MagnusVonMagnum
Mar 17, 06:36 PM
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.
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.
GoodWatch
May 3, 02:23 PM
Nice pieces of kit. Would this put the top of the line iMacs in the realm of professional photographers who have to do a lot of post processing? Or is the monitor not up to scratch for that? I can see huge external RAID arrays equipped with Thunderbolt to cater for the safe storage of large amounts of RAW files :D
glis
Apr 25, 02:04 PM
The new Macbook Pro will be released in October/November 2011.
4God
Aug 28, 01:10 PM
I wonder if some people read the guide I made at all. :confused:
I did after you posted on this thread. As I said, Thanks.
I did after you posted on this thread. As I said, Thanks.
glitch44
Apr 30, 01:28 PM
Why do they want OS X users to feel as if we were on an iPad!!!???
If I wanted/needed one, I'd buy one. What the hell !!!???????:mad::mad::mad::mad:
Decaf. Look into it.
If I wanted/needed one, I'd buy one. What the hell !!!???????:mad::mad::mad::mad:
Decaf. Look into it.
BRLawyer
Apr 28, 04:03 PM
"Awesome?"
*jumps into Windows 7 in Parallels to check it out again*
"Awesome???" :confused:
Awesome to those used to sub-par products...
The perfect analogy would be you and your lazy cousin: you pass school every year with excellent grades and get normal Christmas presents since this is your expected performance.
But when your lazy/stupid cousin, who has failed school two or three years in a row, passes with reasonable grades, he gets a Ferrari...get it? :rolleyes:
*jumps into Windows 7 in Parallels to check it out again*
"Awesome???" :confused:
Awesome to those used to sub-par products...
The perfect analogy would be you and your lazy cousin: you pass school every year with excellent grades and get normal Christmas presents since this is your expected performance.
But when your lazy/stupid cousin, who has failed school two or three years in a row, passes with reasonable grades, he gets a Ferrari...get it? :rolleyes:
jakerichva
Apr 20, 01:59 PM
I don't usually read SLA's, but it's all right there, Page 1, Section 4, subsection b. And if don't want your iPhone to collect this data, turn off the feature.
http://images.apple.com/legal/sla/docs/iphone4.pdf
http://images.apple.com/legal/sla/docs/iPadSoftwareLicense.pdfAs you said, we've all agreed to it. Here is the appropriate paragraph for the iPad, for those who didn't bother to check the links
Section 4.b
(b) Location Data. Apple and its partners and licensees may provide certain services through your iPad that rely upon location information. To provide these services,
where available, Apple and its partners and licensees may transmit, collect, maintain, process and use your location data, including the real-time geographic location of
your iPad. The location data collected by Apple is collected in a form that does not personally identify you and may be used by Apple and its partners and licensees to
provide location-based products and services. By using any location-based services on your iPad, you agree and consent to Apple's and its partners' and licensees'
transmission, collection, maintenance, processing and use of your location data to provide location-based products and services. You may withdraw this consent
at any time by not using the location-based features or by turning o! the Location Services setting on your iPad. Not using these features will not impact the non locationbased functionality of your iPad. When using third party applications or services on the iPad that use or provide location data, you are subject to and should review such
third party's terms and privacy policy on use of location data by such third party applications or services.
http://images.apple.com/legal/sla/docs/iphone4.pdf
http://images.apple.com/legal/sla/docs/iPadSoftwareLicense.pdfAs you said, we've all agreed to it. Here is the appropriate paragraph for the iPad, for those who didn't bother to check the links
Section 4.b
(b) Location Data. Apple and its partners and licensees may provide certain services through your iPad that rely upon location information. To provide these services,
where available, Apple and its partners and licensees may transmit, collect, maintain, process and use your location data, including the real-time geographic location of
your iPad. The location data collected by Apple is collected in a form that does not personally identify you and may be used by Apple and its partners and licensees to
provide location-based products and services. By using any location-based services on your iPad, you agree and consent to Apple's and its partners' and licensees'
transmission, collection, maintenance, processing and use of your location data to provide location-based products and services. You may withdraw this consent
at any time by not using the location-based features or by turning o! the Location Services setting on your iPad. Not using these features will not impact the non locationbased functionality of your iPad. When using third party applications or services on the iPad that use or provide location data, you are subject to and should review such
third party's terms and privacy policy on use of location data by such third party applications or services.
Fraghax
Apr 4, 12:16 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8G4 Safari/6533.18.5)
That security guard shoots better than the LA police. Lol
That security guard shoots better than the LA police. Lol
dbales
Mar 29, 11:12 AM
Early April Fools...nice!
Yea, I'm not buying this neither the hook, nor the line and certainly it's a stinker.
Yea, I'm not buying this neither the hook, nor the line and certainly it's a stinker.
milo
Sep 12, 02:51 PM
We waited 334 days for this? That is how long we went without an iPod update, by far the longest gap in updates, and all we get is larger storage capacity and a few new games?
In the past 2 quarters, for the first time since Apple introduced the iPod, iPod sales have declined. Last quarter, Apple sold just over 8 million iPods, down from a peak of over 14 million 2 quarters ago. The reason is because people bought new iPods, and there was no reason to replace them because it took Apple so long to update the models. Now, after all of the wait (nearly a year) and speculation about 16x9 video iPods, touch-screen controls, wireless capabilities, etc., I think this update will go mostly unnoticed to consumers and iPod sales will continue to fall. Apple needs to drastically change and improve iPod offerings if it wants to maintain its market advantage and keep the iPod fashionable.
The fact you seem to miss is that the Nano is by far the biggest selling iPod. And they did a pretty nice update to it, what more would you want in that model? They definitely will update the "big" ipod at some point, but there are some MAJOR technological hurdles to overcome, especially battery life for video and the no-touch interface. We'd all love to see it, but apple really needs to take their time and get it right if it's truly going to be groundbreaking.
iPod w/video sales probably won't do much (except for the price drop, which is pretty nice), but nanos and shuffles should sell like mad. I'd be shocked if iPod sales don't spike back up again.
I just checked on the Apple site, and there isn't a new iPod updater to include the new software updates for the original 5G iPods.
I thought updates were now going to be handled by iTunes. Maybe the updates haven't been made available to it online yet. After all, iTunes and QT haven't showed up in software update either.
Edit: The REAL question is have they updated iTunes to be a better video player? I hate watching TV or movies in the current version.
There definitely are new video features, although you'll have to see for yourself if your specific complaints are addressed.
In the past 2 quarters, for the first time since Apple introduced the iPod, iPod sales have declined. Last quarter, Apple sold just over 8 million iPods, down from a peak of over 14 million 2 quarters ago. The reason is because people bought new iPods, and there was no reason to replace them because it took Apple so long to update the models. Now, after all of the wait (nearly a year) and speculation about 16x9 video iPods, touch-screen controls, wireless capabilities, etc., I think this update will go mostly unnoticed to consumers and iPod sales will continue to fall. Apple needs to drastically change and improve iPod offerings if it wants to maintain its market advantage and keep the iPod fashionable.
The fact you seem to miss is that the Nano is by far the biggest selling iPod. And they did a pretty nice update to it, what more would you want in that model? They definitely will update the "big" ipod at some point, but there are some MAJOR technological hurdles to overcome, especially battery life for video and the no-touch interface. We'd all love to see it, but apple really needs to take their time and get it right if it's truly going to be groundbreaking.
iPod w/video sales probably won't do much (except for the price drop, which is pretty nice), but nanos and shuffles should sell like mad. I'd be shocked if iPod sales don't spike back up again.
I just checked on the Apple site, and there isn't a new iPod updater to include the new software updates for the original 5G iPods.
I thought updates were now going to be handled by iTunes. Maybe the updates haven't been made available to it online yet. After all, iTunes and QT haven't showed up in software update either.
Edit: The REAL question is have they updated iTunes to be a better video player? I hate watching TV or movies in the current version.
There definitely are new video features, although you'll have to see for yourself if your specific complaints are addressed.
Piggie
Apr 22, 05:34 AM
I'm amazed that no-one is seeing the very dangerous path we could be heading down here. Will people only see it when it's too late?
Are we looking into the jaws of the future where you pay, but never OWN anything? Music, Movies, Apps.
You pay to have the right to listen/watch/use the data.
The data is never downloaded to your device to do as you wish, it's always held by the owners. or distributors.
I can see this coming like a flashing red warning sign.
Are we looking into the jaws of the future where you pay, but never OWN anything? Music, Movies, Apps.
You pay to have the right to listen/watch/use the data.
The data is never downloaded to your device to do as you wish, it's always held by the owners. or distributors.
I can see this coming like a flashing red warning sign.
aiqw9182
Apr 16, 01:14 PM
You have a fundamental misunderstanding of how those adapters work. Going from thunderbolt to USB 3 would require active electronics embedded in the adapter. The $6 MDP to HDMI adapter is just copper internally because the signaling is compatible from the source.
So did you miss the USB to PS2 adapters I posted? :rolleyes:
Again, you have a fundamental flaw in your argument that you're not addressing. It doesn't matter if the bus is capable of delivering massive speed when the source is incapable of serving data fast enough. Any single-drive enclosure that is currently available will be incapable of maxing out a USB 3 connection. Again, any single drive enclosure doesn't need USB 3 and that's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about the future, a couple of years down the road there will be affordable external SSD's and you will have an SSD in your machine and the only bottleneck is going to be your connector.
When they contain active electronics, they get expensive. Apple's own MDP to dual-link DVI adapter is a great example, at $99.00. USB 3 and Thunderbolt are not electrically compatible, and therefore it is impossible to have a simple copper-only dongle that has a TB port on one end, and USB on the other. Wow, you are using an Apple adapter for price comparisons. :rolleyes:
Apple sells mini-display port to HDMI adapters for $30 when you can buy them for $5. Find a better example.
Then why do you keep pointing to that article as proof that USB 3 is incapable of reaching it's theoretical maximum?Uhh, I'm not? USB 3 has overhead and I've yet to see it actually go its maximum, when have you ever seen USB 2 reach 480Mbps?
USB 2 is the universal standard for high speed devices. If you think otherwise, you must have never used a USB thumb drive. You may have never used a USB thumb drive? L.o.l.
USB 2 is TERRIBLE at high speed data transfer, 'standard' or not. A PS2 port could still be standard for all I care.
Thunderbolt in a copper implementation is capped at 10Gbs. For higher speeds, the physical connections become impractical for "normal" devices, which is why Intel designed TB as a transport bus, say for a single cable between a tower and a monitor, which would then break the TB bus back into it's component protocols, including USB 3. The copper implementation is limited only by the cable and not the port.
Which as I said above, makes it practical for a transport bus. For replacing USB? Not so much. Backwards compatibility alone will likely dictate the continual presence of USB 3 ports on virtually every computer for years to come.
I never said it would replace USB. I said they compliment each other. I said USB 3 is hardly needed as all of the heavy lifting is done through Thunderbolt then you leave the low bandwidth peripherals (that USB 2.0 was capable of handling) to USB 3.0.
Is it "difficult" to carry an adaptor? Of course not (weight and size wise).
But in real life, you run into situations where you don't have it on hand. Like the noon conference at my residency program where we had problems with the laptop on which an attending was to give a presentation. One of the other residents had a MBP and volunteered its use, but...no DP adaptor to connect to the projector. I can only imagine how many times that scenario must occur each day at businesses, etc.
It's a poor solution compared to having USB 3 built in.
In real life you should carry around your laptop in a bag or sleeve that has everything you need in it. USB 3 is not a necessity and the majority of devices will continue to be USB 2.0 compatible as well before 3.0 takes off and Thunderbolt steals all of the high bandwidth peripherals.
So did you miss the USB to PS2 adapters I posted? :rolleyes:
Again, you have a fundamental flaw in your argument that you're not addressing. It doesn't matter if the bus is capable of delivering massive speed when the source is incapable of serving data fast enough. Any single-drive enclosure that is currently available will be incapable of maxing out a USB 3 connection. Again, any single drive enclosure doesn't need USB 3 and that's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about the future, a couple of years down the road there will be affordable external SSD's and you will have an SSD in your machine and the only bottleneck is going to be your connector.
When they contain active electronics, they get expensive. Apple's own MDP to dual-link DVI adapter is a great example, at $99.00. USB 3 and Thunderbolt are not electrically compatible, and therefore it is impossible to have a simple copper-only dongle that has a TB port on one end, and USB on the other. Wow, you are using an Apple adapter for price comparisons. :rolleyes:
Apple sells mini-display port to HDMI adapters for $30 when you can buy them for $5. Find a better example.
Then why do you keep pointing to that article as proof that USB 3 is incapable of reaching it's theoretical maximum?Uhh, I'm not? USB 3 has overhead and I've yet to see it actually go its maximum, when have you ever seen USB 2 reach 480Mbps?
USB 2 is the universal standard for high speed devices. If you think otherwise, you must have never used a USB thumb drive. You may have never used a USB thumb drive? L.o.l.
USB 2 is TERRIBLE at high speed data transfer, 'standard' or not. A PS2 port could still be standard for all I care.
Thunderbolt in a copper implementation is capped at 10Gbs. For higher speeds, the physical connections become impractical for "normal" devices, which is why Intel designed TB as a transport bus, say for a single cable between a tower and a monitor, which would then break the TB bus back into it's component protocols, including USB 3. The copper implementation is limited only by the cable and not the port.
Which as I said above, makes it practical for a transport bus. For replacing USB? Not so much. Backwards compatibility alone will likely dictate the continual presence of USB 3 ports on virtually every computer for years to come.
I never said it would replace USB. I said they compliment each other. I said USB 3 is hardly needed as all of the heavy lifting is done through Thunderbolt then you leave the low bandwidth peripherals (that USB 2.0 was capable of handling) to USB 3.0.
Is it "difficult" to carry an adaptor? Of course not (weight and size wise).
But in real life, you run into situations where you don't have it on hand. Like the noon conference at my residency program where we had problems with the laptop on which an attending was to give a presentation. One of the other residents had a MBP and volunteered its use, but...no DP adaptor to connect to the projector. I can only imagine how many times that scenario must occur each day at businesses, etc.
It's a poor solution compared to having USB 3 built in.
In real life you should carry around your laptop in a bag or sleeve that has everything you need in it. USB 3 is not a necessity and the majority of devices will continue to be USB 2.0 compatible as well before 3.0 takes off and Thunderbolt steals all of the high bandwidth peripherals.
Wang Foolio
May 3, 10:54 AM
What I want to know is whether the 27" will play nice with 1080p input from an HDMI adaptor. BD player/PS3 hooked up to a 27" iMac without need for an expensive upscaler would be nice.
kodek
Apr 13, 08:42 PM
Seriously. Most of us don't care. Take it to a different thread, please.
MacinDoc
Sep 14, 12:21 PM
But since everyone's discussing MBP's, I guess it fits.
I know the Merom chip is compatible with the current boards in the CD MBP, but I've never heard anyone actually say that a CD MBP can be upgraded by simply dropping in a Merom chip. Will this be possible?
Not unless you are good with soldering and don't mind voiding your warranty - the CD chip is soldered onto the motherboard. Also, a firmware update would be required, and may not be available.
I know the Merom chip is compatible with the current boards in the CD MBP, but I've never heard anyone actually say that a CD MBP can be upgraded by simply dropping in a Merom chip. Will this be possible?
Not unless you are good with soldering and don't mind voiding your warranty - the CD chip is soldered onto the motherboard. Also, a firmware update would be required, and may not be available.
spicyapple
Sep 10, 06:36 AM
The Woodcrest MacPro will suddenly feel very old if Apple manage to put Cloverton in MacPro early next year.
It appears I will be living in a cardboard box under a bridge sooner than I expected. :) All these juicy new Apples will put me in the poor house!
It appears I will be living in a cardboard box under a bridge sooner than I expected. :) All these juicy new Apples will put me in the poor house!
MCIowaRulz
Apr 30, 04:39 PM
To Quote Hellhammer specs,
"1199$ 21.5" iMac
Intel Core i3-2100 (3.1GHz)
AMD 6490M with 256MB GDDR5
750GB HD
2x2GB RAM; option for 4x2GB
1499$ 21.5" iMac
Intel Core i5-2400S (2.5/3.3GHz); option for Core i5-2500S (2.7/3.7GHz)
AMD 6750M with 512MB GDDR5
1.5TB HD; option for 3TB
2x2GB RAM: option for 4x2GB
1699$ 27" iMac
Intel Core i5-2400 (3.1/3.4GHz)
AMD 6750M with 512MB GDDR5; option for AMD 6950M with 1024MB GDDR5
1.5TB HD; option for 3TB
2x2GB RAM; options for 4x2GB, 2x4GB and 4x4GB
1999$ 27" iMac
Intel Core i7-2600 (3.4/3.8GHz)
AMD 6950M with 1024MB GDDR5
1.5TB HD; option for 3TB
2x4GB RAM; option for 4x4GB"
More is here
http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=943495&page=14
"1199$ 21.5" iMac
Intel Core i3-2100 (3.1GHz)
AMD 6490M with 256MB GDDR5
750GB HD
2x2GB RAM; option for 4x2GB
1499$ 21.5" iMac
Intel Core i5-2400S (2.5/3.3GHz); option for Core i5-2500S (2.7/3.7GHz)
AMD 6750M with 512MB GDDR5
1.5TB HD; option for 3TB
2x2GB RAM: option for 4x2GB
1699$ 27" iMac
Intel Core i5-2400 (3.1/3.4GHz)
AMD 6750M with 512MB GDDR5; option for AMD 6950M with 1024MB GDDR5
1.5TB HD; option for 3TB
2x2GB RAM; options for 4x2GB, 2x4GB and 4x4GB
1999$ 27" iMac
Intel Core i7-2600 (3.4/3.8GHz)
AMD 6950M with 1024MB GDDR5
1.5TB HD; option for 3TB
2x4GB RAM; option for 4x4GB"
More is here
http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=943495&page=14
kettle
Oct 27, 02:04 PM
Yeah, but what is currently out there that's better?
That's an empty question that just defends what's going on as "don't worry, it'll be all right" when what people are really too frightened to ask is how long will this go on and what opposing force will be needed to make it change direction. Things are getting worse and lately it's hard to ignore the smell.
That's an empty question that just defends what's going on as "don't worry, it'll be all right" when what people are really too frightened to ask is how long will this go on and what opposing force will be needed to make it change direction. Things are getting worse and lately it's hard to ignore the smell.
Moyank24
Apr 4, 11:43 AM
I've never seen a mall security guard carrying a gun.
Me neither. I wonder if the suspects were armed...or at least how smashing glass doors escalated into gunfire.
Me neither. I wonder if the suspects were armed...or at least how smashing glass doors escalated into gunfire.
Casshan
Sep 19, 03:46 PM
Sometimes it helps to do a quick search. ;)
They do have surround sound support. (http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=304277#faq26)
Yes, they have surround sound, but not Dolby Digital. Quicktime can't even decode 5.1 audio (you need a third party plugin (http://www.versiontracker.com/dyn/moreinfo/macosx/27300) for that.)
They do have surround sound support. (http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=304277#faq26)
Yes, they have surround sound, but not Dolby Digital. Quicktime can't even decode 5.1 audio (you need a third party plugin (http://www.versiontracker.com/dyn/moreinfo/macosx/27300) for that.)
aeaglex07
Apr 20, 10:40 AM
Don't rely on encryption to protect you in any way. The police can crack it, as can hackers, and they can simply demand with a court order that you give them the password. Then you're forced to essentially testify against yourself. No, pleading the 5th won't help.
*We Luvz Big Bruther* :(
*We Luvz Big Bruther* :(
aristobrat
Sep 19, 03:25 PM
The only downside to the bumped up resolution is the increased download time. Last year, I was able to download Battlestar Galactica eps in about 20 minutes... the other night I downloaded a higher res episode and it took nearly an hour... granted, my DSL isn't the best in the land and the quality was noticably better, although the previous resolution was still fine (I have my iMac hooked via DVI to a 46" Samsung DLP HDTV... front row lets me select and play the shows from my couch) but the extra time caused my wife to say "well, lets just download it overnight and watch it tomorrow"... not a huge deal or anything, but a slight step backwards from the convenience angle. It's too bad you can't choose the resolution you want to download at.
Maybe they could make iTunes let you start playing your TV show download before it's finished, like they let you do with movies?
Maybe they could make iTunes let you start playing your TV show download before it's finished, like they let you do with movies?
kainjow
Oct 12, 12:23 PM
Oh Bono...
http://www.u2station.com/images/images/oprah_06.jpg
http://www.u2station.com/images/images/oprah_06.jpg
raymondso
Sep 14, 09:59 AM
When will i see a C2D MacBook....
a MBP is just too large in size for me :(
a MBP is just too large in size for me :(
ليست هناك تعليقات:
إرسال تعليق