PurrBall
Apr 30, 02:17 PM
I seen it as more of a mid model refresh.
TECHNICALLY been the same since 2008.
If you mean the aluminum design, that was actually way back in 2007.
TECHNICALLY been the same since 2008.
If you mean the aluminum design, that was actually way back in 2007.
linux2mac
Apr 28, 10:57 PM
Really!? You never received a quality product? In 20 years? Please tell.
The closest was Windows 2000 Professional. I quit at XP.
The closest was Windows 2000 Professional. I quit at XP.
sord
Sep 10, 09:11 PM
Well here at work I could replace 4 PC draughting workstations with a Conroe based system. We already have 23" monitors so we are not going to purchase iMacs, and while Mac Pro's are nice they are too expensive for us... A $1500 headless system would do wonders! (and yes the mini is too little).
If Apple cannot release such a system we will have to continue purchasing PCs... :(
Depending on the applications you are going to use, you could cluster some minis.
If Apple cannot release such a system we will have to continue purchasing PCs... :(
Depending on the applications you are going to use, you could cluster some minis.
cere
Apr 14, 01:33 PM
"You mean like FW was faster than USB and USB2? And yes, it will work with any USB device. You think that is an incentive for drive vendors to invest in it? Really?"
^ You implying it will be DOA. For someone criticizing reading comprehension I sure have to do a lot of work for you.
Here's the gist of your worthless posts:
Insult
Insult
Strawman argument
Insult
What a joke.
I was asking you what I thought would be an easy question for you to answer. I'll ask again, it will work with any USB device, do you think that is an incentive for drive vendors to invest in it? I'll wait.
And I've posted no strawman arguments. I didn't insult you either. It was an observation. Reading difficulty is a problem, sure, but it is a a challenge that many people face. I am hopeful that those with this limitation can better themselves perhaps by taking some courses. Dialog is always better with someone that understands and can follow the discussion.
To properly recap, I believe it could be a repeat of FW and it could end up being considered 'Mac only'. I know it is subtle difference from a claim it will be DOA (well, subtle like a baseball bat, I guess), but it shouldn't be this difficult for you to understand. You are really, truly, picking the wrong fight. I think we actually agree on a lot of points. I'd like it to succeed, but can see things that might be obstacles. You don't see those as obstacles or perhaps don't see them at all. But, really, stop arguing against things I never said.
^ You implying it will be DOA. For someone criticizing reading comprehension I sure have to do a lot of work for you.
Here's the gist of your worthless posts:
Insult
Insult
Strawman argument
Insult
What a joke.
I was asking you what I thought would be an easy question for you to answer. I'll ask again, it will work with any USB device, do you think that is an incentive for drive vendors to invest in it? I'll wait.
And I've posted no strawman arguments. I didn't insult you either. It was an observation. Reading difficulty is a problem, sure, but it is a a challenge that many people face. I am hopeful that those with this limitation can better themselves perhaps by taking some courses. Dialog is always better with someone that understands and can follow the discussion.
To properly recap, I believe it could be a repeat of FW and it could end up being considered 'Mac only'. I know it is subtle difference from a claim it will be DOA (well, subtle like a baseball bat, I guess), but it shouldn't be this difficult for you to understand. You are really, truly, picking the wrong fight. I think we actually agree on a lot of points. I'd like it to succeed, but can see things that might be obstacles. You don't see those as obstacles or perhaps don't see them at all. But, really, stop arguing against things I never said.
donlphi
Sep 12, 02:40 PM
Err, can someone please explain what the fascination is over "gapless playback"?:o
<pretty please>
As of now, If I rip my Pink Floyd Dark Side of the Moon Album onto iTunes and put it in my iPOD, there are little gaps in between songs. If you listen to the album on CD, the tracks change, but there are no gaps, one song goes into the next.
The same could be said for other music, classical music that is multiple movements, but THROUGH composed might have track changes, but lead from one section to the next.
Kind of a small thing, but a good thing none the less.
Hooray!!!
<pretty please>
As of now, If I rip my Pink Floyd Dark Side of the Moon Album onto iTunes and put it in my iPOD, there are little gaps in between songs. If you listen to the album on CD, the tracks change, but there are no gaps, one song goes into the next.
The same could be said for other music, classical music that is multiple movements, but THROUGH composed might have track changes, but lead from one section to the next.
Kind of a small thing, but a good thing none the less.
Hooray!!!
SuperCompu2
Sep 12, 04:08 PM
that new shuffle is HOTT!
*salivates*
*salivates*
munkery
Mar 23, 04:20 PM
http://www.macforensicslab.com/ProductsAndServices/index.php?main_page=document_general_info&products_id=174
Much of the information in the PDF (http://www.macforensicslab.com/Malware_on_Mac_OS_X.pdf) associated with this article (http://www.macforensicslab.com/ProductsAndServices/index.php?main_page=document_general_info&products_id=174) is incorrect. For example:
Page 26
It refers to the bundle architecture as insecure. The argument presented would be true if security sensitive apps were not owned by system. Given that they are owned by system, malware cannot modify the bundle of an app owned by system without authentication when the app is run with user privileges in an admin or standard account.
For example, show package contents of iTunes, Safari, or Mail and try to create a folder in the bundle. In relation to the example in the article, try renaming iTunes. The argument in the article relies on actions that can not be completed in an OS X admin account; these type of changes are even more restricted in a standard account.
Apps not owned by system are vulnerable but without privilege escalation can not install rootkits or keyloggers. Even apps owned by system run with user privileges and require privilege escalation to install dangerous payloads.
Mac OS X does not prompt for authentication if you install apps in the proper location for that user account type. When installed in the proper location, apps are sandboxed from the system level of Mac OS X by the Unix DAC model used within Mac OS X.
Windows is less secure because most apps (Chrome only exception I can recall) install their associated files in levels of the system that require authentication regardless of user account type (unless Admin in Windows XP because running as superuser - no authentication required to install with elevated privileges - very dangerous). It is easier to trick Windows users to install a trojan with elevated privileges given that almost all apps ask for authentication to install and the user can not distinguish the intent of that authentication.
Page 30
The claim that the Application folder is unprotected is false. Security sensitive apps within the Application folder are owned by system.
Also, security sensitive system binaries are still stored in /bin and /sbin in Mac OS X.
Page 31
The ability to read the contacts stored in Address Book could be used by a worm to propagate. But, malware that uses this to spread is not likely to appear in the wild if the malware is not profitable. It is unlikely that malware will be profitable without being able to hook (this is a specific function) into apps owned by system.
Page 33
Starts off talking about trojans, trojans are easily avoided with user knowledge in Mac OS X because most apps do not require authentication to install if installed in the appropriate location where the Unix DAC model protects the system.
Viruses using the model shown in the article will not be successful without privilege escalation. This is the reason why Mac OS X malware is not successful in the wild.
By default, very few server side services are exposed in Mac OS X and those that are exposed are sandboxed. Vectors for worm propagation are limited to client side. Client side worms require authentication to install and spread if do not include privilege escalation via exploitation because of the Unix DAC model used in Mac OS X. Trojans used to trick users to authenticate are less likely to be successful in Mac OS X as stated above.
Much of the information in the PDF (http://www.macforensicslab.com/Malware_on_Mac_OS_X.pdf) associated with this article (http://www.macforensicslab.com/ProductsAndServices/index.php?main_page=document_general_info&products_id=174) is incorrect. For example:
Page 26
It refers to the bundle architecture as insecure. The argument presented would be true if security sensitive apps were not owned by system. Given that they are owned by system, malware cannot modify the bundle of an app owned by system without authentication when the app is run with user privileges in an admin or standard account.
For example, show package contents of iTunes, Safari, or Mail and try to create a folder in the bundle. In relation to the example in the article, try renaming iTunes. The argument in the article relies on actions that can not be completed in an OS X admin account; these type of changes are even more restricted in a standard account.
Apps not owned by system are vulnerable but without privilege escalation can not install rootkits or keyloggers. Even apps owned by system run with user privileges and require privilege escalation to install dangerous payloads.
Mac OS X does not prompt for authentication if you install apps in the proper location for that user account type. When installed in the proper location, apps are sandboxed from the system level of Mac OS X by the Unix DAC model used within Mac OS X.
Windows is less secure because most apps (Chrome only exception I can recall) install their associated files in levels of the system that require authentication regardless of user account type (unless Admin in Windows XP because running as superuser - no authentication required to install with elevated privileges - very dangerous). It is easier to trick Windows users to install a trojan with elevated privileges given that almost all apps ask for authentication to install and the user can not distinguish the intent of that authentication.
Page 30
The claim that the Application folder is unprotected is false. Security sensitive apps within the Application folder are owned by system.
Also, security sensitive system binaries are still stored in /bin and /sbin in Mac OS X.
Page 31
The ability to read the contacts stored in Address Book could be used by a worm to propagate. But, malware that uses this to spread is not likely to appear in the wild if the malware is not profitable. It is unlikely that malware will be profitable without being able to hook (this is a specific function) into apps owned by system.
Page 33
Starts off talking about trojans, trojans are easily avoided with user knowledge in Mac OS X because most apps do not require authentication to install if installed in the appropriate location where the Unix DAC model protects the system.
Viruses using the model shown in the article will not be successful without privilege escalation. This is the reason why Mac OS X malware is not successful in the wild.
By default, very few server side services are exposed in Mac OS X and those that are exposed are sandboxed. Vectors for worm propagation are limited to client side. Client side worms require authentication to install and spread if do not include privilege escalation via exploitation because of the Unix DAC model used in Mac OS X. Trojans used to trick users to authenticate are less likely to be successful in Mac OS X as stated above.
kurtsayin
Oct 27, 12:37 PM
I'm so sick of environmentalists. It is just self-righteous bigotry that has very little basis in actual facts. We don't live in some kind of uber-polluted country where the air is unbreathable and garbage heaps block scenic viewing. We are not short on trees, we are not short on resources, we are not all dying from PVC poisoning...
Greenpeace's website was talking about how children in far-East countries were poisoned from rummaging through apple computer parts and that it is some how apple's fault?! If Greenpeace had any kind of results-oriented logic, they would focus their efforts on governmental reforms in other countries that [U]buy our garbage![U] Why should apple be forced to change products that function almost perfectly because some backward governments in Asia enslave their people and buy our garbage to let people try and rummage through it for parts?
Greenpeace is a fringe, extremist group that hates industry above all else - Industry that brings us computers, cars, phones, televisions, radios... If they had their way, we would be living in the 18th century again, in which case we would be swiftly taken over by China... :(
Greenpeace's website was talking about how children in far-East countries were poisoned from rummaging through apple computer parts and that it is some how apple's fault?! If Greenpeace had any kind of results-oriented logic, they would focus their efforts on governmental reforms in other countries that [U]buy our garbage![U] Why should apple be forced to change products that function almost perfectly because some backward governments in Asia enslave their people and buy our garbage to let people try and rummage through it for parts?
Greenpeace is a fringe, extremist group that hates industry above all else - Industry that brings us computers, cars, phones, televisions, radios... If they had their way, we would be living in the 18th century again, in which case we would be swiftly taken over by China... :(
asdf542
Mar 30, 11:27 AM
I could go for some linguini right about now.
ergle2
Sep 10, 01:41 AM
Please explain - I have no idea what "that" is....
---
Regardless of the tool, however, it is usually much better to let the OS dynamically schedule threads across the cores. Unless the programmer has some reason to try to control this, the alternative is some resources (CPUs) being overcommitted, while other CPUs are idle.
It doesn't matter who has the better tools - it's usually better to let the OS decide microsecond by microsecond how best to schedule the CPUs, than to have the developer make those decisions at edit time.
I've used the SetProcessAffinityMask APIs fairly often, but it's always been for specific test or benchmark situations. I have a hard time thinking of a situation where a general application would want to statically control the scheduler - it's just "bad think" to even try. (Except for those weird-a$$ NUMA Opterons - you can be really scr3wed if you have to go through HyperTransport to get to memory. I check NUMA topology, and use affinity to keep the AMD architecture from killing me.)
I've owned SMP machines in the past and often found it more useful to force CPU affinity of CPU-heavy tasks to a single processor, as Windows 2000 (which was current at the time) by default had a habit of swapping it between chips, resulting in a lot of cache-dirtying. I think it was the load balancing code, but it's been a while now and I don't have those machines handy currently. However, you could see some significant improvement in processing time on some non-parallelizable cpu-bound tasks.
I've no idea if MacOS does this, but at least in the case of Core 2 it shouldn't matter anywhere near as much, as the L2 is fully shared.
---
Regardless of the tool, however, it is usually much better to let the OS dynamically schedule threads across the cores. Unless the programmer has some reason to try to control this, the alternative is some resources (CPUs) being overcommitted, while other CPUs are idle.
It doesn't matter who has the better tools - it's usually better to let the OS decide microsecond by microsecond how best to schedule the CPUs, than to have the developer make those decisions at edit time.
I've used the SetProcessAffinityMask APIs fairly often, but it's always been for specific test or benchmark situations. I have a hard time thinking of a situation where a general application would want to statically control the scheduler - it's just "bad think" to even try. (Except for those weird-a$$ NUMA Opterons - you can be really scr3wed if you have to go through HyperTransport to get to memory. I check NUMA topology, and use affinity to keep the AMD architecture from killing me.)
I've owned SMP machines in the past and often found it more useful to force CPU affinity of CPU-heavy tasks to a single processor, as Windows 2000 (which was current at the time) by default had a habit of swapping it between chips, resulting in a lot of cache-dirtying. I think it was the load balancing code, but it's been a while now and I don't have those machines handy currently. However, you could see some significant improvement in processing time on some non-parallelizable cpu-bound tasks.
I've no idea if MacOS does this, but at least in the case of Core 2 it shouldn't matter anywhere near as much, as the L2 is fully shared.
Alcibar
Apr 23, 09:08 AM
Back lit keyboards are great for long flights where they turn out the lights.
scott523
Apr 22, 11:25 AM
This might be a attractive buy for me. I hope it Kuo is right on track... now if he could just refine his iPhone 5 predictions..
rotobadger
Mar 30, 12:18 PM
The term Burger Store has no mindshare from what I know with the general public. No one uses it as a brand name....yet.
You bring up a good point though. "App" and "Store" existed long before it (allegedly) belonged to Apple. Apple spent a lot of money making "AppStore" a recognizable name.
BurgerStore is nothing now. But if a company spends millions of dollars making it valuable, shouldn't they own it?
You bring up a good point though. "App" and "Store" existed long before it (allegedly) belonged to Apple. Apple spent a lot of money making "AppStore" a recognizable name.
BurgerStore is nothing now. But if a company spends millions of dollars making it valuable, shouldn't they own it?
Old Smuggler
Sep 13, 09:03 PM
Not what i was looking for
I wanted a smart phone wheres the keyboard ?
i can buy an itunes phone right now from cingular but i dont want one
what makes them think i will buy one now because its from apple and not motorola
I wanted a smart phone wheres the keyboard ?
i can buy an itunes phone right now from cingular but i dont want one
what makes them think i will buy one now because its from apple and not motorola
iJohnHenry
Apr 10, 07:20 PM
I think they also have some ridiculous maternity leave like 16 months for BOTH PARENTS, shared somehow. I must say, that is a nice way to do it.
Ridiculous? Not quite, from the parent's perspective.
In Canada we have 12 months maternity leave, which can be taken by either spouse, or split, 6 months/6 months.
Where the F is THAT???
We would call that absence of traffic.
Ridiculous? Not quite, from the parent's perspective.
In Canada we have 12 months maternity leave, which can be taken by either spouse, or split, 6 months/6 months.
Where the F is THAT???
We would call that absence of traffic.
sinsin07
Mar 23, 05:11 PM
I was waiting for the "if it saves one life argument" - that spurious argument is why we are losing all individual freedoms in the US and the world.
Approximately 42,000 people dies in car accidents a year. If you outlaw cars you will save 42,000 lives. Isn't that worth it? Not just 1 - 42,000!
In fact, we could make society like a prison, and then we will all be safe.
Although in prisons, which has guards and fences, murders still occur, drugs get in, etc. The whole safety argument is a false argument. I feel we have made a wrong turn in this culture and by people thinking we can legislate a perfect world, we are, in fact, making a living hell.
You counter point is just as silly.
Approximately 42,000 people dies in car accidents a year. If you outlaw cars you will save 42,000 lives. Isn't that worth it? Not just 1 - 42,000!
In fact, we could make society like a prison, and then we will all be safe.
Although in prisons, which has guards and fences, murders still occur, drugs get in, etc. The whole safety argument is a false argument. I feel we have made a wrong turn in this culture and by people thinking we can legislate a perfect world, we are, in fact, making a living hell.
You counter point is just as silly.
GregA
Sep 15, 10:44 PM
'07? They've been planning for for years is seems like and '07 is the best they can do? It seems that Apple has a choice.
1) Make a simple phone, make it look good and work well.
2) Take phones to a new level
I'd happily have a #1, but if their choice is #2 they may be trying to achieve things that mobile phones haven't done before.
The most obvious of these would be to be a wireless VoIP phone - for use at home (ie iChat over Airport), as well as at work, at hotspots they've negotiated with (possibly a big play in conjunction with Google wireless?), and roam to 3G cellphone networks the rest of the time. This sort of thing may be a little complex :)
1) Make a simple phone, make it look good and work well.
2) Take phones to a new level
I'd happily have a #1, but if their choice is #2 they may be trying to achieve things that mobile phones haven't done before.
The most obvious of these would be to be a wireless VoIP phone - for use at home (ie iChat over Airport), as well as at work, at hotspots they've negotiated with (possibly a big play in conjunction with Google wireless?), and roam to 3G cellphone networks the rest of the time. This sort of thing may be a little complex :)
ct-scan
Oct 12, 12:51 PM
They might as well add a Core 2 Duo Mac Book Pro too.
Hehe...this topic goes everywhere! ;)
Hehe...this topic goes everywhere! ;)
dime21
Apr 14, 12:33 PM
Of course they're complementary. USB for the mouses, joysticks, and dancing desk toys. Thunderbolt for real I/O like hard drives and RAID. Same as how it's always been, only now we'll have Thunderbolt slowly replacing Firewire.
All my external devices are Firewire today: multiple hard drives, DVD burner, video camera, flat bed scanner, card reader, and audio mixer. The only USB devices I have is my mouse. I suppose I'll slowly migrate to Thunderbolt as I upgrade, but Intel's new USB announcement won't change any of this. Maybe my mouse will work faster? lol.
All my external devices are Firewire today: multiple hard drives, DVD burner, video camera, flat bed scanner, card reader, and audio mixer. The only USB devices I have is my mouse. I suppose I'll slowly migrate to Thunderbolt as I upgrade, but Intel's new USB announcement won't change any of this. Maybe my mouse will work faster? lol.
Multimedia
Sep 9, 12:21 PM
Looks like MacCentral forgot to mention the fact that no matter how few cores an application can use - even if it's only ONE, the fact that more can be run at full speed SIMULTANEOUSLY is the whole reason for wanting-having-needing more cores - not wiether or not what you normally run can use 2, 3 or even all 4 cores at this time. OS X automatically delegates work to however many cores are vacant or underused so the user gets immediate benefit from 4 cores they will never get from 2. And I am 100% certain that tthe benefit is radically more than 20-30%.
It's an old think I always do only one thing at a time mentality that overlooks this otherwise obvious reason - a new way of working and a new way of thinking about how to do work - for going with more cores if you can afford it.
It's an old think I always do only one thing at a time mentality that overlooks this otherwise obvious reason - a new way of working and a new way of thinking about how to do work - for going with more cores if you can afford it.
Snookerman
Mar 23, 04:29 PM
Here in Sweden, the Police says that their goal is to increase safety, not catch people. I'd rather have a drunk driver stay at home because of an app warning of a checkpoint than get in the car and get caught.
Eraserhead
Nov 13, 05:16 PM
Apple is the copyright holder of those images and they provide the right to use those images in Applications running on macs via the API on a Mac running OS X.
So why can't you use an official Apple API on the iPhone? That's crazy.
So why can't you use an official Apple API on the iPhone? That's crazy.
3N16MA
Mar 30, 12:01 PM
What it comes down to is Microsoft just wants to leech off of a name Apple has worked hard to build over the past few years. I'm sure if Apple did not popularize and create such huge mindshare with the App Store Microsoft would have probably have gone with something like Microsoft Application Marketplace.
Lesser Evets
Mar 23, 05:41 PM
KEEP IT. Our freedoms are essential. All Dems want it out. Figures: more people in jail to fuel a world under government thumbs living for the machine.
Since all the Senators are Democrats, Apple can leave the app there and just reply to the "With more than 10,000 Americans dying in drunk-driving crashes every year,..." to just call them 'came to term whole-birth abortions'... :eek:
Yeah, except it is more than 10,000/year. Virgin sacrifice: America's civilized way of preserving the ability to go clubbing.
Since all the Senators are Democrats, Apple can leave the app there and just reply to the "With more than 10,000 Americans dying in drunk-driving crashes every year,..." to just call them 'came to term whole-birth abortions'... :eek:
Yeah, except it is more than 10,000/year. Virgin sacrifice: America's civilized way of preserving the ability to go clubbing.
Hiç yorum yok:
Yorum Gönder