SiliconAddict
Jul 14, 06:12 PM
Woohoo! 3GHz here we come. As was mentioned before, though, a mid-sized tower priced at the iMac level (but upgradable) would be the final logical step in the Apple product line. That would leave Woodcrest to the high end MacPro with its quad configuration.
Try 4Ghz...Anandtech in their review (http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2795&p=18) overclocked their X6800 to a stable 4Ghz. :eek:
Try 4Ghz...Anandtech in their review (http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2795&p=18) overclocked their X6800 to a stable 4Ghz. :eek:
dondark
Sep 14, 01:48 AM
IF iPhone comes out right after the new iPod, the sale's of the lower-end iPod may be influenced by the iPhone.
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.
roocka
Apr 30, 02:49 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_2 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8H7 Safari/6533.18.5)
There is a patent on file where Apple has a method to spray Liquidmetal in iMacs as a thermal interface material. Read on here:
http://www.patentlyapple.com/patently-apple/2010/11/apple-wins-patents-relating-to-multi-touch-liquid-metal.html
There is a patent on file where Apple has a method to spray Liquidmetal in iMacs as a thermal interface material. Read on here:
http://www.patentlyapple.com/patently-apple/2010/11/apple-wins-patents-relating-to-multi-touch-liquid-metal.html
MagnusVonMagnum
Apr 16, 09:23 AM
Or you could just buy a multi-port Thunderbolt adapter(that supports USB 3) for less than $10 when they are released making your half-baked scenario completely worthless.
Yes because everyone loves to carry around external breakout boxes with their sleek portable Macbooks.... :rolleyes:
And $10? For Thunderbolt? You are DREAMING. You can't even get a decent USB2 hub for $10.
Oh and why would someone pay extra money for a drive that can reach at the LOWEST twice the performance of USB 3? Gee, I wonder. I'd love to know where you got the sales figures from also. From your ass perhaps?
Twice the performance of USB3? That would be Thunderbolt's maximum possible data rate. No single consumer hard drive on earth supports that kind of speed (let alone even USB3's top speed) so I haven't a clue what you're getting at. Why would someone pay MORE to get a drive that is no faster than a USB3 drive? They would almost certainly have to as demand determines price/availability and there is nearly zero demand for TB devices at this point in time while USB3 are backwards compatible with the vast majority of the computers on the planet. My sales figures are based on the relative cost of drives with Firewire interfaces (the closest example that already exists to Thunderbolt in terms of technology versus low demand) against drives that only support USB2 and/or USB3. There is always a large premium for a drive with a FW interface, even today when a fair amount of computers exist with FW interfaces (i.e. SOME demand). Therefore TB compatible drives will likely cost considerably more money than USB3 drives for the SAME underlying drive. You will pay a premium for the interface just like Firewire to offset the higher costs of low production numbers created by little demand compared to USB3/2 interfaces. There will be no speed advantage on a consumer drive because no consumer drive even comes CLOSE to the limits of either interface. So unlike YOUR $10 scenario, I didn't just make a number up out of thin air. Furthermore, the scenario is hardly half-baked given USB drives are already common at places like Best Buy (I personally already own TWO 3TB USB3 drives) so the unlikely 'friend' in the stated scenario would be more likely to already own a USB3 drive than a currently non-existent TB drive that will undoubtedly cost MORE when it does finally arrive.
TB is more suited to high-end professional use where maximum overall data throughput (probably across multiple banks of drives per interface) and low overhead is desired (e.g. professional video, future high-speed server banks, live audio, etc.) The average consumer doesn't want to pay $50-100 more for FW800 drive interface over USB2 today (nor is their computer even likely to have FW if it's not a Mac) even if does have a benefit over USB2. They certainly aren't going to want to pay a potentially larger premium to get the same relative performance (perhaps with a bit of CPU overhead differences) versus USB3 with today's drives that don't come near USB3 levels, let alone Thunderbolt.
Be my guest and continue to insult and rant and dream big of TB heaven where USB doesn't exist. I live in a more practical and logical world.
Yes because everyone loves to carry around external breakout boxes with their sleek portable Macbooks.... :rolleyes:
And $10? For Thunderbolt? You are DREAMING. You can't even get a decent USB2 hub for $10.
Oh and why would someone pay extra money for a drive that can reach at the LOWEST twice the performance of USB 3? Gee, I wonder. I'd love to know where you got the sales figures from also. From your ass perhaps?
Twice the performance of USB3? That would be Thunderbolt's maximum possible data rate. No single consumer hard drive on earth supports that kind of speed (let alone even USB3's top speed) so I haven't a clue what you're getting at. Why would someone pay MORE to get a drive that is no faster than a USB3 drive? They would almost certainly have to as demand determines price/availability and there is nearly zero demand for TB devices at this point in time while USB3 are backwards compatible with the vast majority of the computers on the planet. My sales figures are based on the relative cost of drives with Firewire interfaces (the closest example that already exists to Thunderbolt in terms of technology versus low demand) against drives that only support USB2 and/or USB3. There is always a large premium for a drive with a FW interface, even today when a fair amount of computers exist with FW interfaces (i.e. SOME demand). Therefore TB compatible drives will likely cost considerably more money than USB3 drives for the SAME underlying drive. You will pay a premium for the interface just like Firewire to offset the higher costs of low production numbers created by little demand compared to USB3/2 interfaces. There will be no speed advantage on a consumer drive because no consumer drive even comes CLOSE to the limits of either interface. So unlike YOUR $10 scenario, I didn't just make a number up out of thin air. Furthermore, the scenario is hardly half-baked given USB drives are already common at places like Best Buy (I personally already own TWO 3TB USB3 drives) so the unlikely 'friend' in the stated scenario would be more likely to already own a USB3 drive than a currently non-existent TB drive that will undoubtedly cost MORE when it does finally arrive.
TB is more suited to high-end professional use where maximum overall data throughput (probably across multiple banks of drives per interface) and low overhead is desired (e.g. professional video, future high-speed server banks, live audio, etc.) The average consumer doesn't want to pay $50-100 more for FW800 drive interface over USB2 today (nor is their computer even likely to have FW if it's not a Mac) even if does have a benefit over USB2. They certainly aren't going to want to pay a potentially larger premium to get the same relative performance (perhaps with a bit of CPU overhead differences) versus USB3 with today's drives that don't come near USB3 levels, let alone Thunderbolt.
Be my guest and continue to insult and rant and dream big of TB heaven where USB doesn't exist. I live in a more practical and logical world.
danielwsmithee
Apr 25, 02:38 PM
I love the way so many people say that 'nobody' has a use for the SuperDrive.
Admitedly from when I got my MacBook in 08 till 10 I only used it a few times but this year I've actually used it quite a bit.
I've been doing a spot of photography for a club and at the moment there isnt a cheaper more convenient way of giving a few hundred+ MB worth of images to someone than on a CD/DVD that just took 2 mins to burn.
Without the SuperDrive my only option would be either USB stick (which cost more and you never get given them back anyway) or online via drop box (which takes ages as my ADSL is pretty slow as I pretty much live out in the sticks.
So personally I hope they keep the SuperDrive on the pro... until USB sticks become a few pence each anyway
Or just get a USB optical drive and have the best of both worlds ... you won't be forced to lug around something you only use once in a while :)
Admitedly from when I got my MacBook in 08 till 10 I only used it a few times but this year I've actually used it quite a bit.
I've been doing a spot of photography for a club and at the moment there isnt a cheaper more convenient way of giving a few hundred+ MB worth of images to someone than on a CD/DVD that just took 2 mins to burn.
Without the SuperDrive my only option would be either USB stick (which cost more and you never get given them back anyway) or online via drop box (which takes ages as my ADSL is pretty slow as I pretty much live out in the sticks.
So personally I hope they keep the SuperDrive on the pro... until USB sticks become a few pence each anyway
Or just get a USB optical drive and have the best of both worlds ... you won't be forced to lug around something you only use once in a while :)
Squonk
Sep 26, 10:21 AM
I can't wait to get my hands on an iPhone- I'm getting tired of my SLVR. As soon as the iPhone launches I'm throwing my SLVR in to a river. This is starting to become tradition, there must be a half dozen old cell phones of mine which have been cast in to the briny deep. What a liberating experience.
Dude! The Sierra Club would appreciate if you donated the phones to them instead! :D
Dude! The Sierra Club would appreciate if you donated the phones to them instead! :D
goodcow
Apr 4, 11:59 AM
The problem with stolen Apple products would be no Applecare.
Incorrect.
Even with a police report, the AppleCare is still valid for liability reasons. At least this is my experience working at a University where there have been thefts in the past.
Incorrect.
Even with a police report, the AppleCare is still valid for liability reasons. At least this is my experience working at a University where there have been thefts in the past.
jz1492
Nov 13, 04:54 PM
So I guess this puts every iPhone VNC client in violation of Apple's terms as it would be displaying Apple copyrighted images...
I'm on RA's side on this one!
You may be right, but we haven't seen the emails or the actual rejected programs.
Furthermore, "The Client Is Always Right", not because they are, but as a matter of principle. The client is in command.
And I insist, Apple's model makes them the client, which I have to admit brings many benefits to the end user and the platform in general -not so many to the suppliers or developers, except maybe for the fact that it makes the end user more confident to part with their money, of which Apple has the numbers to prove.
I'm on RA's side on this one!
You may be right, but we haven't seen the emails or the actual rejected programs.
Furthermore, "The Client Is Always Right", not because they are, but as a matter of principle. The client is in command.
And I insist, Apple's model makes them the client, which I have to admit brings many benefits to the end user and the platform in general -not so many to the suppliers or developers, except maybe for the fact that it makes the end user more confident to part with their money, of which Apple has the numbers to prove.
vrillusions
Mar 23, 04:41 PM
Funny, I just read in USA Today I beleve it was, that law enforcement officers actually prefer people use the apps...saying that even if the app alerts the driver and they change their driving habits for a short time, say, slowing them down from speeding for a few miles...it's a good thing, and they encourage it.
Besides...who the h*ll is the government to tell Apple what they can and cannot do with their business? Regulations are one thing...such as safety regs and such...those are needed, but Christ...this is over the line.
This has been reported on multiple times. Even before apps certain stretches of road are well known for the speed traps they (usually) have. The result is people always slow down (annoyingly to like 10 mph UNDER the speed limit) just in case the cop is there. Same thing with the apps. People go "Oh no! a speed trap!" and slow down. Since the purpose of the speed traps is to enforce speed limits it still works for them, they just don't get any money for the tickets.
Besides...who the h*ll is the government to tell Apple what they can and cannot do with their business? Regulations are one thing...such as safety regs and such...those are needed, but Christ...this is over the line.
This has been reported on multiple times. Even before apps certain stretches of road are well known for the speed traps they (usually) have. The result is people always slow down (annoyingly to like 10 mph UNDER the speed limit) just in case the cop is there. Same thing with the apps. People go "Oh no! a speed trap!" and slow down. Since the purpose of the speed traps is to enforce speed limits it still works for them, they just don't get any money for the tickets.
redvettez06
Apr 4, 12:11 PM
I'm as pro gun rights as anyone, but this sounds like a problem for the security guard. Unless that guard's life was in danger, there was no reason to shoot anyone, especially in the head. The placement of that shot was no accident.
That being said, I'm sure there are a lot of facts we don't know. Innocent until proven guilty, of course.
If there are a lot of facts that you don't know, how do you know that the headshot was no accident?
That being said, I'm sure there are a lot of facts we don't know. Innocent until proven guilty, of course.
If there are a lot of facts that you don't know, how do you know that the headshot was no accident?
PhantomPumpkin
Feb 14, 10:27 AM
Thanks for reminding me to put you on ignore. I know how easy it is to identify an operating system, but if they bothered to make a message just for Mac users it stands to reason they made malware for Mac users too. Or would they just make the message for fun? We all know what funny guys malware writers are.
It doesn't matter if it hasn't propagated, it never even would have happened in the past. The more malware attacks there are on the Mac, the greater the chance of one of them actually becoming a widespread nuisance.
You do realize with that it's essentially an additional if/then statement, versus coding something from the ground up. They're not changing their code to include the iOS, they're changing their code to include a new output if it detects the iOS/Mac OS tag. It's really not that hard to do.
It doesn't matter if it hasn't propagated, it never even would have happened in the past. The more malware attacks there are on the Mac, the greater the chance of one of them actually becoming a widespread nuisance.
You do realize with that it's essentially an additional if/then statement, versus coding something from the ground up. They're not changing their code to include the iOS, they're changing their code to include a new output if it detects the iOS/Mac OS tag. It's really not that hard to do.
econgeek
Apr 14, 12:21 PM
We really should be hoping that Thunderbolt succeeds and USB 3 fails. USB has always been a hack for lowest common denominator PCs and PC manufacturers who were not interested in investing in quality external communication.
USB is a poorly designed protocol, and rather than fix it, they have just extended it with USB3, and pretend like it is faster.
In real world use, USB3 is more like 2.5Gbps-- one way.
In real world use, Thunderbolt is 20Gbps-- both directions. (two 10Gbps channels)
This means Thunderbolt is effectively 20 times faster than USB3 -- if you maxed it out. Right now the two are competitive only because we don't have external devices capable of maxing out the bandwidth... but eventually we will.
I'll have to seriously considering delaying getting a new iMac until 2012 now. I don't want to be caught having to buy more expensive Thunderbolt external drives. Thunderbolt is great only if the drives are no more expensive than USB 3.0 drives.
What will be cheaper is whatever is the more popular. Thus we want Intel to delay support for USB3 and give thunderbolt time to be adopted widely. We really need to avoid another Firewire situation here, lest the entire world be held back by a crappy, second rate technology that is ubiquitous.
Look at the price difference of a USB 2 hard drive vs. Firewire- that is purely due to the USB market being bigger, it has no technological reason.
Think about the millions of people copying large files onto 1 or 2TB USB drives and how long they have to wait.... with no advantages of USB over Firewire.
USB2 is not even as fast as Firewire 400, let alone Firewire 800.
Drat, I just bought a MBP, first laptop upgrade in 4 years :( Hopefully we get a Thunderbolt-to-USB3 connector.
Those have been announced already at this weeks NAB. Apple will likely include USB3 in their laptops, though.
USB is a poorly designed protocol, and rather than fix it, they have just extended it with USB3, and pretend like it is faster.
In real world use, USB3 is more like 2.5Gbps-- one way.
In real world use, Thunderbolt is 20Gbps-- both directions. (two 10Gbps channels)
This means Thunderbolt is effectively 20 times faster than USB3 -- if you maxed it out. Right now the two are competitive only because we don't have external devices capable of maxing out the bandwidth... but eventually we will.
I'll have to seriously considering delaying getting a new iMac until 2012 now. I don't want to be caught having to buy more expensive Thunderbolt external drives. Thunderbolt is great only if the drives are no more expensive than USB 3.0 drives.
What will be cheaper is whatever is the more popular. Thus we want Intel to delay support for USB3 and give thunderbolt time to be adopted widely. We really need to avoid another Firewire situation here, lest the entire world be held back by a crappy, second rate technology that is ubiquitous.
Look at the price difference of a USB 2 hard drive vs. Firewire- that is purely due to the USB market being bigger, it has no technological reason.
Think about the millions of people copying large files onto 1 or 2TB USB drives and how long they have to wait.... with no advantages of USB over Firewire.
USB2 is not even as fast as Firewire 400, let alone Firewire 800.
Drat, I just bought a MBP, first laptop upgrade in 4 years :( Hopefully we get a Thunderbolt-to-USB3 connector.
Those have been announced already at this weeks NAB. Apple will likely include USB3 in their laptops, though.
ValSalva
Apr 25, 05:29 PM
I love this idea so I'll just add on
As for 6, I either would like it to be 14in in the same form factor (less bezel) or just make it a smaller 13in with less bezel.
7. Do a hybrid HDD/SSD drive, like Seagate has.
8. Remove optical drive (makes room for things I actually use, like processors/gpus/cooling)
9. Make a matte option on the 13in, (ideally ditch the glass in general for either regular glossy or matte screens)
10. Make the laptop slightly lighter, like .2-.5lbs lighter
11. Put a real GPU in the 13in
12. Also somehow fit a quad core in the 13in
13. Allow for 16GB of RAM
If they did all this by next summer, well gosh I would be the happiest guy in the world but even half of these things would be pretty nice.
The new 13" MBP will accept 16GB of RAM. It's pricey (http://eshop.macsales.com/shop/memory/Apple_MacBook_MacBook_Pro/Upgrade/DDR3_1333MHz_SDRAM) though.
As for 6, I either would like it to be 14in in the same form factor (less bezel) or just make it a smaller 13in with less bezel.
7. Do a hybrid HDD/SSD drive, like Seagate has.
8. Remove optical drive (makes room for things I actually use, like processors/gpus/cooling)
9. Make a matte option on the 13in, (ideally ditch the glass in general for either regular glossy or matte screens)
10. Make the laptop slightly lighter, like .2-.5lbs lighter
11. Put a real GPU in the 13in
12. Also somehow fit a quad core in the 13in
13. Allow for 16GB of RAM
If they did all this by next summer, well gosh I would be the happiest guy in the world but even half of these things would be pretty nice.
The new 13" MBP will accept 16GB of RAM. It's pricey (http://eshop.macsales.com/shop/memory/Apple_MacBook_MacBook_Pro/Upgrade/DDR3_1333MHz_SDRAM) though.
ctdonath
Apr 4, 12:43 PM
And heroics by gun toting civilians is mostly a product of fantasy as well. The idea of whipping your gun out to save the day is absurd.
Happens about 2,000,000 times a year. Check the FBI stats if you don't believe me. You don't hear much about that because (A) our media doesn't like to report "good" shootings, and (B) about 97% of the time no shooting is required, as the criminal gets the idea quick and stops threatening innocents in a hurry.
Happens about 2,000,000 times a year. Check the FBI stats if you don't believe me. You don't hear much about that because (A) our media doesn't like to report "good" shootings, and (B) about 97% of the time no shooting is required, as the criminal gets the idea quick and stops threatening innocents in a hurry.
spencers
Apr 12, 08:19 PM
You're quite wrong there. AirPlay IS AirTunes. It's AirTunes + video equivalent of AirTunes. An Airport Express is now an 'AirPlay device'.
Actually, he is right. The two use different protocols when streaming. The video portion of AirPlay is done differently and does not require the private key. It just employs setting up a "server" whenever its being utilized. I have it set up on XBMC, and it works just as it would on an AppleTV.
The audio portion, that requires the key, has finally brought it full-circle. Can't wait to have it on my XBMC box.
Actually, he is right. The two use different protocols when streaming. The video portion of AirPlay is done differently and does not require the private key. It just employs setting up a "server" whenever its being utilized. I have it set up on XBMC, and it works just as it would on an AppleTV.
The audio portion, that requires the key, has finally brought it full-circle. Can't wait to have it on my XBMC box.
LaazyEye
Mar 22, 10:28 PM
How are you MBP owners liking your Thunderbolt port? Do you feel like someone with a DVD disk in 1975?
This is probably the most level-headed thing I've ever heard on this entire forum. He appreciates and acknowledges the tech and yet at the same time jokes upon it.
At least I won't have to wait 22 years to actually use it =p
This is probably the most level-headed thing I've ever heard on this entire forum. He appreciates and acknowledges the tech and yet at the same time jokes upon it.
At least I won't have to wait 22 years to actually use it =p
Dr.Gargoyle
Sep 10, 08:26 AM
For certain types of work, 8 cores is not a lot and in fact still not enough - believe it or not.
My point as just that if intel doubles the number of cores every 6th month, I believe that lifespan of a Mac is going to be substantially shorter. I doubt that the people who just bought a new MacPro realized that their computer would be as fast as an "entry level" computer within a year. Old Macs, like my own MDD, will be deemed to live in a time-bubble with now means of interacting with newer computers.
Things have certainly changed after the PPC ->x86 transition.
My point as just that if intel doubles the number of cores every 6th month, I believe that lifespan of a Mac is going to be substantially shorter. I doubt that the people who just bought a new MacPro realized that their computer would be as fast as an "entry level" computer within a year. Old Macs, like my own MDD, will be deemed to live in a time-bubble with now means of interacting with newer computers.
Things have certainly changed after the PPC ->x86 transition.
Half Glass
Sep 14, 10:08 AM
Don't want to wait!
Come on Aperture update...that's why I've been waiting!
iPhone at Photokina? Seems odd. MBP updates for mobile ProPhotogs makes much more sense.
iSLR? Doubt it--the way rumor sites scour for patent filings you'd think they would've found something on this.
--HG
Come on Aperture update...that's why I've been waiting!
iPhone at Photokina? Seems odd. MBP updates for mobile ProPhotogs makes much more sense.
iSLR? Doubt it--the way rumor sites scour for patent filings you'd think they would've found something on this.
--HG
cwt1nospam
Mar 16, 11:31 AM
OS X Server ships with clamav for filtering viruses through the email server. Lion merges client and server. Therefore, there will be an antivirus program shipping with 10.7.
That does not in any way imply that it is necessary for the OS. Since the server can have Windows clients many businesses will like this "feature" so I can't blame Apple for including it.
Personally, I figure that if I pass an infected file on to a PC user it's their responsibility to detect and remove the virus, not mine. I didn't force them to buy a Windows box.
That does not in any way imply that it is necessary for the OS. Since the server can have Windows clients many businesses will like this "feature" so I can't blame Apple for including it.
Personally, I figure that if I pass an infected file on to a PC user it's their responsibility to detect and remove the virus, not mine. I didn't force them to buy a Windows box.
callme
Mar 29, 01:14 PM
Now read through the rest of the posts after that and discover that Finder does not support Cut and Paste.
And where in the first post from the OP did they mention 'in the Finder'?
And where in the first post from the OP did they mention 'in the Finder'?
Peikko
Apr 30, 08:33 PM
MSFT has not had a real hit in forever.
Can't be bothered to check anything but the most recent past, so...
Kinect Confirmed As Fastest-Selling Consumer Electronics Device (http://community.guinnessworldrecords.com/_Kinect-Confirmed-As-Fastest-Selling-Consumer-Electronics-Device/blog/3376939/7691.html)
Guinness World Records, the global authority on record breaking, today confirm that the Kinect for the Xbox 360 is the Fastest-Selling Consumer Electronics Device. The hardware, that allows controller-free gaming, sold through an average of 133,333 units per day, for a total of 8 million units in its first 60 days on sale from 4 November 2010 to 3 January 2011.
The sales figures outstrip both the iPhone and the iPad for the equivalent periods after launch. [...]
Can't be bothered to check anything but the most recent past, so...
Kinect Confirmed As Fastest-Selling Consumer Electronics Device (http://community.guinnessworldrecords.com/_Kinect-Confirmed-As-Fastest-Selling-Consumer-Electronics-Device/blog/3376939/7691.html)
Guinness World Records, the global authority on record breaking, today confirm that the Kinect for the Xbox 360 is the Fastest-Selling Consumer Electronics Device. The hardware, that allows controller-free gaming, sold through an average of 133,333 units per day, for a total of 8 million units in its first 60 days on sale from 4 November 2010 to 3 January 2011.
The sales figures outstrip both the iPhone and the iPad for the equivalent periods after launch. [...]
WildCowboy
Aug 23, 10:30 PM
I don't think he is joking, it is about more than sales, but 100m songs on Itunes did make apple roughly 100M. So I think he is speaking solely about the moetary aspect of the Itunes sales. So no joke: money is money.
Actually, 100 million songs on iTunes makes Apple less than $10 million. Most of the money goes back to the record labels, and most of the rest pays for the infrastructure to run the store.
Actually, 100 million songs on iTunes makes Apple less than $10 million. Most of the money goes back to the record labels, and most of the rest pays for the infrastructure to run the store.
dazzer21
May 3, 11:39 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:
I'd seen that. Confused, also...
Whaaaaa? :confused:
I'd seen that. Confused, also...