bobr1952
May 2, 11:40 AM
I turned off automatically open safe files years ago in Tiger and have migrated that setting over since.
I too turned this feature off a long time ago--but still--this seems like a feature Apple needs to get rid of in Safari--not all that useful and potentially dangerous to unsuspecting users.
I too turned this feature off a long time ago--but still--this seems like a feature Apple needs to get rid of in Safari--not all that useful and potentially dangerous to unsuspecting users.
Sounds Good
Apr 10, 11:06 AM
If you are happy with windows stick with it. if you don't "have" to switch because you need a specifitc application, just don't do it. It's not "THAT MUCH" better as everyone wants to make you believe.
Ya know what? This is good advice. After doing a LOT of thinking about this, I realize that I'm probably best off sticking with Windows.
When it comes right down to it, I'm really just "curious" about trying a Mac. I don't actually have a particular reason, and I don't have any problems with Windows (believe it or not).
It looks like both operating systems have a few advantages and both operating systems have their share of annoyances. Truth is, I'm having a hard time finding a real advantage to switching.
If I were starting out today I'd most likely go with a Mac. But I'm an old dude, not a kid. I'm very comfortable with Windows and I really LIKE certain things about it. In fact, the first thing I'd do on a Mac is try to set it up so the Dock works just like the Start button in Windows. A rational person would have realized long ago that this is crazy. If I want a Mac to work like Windows I should just use Windows. Duh. But my curiosity along with the attractive cosmetic looks of the Mac got the best of me.
I won't lie, I'll forever be curious about "the other side"... but in my case I think I'd just be asking for a lot of headaches figuring out how to do all of these things differently than I'm used to.
Anyway...
Thanks to everyone that helped by adding your thoughts, I really appreciate it. And since I can't be the only one out there with similar feelings maybe this thread will help them too. Some will choose to switch to Mac, some will choose to stick with Windows.
And that's the way it goes. :)
Ya know what? This is good advice. After doing a LOT of thinking about this, I realize that I'm probably best off sticking with Windows.
When it comes right down to it, I'm really just "curious" about trying a Mac. I don't actually have a particular reason, and I don't have any problems with Windows (believe it or not).
It looks like both operating systems have a few advantages and both operating systems have their share of annoyances. Truth is, I'm having a hard time finding a real advantage to switching.
If I were starting out today I'd most likely go with a Mac. But I'm an old dude, not a kid. I'm very comfortable with Windows and I really LIKE certain things about it. In fact, the first thing I'd do on a Mac is try to set it up so the Dock works just like the Start button in Windows. A rational person would have realized long ago that this is crazy. If I want a Mac to work like Windows I should just use Windows. Duh. But my curiosity along with the attractive cosmetic looks of the Mac got the best of me.
I won't lie, I'll forever be curious about "the other side"... but in my case I think I'd just be asking for a lot of headaches figuring out how to do all of these things differently than I'm used to.
Anyway...
Thanks to everyone that helped by adding your thoughts, I really appreciate it. And since I can't be the only one out there with similar feelings maybe this thread will help them too. Some will choose to switch to Mac, some will choose to stick with Windows.
And that's the way it goes. :)
macenforcer
Aug 29, 02:25 PM
You know its not just apple, its intel and many other companies. You see it is not profitable to make something last nowadays. Remember when TV's could be repaired? Not anymore.
Ever wonder why every time a new mac comes out or any computer comes out you need to buy all new ram? Its not really that much faster. How about the CPU's? When a new one comes out why can't I just put it into my old computer and go. Socket this and socket that, they are all just sockets. Why does the Xeon need a different socket than the Core 2 DUO? Same CPU basically. Although with core intel has kept the same sockets as Pentium Ds but you need a new chipset.
We as a society could reduce the amount of computer waste by half immediately if a standard was devised to allow upgrades to work without purchasing all new computers. Heck, apple could just sell motherboard upgrades for its entire line of old computers and that would be great. No company will ever really do what it takes to save the environment because that costs them $$ in the end.
Humans are a cancer on the planet. Look at pics of the earth from space. Its disgusting.
Earth is going to look like Cybertron (Transformers home planet) folks. Just give it time.
Ever wonder why every time a new mac comes out or any computer comes out you need to buy all new ram? Its not really that much faster. How about the CPU's? When a new one comes out why can't I just put it into my old computer and go. Socket this and socket that, they are all just sockets. Why does the Xeon need a different socket than the Core 2 DUO? Same CPU basically. Although with core intel has kept the same sockets as Pentium Ds but you need a new chipset.
We as a society could reduce the amount of computer waste by half immediately if a standard was devised to allow upgrades to work without purchasing all new computers. Heck, apple could just sell motherboard upgrades for its entire line of old computers and that would be great. No company will ever really do what it takes to save the environment because that costs them $$ in the end.
Humans are a cancer on the planet. Look at pics of the earth from space. Its disgusting.
Earth is going to look like Cybertron (Transformers home planet) folks. Just give it time.
peharri
Sep 22, 02:33 PM
i think you misunderstood the recent reports: the consensus interpretation is that iTV does require a computer, and that the hard drive is just for buffering.
I'm not seeing any consensus interpretation that suggests anything of the sort. I can also say with some certainty that the hard drive is "not just for buffering". At the kinds of data volumes streaming media generally runs at, you can store a couple of hours of video in a gig of RAM. This is considerably cheaper, lower power, and smaller, than a hard disk drive. Why would you put a hard disk drive in a device solely for "buffering"?
What I'm seeing, according to the reports so far, is a machine that can make use of local iTunes libraries, but can also show media streamed directly from the iTS.
It makes no sense for Apple to sell an STB that requires a computer. They can make a much more limited device for that purpose, and such a device would not bring the concept of streamed media "to the masses". We don't have all the information at this point, but there's absolutely nothing about the iTV that suggests it's some pricy bolt-on for an existing multimedia computer installation. There'd have been no point in pre-announcing it if it was, and it'd be a complete disaster if it were.
I'm not seeing any consensus interpretation that suggests anything of the sort. I can also say with some certainty that the hard drive is "not just for buffering". At the kinds of data volumes streaming media generally runs at, you can store a couple of hours of video in a gig of RAM. This is considerably cheaper, lower power, and smaller, than a hard disk drive. Why would you put a hard disk drive in a device solely for "buffering"?
What I'm seeing, according to the reports so far, is a machine that can make use of local iTunes libraries, but can also show media streamed directly from the iTS.
It makes no sense for Apple to sell an STB that requires a computer. They can make a much more limited device for that purpose, and such a device would not bring the concept of streamed media "to the masses". We don't have all the information at this point, but there's absolutely nothing about the iTV that suggests it's some pricy bolt-on for an existing multimedia computer installation. There'd have been no point in pre-announcing it if it was, and it'd be a complete disaster if it were.
gangst
Mar 18, 12:03 PM
anyone got a link to Mac PyMusique downloads or is it Windows only?
Drewnrupe
Sep 12, 04:23 PM
The other this thing plays HD not SD like the eyeHome.
.
I have seen this stated a few time - but not stated anywhere by apple.
All I picked up form SJ was " we are pleased with the quality"
cool new york yankees
New York Yankees Wallpapers
new york yankees wallpaper
new york yankees desktop
Wallpapers Name : Elisha
new york yankees background wallpaper. 1024 x 768 New York Desktop Wallpaper. Right click; 1024 x 768 New York Desktop Wallpaper.
2011 new york yankees
new york yankees logo
new york yankees wallpaper
cool new york yankees
free new york yankees
Times Square New York desktop
jason giambi new york yankees
.
I have seen this stated a few time - but not stated anywhere by apple.
All I picked up form SJ was " we are pleased with the quality"
Dr.Gargoyle
Aug 29, 02:59 PM
The point is that Greenpeace opposes ALL R&D into GM foods, just as G.W. opposes ALL R&D into stem cell research, including research to use stem cells w/o harming the fetus.
First, R&D should never be banned. However, we should not implement everything we find out in our labs. It is a huge difference in getting to know how we can alter the genetical code and actually do it in a grand scale. THAT if anything will be our end.
Stem cells is an entirely different story. That is a political/religious question about when life begins and also OT.
First, R&D should never be banned. However, we should not implement everything we find out in our labs. It is a huge difference in getting to know how we can alter the genetical code and actually do it in a grand scale. THAT if anything will be our end.
Stem cells is an entirely different story. That is a political/religious question about when life begins and also OT.
javajedi
Oct 11, 08:48 AM
Originally posted by ddtlm
javajedi:
Admittedly I am getting lost in what all the numbers people have mentioned are for, but looking at these numbers you have here and assuming that they are doing the same task, you can rest assured that the G3/G4 are running far inferior software. AltiVec and SSE2 or not, there is just nothing that can explain this difference other than an unfair playing field. There is no task that a P4 can do 11x or 12x the speed of a G4 (comparing top-end models here). The P4 posseses nothing that runs at 11x or 12x the speed. Not the clock, not the units, the bandwidth to memory and caches are not 11x or 12x as good, it is not 11x better at branch prediction. I absolutely refuse to accept these results without very substantial backing because they contradict reality as I know it. I know a lot about the P4 and the G4, and I know a lot about programming in a fair number of different languages, even some assembly. I insist that these results do not reflect the actual performance of the processors, until irrefutable proof is presented to show how they do.
I guess the 70 and 90 don't surprise me a lot for the G3/G4, depending on clock speed difference. But all this trendy wandwagon-esque G4-bashing is not correct just cause every one else is doing it. There are things about the G3 that are very nice, but the G4 is no slouch compared to it, and given the higher clock that it's pipeline allows, the G3 really can't keep up. The G4 not only sports a better standard FPU, but it also sports better integer units.
Keep in mind this test does not reflect balanced system performance. The point of this exercise has been to determine how the G4's FPU compares to an assortment of different processors and operating systems.
I'd like to know you you qualify "inferior software" on the x86. If the P4 is some how cheating, then all of the other processors are cheating as well. Again, we ran the exact same code. We even made it into C code on the mac for maximum speed. In fact I'd like for you to check the code out for yourself, so you can see there is no misdirection here. Keep in mind, other people here have ran it on Athlons in Linux and still get sub 10 second times. I've also had a friend of mine (who i can trust) run it under Yellow Dog on a G4, he got 100+ seconds. And I did not tell him the scores we've been getting on the Mac, I had him run the test first and tell me how long it took before I even said anything. The JRE and now Mac OS X have been factored out of this equation.
When you look at operations like these, for example scalar integer ops, that's all register. The fsb, bsb, or anything else doesn't matter. This is a direct comparison between the two units on the G4 vs everything else. Also, my question to you is, in what way are the integer and fpu units "better" in the G4? I did not build the chip so I can't say weather they are better or not better than those in the 750FX, but I can say I've ran a fair benchmark comparing the FPU on the G4 from everything to a P4, Athlon, C3, G3, different operating systems, on x86 Windows and Linux, and on the Mac, Mac OS X and Yellow Dog. The results are consistent across the board. What more "proof" do you want?
javajedi:
Admittedly I am getting lost in what all the numbers people have mentioned are for, but looking at these numbers you have here and assuming that they are doing the same task, you can rest assured that the G3/G4 are running far inferior software. AltiVec and SSE2 or not, there is just nothing that can explain this difference other than an unfair playing field. There is no task that a P4 can do 11x or 12x the speed of a G4 (comparing top-end models here). The P4 posseses nothing that runs at 11x or 12x the speed. Not the clock, not the units, the bandwidth to memory and caches are not 11x or 12x as good, it is not 11x better at branch prediction. I absolutely refuse to accept these results without very substantial backing because they contradict reality as I know it. I know a lot about the P4 and the G4, and I know a lot about programming in a fair number of different languages, even some assembly. I insist that these results do not reflect the actual performance of the processors, until irrefutable proof is presented to show how they do.
I guess the 70 and 90 don't surprise me a lot for the G3/G4, depending on clock speed difference. But all this trendy wandwagon-esque G4-bashing is not correct just cause every one else is doing it. There are things about the G3 that are very nice, but the G4 is no slouch compared to it, and given the higher clock that it's pipeline allows, the G3 really can't keep up. The G4 not only sports a better standard FPU, but it also sports better integer units.
Keep in mind this test does not reflect balanced system performance. The point of this exercise has been to determine how the G4's FPU compares to an assortment of different processors and operating systems.
I'd like to know you you qualify "inferior software" on the x86. If the P4 is some how cheating, then all of the other processors are cheating as well. Again, we ran the exact same code. We even made it into C code on the mac for maximum speed. In fact I'd like for you to check the code out for yourself, so you can see there is no misdirection here. Keep in mind, other people here have ran it on Athlons in Linux and still get sub 10 second times. I've also had a friend of mine (who i can trust) run it under Yellow Dog on a G4, he got 100+ seconds. And I did not tell him the scores we've been getting on the Mac, I had him run the test first and tell me how long it took before I even said anything. The JRE and now Mac OS X have been factored out of this equation.
When you look at operations like these, for example scalar integer ops, that's all register. The fsb, bsb, or anything else doesn't matter. This is a direct comparison between the two units on the G4 vs everything else. Also, my question to you is, in what way are the integer and fpu units "better" in the G4? I did not build the chip so I can't say weather they are better or not better than those in the 750FX, but I can say I've ran a fair benchmark comparing the FPU on the G4 from everything to a P4, Athlon, C3, G3, different operating systems, on x86 Windows and Linux, and on the Mac, Mac OS X and Yellow Dog. The results are consistent across the board. What more "proof" do you want?
�algiris
May 2, 09:28 AM
You're awfully sensitive about this issue, chief.
When things a blown out of proportions.
When things a blown out of proportions.
theBB
Sep 12, 07:13 PM
Ok, if you're SOOOOO thrilled, you've been living in a cave because you could've been doing that for years, there's nothing new here aside for an apple logo on the box... the EyeHome could do that for the last 3 years (no storage, with a remote, streaming from my mac over Wifi - the eyehome physically connected to the router, my Mac on Wifi) (http://www.elgato.com/index.php?file=products_eyehome ). And you're right, it's great... Too bad you still have to wait 6 months :P
Yes, but EyeHome does not support ALAC or Purchased AAC for audio, H.264 for video, it does not have a USB port to connect a USB drive with movies or music or to use it as a file server with that drive or hook a USB printer to use it as a print server. Needless to say, it cannot access iTunes store content, either. If iTV can do all of these, then it is definitely gonna be the winner.
Yes, but EyeHome does not support ALAC or Purchased AAC for audio, H.264 for video, it does not have a USB port to connect a USB drive with movies or music or to use it as a file server with that drive or hook a USB printer to use it as a print server. Needless to say, it cannot access iTunes store content, either. If iTV can do all of these, then it is definitely gonna be the winner.
jsw
Nov 3, 07:12 AM
Then show me the data that backs up your claim that the average consumer is archeiving HD broadcast recordings on their iMac.
I archive HD broadcast recordings on my Rev A mini Core Duo, both OTA ones via the Hybrid and ones via the FireWire connection on my cable box.
FWIW, it works just fine. I'd assume the main reason the average customer isn't doing this is a lack of an HD cable box or the lack of realization that a FW cable turns their Mac into a DVR.
There are numerous uses for 4,8,16,etc. cores... but HD recording doesn't even begin to stress the two in the mini.
I archive HD broadcast recordings on my Rev A mini Core Duo, both OTA ones via the Hybrid and ones via the FireWire connection on my cable box.
FWIW, it works just fine. I'd assume the main reason the average customer isn't doing this is a lack of an HD cable box or the lack of realization that a FW cable turns their Mac into a DVR.
There are numerous uses for 4,8,16,etc. cores... but HD recording doesn't even begin to stress the two in the mini.
digitalbiker
Aug 29, 12:59 PM
This is a real bummer to me. I pride myself on making as little an impact on the environment as I can, but make my living using computers to make music... and I use all Apple products... so I'm feeling really guilty about this right now.
I wouldn't worry about it too much. Ultimately by supporting a technology company you are helping the environment. History has already shown that enhancements in technology have almost always had a positive benefit for the environment along with enhancements to quality of life.
For example:
1) Old technolgy cars were seriously inefficient, wasted energy, polluted more, etc. Current technology cars are much, much better. Future technology such as fuel cells are several times more efficient.
2) Tele-comuting has already had a positive effect. Now people are driving less, working at home more.
3) Battery technology has gotten far more efficient with fewer environmentally hazardous materials than older battery tech. New battery tech. such as the new capacitor batteries may be completely chemical free.
4) Modern power plants are far more efficient and environmentally friendly.
and the list goes on in almost every industry where technological improvements have been made.
Buying computers from Apple provides inscentives for Apple to build better faster more efficient computers along with their competitors. These computers are then used in some way to improve almost every other industry.
I wouldn't worry about it too much. Ultimately by supporting a technology company you are helping the environment. History has already shown that enhancements in technology have almost always had a positive benefit for the environment along with enhancements to quality of life.
For example:
1) Old technolgy cars were seriously inefficient, wasted energy, polluted more, etc. Current technology cars are much, much better. Future technology such as fuel cells are several times more efficient.
2) Tele-comuting has already had a positive effect. Now people are driving less, working at home more.
3) Battery technology has gotten far more efficient with fewer environmentally hazardous materials than older battery tech. New battery tech. such as the new capacitor batteries may be completely chemical free.
4) Modern power plants are far more efficient and environmentally friendly.
and the list goes on in almost every industry where technological improvements have been made.
Buying computers from Apple provides inscentives for Apple to build better faster more efficient computers along with their competitors. These computers are then used in some way to improve almost every other industry.
bluap84
Mar 11, 08:51 AM
This is just crazy. They quoted a girl on cnn from their facebook comments saying the failnami was a big letdown. What a gigantic "tw*t".
+1
didnt know the word tw@t was used over the pond... lol amezzin
+1
didnt know the word tw@t was used over the pond... lol amezzin
appleguy123
Apr 22, 08:44 PM
As I said in my first post, most atheists that I speak to don't put this much thought and care into their atheism. They just take it for granted that it won't be challenged.
How can you prove something's existence that exists outside of time and space? I don't think it's possible except through pure reason.
I don't Know what type of Atheists you meet, but most of those in this forum(theists too :D) DO argue their beliefs and do not expect them to go unchecked.
How can you prove something's existence that exists outside of time and space? I don't think it's possible except through pure reason.
I don't Know what type of Atheists you meet, but most of those in this forum(theists too :D) DO argue their beliefs and do not expect them to go unchecked.
deus_ex_machina
Apr 21, 04:40 AM
I live in a country of excess. Excuse me if I don't weep at night because Kanye West or Lil Wayne are missing out on my $1+ for their songs.
If an artist isn't mainstream, I'll gladly pay for their music to support it. But since my musical tastes tend to gravitate towards major artists, I don't think twice when I torrent their albums.
No worries gwangung - anyone who admits to listening to Lil Wayne isn't worth your time lol
If an artist isn't mainstream, I'll gladly pay for their music to support it. But since my musical tastes tend to gravitate towards major artists, I don't think twice when I torrent their albums.
No worries gwangung - anyone who admits to listening to Lil Wayne isn't worth your time lol
ender land
Apr 26, 01:32 AM
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...
I don't think I did and that certainly is not what I got in return.
I originally was not going to comment on this thread but the above post struck me as relatively interesting. Your first post is full of statements insinuating religious people are less intelligent, illogical, have something wrong with them, are stubborn, incapable of learning, etc.
You might get a useful answer if you instead asked "why do rational or intelligent people believe in religion" if you honestly want to learn more about what you address in the original post. Otherwise, you are not asking an earnest question, you are more or less stating "all religious people are unintelligent or irrational, what do you think?" Of course this would require acknowledging the possibility people might believe in religion for reasons other than fear, ignorance, stubbornness, etc.
Ultimately, the answer to this question will only occur if you can truthfully say "I fundamentally understand why someone is religious. They are because of A, B, C. The reason I disagree with this is because of X, Y, Z." You will not be able to fully answer your question from only the last part of that. Understanding the fundamental differences in what you believe and what someone else believes. And to be perfectly fair, there are probably a large number of religious people of all variety of faiths who probably could not defend their own faith (and in a more general case, real beliefs in general, religious/political/etc) and give any reasons of any significance why they hold the faith/beliefs they do.
And people wonder why PRSI conversations revolve in endless circles, rehashing the same tired subject matter...
I don't think I did and that certainly is not what I got in return.
I originally was not going to comment on this thread but the above post struck me as relatively interesting. Your first post is full of statements insinuating religious people are less intelligent, illogical, have something wrong with them, are stubborn, incapable of learning, etc.
You might get a useful answer if you instead asked "why do rational or intelligent people believe in religion" if you honestly want to learn more about what you address in the original post. Otherwise, you are not asking an earnest question, you are more or less stating "all religious people are unintelligent or irrational, what do you think?" Of course this would require acknowledging the possibility people might believe in religion for reasons other than fear, ignorance, stubbornness, etc.
Ultimately, the answer to this question will only occur if you can truthfully say "I fundamentally understand why someone is religious. They are because of A, B, C. The reason I disagree with this is because of X, Y, Z." You will not be able to fully answer your question from only the last part of that. Understanding the fundamental differences in what you believe and what someone else believes. And to be perfectly fair, there are probably a large number of religious people of all variety of faiths who probably could not defend their own faith (and in a more general case, real beliefs in general, religious/political/etc) and give any reasons of any significance why they hold the faith/beliefs they do.
Dr.Gargoyle
Aug 29, 03:37 PM
We're both in agreement here....I wasn't implying that we send of bags of GM rice to Africa without making sure it was safe, I was only saying that it's wrong not to research an idea that could (in theory) save so many lives.
For the record, I'm also not a fan of stem cell research if it kills the fetus, but I think it's maddening that GW won't fund research into harvesting stem cells WITHOUT killing the fetus....mind-blowing.
Ok, it looks like we agree. My point was just we should be careful so we don't kill off the planet while trying to save it.
Back to the topic; I think Greenpeace's statement is counterproductive. We have huge problems here on this planet and we just dont have the time to "polish the brass". I am afraid that people think that as long as they do something for the enviroment they are home free. That is just not true.
We dont save the planet by buying "greener" computers. True, it helps. But things are so f***d up right now, that we need to concentrate on the big issues, e.g. rainforest being chopped down, extinction of species, and most of all our consumption of fossile fuel.
Diverting the focus away from these issues, is almost as bad as ********** up the earth in the first place. Greenpeace has developed to something quite different than it started out as.
For the record, I'm also not a fan of stem cell research if it kills the fetus, but I think it's maddening that GW won't fund research into harvesting stem cells WITHOUT killing the fetus....mind-blowing.
Ok, it looks like we agree. My point was just we should be careful so we don't kill off the planet while trying to save it.
Back to the topic; I think Greenpeace's statement is counterproductive. We have huge problems here on this planet and we just dont have the time to "polish the brass". I am afraid that people think that as long as they do something for the enviroment they are home free. That is just not true.
We dont save the planet by buying "greener" computers. True, it helps. But things are so f***d up right now, that we need to concentrate on the big issues, e.g. rainforest being chopped down, extinction of species, and most of all our consumption of fossile fuel.
Diverting the focus away from these issues, is almost as bad as ********** up the earth in the first place. Greenpeace has developed to something quite different than it started out as.
RedReplicant
Apr 5, 05:31 PM
One thing that got me was that you cannot make apps fill the screen without dragging and resizing. You can only resize from the bottom right corner. No real other annoyances for me that I can think of.
SizeUp is awesome for this, as well as tiling applications on the screen.
http://irradiatedsoftware.com/sizeup/
SizeUp is awesome for this, as well as tiling applications on the screen.
http://irradiatedsoftware.com/sizeup/
dante@sisna.com
Sep 12, 06:54 PM
Have fun sitting down to your computer to record shows. I get the vision, I reallly do, and I wanted Apple to pull it off better than anyone. But having to record HD content from one piece of hardware, convert it on my computer, load it onto iTunes and stream it to another piece of hardware (iTV) isn't exactly user friendly. The fact of the matter is, Apple doesn't really want you recording TV. So, while not impossible, you do have to jump through a few hoops. Having used TiVo for years, I would never convert to such a complicated system. If Apple had a DVR, they'd also have my business.
You are making a lot of Assumptions regarding complications. The addition of USB to iTV makes a host of third party addons possible that could easily surpass Tivo.
Wait and see -- it happened quickly with the iPod 4 years ago. It will be cheaper too -- no monthly fees and all managed by Front Row.
Now that is EASY!
You are making a lot of Assumptions regarding complications. The addition of USB to iTV makes a host of third party addons possible that could easily surpass Tivo.
Wait and see -- it happened quickly with the iPod 4 years ago. It will be cheaper too -- no monthly fees and all managed by Front Row.
Now that is EASY!
munkery
May 2, 01:02 PM
As with all malware that doesn't achieve privilege escalation via exploitation, this will not be very widespread or successful.
BTW, Windows already has far more privilege escalation vulnerabilities this year alone as Mac OS X over it's lifespan.
This type of malware will no longer work in Safari once Webkit2 is released given the scripting engine will run as a seperate process that is sandboxed (similar to Chrome). The scripting engine does not run as a separate process in IE.
Also, check out the links in my sig for more security tips. Then, PM me your credit card number (obviously, this is a joke).
BTW, Windows already has far more privilege escalation vulnerabilities this year alone as Mac OS X over it's lifespan.
This type of malware will no longer work in Safari once Webkit2 is released given the scripting engine will run as a seperate process that is sandboxed (similar to Chrome). The scripting engine does not run as a separate process in IE.
Also, check out the links in my sig for more security tips. Then, PM me your credit card number (obviously, this is a joke).
JoEw
Aug 26, 01:30 AM
only issue i have with at&t is dropped calls. 3G in my area is fast and reliable usually.
I had this issue before my iphone 4 with my 3G iphone.
I had this issue before my iphone 4 with my 3G iphone.
Multimedia
Sep 26, 12:54 PM
I'm aware of Tigerton, but I was told in another thread that it's not a true successor to Clovertown and could not possibly be used in a Mac Pro. That being the case, is Clovertown it until -- Harpertown?If what you say is true, then yes that would be IT. Why won't Tigerton go in Summer '07 Mac Pros?
Odd, since my three-year-old dual-2.0 PM still does a great job for more than just "the simplest type of stuff"... so you're saying that Apple actually made the dual-core PMs slower than their much-older dual-CPU ancestors?No I'm saying once you get used to the speed of a Quad and you have everyday need for all those cores, then ALL the single 2GHz DC or Dual Processor Macs are LAME. I happen to have found a burning need for as many cores as I can get my hands on this past Winter so when I turn to use the single 2GHz DC G5 PM it hits the wall of power needed in nothing flat and is crawling incredibly slowly toward the finish line all the time. Even it's basic responsiveness is considerably slower than that of the Quad's.
I'm crushing video constantly. Unusual power-all-the-time need. I need to run two, three, sometimes even four multi-core enabled processes simultaneously almost all the time and each one can use up to 3 even 4 cores on the Intel Mac Pro (I tested my apps on the Mac Pro in an Apple Store). So I am not saying it's not ok for email and browsing although that would not be possible on any of the DP or DC PMs while my video crushing operations are running as well.
That's what happend to me in January. I had a 2.5 GHz DP G5 PM and suddenly, as I really got this video crushing process rolling, I hit the wall and it was like being back in 1985 with a Mac Plus. NOTHING would work beyond crushing video very slowly. It scared me to death. In a panic, I ordered a refurb Quad G5 and thank God I did 'cause that old 2.5 GHz Dual Porcessor G5 was way underpowered for what I for what I was wanting to do all the time.
I recently went into a Fry's in Campbell just after the Mac Pros were announced. They had a sign up Apple PowerMac G5 $864.26 for the 2GHz DC same generation as the Quad but the bottom $2k model from last October '05. Couldn't pass it up. But I can tell you that it is very slow with very limited processing power compared to the Quad. I am a veteran G5 PM guy. I had the original 2GHz DP G5 like you still have, two 2.5GHz DP G5's, the Quad G5 and now most recetly, at a bargain I couldn't pass up, the 2GHz DC G5. I love 'em all. But they do not provide enough cores for the type of work I do a lot.
Odd, since my three-year-old dual-2.0 PM still does a great job for more than just "the simplest type of stuff"... so you're saying that Apple actually made the dual-core PMs slower than their much-older dual-CPU ancestors?No I'm saying once you get used to the speed of a Quad and you have everyday need for all those cores, then ALL the single 2GHz DC or Dual Processor Macs are LAME. I happen to have found a burning need for as many cores as I can get my hands on this past Winter so when I turn to use the single 2GHz DC G5 PM it hits the wall of power needed in nothing flat and is crawling incredibly slowly toward the finish line all the time. Even it's basic responsiveness is considerably slower than that of the Quad's.
I'm crushing video constantly. Unusual power-all-the-time need. I need to run two, three, sometimes even four multi-core enabled processes simultaneously almost all the time and each one can use up to 3 even 4 cores on the Intel Mac Pro (I tested my apps on the Mac Pro in an Apple Store). So I am not saying it's not ok for email and browsing although that would not be possible on any of the DP or DC PMs while my video crushing operations are running as well.
That's what happend to me in January. I had a 2.5 GHz DP G5 PM and suddenly, as I really got this video crushing process rolling, I hit the wall and it was like being back in 1985 with a Mac Plus. NOTHING would work beyond crushing video very slowly. It scared me to death. In a panic, I ordered a refurb Quad G5 and thank God I did 'cause that old 2.5 GHz Dual Porcessor G5 was way underpowered for what I for what I was wanting to do all the time.
I recently went into a Fry's in Campbell just after the Mac Pros were announced. They had a sign up Apple PowerMac G5 $864.26 for the 2GHz DC same generation as the Quad but the bottom $2k model from last October '05. Couldn't pass it up. But I can tell you that it is very slow with very limited processing power compared to the Quad. I am a veteran G5 PM guy. I had the original 2GHz DP G5 like you still have, two 2.5GHz DP G5's, the Quad G5 and now most recetly, at a bargain I couldn't pass up, the 2GHz DC G5. I love 'em all. But they do not provide enough cores for the type of work I do a lot.
supremedesigner
May 2, 09:18 AM
<snip>
Who's the brainiac who made zip files "safe" ?
</snip>
Had to assumed that Intego is the one that created it... think about it: All virus writers works for anti-viruses companies :)
Who's the brainiac who made zip files "safe" ?
</snip>
Had to assumed that Intego is the one that created it... think about it: All virus writers works for anti-viruses companies :)
toodeep
Sep 20, 04:07 AM
Paraphrasing @emotion: "it's an mpeg-2 world".
Potential iTV customers will have expectations of being able to watch DVD-content and recorded digital TV programmes, and Apple would be wise to not dissapoint them I think. Similarly for the true video iPod. And if the iTV engine can render MPEG-2 on the fly (and why not: my pocket drive can do this and at the same time up-convert to 1080i) them maybe adding a USB tuner will be an option. (That said I'm very satified with my Mac-friendly Toppy PVR.)
Potential iTV customers will have expectations of being able to watch DVD-content and recorded digital TV programmes, and Apple would be wise to not dissapoint them I think. Similarly for the true video iPod. And if the iTV engine can render MPEG-2 on the fly (and why not: my pocket drive can do this and at the same time up-convert to 1080i) them maybe adding a USB tuner will be an option. (That said I'm very satified with my Mac-friendly Toppy PVR.)
No comments:
Post a Comment