err404
Apr 25, 02:09 PM
It is also used for forensic evidence against and for you in legal court.
They could, but law enforcement doesn't need this log. They can get the data straight from the cell provider.
They could, but law enforcement doesn't need this log. They can get the data straight from the cell provider.
runninmac
Aug 7, 03:23 PM
Wow! Just about everything was bad ass! Time Machine seems awesome, so many times I have saved over a document and didn't have a back up. Now all I need is an external drive.
Were they serious when they said they were saving the best feature for later?
Were they serious when they said they were saving the best feature for later?
tortoise
Aug 22, 05:19 PM
The next Xeon is Clovertown, which is just Woodcrest scaled to 4 cores with a few changes in clock and FSB etc. Tigerton comes next, also 4 cores but MP capable (3+ chips possible) and with a possibility of increased FSB speed, bigger L2 cache and so on.
This will likely suck, because the interconnect Intel is using is just too damn slow. Putting four cores in the same package will just make the situation worse, because a lot of applications are significantly limited by memory performance.
The Woodcrest processors have been put through their paces pretty well on the supercomputing lists, and their Achille's heal is the memory subsystem. Current generation AMD Opterons still clearly outscale Woodcrest in real-world memory bandwidth with only two cores. Unless Intel pulls a rabbit out of their hat with their memory architecture issues when the quad core is released, AMDs quad core is going to embarrass them because of the memory bottleneck. And AMD is already starting to work on upgrading their already markedly superior memory architecture.
This will likely suck, because the interconnect Intel is using is just too damn slow. Putting four cores in the same package will just make the situation worse, because a lot of applications are significantly limited by memory performance.
The Woodcrest processors have been put through their paces pretty well on the supercomputing lists, and their Achille's heal is the memory subsystem. Current generation AMD Opterons still clearly outscale Woodcrest in real-world memory bandwidth with only two cores. Unless Intel pulls a rabbit out of their hat with their memory architecture issues when the quad core is released, AMDs quad core is going to embarrass them because of the memory bottleneck. And AMD is already starting to work on upgrading their already markedly superior memory architecture.
janstett
Sep 15, 08:07 AM
The server/desktop division with Windows - as with OS X - is one of marketing, not software. Windows "Workstation" and Windows "Server" use the same codebase.
True (today anyway; in the NT era they were indeed separate platforms though. Which brings me to my next point..)
No, that is not true, in fact it couldn't be more untrue. Now, the 95 family (95/98/ME) was a totally different codebase. But with the NT family (NT/2000/XP) the client and the server were identical, even identical in distributed code. In fact there was a big scandal years ago where someone discovered the registry setting where you could turn NT Workstation into NT Server. Back then all that was different was the number of outbound IP connections and possibly the number of CPUs supported. All they were trying to do with Workstation was prevent you from using it as a server (thus the outbound IP limit) and at some point they didn't give you full-blown IIS on Workstation. That's it.
True (today anyway; in the NT era they were indeed separate platforms though. Which brings me to my next point..)
No, that is not true, in fact it couldn't be more untrue. Now, the 95 family (95/98/ME) was a totally different codebase. But with the NT family (NT/2000/XP) the client and the server were identical, even identical in distributed code. In fact there was a big scandal years ago where someone discovered the registry setting where you could turn NT Workstation into NT Server. Back then all that was different was the number of outbound IP connections and possibly the number of CPUs supported. All they were trying to do with Workstation was prevent you from using it as a server (thus the outbound IP limit) and at some point they didn't give you full-blown IIS on Workstation. That's it.
ugp
Jun 19, 05:58 PM
There is no telling how much Inventory RadioShack is going to actually receive. My buddy told me my pre-order, I mean reserve was the first one to go through in the district. Our district here was able to generate 60 PINs he was told by the DM. Not I don't believe anything RadioShack says and don't expect them to receive all 60 of the phones. I just pray that his store receives at least one iPhone 4 so I can have mine.
Aleco
Apr 8, 01:23 AM
Best Buy made reservations on the iPad. When I went in and said they have several instock, he checked on the computer. They said they had 5 but it was all for reserved customers that put $100 down in the first place.
Tomaz
Aug 7, 07:08 PM
sadly I cant by any more letters to complete a better signature.!
You should at least "by" a "u"... (and maybe an apostrophe) :D
You should at least "by" a "u"... (and maybe an apostrophe) :D
JAT
Apr 6, 03:53 PM
What you and every other non-informed are missing is the Xoom lack of apps is a not really a con for 2 reason.
1. Unlike iOS, ALL APPS, in the android market scale to fit the 1280x800 screen. No x1 or x2 crap. So I can still ENJOY my facebooke app on a larger screen. Nothing is lost. "optimized for tablets" gives me the same information just with a different interface. So long has my twitter app or facebooke or squeezebox app scale so i can see all. I am a happy camper.
2. Unlike iOS i would argue that the xoom needs LESS apps to do functions that take iOS 3 or 4 apps to do. I dont need goodreader or the like because I have a native file system. I dont need skyfire because i have flash. I dont need to open in here, open in there. Every app can have access to each other...
Scale?? Access to each other??
I'm beginning to wonder if you have ever used EITHER iOS or Android.
1. Unlike iOS, ALL APPS, in the android market scale to fit the 1280x800 screen. No x1 or x2 crap. So I can still ENJOY my facebooke app on a larger screen. Nothing is lost. "optimized for tablets" gives me the same information just with a different interface. So long has my twitter app or facebooke or squeezebox app scale so i can see all. I am a happy camper.
2. Unlike iOS i would argue that the xoom needs LESS apps to do functions that take iOS 3 or 4 apps to do. I dont need goodreader or the like because I have a native file system. I dont need skyfire because i have flash. I dont need to open in here, open in there. Every app can have access to each other...
Scale?? Access to each other??
I'm beginning to wonder if you have ever used EITHER iOS or Android.
-aggie-
Jun 11, 08:32 AM
With the Shack getting the iPhone, the iPhone may have finally jumped the shark.
generik
Sep 13, 05:34 AM
Seems like someone in Anantech has managed to do just that with the upcoming Clovertown chips (http://anandtech.com/mac/showdoc.aspx?i=2832&p=6).
It is like the iMac/Mac Mini -> Merom all over again!
It is like the iMac/Mac Mini -> Merom all over again!
CaptMurdock
Mar 22, 07:02 AM
Fox News, huh?
That reminds me -- I gotta put some pine cleaner down my toilet.
That reminds me -- I gotta put some pine cleaner down my toilet.
paul4339
Apr 20, 10:48 AM
You mean it's not an Apple? :eek: But it's ok for Apple to sue and Australian grocery store because they think the letter W looks like their logo? LMAO. Please.
I think this was because Woolworth (Australian supermarket giant) applied for a blanket trademark that allows it to apply it's logo on anything - especially competing electronic goods, computers, music players, and branded phones. (I'm not saying it's right, just surfacing some more details)
P.
I think this was because Woolworth (Australian supermarket giant) applied for a blanket trademark that allows it to apply it's logo on anything - especially competing electronic goods, computers, music players, and branded phones. (I'm not saying it's right, just surfacing some more details)
P.
QCassidy352
Apr 6, 02:10 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)
@yebubbleman
You keep talking about the MBA being "crippled" - how so? What can't it do other than play optical media? Why can't you do "real work" on it?
As for the graphics, I'm under no illusion that it can play games like a mbp let alone gaming PC. And I don't need that. But the current MBA can play some modern games (SC II for example) at decent settings and frames. I wouldnt want to lose the ability to do casual gaming by going to the intel integrated.
@yebubbleman
You keep talking about the MBA being "crippled" - how so? What can't it do other than play optical media? Why can't you do "real work" on it?
As for the graphics, I'm under no illusion that it can play games like a mbp let alone gaming PC. And I don't need that. But the current MBA can play some modern games (SC II for example) at decent settings and frames. I wouldnt want to lose the ability to do casual gaming by going to the intel integrated.
raymondso
Sep 19, 10:24 AM
35 mins til 9......the apple store is still healthy ....new product update unlikely to happen :(
Zadillo
Aug 27, 05:38 PM
Hey for what its worth, i understand where you're coming from Zadillo BUT some people still find the joke funny and therefore it deserves to be told.
Fair enough, and I won't argue any more about it. I can't think of anything more tedious than a debate about whether a joke is funny or not...:)
Fair enough, and I won't argue any more about it. I can't think of anything more tedious than a debate about whether a joke is funny or not...:)
iCrizzo
Mar 27, 03:09 AM
It never ceases to amaze me how MacRumors threads become marred with personal insults and disrespect� and over computers and OS's�
Revenge of the nerds.
Revenge of the nerds.
SevenInchScrew
Dec 9, 01:09 AM
DoFoT:
It depends on what you want from a game. If you care more about driving and tuning than painting and whatnot go buy GT5. Its all about driving and not much else.
I love it because i'm a bit of a car nerd. If you like cars you will like GT5. If you love cars you will love GT5, its just that simple.
I guess I'll throw in my counterpoint to that then, just to give him another opinion to mull over, because I love cars and don't love GT5....
The game is not real good. Every time I've played it, I can't help but think of how it could have been SOOO much better, if they just trimmed back on the crazy feature list a bit. The game tries to be everything to everyone who likes cars. But the problem with that is, trying to do many things means you'll never excel at any of them. Often the implementation of things in this game is a little weak or unfulfilling because of that. For example...
NASCAR is in, but is pretty plain and boring, and doesn't feel like a real cup race. If you like NASCAR, you'd be better served with a full game based on that.
Same with WRC stuff. Yes, the rally is pretty decent. But, I've played a bunch of REALLY awesome rally games before, and this is nowhere near as good.
Day and Night cycles, and Weather effects look amazing.... on the very few tracks that you can actually have them function on.
The sounds of the cars, just as with every GT game that has come before it, is terrible. Very few cars actually sound like their real-world version, and when you tune them up, they get even less distinctive.
The car list, while huge, is FILLED with cars that I have absolutely no desire to drive in a racing game. I get Kaz's intention, bringing in cars from many eras and different parts of the automotive spectrum to see them, and maybe appreciate them more. But this is a racing game at its core, and I don't ever want to race a VW Kombi.
And lastly, the menus are just pitiful. It really feels like they designed them first, all those years ago, and then never touched them again. So many games have come and gone with great menu systems, and this game took nothing away from them, because they are just awful in this game.
This game really had the potential to be amazing. If they got rid of NASCAR, WRC, Karts, etc, and took out about 4-500 of the boring, crappy cars, we'd be getting somewhere. Use the time and effort that those removed things would have occupied to make some manageable menus, more Premium cars, and get the Day-Night cycle and Weather on all tracks. That would have been great. But that isn't what we got.
Don't get me wrong, it is a good game. But GT games aren't supposed to just be good, they are supposed to be GREAT. But even after a 6 year wait, we only got pretty good.
But hey, as I've said on many occasions, it does make some DAMN GOOD screenshots. Almost unreal at times...
Click to HUGE-size
http://imgur.com/hLJ12.jpg
http://imgur.com/V06hb.jpg
http://imgur.com/Vciun.jpg
http://imgur.com/ZGPiF.jpg
http://imgur.com/IMrhk.jpg
It depends on what you want from a game. If you care more about driving and tuning than painting and whatnot go buy GT5. Its all about driving and not much else.
I love it because i'm a bit of a car nerd. If you like cars you will like GT5. If you love cars you will love GT5, its just that simple.
I guess I'll throw in my counterpoint to that then, just to give him another opinion to mull over, because I love cars and don't love GT5....
The game is not real good. Every time I've played it, I can't help but think of how it could have been SOOO much better, if they just trimmed back on the crazy feature list a bit. The game tries to be everything to everyone who likes cars. But the problem with that is, trying to do many things means you'll never excel at any of them. Often the implementation of things in this game is a little weak or unfulfilling because of that. For example...
NASCAR is in, but is pretty plain and boring, and doesn't feel like a real cup race. If you like NASCAR, you'd be better served with a full game based on that.
Same with WRC stuff. Yes, the rally is pretty decent. But, I've played a bunch of REALLY awesome rally games before, and this is nowhere near as good.
Day and Night cycles, and Weather effects look amazing.... on the very few tracks that you can actually have them function on.
The sounds of the cars, just as with every GT game that has come before it, is terrible. Very few cars actually sound like their real-world version, and when you tune them up, they get even less distinctive.
The car list, while huge, is FILLED with cars that I have absolutely no desire to drive in a racing game. I get Kaz's intention, bringing in cars from many eras and different parts of the automotive spectrum to see them, and maybe appreciate them more. But this is a racing game at its core, and I don't ever want to race a VW Kombi.
And lastly, the menus are just pitiful. It really feels like they designed them first, all those years ago, and then never touched them again. So many games have come and gone with great menu systems, and this game took nothing away from them, because they are just awful in this game.
This game really had the potential to be amazing. If they got rid of NASCAR, WRC, Karts, etc, and took out about 4-500 of the boring, crappy cars, we'd be getting somewhere. Use the time and effort that those removed things would have occupied to make some manageable menus, more Premium cars, and get the Day-Night cycle and Weather on all tracks. That would have been great. But that isn't what we got.
Don't get me wrong, it is a good game. But GT games aren't supposed to just be good, they are supposed to be GREAT. But even after a 6 year wait, we only got pretty good.
But hey, as I've said on many occasions, it does make some DAMN GOOD screenshots. Almost unreal at times...
Click to HUGE-size
http://imgur.com/hLJ12.jpg
http://imgur.com/V06hb.jpg
http://imgur.com/Vciun.jpg
http://imgur.com/ZGPiF.jpg
http://imgur.com/IMrhk.jpg
akac
Mar 26, 09:40 PM
Details found here :
http://www.h-online.com/open/news/item/Apple-removes-Samba-from-Mac-OS-X-10-7-Server-1215179.html
Gist of it :
- less features than Samba
- no more Active Directory Services
- Just file sharing now.
Samba developers have also noted that the true motive behind this move might not be the GPLv3 per say, but a more global move away from the GPL. Is Apple moving to close the source on more and more of OS X ?
Anyway, Samba v4 could have given them all the "features" they implemented and much more. Their own in-house version won't necessarily be better just because it's written by Apple. The Samba team does a great job with what Microsoft puts out as documentation (if you can even call it that).
Note that from the article, this change only impacts OS X Server. The client was already an in-house solution.
Although from my understanding from people using this today, the Apple implementation is dramatically faster than the Samba implementation. Just like WebKit started from KHTML and had fewer features than Mozilla, its ended up being the best browser engine out there. Leaner. Meaner. Faster. But it took time. Apple's SMB/CIFS implementation is going the same route. Now I've read elsewhere that it DOES support Active Directory. And elsewhere that it doesn't. The Preview version of Lion was 2 months old by the time devs got it, so its also possible that those reports are all just wrong in as far as what works and what is supposed to work (i.e. it may support AD, but bugs cause it not to work well or at all on some installs).
You will be foolish to wait around unless you want to get buried in the on-slaught of new and improved apps to take advantage of Lion from day one.
Exactly. I know of at least one major app right now that is going to go Lion only...
Windows manages to run legacy apps still. Even if you do have to resort to using the virtual machine they've called 'XP Mode.'
Fortunately, my one and only PPC program does indeed have an intel version that I wasn't aware of, so I'm fine.
You just gave the perfect answer. Using a VM. Run SL in a VM for Rosetta apps :)
It's needed for me.
Look, Rosetta isn't a part of OS X by default. If it is installed, then it is needed by the user, and thus isn't "crap." If the user doesn't need it, it won't be installed. For most users, it will be "cut out." I don't see why having the option there for people who need it stifles progress.
Actually its not a small piece. Its a big piece. EVERY OS X Library has to be provided in PowerPC code as well as x86. So Rosetta itself, by itself is tiny. But all the extra libraries that make up OS X is huge. And that's why its cut out.
In SL, it shipped with all the libraries, but not the Rosetta piece. So it was a simple install of just the Rosetta piece.
http://www.h-online.com/open/news/item/Apple-removes-Samba-from-Mac-OS-X-10-7-Server-1215179.html
Gist of it :
- less features than Samba
- no more Active Directory Services
- Just file sharing now.
Samba developers have also noted that the true motive behind this move might not be the GPLv3 per say, but a more global move away from the GPL. Is Apple moving to close the source on more and more of OS X ?
Anyway, Samba v4 could have given them all the "features" they implemented and much more. Their own in-house version won't necessarily be better just because it's written by Apple. The Samba team does a great job with what Microsoft puts out as documentation (if you can even call it that).
Note that from the article, this change only impacts OS X Server. The client was already an in-house solution.
Although from my understanding from people using this today, the Apple implementation is dramatically faster than the Samba implementation. Just like WebKit started from KHTML and had fewer features than Mozilla, its ended up being the best browser engine out there. Leaner. Meaner. Faster. But it took time. Apple's SMB/CIFS implementation is going the same route. Now I've read elsewhere that it DOES support Active Directory. And elsewhere that it doesn't. The Preview version of Lion was 2 months old by the time devs got it, so its also possible that those reports are all just wrong in as far as what works and what is supposed to work (i.e. it may support AD, but bugs cause it not to work well or at all on some installs).
You will be foolish to wait around unless you want to get buried in the on-slaught of new and improved apps to take advantage of Lion from day one.
Exactly. I know of at least one major app right now that is going to go Lion only...
Windows manages to run legacy apps still. Even if you do have to resort to using the virtual machine they've called 'XP Mode.'
Fortunately, my one and only PPC program does indeed have an intel version that I wasn't aware of, so I'm fine.
You just gave the perfect answer. Using a VM. Run SL in a VM for Rosetta apps :)
It's needed for me.
Look, Rosetta isn't a part of OS X by default. If it is installed, then it is needed by the user, and thus isn't "crap." If the user doesn't need it, it won't be installed. For most users, it will be "cut out." I don't see why having the option there for people who need it stifles progress.
Actually its not a small piece. Its a big piece. EVERY OS X Library has to be provided in PowerPC code as well as x86. So Rosetta itself, by itself is tiny. But all the extra libraries that make up OS X is huge. And that's why its cut out.
In SL, it shipped with all the libraries, but not the Rosetta piece. So it was a simple install of just the Rosetta piece.
gnasher729
Aug 17, 03:52 AM
Lots of stuff on Anandtech about the poor memory performance on the Intel chipset.
Looks like the Xeons got killed by the G5 in Word in their tests.
Might be an interesting machine when/if the motherboard chipset/ memory performance issue is looked in to.
I think part 3 of their review will be telling, paring the machine up to XP machines in a variety of tests.
Anandtech has one big omission: They didn't look at the CPU usage at all. Word doesn't use more than one CPU. And may I say it is damned hard to do anything in Word where CPU usage is of any concern; how often do you export a thousand page Word document to HTML?
These machines can do many things simultaneously. So what would have happened if you were converting a DVD using Handbrake in the background while doing the Word test? On the dual core G5, one CPU would have been used by Word, so Handbrake slows down by 50%. On the Quad core Xeon, one core would have been used by Word, so Handbrake slows down only by 25%.
Looks like the Xeons got killed by the G5 in Word in their tests.
Might be an interesting machine when/if the motherboard chipset/ memory performance issue is looked in to.
I think part 3 of their review will be telling, paring the machine up to XP machines in a variety of tests.
Anandtech has one big omission: They didn't look at the CPU usage at all. Word doesn't use more than one CPU. And may I say it is damned hard to do anything in Word where CPU usage is of any concern; how often do you export a thousand page Word document to HTML?
These machines can do many things simultaneously. So what would have happened if you were converting a DVD using Handbrake in the background while doing the Word test? On the dual core G5, one CPU would have been used by Word, so Handbrake slows down by 50%. On the Quad core Xeon, one core would have been used by Word, so Handbrake slows down only by 25%.
georgethomas
Apr 7, 09:54 AM
haha u cant stop technology from growing. ;)
Reach9
Mar 22, 03:12 PM
Someone give Android's UI and Playbook's UI huge recognition so Apple will change it's old grid-like UI.
Val-kyrie
Jul 30, 05:09 PM
I don't think this is correct. The Merom chips were introduced last Thursday, but have been shipping for a while now, a month ahead of schedule.
Intel said that you could expect to see this chip in a laptop by the end of August. Does that mean custom built or in Best Buy (or wherever)?
It seems to me that if one was going to introduce a so called "Mac Pro" with the newest 64-bit processor, one would also choose introduce its mobile "Pro" counterpart.
Perhaps I have overstated my case. Intel is shipping Merom chips, but laptops with Merom inside are not expected in retail channels until the end of August--perhaps because of limited supply?
Intel said that you could expect to see this chip in a laptop by the end of August. Does that mean custom built or in Best Buy (or wherever)?
It seems to me that if one was going to introduce a so called "Mac Pro" with the newest 64-bit processor, one would also choose introduce its mobile "Pro" counterpart.
Perhaps I have overstated my case. Intel is shipping Merom chips, but laptops with Merom inside are not expected in retail channels until the end of August--perhaps because of limited supply?
daneoni
Aug 27, 08:03 PM
Alright i'm off, i hope everyone gets what they wish for on tuesday, however wild. Cheers and here's to PowerBook G5s tomorrow.
cloudnine
Aug 25, 04:35 PM
Over the years I have bought a lot of computers for my business from a lot of different venders. To be honest Apple hardware support has never impressed me! :mad: I have actually had much better support from Dell than from Apple.
As far as .Mac goes it is one of the most poorly supported systems I have ever used in my life. They have a lousey limited faq sheet, common problems, email support is pitiful, and they don't take voice support. .Mac is a joke for $100.00 a year.
In general Apple's entire help system in OS X sucks. Searchs within the context of an application gives you all kinds of crap from every application on the system. Also there is no depth to the system. If your problem isn't the most elementary problem possible (99% of which you can figure out yourself) then it won't be in any of the help files.
Just out of curiosity... what kind of problems could you possibly have with .mac? I mean, I've never had any email problems, Setting it up in Mail is as simple as possible... the online interface is simple...
I dunno... hearing people complain about customer service regarding .mac seems funny to me. What types of problems have you had with it?
Granted, there are problems with the mac hardware. but till date, I've found apple tech support excellent. They have always replaced my hardware with no questions asked. In fact, they replaced my whole LCD screen on my 3 year old powerbook just because of a white spot.
I wish I had such luck. Apparently if you have a 15" powerbook, they'll replace that display with no questions asked. I have a 12" powerbook without a single scratch on it that i treat like a baby... but apparently it's my fault because i put too much pressure on it... even though i use a sleeve in a cushioned pocket of a cushioned bag. o_O
ergh. :mad:
As far as .Mac goes it is one of the most poorly supported systems I have ever used in my life. They have a lousey limited faq sheet, common problems, email support is pitiful, and they don't take voice support. .Mac is a joke for $100.00 a year.
In general Apple's entire help system in OS X sucks. Searchs within the context of an application gives you all kinds of crap from every application on the system. Also there is no depth to the system. If your problem isn't the most elementary problem possible (99% of which you can figure out yourself) then it won't be in any of the help files.
Just out of curiosity... what kind of problems could you possibly have with .mac? I mean, I've never had any email problems, Setting it up in Mail is as simple as possible... the online interface is simple...
I dunno... hearing people complain about customer service regarding .mac seems funny to me. What types of problems have you had with it?
Granted, there are problems with the mac hardware. but till date, I've found apple tech support excellent. They have always replaced my hardware with no questions asked. In fact, they replaced my whole LCD screen on my 3 year old powerbook just because of a white spot.
I wish I had such luck. Apparently if you have a 15" powerbook, they'll replace that display with no questions asked. I have a 12" powerbook without a single scratch on it that i treat like a baby... but apparently it's my fault because i put too much pressure on it... even though i use a sleeve in a cushioned pocket of a cushioned bag. o_O
ergh. :mad:
