GroundLoop
Sep 12, 03:49 PM
As long as I can use the USB port on it to hook up my printer (thereby replacing the Airport Express), then I will likely get one of these.
Hickman
Hickman
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.
generik
Sep 26, 01:39 AM
Can I ask a question? I'm a bit non-technical when it comes to things like this.
When particular apps aren't designed to use multiple processors � let's just say randomly, oooo... Adobe Illustrator, for example � what benefit would a machine like this have? Would it run exactly the same as on single processor of the same speed?
Thanks to anyone who can clarify this for me. :)
As far as that one application is concerned, no difference, but you get to do so much more in the background =)
When particular apps aren't designed to use multiple processors � let's just say randomly, oooo... Adobe Illustrator, for example � what benefit would a machine like this have? Would it run exactly the same as on single processor of the same speed?
Thanks to anyone who can clarify this for me. :)
As far as that one application is concerned, no difference, but you get to do so much more in the background =)
davelanger
Apr 28, 11:56 AM
This is because they have continued to put time and money in to iOS and not Mac. They have been lazy and done practically done nothing with desktops and their notebooks. They need to start putting emphasis on to Macs now.
Isnt that what they are doing with Lion?
I am quite familiar, perhaps you should read it again.
The iPod was introduced in hit popularity in 2003 / when it was later replaced (in the eyes of masses of people buying them) by the iPhone, and later iPod Touch as the next "new thing".
Do you still see masses of people with White or Black iPods? Or do you see them carrying iPhones or iPod Touches now?
What has been on the news recently the most, sought after by most Apple fans? I don't think it is the iPod.
You dont know what a fad is. Thats like calling dial up internet a fad because now pretty much everyone is using cable or fios internet. An ipod touch is still an ipod, its just better version of an ipod black/white.
A fad is something that comes alot that is huge for a short time then fades out. Just because tech advances doesnt mean the first gen was a fad.
Isnt that what they are doing with Lion?
I am quite familiar, perhaps you should read it again.
The iPod was introduced in hit popularity in 2003 / when it was later replaced (in the eyes of masses of people buying them) by the iPhone, and later iPod Touch as the next "new thing".
Do you still see masses of people with White or Black iPods? Or do you see them carrying iPhones or iPod Touches now?
What has been on the news recently the most, sought after by most Apple fans? I don't think it is the iPod.
You dont know what a fad is. Thats like calling dial up internet a fad because now pretty much everyone is using cable or fios internet. An ipod touch is still an ipod, its just better version of an ipod black/white.
A fad is something that comes alot that is huge for a short time then fades out. Just because tech advances doesnt mean the first gen was a fad.
faroZ06
May 2, 06:26 PM
Switching off or turning down UAC in Windows also equally impacts the strength of MIC (Windows sandboxing mechanism) because it functions based on inherited permissions. Unix DAC in Mac OS X functions via inherited permissions but MAC (mandatory access controls -> OS X sandbox) does not. Windows does not have a sandbox like OS X.
UAC, by default, does not use a unique identifier (password) so it is more susceptible to attacks the rely on spoofing prompts that appear to be unrelated to UAC to steal authentication. If a password is attached to authentication, these spoofed prompts fail to work.
Having a password associated with permissions has other benefits as well.
If "Open safe files after downloading" is turned on, it will both unarchive the zip file and launch the installer. Installers are marked as safe to launch because require authentication to complete installation.
No harm can be done from just launching the installer. But, you are correct in that code is being executed in user space.
Code run in user space is used to achieve privilege escalation via exploitation or social engineering (trick user to authenticate -> as in this malware). There is very little that can be done beyond prank style attacks with only user level access. System level access is required for usefully dangerous malware install, such as keyloggers that can log protected passwords. This is why there is little malware for Mac OS X. Achieving system level access to Windows via exploitation is much easier.
Webkit2 will further reduce the possibility of even achieving user level access.
The article suggested that the installer completed itself without authentication. I don't see how that is possible unless you are using the root account or something. It would give sudo access, but even still you'd get SOME dialog box :confused:
UAC, by default, does not use a unique identifier (password) so it is more susceptible to attacks the rely on spoofing prompts that appear to be unrelated to UAC to steal authentication. If a password is attached to authentication, these spoofed prompts fail to work.
Having a password associated with permissions has other benefits as well.
If "Open safe files after downloading" is turned on, it will both unarchive the zip file and launch the installer. Installers are marked as safe to launch because require authentication to complete installation.
No harm can be done from just launching the installer. But, you are correct in that code is being executed in user space.
Code run in user space is used to achieve privilege escalation via exploitation or social engineering (trick user to authenticate -> as in this malware). There is very little that can be done beyond prank style attacks with only user level access. System level access is required for usefully dangerous malware install, such as keyloggers that can log protected passwords. This is why there is little malware for Mac OS X. Achieving system level access to Windows via exploitation is much easier.
Webkit2 will further reduce the possibility of even achieving user level access.
The article suggested that the installer completed itself without authentication. I don't see how that is possible unless you are using the root account or something. It would give sudo access, but even still you'd get SOME dialog box :confused:
coochiekuta
Mar 13, 02:21 PM
surely other forms need to be developed more so their cost can go down but nuclear power i think is very much needed. after an oil spill do you give up on oil? there is risk in most things.
alcaponek
Apr 20, 05:18 PM
It looks to me like they are waiting for the 2nd generation of LTE chips to implement it, arent they due to September as I heard somewhere ?
GraphicArmy
Jul 11, 11:07 PM
Yeah, I hope apple lower their price point for the pro models. It is way too much. I love mac computer, but come on; the prices vs the PC suckass.
I know Macs are way better then PC, but PCs are good tool too.
I know Macs are way better then PC, but PCs are good tool too.
NebulaClash
Apr 28, 01:23 PM
After reading much of this thread's replies, I can honestly say that MANY MR users are living in 2009. The tablet is a PC. Yeah, maybe it can't do 100% of what a MacPro can do, but it does 90% of it. You can use the iPad as a PC and do lots of productivity.
If you aren't calling it a PC in you will in 2012 or 2013. Get used to it now, Technosaurus Rex'ers.
The same thing happened when PCs first hit the work place. Then it was all about minicomputers and mainframes, not these toy devices. But hey, put a 3270 card into the PC, hook it up to the big iron, and now you had a real computer device! People simply couldn't imagine that these little PCs would ever surpass the big iron in both power and popularity. But eventually they did.
Tablets are the same way. People are blindly assuming that the tablet of today is what we will be using in 2020. It isn't, any more than the iPod touch is the same as the 2001 original iPod. Things change, devices get vastly more powerful and full of features that people simply could not imagine when they began.
The post-PC era is going to steamroller the naysayers.
If you aren't calling it a PC in you will in 2012 or 2013. Get used to it now, Technosaurus Rex'ers.
The same thing happened when PCs first hit the work place. Then it was all about minicomputers and mainframes, not these toy devices. But hey, put a 3270 card into the PC, hook it up to the big iron, and now you had a real computer device! People simply couldn't imagine that these little PCs would ever surpass the big iron in both power and popularity. But eventually they did.
Tablets are the same way. People are blindly assuming that the tablet of today is what we will be using in 2020. It isn't, any more than the iPod touch is the same as the 2001 original iPod. Things change, devices get vastly more powerful and full of features that people simply could not imagine when they began.
The post-PC era is going to steamroller the naysayers.
tjcampbell
Apr 24, 05:24 PM
Wirelessly posted (iPhone : Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_2 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8H7 Safari/6533.18.5)
They are either born into it or fall into it when they reach a low point in their life. The world does NOT need religion. Be kind to each other. Don't be a jerk. You do not need an organised myth-based institution to help you with this.
They are either born into it or fall into it when they reach a low point in their life. The world does NOT need religion. Be kind to each other. Don't be a jerk. You do not need an organised myth-based institution to help you with this.
ChrisA
Oct 26, 08:25 PM
Apple wasn't very quick at adopting the Core2 chips (which are pin-compatible with Core chips), what would make Clovertown any different?
The C2D was a general upgrade that applied to every MBP sold where as
Clovertown may be a build to order option.
The C2D was a general upgrade that applied to every MBP sold where as
Clovertown may be a build to order option.
jettredmont
May 2, 05:35 PM
Is your info from like 1993 ? Because this little known version of Windows dubbed "New Technology" or NT for short brought along something called the NTFS (New Technology File System) that has... *drumroll* ACLs and strict permissions with inheritance...
Unless you're running as administrator on a Windows NT based system, you're as protected as a "Unix/Linux" user. Of course, you can also run as root all the time under Unix, negating this "security".
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.
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.
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).
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.
I'd say it's people that try to just lump all malware together in the same category, making a trojan that relies on social engineering sound as bad as a self-replicating worm that spreads using a remote execution/privilege escalation bug that are quite ignorant of general computer security.
Absolutely. I think it is absolutely critical to discern between a social-engineering attack (ie, one that requires a user to take some action unwittingly) from an automated attack (a classic virus or worm). The latter is certainly less common these days (although the "big boys" wanting to send Iranian nuclear reactors into convulsions seem to be keeping the dark art of worming alive and well), and so a typical user is much more likely to fall victim to a phishing scam than to get something nasty like the Asuza virus which wipes out their hard drive after an incubation period.
From the main "security firms", though, the money is in making all malware seem automated and thus only able to be countered by an automated virus detection/isolation utility. There just isn't much money in telling people to not click "Install" when MACDefender's installer comes up while looking through Google Images.
Unless you're running as administrator on a Windows NT based system, you're as protected as a "Unix/Linux" user. Of course, you can also run as root all the time under Unix, negating this "security".
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.
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.
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).
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.
I'd say it's people that try to just lump all malware together in the same category, making a trojan that relies on social engineering sound as bad as a self-replicating worm that spreads using a remote execution/privilege escalation bug that are quite ignorant of general computer security.
Absolutely. I think it is absolutely critical to discern between a social-engineering attack (ie, one that requires a user to take some action unwittingly) from an automated attack (a classic virus or worm). The latter is certainly less common these days (although the "big boys" wanting to send Iranian nuclear reactors into convulsions seem to be keeping the dark art of worming alive and well), and so a typical user is much more likely to fall victim to a phishing scam than to get something nasty like the Asuza virus which wipes out their hard drive after an incubation period.
From the main "security firms", though, the money is in making all malware seem automated and thus only able to be countered by an automated virus detection/isolation utility. There just isn't much money in telling people to not click "Install" when MACDefender's installer comes up while looking through Google Images.
malohkan
Oct 7, 11:47 AM
I think the realistic expectation is: "If Apple doesn't make any more changes to the iPhone for the next 10 years, there will be an Android phone to beat it by 2020!!"
I feel like the trend is going to stay the same as it was with the G1. They're like "ooo look at our neat new features!!" Unfortunately, the iPhone/iPod just got those features, only better, just before you launched.
The competition just can't stay ahead, and Apple is going to keep it that way.
I feel like the trend is going to stay the same as it was with the G1. They're like "ooo look at our neat new features!!" Unfortunately, the iPhone/iPod just got those features, only better, just before you launched.
The competition just can't stay ahead, and Apple is going to keep it that way.
GGJstudios
May 2, 11:36 AM
4. Run a Spotlight search for "MACDefender" to check for any associated files that might still be lingering
That's a sure way *not* to find any related files.
The only effective method for complete app removal is manual deletion:
Best way to FULLY DELETE a program (http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=11171082&postcount=16)
One thing Macs need anti-virus is to scan mails for Windows viruses, so that those doesn't to you PC. That is all.
That doesn't protect Windows PCs from malware from other sources, which is a far greater threat than receiving files from a Mac. Each Windows user should be running their own anti-virus, to protect them from malware from all sources.
Yes so much. Because Malware can copy itself and infect a computer.
No, only a virus can do that. A trojan requires user involvement to spread.
So few virus for MAC than when one appears it is news... :)
This isn't a virus.
Mac OS X fanboys really need to stop clinging to the mentality that "viruses" don't exist for OS X and that "malware" is a Windows-only problem.
I agree. While no Mac OS X viruses exist at this time, that doesn't mean they won't in the future. And malware has always been a threat. What's important is to understand the kinds of threats and the most effective methods for protection.
The fact is, the days of viruses are long gone.
I wouldn't go so far as to say that. Just when you do, someone will release a new virus into the wild. While they may not be as prevalent as they once were, they're by no means extinct.
The fact is, understanding the proper terminology and different payloads and impacts of the different types of malware prevents unnecessary panic and promotes a proper security strategy.
I'd say it's people that try to just lump all malware together in the same category, making a trojan that relies on social engineering sound as bad as a self-replicating worm that spreads using a remote execution/privilege escalation bug that are quite ignorant of general computer security.
The best defense a Mac user has against current malware threats is education and common sense. Understanding the basic differences between a virus, trojan, worm, and other types of malware will help a user defend against them. Doing simple things like unchecking the "Open "safe" files after downloading" option is quite effective.
I despise the "X is a file downloaded from the Internet" dialog introduced in SL. Really wish you could disable it.
That's one of the simple lines of defense for a user, as it lets them know they're about to open a newly-downloaded app. It only does that the first time you launch the app, so why bother disabling such a helpful reminder?
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.
Actually, it helps a user to have some understanding about malware. Part of the problem is a novice user is likely to engage in dangerous activities, such as installing pirated software, unless they know what a trojan is and how it infects a system. Also, understanding what a virus is, how it spreads, and the fact that none exist for Mac OS X will prevent them from instantly assuming that everything unexpected that happens on their Mac is the result of a virus. Also, understanding that antivirus apps can't detect a virus that doesn't yet exist will prevent them from installing AV and having a false sense of security, thinking they're immune to threats. Educating a user goes a very long way in protecting them, by teaching them to practice safe computing habits.
Mac Virus/Malware Info (http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=9400648&postcount=4)
That's a sure way *not* to find any related files.
The only effective method for complete app removal is manual deletion:
Best way to FULLY DELETE a program (http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=11171082&postcount=16)
One thing Macs need anti-virus is to scan mails for Windows viruses, so that those doesn't to you PC. That is all.
That doesn't protect Windows PCs from malware from other sources, which is a far greater threat than receiving files from a Mac. Each Windows user should be running their own anti-virus, to protect them from malware from all sources.
Yes so much. Because Malware can copy itself and infect a computer.
No, only a virus can do that. A trojan requires user involvement to spread.
So few virus for MAC than when one appears it is news... :)
This isn't a virus.
Mac OS X fanboys really need to stop clinging to the mentality that "viruses" don't exist for OS X and that "malware" is a Windows-only problem.
I agree. While no Mac OS X viruses exist at this time, that doesn't mean they won't in the future. And malware has always been a threat. What's important is to understand the kinds of threats and the most effective methods for protection.
The fact is, the days of viruses are long gone.
I wouldn't go so far as to say that. Just when you do, someone will release a new virus into the wild. While they may not be as prevalent as they once were, they're by no means extinct.
The fact is, understanding the proper terminology and different payloads and impacts of the different types of malware prevents unnecessary panic and promotes a proper security strategy.
I'd say it's people that try to just lump all malware together in the same category, making a trojan that relies on social engineering sound as bad as a self-replicating worm that spreads using a remote execution/privilege escalation bug that are quite ignorant of general computer security.
The best defense a Mac user has against current malware threats is education and common sense. Understanding the basic differences between a virus, trojan, worm, and other types of malware will help a user defend against them. Doing simple things like unchecking the "Open "safe" files after downloading" option is quite effective.
I despise the "X is a file downloaded from the Internet" dialog introduced in SL. Really wish you could disable it.
That's one of the simple lines of defense for a user, as it lets them know they're about to open a newly-downloaded app. It only does that the first time you launch the app, so why bother disabling such a helpful reminder?
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.
Actually, it helps a user to have some understanding about malware. Part of the problem is a novice user is likely to engage in dangerous activities, such as installing pirated software, unless they know what a trojan is and how it infects a system. Also, understanding what a virus is, how it spreads, and the fact that none exist for Mac OS X will prevent them from instantly assuming that everything unexpected that happens on their Mac is the result of a virus. Also, understanding that antivirus apps can't detect a virus that doesn't yet exist will prevent them from installing AV and having a false sense of security, thinking they're immune to threats. Educating a user goes a very long way in protecting them, by teaching them to practice safe computing habits.
Mac Virus/Malware Info (http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=9400648&postcount=4)
johnnowak
Mar 20, 07:00 AM
Gah... "it's against the law"... whatever.
When stuff is ********, you have to protest. I assume you also think all "illegal" protests, such as the sit-ins and the like during the civil rights movement, were wrong because they were technically illegal?
My mp3 collection is 100% legal (ripped from CDs and downloaded from artists' websites). However, I might consider using this service. Everyone still gets paid, and I get a version of the song that I CAN ****ING PLAY ON MY LINUX PARTITION. *ahem*
When stuff is ********, you have to protest. I assume you also think all "illegal" protests, such as the sit-ins and the like during the civil rights movement, were wrong because they were technically illegal?
My mp3 collection is 100% legal (ripped from CDs and downloaded from artists' websites). However, I might consider using this service. Everyone still gets paid, and I get a version of the song that I CAN ****ING PLAY ON MY LINUX PARTITION. *ahem*
diamornte
Apr 13, 04:03 AM
Most people here, will tinker with FCP and never actually make feature films or shows. You all have an opinion, but I think that people that actually do this for a living will be very happy with the results.
I do this for a living and it's the same as it with Avid: everyone thinks they know it better. And in this case and in this thread it's a who is "pro" d!ck contest. Who the eff cares, rite? I will definitely upgrade to fcx no matter what these "pros" say and I consider myself an avid guy. But I just hope that this program is stable, and doesn't have that many bugs as can be expected from a total ground up program rewrite.
I do this for a living and it's the same as it with Avid: everyone thinks they know it better. And in this case and in this thread it's a who is "pro" d!ck contest. Who the eff cares, rite? I will definitely upgrade to fcx no matter what these "pros" say and I consider myself an avid guy. But I just hope that this program is stable, and doesn't have that many bugs as can be expected from a total ground up program rewrite.
applefan69
Apr 9, 01:53 PM
I used to have an iPhone, and I like a few of the games for it. I even liked playing them on my iPad.
Considering how the phone barely makes it through a day without being charged, a separate dedicated handheld console is a blessing to most gamers.
Most people that say iOS games are good and cheap end up spending lots more money on more iOS games than they would on a few dedicated games. Plus, I always prefer to have a physical copy... I don't like the idea of all my downloads going walkabout some day.
Oh, and try to be more mature in your reply next time please. That was uncalled for and childish.
meh, 40 games at $0.99 is alot better than one game at $40. I dont care how you put it, you cant argue that.
BTW my iphone 3gs easily gets a whole days battery. Thats with me using it all day including for games (no gps nav.) I would say YOUR iPhone has a bad battery, probably from bad charging habits and being left in the cold. But because YOUR iphone has a bad battery, I would not sum up all iPhones. The world does not revolve around you.
Considering how the phone barely makes it through a day without being charged, a separate dedicated handheld console is a blessing to most gamers.
Most people that say iOS games are good and cheap end up spending lots more money on more iOS games than they would on a few dedicated games. Plus, I always prefer to have a physical copy... I don't like the idea of all my downloads going walkabout some day.
Oh, and try to be more mature in your reply next time please. That was uncalled for and childish.
meh, 40 games at $0.99 is alot better than one game at $40. I dont care how you put it, you cant argue that.
BTW my iphone 3gs easily gets a whole days battery. Thats with me using it all day including for games (no gps nav.) I would say YOUR iPhone has a bad battery, probably from bad charging habits and being left in the cold. But because YOUR iphone has a bad battery, I would not sum up all iPhones. The world does not revolve around you.
DavidCar
Sep 26, 12:16 AM
...In the likely event Apple choses to use Cloverton Xeon core as the next Mac Pro CPU, educated speculation would indicate that Apple would elect to only use the X5355 and E5345, as they are the only models that support a 1333 MHz front side bus, which is what current Mac Pros use. In such a scenario, Apple may elect to keep a Woodcrest configuration at the bottom end for customizability (currently, Apple offers 3 chip speeds in the Mac Pro). ...Why would they change the basic configuration of the Mac Pro? The two Clovertown chips will just appear as high end options as soon as they become available.
ZoomZoomZoom
Sep 12, 04:19 PM
Apple gave a sneak peak of an upcoming product. Is that a flying pig I see out my window?
Yes.
Well, also, "iTV" is sort of completely unexpected. A hardware release by Apple unhyped? That would make two pigs flying outside my window.
Yes.
Well, also, "iTV" is sort of completely unexpected. A hardware release by Apple unhyped? That would make two pigs flying outside my window.
Drewnrupe
Sep 21, 10:43 AM
I havent gone through and taken numbers but it appears that a large number of the people demanding that this device should provide DVR functionalty already have a Tivo - how many posts decrying the lack of DVR end up " I'll keep my Tivo " ?
Isnt that the point - you have a Tivo - you have made the decision to keep your recorded TV media in its traditional place - the living room / den.
The iTV concept starts from the premis that this is an outdated concept.
In these days of multiple TV households , viewing on computer screens and ipods it only makes sense to centralize your media. This way we can say good bye to the "3 receiver satalite deals" and "sycronized Tivos" that result in multiple boxes in every room.
Once you get past the concept that your TV media source should originate in the place where you historically viewed TV all the pieces fall into place.
Before all this iTV talk came about I had already put an airport in the bedroom to listen to internet radio via airTunes. When considering Tivo i discovered that lifetime licenses were not an option any more and did not want to take on another "small monthly fee". I now have an EyeTv 200 linked to my Mac in the office and plug an eyehome into the airport express sitting in the bedroom - it works great for me and was selected as a direct alternative to Tivo - it just seemed right to have this located by the computer and hot add more electronics to the bedroom.
Yes there are limitations - the greatest at the moment being that i cannot use the eyehome to watch iTunes pyrchased Movies ( hence the need for the iTV/Teleport).
Yes I cannot schedule recording from the Tv , but I can from the office which is usually where I am when i think to record something, and also if I am out of the house i can schedule recording via the internet which is great.
Digital channels are missing but generally the channels up above the 100 mark are not interesting to me and HD would be nice for the few programs I watch that provide it, but these are limitations of the solution that I am using - NOT THE CONCEPT.
The computer provides the central storage point for your media. It gets to the TV via iTV or some equivalent Distribution system. The media itself can come from your DVDs , a DVR linked to the computer, downloaded from the internet, or your old Betamax plugged into an encoder digitizing to the computer.
If Eyetv doesnt cut it as your DVR, then there can and I am sure will be other options - hey even Tivo - but again i hold that it should be part of the central media storage , not sitting under the TV - or worse still under several Tvs.
For as long as we continue to try and combine these functions of media source, storage and replay into single boxes we will always have duplicattion of effort and boxes.
People that wtill think they need ANOTHER computer, or Another disk drive or another dvd player next to their TV and that iTV should include all this are just holding on to an historical concept or an entertainment center havign to be centered int the living room.
Where you watch any of this media there should only be a screen , speakers , and as little else as possible - iTV ( or for now eyehome) - is pretty little !!!
I think this realy is the missing link that makes a computer-centric household media solution viable and appealing to the majority of even single computer households. I certainly would not have purchased an eyeTv if eyeHome didnt exist , and this is the same reason I will not purchase a movie until either eyehome can show it on my TV or iTV arrives to do the same.
Drew
Isnt that the point - you have a Tivo - you have made the decision to keep your recorded TV media in its traditional place - the living room / den.
The iTV concept starts from the premis that this is an outdated concept.
In these days of multiple TV households , viewing on computer screens and ipods it only makes sense to centralize your media. This way we can say good bye to the "3 receiver satalite deals" and "sycronized Tivos" that result in multiple boxes in every room.
Once you get past the concept that your TV media source should originate in the place where you historically viewed TV all the pieces fall into place.
Before all this iTV talk came about I had already put an airport in the bedroom to listen to internet radio via airTunes. When considering Tivo i discovered that lifetime licenses were not an option any more and did not want to take on another "small monthly fee". I now have an EyeTv 200 linked to my Mac in the office and plug an eyehome into the airport express sitting in the bedroom - it works great for me and was selected as a direct alternative to Tivo - it just seemed right to have this located by the computer and hot add more electronics to the bedroom.
Yes there are limitations - the greatest at the moment being that i cannot use the eyehome to watch iTunes pyrchased Movies ( hence the need for the iTV/Teleport).
Yes I cannot schedule recording from the Tv , but I can from the office which is usually where I am when i think to record something, and also if I am out of the house i can schedule recording via the internet which is great.
Digital channels are missing but generally the channels up above the 100 mark are not interesting to me and HD would be nice for the few programs I watch that provide it, but these are limitations of the solution that I am using - NOT THE CONCEPT.
The computer provides the central storage point for your media. It gets to the TV via iTV or some equivalent Distribution system. The media itself can come from your DVDs , a DVR linked to the computer, downloaded from the internet, or your old Betamax plugged into an encoder digitizing to the computer.
If Eyetv doesnt cut it as your DVR, then there can and I am sure will be other options - hey even Tivo - but again i hold that it should be part of the central media storage , not sitting under the TV - or worse still under several Tvs.
For as long as we continue to try and combine these functions of media source, storage and replay into single boxes we will always have duplicattion of effort and boxes.
People that wtill think they need ANOTHER computer, or Another disk drive or another dvd player next to their TV and that iTV should include all this are just holding on to an historical concept or an entertainment center havign to be centered int the living room.
Where you watch any of this media there should only be a screen , speakers , and as little else as possible - iTV ( or for now eyehome) - is pretty little !!!
I think this realy is the missing link that makes a computer-centric household media solution viable and appealing to the majority of even single computer households. I certainly would not have purchased an eyeTv if eyeHome didnt exist , and this is the same reason I will not purchase a movie until either eyehome can show it on my TV or iTV arrives to do the same.
Drew
iphones4evry1
Oct 8, 12:15 AM
If the day comes when an Android phone is as good as an iPhone, then it will be the service provider that will be the tipping point. AT&T better get their act together!
Little Endian
Mar 18, 10:32 AM
Meh... I use MyWi occasionally, meaning only once or twice every TWO months.
I love tethering but it is not worth it for me to spend an extra $25+ a MONTH or more for a feature that I rarely use. I will stick to my unlimited plan on a jailbroken phone using mywi for now. I have not received any texts or emails yet about my activity and doubt I will.
Now I would spend an extra $5-10 a month if ATT offered tethering with a 5-10 Gigabyte total data cap on both phone and tethering usage. Spending an extra $25+ to be on a capped 2-4GB plan is BuL*Sh&^ if it means that I have to give up my unlimited plan as well as unrestricted 3G via My3G.
ATT could use better price discrimination policies. There are many people who would like tethering, unrestricted 3G etc, who are more than willing to pay. Many would also give up unlimited data as long as ATT gave quality service at a decent price.
I love tethering but it is not worth it for me to spend an extra $25+ a MONTH or more for a feature that I rarely use. I will stick to my unlimited plan on a jailbroken phone using mywi for now. I have not received any texts or emails yet about my activity and doubt I will.
Now I would spend an extra $5-10 a month if ATT offered tethering with a 5-10 Gigabyte total data cap on both phone and tethering usage. Spending an extra $25+ to be on a capped 2-4GB plan is BuL*Sh&^ if it means that I have to give up my unlimited plan as well as unrestricted 3G via My3G.
ATT could use better price discrimination policies. There are many people who would like tethering, unrestricted 3G etc, who are more than willing to pay. Many would also give up unlimited data as long as ATT gave quality service at a decent price.
NathanMuir
Apr 24, 11:49 AM
I figured I'd use this wonderful Easter Sunday (a day spent celebrating the beginning of Spring and absolutely nothing else), to pose a question that I have.... What's the deal with religious people? After many a spirited thread about religion, I still can't wrap my head around what keeps people in the faith nowadays. I'm not talking about those people in third world nations, who have lived their entire lives under religion and know of nothing else. I'm talking about your Americans (North and South), your Europeans, the people who have access to any information they want to get (and some they don't) who should know better by now. And yet, in thread after thread, these people still swear that their way is the only way. No matter what logic you use, they can twist the words from their holy books and change the meaning of things to, in their minds, completely back up their point of view. Is it stubbornness, the inability to admit that you were wrong about something so important for so long? Is it fear? If I admit this is BS, I go to hell? Simple ignorance? Please remember, I'm not talking about just believing in a higher power, I mean those who believe in religion, Jews, Christian, etc.
If you strike a bias and confrontational tone, you get one in return. ;)
And people wonder why PRSI conversations revolve in endless circles, rehashing the same tired subject matter...
If you strike a bias and confrontational tone, you get one in return. ;)
And people wonder why PRSI conversations revolve in endless circles, rehashing the same tired subject matter...
edifyingGerbil
Apr 24, 06:20 PM
"interestingly, as the muslim population increases so too do reported cases of anti-semitic hate crimes."
Will people ever learn the whole correlation/causation thing? Come on. That line is NOTHING but a twisted attempt to cast the muslim population in a bad light. News flash people there are 1.5 BILLION Muslims in the world. If the religion is as dangerous as some would like us to believe, rather than just plain old extremism (as any religion has), then the world would be in total ruins by now. After all, a whole quarter of the world population is comprised entirely of terrorists :rolleyes:
Side note on correlation/causation
Interesting theory in International Relations:
No two countries with a McDonalds has been to war with one another in the last 30 years, therefore it is clear that McDonalds causes world peace.
You're saying the Middle-East, Maghreb, Persia, Central Asia, Pakistan/Afghanistan are not ruins?
Christian extremists bomb abortion clinics and are condemned categorically by many different mainstream Christian groups. Muslims bomb churches/barracks/checkpoints/bomb shelters and very few, if any high up clerics, condemn them. Who condemned the slaying of that Jewish family in Israel/gaza? They knifed a 3 month old toddler... Later, in Gaza, Hamas was handing out sweets and the people were celebrating.
The Christians who kill do not do so in the name of Christ, who would have been repulsed at their actions. It's not sanctioned anywhere in the Bible.
The Muslims, on the other hand....
Against them make ready your strength to the utmost of your power, including steeds of war, to strike terror into the hearts of the enemies of Allah and your enemies (Qur'an 8:60).
^ divine sanction for terrorism. It's a late surah too, so any surah about islam being tolerant, and no compulsion in religion, and do not murder are abrogated by it.
Will people ever learn the whole correlation/causation thing? Come on. That line is NOTHING but a twisted attempt to cast the muslim population in a bad light. News flash people there are 1.5 BILLION Muslims in the world. If the religion is as dangerous as some would like us to believe, rather than just plain old extremism (as any religion has), then the world would be in total ruins by now. After all, a whole quarter of the world population is comprised entirely of terrorists :rolleyes:
Side note on correlation/causation
Interesting theory in International Relations:
No two countries with a McDonalds has been to war with one another in the last 30 years, therefore it is clear that McDonalds causes world peace.
You're saying the Middle-East, Maghreb, Persia, Central Asia, Pakistan/Afghanistan are not ruins?
Christian extremists bomb abortion clinics and are condemned categorically by many different mainstream Christian groups. Muslims bomb churches/barracks/checkpoints/bomb shelters and very few, if any high up clerics, condemn them. Who condemned the slaying of that Jewish family in Israel/gaza? They knifed a 3 month old toddler... Later, in Gaza, Hamas was handing out sweets and the people were celebrating.
The Christians who kill do not do so in the name of Christ, who would have been repulsed at their actions. It's not sanctioned anywhere in the Bible.
The Muslims, on the other hand....
Against them make ready your strength to the utmost of your power, including steeds of war, to strike terror into the hearts of the enemies of Allah and your enemies (Qur'an 8:60).
^ divine sanction for terrorism. It's a late surah too, so any surah about islam being tolerant, and no compulsion in religion, and do not murder are abrogated by it.
No comments:
Post a Comment