d4rkc4sm
Apr 28, 04:04 PM
who'd thought this would ever happen back in 1997. seriously, fmita
conradzoo
Sep 5, 12:50 PM
Well, well, so if they do movies then can I please have a higher bitrate on my iTunes songs? I mean talkng about bandwith, songs are nothing in comparison to movies.
So again, please a higher bitrate on songs.
cheers:o
So again, please a higher bitrate on songs.
cheers:o
manu chao
May 4, 06:51 AM
I'm missing why you would waste money on FW or TB for backups. Why do you need top performance for simply backups. Save yourself some money and get a cheap USB drive for backups. I just bought a 3TB USB driver at Best Buy for $170 CDN - it's just as safe as a firewire drive, and I don't need the speed - it's not like I'm capturing video or running software off of it.
a) When you need to restore any significant amount of data (let alone a complete disk), USB can get old pretty fast.
b) Any backup of a life system suffers from not being perfectly consistent (as the backed-up system changes during the backup), the faster the backup, the smaller the inconsistencies.
c) If you keep your clones offline, you'll always have to wait and watch when updating them before you can take them offline again (in particular if you always do two backups back-to-back to minimise inconsistencies)
Of course, if you value cheap over best, go for USB.
a) When you need to restore any significant amount of data (let alone a complete disk), USB can get old pretty fast.
b) Any backup of a life system suffers from not being perfectly consistent (as the backed-up system changes during the backup), the faster the backup, the smaller the inconsistencies.
c) If you keep your clones offline, you'll always have to wait and watch when updating them before you can take them offline again (in particular if you always do two backups back-to-back to minimise inconsistencies)
Of course, if you value cheap over best, go for USB.
myca
May 3, 11:54 AM
Surely I'm not the only one who's noticed that the i7 is slower than the i5, and that the Radeon HD 6970M is slower than the 6750M.
Whaaaaa? :confused:
Hold up
6750M (http://www.notebookcheck.net/AMD-Radeon-HD-6750M.43958.0.html)
6970M (http://www.notebookcheck.net/AMD-Radeon-HD-6970M.43077.0.html)
Similar clock speeds, the 6970 has twice the amount of pipelines.
Also from what I've seen in the store the highest clocked i5 is 3.1, and the i7 is 3.4.
I'm really tempted, but these iMacs need to keep target display mode so I can feed my PC rig in there, otherwise my desk just doesn't have the space for a second display (could always get the 21.5 inch and a second 1080 display I guess).
Whaaaaa? :confused:
Hold up
6750M (http://www.notebookcheck.net/AMD-Radeon-HD-6750M.43958.0.html)
6970M (http://www.notebookcheck.net/AMD-Radeon-HD-6970M.43077.0.html)
Similar clock speeds, the 6970 has twice the amount of pipelines.
Also from what I've seen in the store the highest clocked i5 is 3.1, and the i7 is 3.4.
I'm really tempted, but these iMacs need to keep target display mode so I can feed my PC rig in there, otherwise my desk just doesn't have the space for a second display (could always get the 21.5 inch and a second 1080 display I guess).
flottenheimer
Apr 28, 09:32 PM
I bet ballmers goal is $5.99 billion profit next quarter.
:rolleyes:
Now, that's really, really funny.
Thanks.
:rolleyes:
Now, that's really, really funny.
Thanks.
cozmot
Mar 18, 12:00 AM
The Safari exploit launched a Mac OSX program. How is that NOT an "OS" issue? The exploit could have just as easily told the Mac to delete a directory on the hard drive, for instance. So it's not just Safari that's an issue but the fact that OSX would let Safari execute a program outside the browser.
I'd like to know where this idea that "many have tried" to create viruses and/or malware for OSX comes from. How do you know what people have done or tried? I'm not saying Unix is easy to exploit, but I know darn well it's not invulnerable. If they held an OS hacking event with a prize, I'm sure someone would prove my point for me.
And this idea that nothing can be done on the Mac until a virus or other malware exploit shows up on a news site is absurd. There are plenty of tools out there, for instance, to point out dangerous web sites that could be a threat to a computer. Most OSX users wouldn't bother to install one if one was offered to them because they believe themselves invulnerable. So why worry about visiting a malware site? Some exploits are potentially cross-platform (adobe flash, for example). Again, I say most OSX users are far too comfortable in a foolish belief that they are not in danger from anything out there.
Before I could even get to this, cwt1nospam and GGJstudios jumped on it. I'll add that a Safari exploit just can't take over an OS X system. It can do some minor things, but doesn't give admin or root access to the OS.
You nervous Windows users -- and you have every right to be -- are used to exploits commandeering your computers. It's your every day reality. For Mac users, it doesn't happen. Never has. But to characterize us as engaging in "foolish belief" that we're not in danger out there is a false argument.
Rather than go through the laborious repeat of my earlier post to you, please re-read it. Mac users don't deny the dangers. Unlike Windows users we're just not lulled into installing expensive, beastly software that drags our systems down that gives us a false sense of security that we're safe and protected. Most exploits come from unsafe computing, including the incomplete list I assembled above. Mac users don't take this dope, and have clearer minds about the proper steps to protect their systems.
I have multiple lines of defense built up against attackers using malware, viruses, worms, Trojan Horses and the like. It starts with the firewall in my wireless router, OpenDNS, safe practices and other methods I've learned from Mac and other forums.
I have never experienced a hack, a virus, a worm, a Trojan Horse or any other exploit in over 20 years because of this. And in the next 20 I will not either, because I'll keep learning and building up my defenses, without wasting a dollar on beastly software that gives me a false sense of security and relieves me of my responsibility for safe computing.
I'd like to know where this idea that "many have tried" to create viruses and/or malware for OSX comes from. How do you know what people have done or tried? I'm not saying Unix is easy to exploit, but I know darn well it's not invulnerable. If they held an OS hacking event with a prize, I'm sure someone would prove my point for me.
And this idea that nothing can be done on the Mac until a virus or other malware exploit shows up on a news site is absurd. There are plenty of tools out there, for instance, to point out dangerous web sites that could be a threat to a computer. Most OSX users wouldn't bother to install one if one was offered to them because they believe themselves invulnerable. So why worry about visiting a malware site? Some exploits are potentially cross-platform (adobe flash, for example). Again, I say most OSX users are far too comfortable in a foolish belief that they are not in danger from anything out there.
Before I could even get to this, cwt1nospam and GGJstudios jumped on it. I'll add that a Safari exploit just can't take over an OS X system. It can do some minor things, but doesn't give admin or root access to the OS.
You nervous Windows users -- and you have every right to be -- are used to exploits commandeering your computers. It's your every day reality. For Mac users, it doesn't happen. Never has. But to characterize us as engaging in "foolish belief" that we're not in danger out there is a false argument.
Rather than go through the laborious repeat of my earlier post to you, please re-read it. Mac users don't deny the dangers. Unlike Windows users we're just not lulled into installing expensive, beastly software that drags our systems down that gives us a false sense of security that we're safe and protected. Most exploits come from unsafe computing, including the incomplete list I assembled above. Mac users don't take this dope, and have clearer minds about the proper steps to protect their systems.
I have multiple lines of defense built up against attackers using malware, viruses, worms, Trojan Horses and the like. It starts with the firewall in my wireless router, OpenDNS, safe practices and other methods I've learned from Mac and other forums.
I have never experienced a hack, a virus, a worm, a Trojan Horse or any other exploit in over 20 years because of this. And in the next 20 I will not either, because I'll keep learning and building up my defenses, without wasting a dollar on beastly software that gives me a false sense of security and relieves me of my responsibility for safe computing.
Macginger
Mar 22, 01:33 PM
Yep this is what I've been patiently saving and waiting for, think I've now actually saved enough to buy a car with the change :cool:
nlr
Apr 30, 04:05 PM
I hope we get a decent graphics card now :)
AppleScruff1
Apr 4, 12:24 PM
Interesting how a security guard is allowed to have a gun. Interesting to see what happens to him.
Read the articles in the links.
I'm amazed that so many people are basing their judgment of the "head shot" on 3rd person shooter games and CSI. In the real world, anyone with training will always be aiming for the center of mass, and where he actually hits depends more on luck than anything else.
In other words, just because the criminal was hit in the head, doesn't mean that the security guard was aiming for his head. A mall security guard with a pistol shooting at a moving target during a gunfight doesn't have the accuracy of a Marine sniper shooting a sniper rifle at a stationary target.
You are quite correct. Anyone with gun experience knows this. It's not a video game, it's not a movie. And the whole scene takes place in a matter of seconds. I'd like to see what the armchair cowboys would do in the real life situation.
Read the articles in the links.
I'm amazed that so many people are basing their judgment of the "head shot" on 3rd person shooter games and CSI. In the real world, anyone with training will always be aiming for the center of mass, and where he actually hits depends more on luck than anything else.
In other words, just because the criminal was hit in the head, doesn't mean that the security guard was aiming for his head. A mall security guard with a pistol shooting at a moving target during a gunfight doesn't have the accuracy of a Marine sniper shooting a sniper rifle at a stationary target.
You are quite correct. Anyone with gun experience knows this. It's not a video game, it's not a movie. And the whole scene takes place in a matter of seconds. I'd like to see what the armchair cowboys would do in the real life situation.
puckhead193
Sep 19, 01:34 PM
I wonder if these people are buying one to "test it out" or are buying multiple movies.
k2director
Apr 4, 01:01 PM
Humans are pre-programmed to take such an action hard. Some don't, usually as a result of contemplation and training before such an incident. It is, however, natural to react that way. Best for all to recognize different people may take such a grave matter very differently, and that's ok.
Personally, if humans were pre-programmed to take killing another human so hard, I think we'd see a lot less senseless murder in the world.
Personally, if humans were pre-programmed to take killing another human so hard, I think we'd see a lot less senseless murder in the world.
Saladin
Sep 14, 09:59 PM
2. Apple's announcement a few days ago about the new iTunes store: (to quote Page 1) "TV shows will now be sold at 640x480 px h264. While the updated 5G iPods announced today will be able to play the new format, there has not been any indication from Apple of yet that the new shows will be playable on older 5G iPods. Apple's official knowledge-base article still states that h264-encoded movies must be 320 x 240 at 30 fps."
That's false information. I already downloaded Sacred Planet (640*480 h.264) from the iTunes Movie Store and loaded it onto my newly updated 5G iPod. The movie works perfectly. Since that would have been the strongest point in your argument for a multiple use device, I would now say your conclusion lacks weight. I'm not saying that they won't release one soon, just use better proofs to support your conclusion next time.
That's false information. I already downloaded Sacred Planet (640*480 h.264) from the iTunes Movie Store and loaded it onto my newly updated 5G iPod. The movie works perfectly. Since that would have been the strongest point in your argument for a multiple use device, I would now say your conclusion lacks weight. I'm not saying that they won't release one soon, just use better proofs to support your conclusion next time.
duervo
Mar 23, 06:25 PM
and silence from duervo. how unsurprising.
My answer was in my statement about your assumptions being ironic.
You should have been able to figure it out from that.
The fact that I have to spell it out for you is ... disappointing.
My answer was in my statement about your assumptions being ironic.
You should have been able to figure it out from that.
The fact that I have to spell it out for you is ... disappointing.
AppleScruff1
May 1, 12:42 AM
Wouldn't a more relevant comparison be Apple and HP since they are both hardware companies and MS really isn't in the same category hardware wise?
portishead
Apr 30, 02:53 PM
iMac with SSD is awesome. I want thunderbolt, but will probably wait until there are devices released.
iLLucionist
Apr 28, 05:59 PM
Microsoft is still doing very well. They're making the best products they ever have done and as a customer I am very pleased with all of my Microsoft purchases.
- Zune desktop software
- Zune hardware and mobile software
- Windows Phone 7
- Windows 7
- Office 2010
- Office 2011 for Mac
- Xbox 360
- Xbox Live
All great products and deserve to be class leaders if they are not already. I can't think of another company (including Apple) that has put out such a fantastic range of very good products.
Zune? Uhm...no, not really. The Zune is discontinued, at least in the long run. Current models will remain available for a while, but new ones will not come out.
- Zune desktop software
- Zune hardware and mobile software
- Windows Phone 7
- Windows 7
- Office 2010
- Office 2011 for Mac
- Xbox 360
- Xbox Live
All great products and deserve to be class leaders if they are not already. I can't think of another company (including Apple) that has put out such a fantastic range of very good products.
Zune? Uhm...no, not really. The Zune is discontinued, at least in the long run. Current models will remain available for a while, but new ones will not come out.
ArchaicRevival
Mar 23, 06:42 PM
Im in agreement with this.
Remove them from the App Store.
It might be illegal etc.. but we must draw the line somewhere.
Nope it's not illegal. The law enforcement is required to announce them, plus many radio show hosts announce them as well.
but I definitely agree with other posts, that if a guy is too drunk to drive, he's probably to drunk to use his phone and look for DUI checkpoints anyway. It's probably for people that are not super drunk, but are maybe 0.09% instead of 0.08%. ;)
Overzealous democrats and republicans on both side need to suck it.:mad:
Remove them from the App Store.
It might be illegal etc.. but we must draw the line somewhere.
Nope it's not illegal. The law enforcement is required to announce them, plus many radio show hosts announce them as well.
but I definitely agree with other posts, that if a guy is too drunk to drive, he's probably to drunk to use his phone and look for DUI checkpoints anyway. It's probably for people that are not super drunk, but are maybe 0.09% instead of 0.08%. ;)
Overzealous democrats and republicans on both side need to suck it.:mad:
Aleen
Apr 25, 01:10 PM
They should better stick to the same design rather than messing things up. The current unibody is really great.
inkswamp
Nov 13, 06:13 PM
Why does Apple think it's okay to continually alienate and turn away developers?? :confused: Why do fanboys continue to excuse such incidences? Why aren't people SICK of this kind of behavior from Apple? :mad:
I guess I would turn that around to you and ask why are people making such a huge deal out of a handful of incidents in a pool of 100K+ apps? It's bound to happen, especially considering that this is a whole new approach to delivering apps to a device and there are bound to be misunderstandings and missteps along the way.
Obviously, I think this is a ridiculous situation and I hope someone higher-up at Apple gets involved and smoothes this over and ensures it doesn't happen again. However, attitudes like yours are basically advocating throwing the baby out with the bath-water.
I guess I would turn that around to you and ask why are people making such a huge deal out of a handful of incidents in a pool of 100K+ apps? It's bound to happen, especially considering that this is a whole new approach to delivering apps to a device and there are bound to be misunderstandings and missteps along the way.
Obviously, I think this is a ridiculous situation and I hope someone higher-up at Apple gets involved and smoothes this over and ensures it doesn't happen again. However, attitudes like yours are basically advocating throwing the baby out with the bath-water.
Eidorian
Jul 14, 09:59 AM
I really think the iMac should use Conroe now. I think the reason they used the Yonah chip is that they had no desktop "Core" architecture chips available. While using Merom is the easy thing to do, I hope they don't do it. The iMac is supposedly a desktop, it should use a desktop chip.Did anyone pay attention to the power and thermal requirements of Conroe?
CylonGlitch
Nov 13, 03:59 PM
Again, as I have said previously, the way these images/icons came about was USING OS X APIs.
That's how they're wrong.
w00master
Because they are NO LONGER USING THE API! They give the rights to use the API to call and display the image. It doesn't give them the right to take that image and use it for something else outside of the context it was meant to be used.
That's how they're wrong.
w00master
Because they are NO LONGER USING THE API! They give the rights to use the API to call and display the image. It doesn't give them the right to take that image and use it for something else outside of the context it was meant to be used.
Manic Mouse
Sep 10, 05:03 AM
There's going to be a problem when PC manufacturers get a hold of this if Apple doesn't realease a mid-tower to compete. Conroes are faster than the Meroms in the iMac as it is, but with quad cores they'll wipe the floor with them at multi-tasking.
Surely Conroe needs to go somewhere in Apple's lineup? Great value, fast and soon to be quad-core.
Surely Conroe needs to go somewhere in Apple's lineup? Great value, fast and soon to be quad-core.
Eidorian
May 3, 12:07 PM
:confused:I understand that Eyefinity offers a single display per connector. The best example being the 5/6 Mini DisplayPort video cards on the market.
What I have not seen are daisy chaining multiple displays from a single DisplayPort connector (via proper cabling) or from a passthrough based on a display to an additional monitor.
What I have not seen are daisy chaining multiple displays from a single DisplayPort connector (via proper cabling) or from a passthrough based on a display to an additional monitor.
FSUSem1noles
Apr 22, 05:28 AM
Great, another way to chew through our cellular data..
I can see it now, after the release of this "cloud service" the cell companies are going to scream bloody murder "our networks can't handle all this data consumption on, we have to raise rates to upgrade our infrastructure, yada, yada.."
Zooooooom, we the consumer get the shaft yet again!
I can see it now, after the release of this "cloud service" the cell companies are going to scream bloody murder "our networks can't handle all this data consumption on, we have to raise rates to upgrade our infrastructure, yada, yada.."
Zooooooom, we the consumer get the shaft yet again!
No comments:
Post a Comment