don't see mac software titles pushing the mac hardware off the planet like in the pc world, which is seen more as a throwaway consumer electronic
thank god that macs are not seen or built as throwaway consumer electronics
even the "now" lowly crt imac is a sturdy machine that will outlast, on the physical level, most pcs on the market
.....
when i got my ibook, even though the single usb port left me stranded peripheral wise two years later, it was built to last and last
when i got my pc laptop, made by compaq, the thing was definitely sold as a throwaway unit
the rubber feet fell off which i had to glue back on
one screen hinge kept on popping off so i have to avoid touching it on that left side
when i close the pc laptop unit, i have to do it slowly since that particular model had thin plastic latches that broke off easily and the ribbon cable connecting the lcd had a tendency to get unplugged inside the unit
and the battery was useless after a year and wouldn't hold a charge anymore
i never shelled out the $199 bucks to get a new battery and now i just use the short length ac adapter
.....
in contrast, my ibook's only deterioration has been the battery's ability to hold a 4 1/2 hour charge...the thing never got 6 hours in real world everyday use like advertised...using just word processing with the lcd dimmed way down, a reviewer got five hours on a new rev a. ibook battery
now the laptop's battery, after 34 months of daily use, holds a 2 3/4 hour charge...actually, not bad compared to the pc laptop whose battery died after just a year
.....
when i looked at a computer accessories catalog, they recommended that i replace my pc model's battery after one year of part time use
but they also recommended that i replace my rev. a ibook's battery after just one year, also...how wrong they were...ha:p
if i still have my 300 mhz ibook two years from now, even if i wouldn't likely be using it much, i will give it a five year birthday party on macrumors...ibook's in late-2004 will be at 1.9 ghz by then if apple still has an ibook on the consumer end...this is based on average speed climb in industry
right now, the earliest rev. a ibooks are now 3 1/4 years old, originally had os 8.5, and i bet most are still working:D
KnightWRX
May 2, 09:53 AM
Archive Utility will not extract these type of ZIP files to their system paths. I believe it will force the use of relative paths. I really doubt any reports that this malware can be installed without user interaction.
You're right, I just tested this. A zip file created with -jj (absolute paths) does not unzip to the absolute paths using Archive Utility. It unzips it to the current path.
So this requires 100% user intervention to install.
You're right, I just tested this. A zip file created with -jj (absolute paths) does not unzip to the absolute paths using Archive Utility. It unzips it to the current path.
So this requires 100% user intervention to install.
albinogoldfish
Mar 18, 03:10 PM
Echoing a comment I saw elsewhere, why doesn't someone just hire this guy. It probably costs more for Apple to sue each person than it would be to hire them and keep them busy fixing these problems internally.
Demoman
Jul 12, 09:36 PM
This thread is getting too funny. Apple has been so far behind on power these past few years and now we get the chance to use Conroe, and suddenly that's not good enough for the Mac snobs. Conroe is an extremely fast chip (especially compared to G5), so I don't get why some people think it's a bad choice for the pro-line up. Sure, it can't do smp, but not everyone needs or want to pay for quad processing.
So, aside from the ability to do multiple processing, what advantages does Woodcrest have that make it mandatory to go in the pro-line? How much "faster" is it going to be over the Conroe? It's my understanding that they are identical in that respect.
SW engineers usually optimize their systems with expectations of the environment they will run in. Pro-level applications often run much better in systems that use SMP, but not all. Sometimes it is better to pipeline a few processes at high speed, rather than do a lot of task swapping. Most of Apples core customer's application seem to benefit from SMP. So, that is what they are going to expect from Pro-level hardware.
So, aside from the ability to do multiple processing, what advantages does Woodcrest have that make it mandatory to go in the pro-line? How much "faster" is it going to be over the Conroe? It's my understanding that they are identical in that respect.
SW engineers usually optimize their systems with expectations of the environment they will run in. Pro-level applications often run much better in systems that use SMP, but not all. Sometimes it is better to pipeline a few processes at high speed, rather than do a lot of task swapping. Most of Apples core customer's application seem to benefit from SMP. So, that is what they are going to expect from Pro-level hardware.
iJohnHenry
Mar 25, 06:50 PM
@ijh: don't you spend more time here than anybody...?
I try to, but public service keeps dragging me away.
And it's getting damn annoying.
I try to, but public service keeps dragging me away.
And it's getting damn annoying.
digitalbiker
Aug 29, 01:16 PM
Greenpeace is not exactly 'agenda-less'. But that seems sort of paranoid to say that they're clearly trying to kill technology, capitalism and innovation. If they wanted to target Apple, or get a lot of publicity, they surely could have done something more dramatic than put them fourth from the bottom of a list.
And honestly, what do we know about Apple's environmental standards (materials used, manufacturing processes, disposal methods, etc.)? I really doubt that most of you (myself included) are industrial engineers, environmental standards auditors or something. Like some previous replies said - some people can't stand the idea that Apple is not great at something, and will lash out at those who criticize it. I mean, I like Apple's stuff, but it's just a company. Keep an open mind...
While I have no information regarding Greenpeace having a grudge against Apple, I would be interested in knowing how Dell managed a higher ranking.
From an outsiders view, I can't really see the difference, envronmentally speaking. I mean,
Apple computers aren't significantly less efficient than Dell computers. I can't image Dell computers being constructed with significantly different materials than Apple.
Both Apple and Dell use the same defective Sony batteries, etc. etc.
So why is Dell near the top and Apple near the bottom?
It sort of does lean one to speculate that maybe someone in Greenpeace is pissed-off at Apple for popularizing the mp3 player and creating even more landfill havoc.
And honestly, what do we know about Apple's environmental standards (materials used, manufacturing processes, disposal methods, etc.)? I really doubt that most of you (myself included) are industrial engineers, environmental standards auditors or something. Like some previous replies said - some people can't stand the idea that Apple is not great at something, and will lash out at those who criticize it. I mean, I like Apple's stuff, but it's just a company. Keep an open mind...
While I have no information regarding Greenpeace having a grudge against Apple, I would be interested in knowing how Dell managed a higher ranking.
From an outsiders view, I can't really see the difference, envronmentally speaking. I mean,
Apple computers aren't significantly less efficient than Dell computers. I can't image Dell computers being constructed with significantly different materials than Apple.
Both Apple and Dell use the same defective Sony batteries, etc. etc.
So why is Dell near the top and Apple near the bottom?
It sort of does lean one to speculate that maybe someone in Greenpeace is pissed-off at Apple for popularizing the mp3 player and creating even more landfill havoc.
Lennholm
May 2, 04:08 PM
To compare Windows' extremely annoying UAC crap with the non-intrusive one-time authorization requests for newly-downloaded files on Mac OS X is ludicrous...not to mention the fact that OS X's user password validity lasts for a while after it is typed.
Conclusion: You've probably never really used OS X.
Well I've actually worked with technical support of OS X so...
Both the authorization in OS X and Windows UAC requires confirmation when any sw needs to write to the disk or access to certain system information. OS X doesn't only require authorization when installing an app (and updating, mind you) or running it for the first time, it also needs it when changing anything in the system.
UAC works exactly the same way, that 3rd party developers aren't making the effort to adapt their sw to a permission based OS and unnecesarily require admin rights isn't really MS fault.
As I said, I can't even think of any such sw on my Windows PC and I don't find UAC more annoying than OS X authorization in the least. I get the UAC prompt at the same times as I do in OS X, when installing/updating an application and changing system preferences, nothing else.
What do you mean, "Try Windows 7"? I've used and maintained every version of Windows from 98SE all the way up to 7. I even toyed around with 95 in a virtual machine from pure curiosity. Hell, I even have a Windows 7 boot camp partition.
I know exactly what Windows 7 is like. It comes with maintaining every computer at the house, several of the computers at the high school, fixing collegemates' computers, and being known as the neighborhood tech kid since age 14 (now 22, for reference).
Sorry, that last sentence wasn't aimed at you, it was more of a general statement about how some people simply dismiss everything that comes from MS without any personal experience. It's so obvious that they haven't used Win 7 and are only making assumptions, simply because it's cool to hate MS
Conclusion: You've probably never really used OS X.
Well I've actually worked with technical support of OS X so...
Both the authorization in OS X and Windows UAC requires confirmation when any sw needs to write to the disk or access to certain system information. OS X doesn't only require authorization when installing an app (and updating, mind you) or running it for the first time, it also needs it when changing anything in the system.
UAC works exactly the same way, that 3rd party developers aren't making the effort to adapt their sw to a permission based OS and unnecesarily require admin rights isn't really MS fault.
As I said, I can't even think of any such sw on my Windows PC and I don't find UAC more annoying than OS X authorization in the least. I get the UAC prompt at the same times as I do in OS X, when installing/updating an application and changing system preferences, nothing else.
What do you mean, "Try Windows 7"? I've used and maintained every version of Windows from 98SE all the way up to 7. I even toyed around with 95 in a virtual machine from pure curiosity. Hell, I even have a Windows 7 boot camp partition.
I know exactly what Windows 7 is like. It comes with maintaining every computer at the house, several of the computers at the high school, fixing collegemates' computers, and being known as the neighborhood tech kid since age 14 (now 22, for reference).
Sorry, that last sentence wasn't aimed at you, it was more of a general statement about how some people simply dismiss everything that comes from MS without any personal experience. It's so obvious that they haven't used Win 7 and are only making assumptions, simply because it's cool to hate MS
