Eidorian
Sep 9, 04:40 PM
Isn't that the same thing as assigning priorities to processes in OS X? Terminal or Developer Tools already do that, as well as several freeware apps...I believe Multimedia wants something a bit simpler then that though.
Oh and explanation/links for those tools/freeware?
Oh and explanation/links for those tools/freeware?
BRLawyer
Sep 9, 10:10 AM
Good - now we won't have to wade through any arguments with fanbois who claim that the iMac is the "most powerful desktop on the planet"....
:D
As previously confirmed, the iMac is the most powerful AIO desktop...the title you just mentioned belongs to the MacPro...sorry for the misunderstanding...:rolleyes:
How is Winblows going on your side, Aiden? Many BSODs today?
PowerBooks G5, oops, Mini Tower Macs next Tuesday!!!! :rolleyes:
:D
As previously confirmed, the iMac is the most powerful AIO desktop...the title you just mentioned belongs to the MacPro...sorry for the misunderstanding...:rolleyes:
How is Winblows going on your side, Aiden? Many BSODs today?
PowerBooks G5, oops, Mini Tower Macs next Tuesday!!!! :rolleyes:
deconstruct60
May 3, 11:44 AM
I've just finish chatting with a person on the apple website. She told me that I can use the new imac (21 and 27") thunderbold input to use the imac as an external display. Only if it comes from a thunderbolt output (like an macbook pro for exemple).
quot;Thank you!
thank you animation for
thank you clip art animated.
thank you animation for
thank you animation pictures.
thank you animation pictures.
thank you animation. thank you
Thank You Animated Love
thank you animation images.
thank you animation pictures.
thank you animation slides.
A thank you gift for people
thank you animation slides.
thank you animation. thank you
thank you animation slides.
thank you animation slides.
Full of Win
Apr 25, 05:50 PM
Reading is really fundamental considering the fact that you can't even read two paragraphs worth of an article you posted:
"These two, combined with SLI, they will let you play something like Far Cry at a ludicrous 2160p resolution."
Bad example.
However, per your request, a card that runs higher than 2560 x 1600
http://www.v3.co.uk/v3-uk/news/2040733/nvidia-launches-entry-level-quadro-400-graphics-professionals
Nvidia has introduced an entry-level model to its Quadro line of graphics adapters aimed at professionals such as designers and engineers.
Available immediately, the Quadro 400 costs just �99 but provides up to five times the performance of a high-end gaming card, or up to 10 times when running CAD/CAM applications, according to Nvidia.
The Quadro 400 contains 48 Cuda GPU compute cores combined with 512MB of DDR3 memory, and supports DVI-I and DisplayPort outputs offering resolutions up to 3,840 x 2,400 and 2,560 x 1,600 respectively.
Using Nvidia's Mosaic Technology, users can enjoy a workspace across up to eight displays by using four of the cards each driving two screens, enabling seamless taskbar spanning and transparent scaling of any application.
Nvidia said its Quadro 400 drivers are optimised and certified for leading professional applications.
"The Quadro 400 is the right tool to help ensure that the job gets done the right way, especially when it comes to running apps like AutoCAD," said Jeff Brown, general manager of Nvidia's Professional Solutions Group.
The new Quadro adapter is available immediately via Nvidia's reseller channels, and also with Fujitsu Celsius workstations and HP's Z800, Z600, and Z400 workstations. Nvidia said it will also be available later this month on select Lenovo ThinkStation models.
Topics:ComponentsDisplaysHardwareNvidiaGraphics
A graphics card that is shipping that can go higher than 2560 x 1600.
Match - set - Full of Win
"These two, combined with SLI, they will let you play something like Far Cry at a ludicrous 2160p resolution."
Bad example.
However, per your request, a card that runs higher than 2560 x 1600
http://www.v3.co.uk/v3-uk/news/2040733/nvidia-launches-entry-level-quadro-400-graphics-professionals
Nvidia has introduced an entry-level model to its Quadro line of graphics adapters aimed at professionals such as designers and engineers.
Available immediately, the Quadro 400 costs just �99 but provides up to five times the performance of a high-end gaming card, or up to 10 times when running CAD/CAM applications, according to Nvidia.
The Quadro 400 contains 48 Cuda GPU compute cores combined with 512MB of DDR3 memory, and supports DVI-I and DisplayPort outputs offering resolutions up to 3,840 x 2,400 and 2,560 x 1,600 respectively.
Using Nvidia's Mosaic Technology, users can enjoy a workspace across up to eight displays by using four of the cards each driving two screens, enabling seamless taskbar spanning and transparent scaling of any application.
Nvidia said its Quadro 400 drivers are optimised and certified for leading professional applications.
"The Quadro 400 is the right tool to help ensure that the job gets done the right way, especially when it comes to running apps like AutoCAD," said Jeff Brown, general manager of Nvidia's Professional Solutions Group.
The new Quadro adapter is available immediately via Nvidia's reseller channels, and also with Fujitsu Celsius workstations and HP's Z800, Z600, and Z400 workstations. Nvidia said it will also be available later this month on select Lenovo ThinkStation models.
Topics:ComponentsDisplaysHardwareNvidiaGraphics
A graphics card that is shipping that can go higher than 2560 x 1600.
Match - set - Full of Win
MegaSignal
Oct 27, 12:42 PM
The only computer I've ever thrown "away" was a Dell - simply because it didn't work and nobody wanted it.
Of the seven Apple products I've owned over the past decade, ALL are still in use and not taking up space in a landfill; three units were sold by mere word-of-mouth, whilst the others sold in a matter of hours on ebay to very happy buyers. In each case, I had kept the original packaging as well and used it to transport the computers safely.
A word about iPod packaging: I still have the original box that my 3G came in; it's HUGE! Fast forward to my new 5G: the box is a fraction of the size; "well done", I thought. No more "Golden Cocoon Awards" for Apple.
A word about the overall size/material used for iPods: Case in point, let's consider the latest version of the iPod Shuffle - somehow, even a pile of 5000 discarded shuffles wouldn't seem like much material; yet because 5000 Shuffles represent a rather substantial amount of commerce, one could say that the Shuffle has a very favorable "commerce-to-waste" ratio. Conversely, a new automobile has a downright hideous "commerce-to-waste" ratio.
Ironically, my desktop G5 could much more easily be recycled (aluminum vs. plastic) despite the fact that it probably won't be for many, many years.
Of the seven Apple products I've owned over the past decade, ALL are still in use and not taking up space in a landfill; three units were sold by mere word-of-mouth, whilst the others sold in a matter of hours on ebay to very happy buyers. In each case, I had kept the original packaging as well and used it to transport the computers safely.
A word about iPod packaging: I still have the original box that my 3G came in; it's HUGE! Fast forward to my new 5G: the box is a fraction of the size; "well done", I thought. No more "Golden Cocoon Awards" for Apple.
A word about the overall size/material used for iPods: Case in point, let's consider the latest version of the iPod Shuffle - somehow, even a pile of 5000 discarded shuffles wouldn't seem like much material; yet because 5000 Shuffles represent a rather substantial amount of commerce, one could say that the Shuffle has a very favorable "commerce-to-waste" ratio. Conversely, a new automobile has a downright hideous "commerce-to-waste" ratio.
Ironically, my desktop G5 could much more easily be recycled (aluminum vs. plastic) despite the fact that it probably won't be for many, many years.
spine
Sep 13, 09:00 PM
Is this really a page 1 item?
The real news would be a release date, or an upcoming event.
Still, I want one!
The real news would be a release date, or an upcoming event.
Still, I want one!
3N16MA
Apr 25, 12:59 PM
Liquid metal? Carbon fiber? No SuperDrive option? Yes that is a lot of question marks.
randyg
Sep 13, 09:36 PM
The only way i'd give up my Treo for an "iPhone" is if it is a true "smart phone". That means PDA functionality. It's got to do everything my Treo does. If it's simply another phone with iTunes on it then it's not worth switching, at least in my opinion.
mdntcallr
Sep 14, 12:38 AM
sounds like a nice starter level phone/ipod.
but what I and many other people want is a smart phone, for:
Treo/Blackberry like functionality
Camera with decent megapixel, maybe 3 megapixels (settle for 1.3) that moves.
so you can have "isight" built in. also ichatav with video.
Ipod, with 80 gb hard drive.
Video capability, both from itunes, and even with streamed cellular broadband via slingbox or from more
oh well... to dream
but what I and many other people want is a smart phone, for:
Treo/Blackberry like functionality
Camera with decent megapixel, maybe 3 megapixels (settle for 1.3) that moves.
so you can have "isight" built in. also ichatav with video.
Ipod, with 80 gb hard drive.
Video capability, both from itunes, and even with streamed cellular broadband via slingbox or from more
oh well... to dream
kdarling
Apr 19, 01:44 PM
Wait, people actually still listen to actual radios?
Please read post #162 above (http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=12421810&postcount=162), for a definition of "radio controls" that is different from what you thought.
Please read post #162 above (http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=12421810&postcount=162), for a definition of "radio controls" that is different from what you thought.
Minimum91
Apr 11, 04:31 AM
Is anyone here educated enough to explain to me how to compile and run this thing?
I can't find a way to install avahi. Tried installing it via fink - no luck.
MacPorts requires xcode, but I don't really want to install xcode. takes up a lot of space.
Even though I know some things I'd still prefer if someone would make a step-by-step how-to for me.
Thank you in advance.
I can't find a way to install avahi. Tried installing it via fink - no luck.
MacPorts requires xcode, but I don't really want to install xcode. takes up a lot of space.
Even though I know some things I'd still prefer if someone would make a step-by-step how-to for me.
Thank you in advance.
Peace
Sep 5, 01:19 PM
I would figure in the meantime they would continue to sell products in areas that they are not restricted. Oh well.
They would.If you've checked out the iSight it has a ship date of October.
My guess is they stopped making them in order to redesign them.And since they have to redesign them why not make them better.wink...wink...nudge...nudge..;)
They would.If you've checked out the iSight it has a ship date of October.
My guess is they stopped making them in order to redesign them.And since they have to redesign them why not make them better.wink...wink...nudge...nudge..;)
robeddie
Apr 25, 02:05 PM
please get rid of the bezel. make it as small as possible.
please do not make it thinner. rather reduce footprint and keep battery life up.
Agreed. I've never understood why macs have such large bezel's. The 11" MBA is a notable offender in particular, since because the laptop is so small, the wide bezel looks even more immense compared to the rest of the laptop.
please do not make it thinner. rather reduce footprint and keep battery life up.
Agreed. I've never understood why macs have such large bezel's. The 11" MBA is a notable offender in particular, since because the laptop is so small, the wide bezel looks even more immense compared to the rest of the laptop.
peharri
Sep 21, 08:10 AM
Finally, someone gets it right.
CDMA is technically superior to GSM just about any way you care to measure it. GSM's widespread adoption in Europe was by fiat as a protectionist measure for European telecom companies, primarily because the European technology providers did not want to license CDMA from an American company. CDMA was basically slandered six ways to Sunday to justify using GSM. It was nothing more than a case of Not Invented Here writ large and turf protection. This early rapid push to standardize on GSM in as many places as possible as a strategic hedge gave them a strong market position in most of the rest of the world. In the US, the various protocols had to fight it out on the open market which took time to sort itself out.
There's a lot of nonsense about IS-95 ("CDMA" as implemented by Qualcomm) that's promoted by Qualcomm shills (some openly, like Steve De Beste) that I'd be very careful about taking claims of "superiority" at face value. The above is so full of the kind mis-representations I've seen posted everywhere I have to respond.
1. CDMA is not "technically superior to GSM just about any way you care to measure". CDMA (by which I assume you mean IS95, because comparing GSM to CDMA air interface technology is like comparing a minivan to a car tire - the conflation of TDMA and GSM has, and the deliberate underplaying of the 95% of IS-95 that has nothing to do with the air-interface, has been a standard tool in the shills toolbox) has an air-interface technology which has better capacity than GSM's TDMA, but the rest of IS-95 really isn't as mature or consumer friendly as GSM. In particular, IS-95 leaves decisions as to support for SIM cards, and network codes, to operators, which means in practice that there's no standardization and few benefits to an end user who chooses it. Most US operators seem to have, surprise surprise, avoided SIM cards and network standardization seems to be based upon US analog dialing star codes (eg *72, etc)
2. "GSM's widespread adoption in Europe was by fiat as a protectionist measure for European telecom companies, primarily because the European technology providers did not want to license CDMA from an American company." is objectively untrue. GSM was developed in the mid-eighties as a method to move towards a standardized mobile phone system for Europe, which at the time had different systems running on different frequencies in pretty much every country (unlike the US where AMPS was available in every state.)
By the time IS-95 was developed, GSM was already an established standard in practically all of Europe. While 900MHz services were mandated as GSM and legacy analogy only by the EC, countries were free to allow other standards on other frequencies until one became dominant on a particular frequency. With 1800MHz, the first operators given the band choose GSM, as it was clearly more advanced than what Qualcomm was offering, and handset makers would have little or no difficulty making multifrequency handsets. (Today GSM is also mandated on 1800MHz, but that wasn't true at the time one2one and Orange, and many that followed, choose GSM.)
The only aspect of IS95 that could be described as "superior" that would require licensing is the CDMA air interface technology. European operators and phone makers have, indeed, licensed that technology (albeit not to Qualcomm's specifications) and it's present in pretty much all implementations of UMTS. So much for that.
3. "CDMA was basically slandered six ways to Sunday to justify using GSM." Funny, I could have sworn I saw the exact opposite.
I came to the US in 1998, GSM wasn't available in my market area at the time, and I picked up an IS-95 phone believing it to be superior based upon what was said on newsgroups, US media, and other sources. I was shocked. IS-95 was better than IS-136 ("D-AMPS"), but not by much, and it was considerably less reliable. At that time, IS-95, as providing by most US operators, didn't support two way text messaging or data. It didn't support - much to my astonishment - SIM cards. ISDN integration was nil. Network services were a jumbled mess. Call drops were common, even when signal strengths were high.
Much of this has been fixed since. But what amazed me looking back on it was the sheer nonsense being directed at GSM by IS-95 advocates. GSM was, according to them, identical to IS-136, which they called TDMA. It had identical problems. Apparently on GSM, calls would drop every time you changed tower. GSM only had a 7km range! It only worked in Europe because everyone lives in cities! And GSM was a government owned standard, imposed by the EU on unwilling mobile phone operators.
Every single one of these facts was completely untrue. IS-136 was closer in form to IS-95 than GSM. IS-136, unlike GSM and like IS-95, was essentially built around the same mobile phone model as AMPS, with little or no network services standardization and an inherent assumption that the all calls would be to POTS or other similarly limited cellphones as itself. Like IS-95 and unlike GSM, in IS-136 your phone was your identifier, you couldn't change phones without your operator's permission. Like IS-95 at the time, messaging and data was barely implemented in IS-136 - when I left the UK I'd been browsing the web and using IRC (via Demon's telnetable IRC client) on my Nokia 9000 on a regular basis.
No TDMA system I'm aware of routinely drops calls when you change towers. In practice, I had far more call drops under Sprint PCS then I had under any other operator, namely because IS-95's capacity improvement was over-exaggerated and operators at the time routinely overloaded their networks.
GSM's range, which is around 20km, while technically a limitation of the air interface technology, isn't much different to what a .25W cellphone's range is in practice. You're not going to find many cellphones capable of getting a signal from a tower that far, regardless of what technology you use. The whole "Everyone lives in cities" thing is a myth, as certain countries, notably Finland, have far more US-like demographics in that respect (but what do they know about cellphones in Finland (http://www.nokia.com)?)
GSM was a standard built by the operators after the EU told them to create at least one standard that would be supported across the continent. Only the concept of "standardization" was forced upon operators, the standard - a development of work being done by France Telecom at the time - was made and agreed to by the operators. Those same operators would have looked at IS-95, or even at CDMA incorporated into GSM at the air interface level - had it been a mature, viable, technology at the time. It wasn't.
The only practical advantage IS-95 had over GSM was better capacity. This in theory meant cheaper minutes. For a time, that was true. Today, most US operators offer close to identical tariffs and close to identical reliability. But I can choose which GSM phone I leave the house with, and I know it'll work consistantly regardless of where I am.
Ultimately, the GSM consortium lost and Qualcomm got the last laugh because the technology does not scale as well as CDMA. Every last telecom equipment provider in Europe has since licensed the CDMA technology, and some version of the technology is part of the next generation cellular infrastructure under a few different names.
This paragraph is bizarrely misleading and I'm wondering if you just worded it poorly. GSM is still the worldwide standard. The newest version, UMTS, uses a CDMA air interface but is otherwise a clear development of GSM. It has virtually nothing in common with IS-95. "The GSM consortium" consists of GSM operators and handset makers. They're doing pretty well. What have they lost? Are you saying that because GSM's latest version includes one aspect of the IS-95 standard that GSM is worse? Or that IS-95 is suddenly better?
While GSM has better interoperability globally, I would make the observation that CDMA works just fine in the US, which is no small region of the planet and the third most populous country. For many people, the better quality is worth it.
Given the choice between 2G IS-95 or GSM, I'd pick GSM every time. Given the choice between 3G IS-95 (CDMA2000) and UMTS, I'd pick UMTS every time. The quality is generally better with the GSM equivalent - you're getting a well designed, digitial, integrated, network with GSM with all the features you'd expect. The advantages of the IS-95 equivalent are harder to come by. Slightly better data rates with 3G seems to be the only major one. Well, maybe the only one. Capacity? That's an operator issue. Indeed, with the move to UMA (presumably there'll be an IS-95 equivalent), it wouldn't surprise me if operators need less towers in the future regardless of which network technology they picked. The only other "advantages" IS-95 brings to the table seem to be imaginary.
CDMA is technically superior to GSM just about any way you care to measure it. GSM's widespread adoption in Europe was by fiat as a protectionist measure for European telecom companies, primarily because the European technology providers did not want to license CDMA from an American company. CDMA was basically slandered six ways to Sunday to justify using GSM. It was nothing more than a case of Not Invented Here writ large and turf protection. This early rapid push to standardize on GSM in as many places as possible as a strategic hedge gave them a strong market position in most of the rest of the world. In the US, the various protocols had to fight it out on the open market which took time to sort itself out.
There's a lot of nonsense about IS-95 ("CDMA" as implemented by Qualcomm) that's promoted by Qualcomm shills (some openly, like Steve De Beste) that I'd be very careful about taking claims of "superiority" at face value. The above is so full of the kind mis-representations I've seen posted everywhere I have to respond.
1. CDMA is not "technically superior to GSM just about any way you care to measure". CDMA (by which I assume you mean IS95, because comparing GSM to CDMA air interface technology is like comparing a minivan to a car tire - the conflation of TDMA and GSM has, and the deliberate underplaying of the 95% of IS-95 that has nothing to do with the air-interface, has been a standard tool in the shills toolbox) has an air-interface technology which has better capacity than GSM's TDMA, but the rest of IS-95 really isn't as mature or consumer friendly as GSM. In particular, IS-95 leaves decisions as to support for SIM cards, and network codes, to operators, which means in practice that there's no standardization and few benefits to an end user who chooses it. Most US operators seem to have, surprise surprise, avoided SIM cards and network standardization seems to be based upon US analog dialing star codes (eg *72, etc)
2. "GSM's widespread adoption in Europe was by fiat as a protectionist measure for European telecom companies, primarily because the European technology providers did not want to license CDMA from an American company." is objectively untrue. GSM was developed in the mid-eighties as a method to move towards a standardized mobile phone system for Europe, which at the time had different systems running on different frequencies in pretty much every country (unlike the US where AMPS was available in every state.)
By the time IS-95 was developed, GSM was already an established standard in practically all of Europe. While 900MHz services were mandated as GSM and legacy analogy only by the EC, countries were free to allow other standards on other frequencies until one became dominant on a particular frequency. With 1800MHz, the first operators given the band choose GSM, as it was clearly more advanced than what Qualcomm was offering, and handset makers would have little or no difficulty making multifrequency handsets. (Today GSM is also mandated on 1800MHz, but that wasn't true at the time one2one and Orange, and many that followed, choose GSM.)
The only aspect of IS95 that could be described as "superior" that would require licensing is the CDMA air interface technology. European operators and phone makers have, indeed, licensed that technology (albeit not to Qualcomm's specifications) and it's present in pretty much all implementations of UMTS. So much for that.
3. "CDMA was basically slandered six ways to Sunday to justify using GSM." Funny, I could have sworn I saw the exact opposite.
I came to the US in 1998, GSM wasn't available in my market area at the time, and I picked up an IS-95 phone believing it to be superior based upon what was said on newsgroups, US media, and other sources. I was shocked. IS-95 was better than IS-136 ("D-AMPS"), but not by much, and it was considerably less reliable. At that time, IS-95, as providing by most US operators, didn't support two way text messaging or data. It didn't support - much to my astonishment - SIM cards. ISDN integration was nil. Network services were a jumbled mess. Call drops were common, even when signal strengths were high.
Much of this has been fixed since. But what amazed me looking back on it was the sheer nonsense being directed at GSM by IS-95 advocates. GSM was, according to them, identical to IS-136, which they called TDMA. It had identical problems. Apparently on GSM, calls would drop every time you changed tower. GSM only had a 7km range! It only worked in Europe because everyone lives in cities! And GSM was a government owned standard, imposed by the EU on unwilling mobile phone operators.
Every single one of these facts was completely untrue. IS-136 was closer in form to IS-95 than GSM. IS-136, unlike GSM and like IS-95, was essentially built around the same mobile phone model as AMPS, with little or no network services standardization and an inherent assumption that the all calls would be to POTS or other similarly limited cellphones as itself. Like IS-95 and unlike GSM, in IS-136 your phone was your identifier, you couldn't change phones without your operator's permission. Like IS-95 at the time, messaging and data was barely implemented in IS-136 - when I left the UK I'd been browsing the web and using IRC (via Demon's telnetable IRC client) on my Nokia 9000 on a regular basis.
No TDMA system I'm aware of routinely drops calls when you change towers. In practice, I had far more call drops under Sprint PCS then I had under any other operator, namely because IS-95's capacity improvement was over-exaggerated and operators at the time routinely overloaded their networks.
GSM's range, which is around 20km, while technically a limitation of the air interface technology, isn't much different to what a .25W cellphone's range is in practice. You're not going to find many cellphones capable of getting a signal from a tower that far, regardless of what technology you use. The whole "Everyone lives in cities" thing is a myth, as certain countries, notably Finland, have far more US-like demographics in that respect (but what do they know about cellphones in Finland (http://www.nokia.com)?)
GSM was a standard built by the operators after the EU told them to create at least one standard that would be supported across the continent. Only the concept of "standardization" was forced upon operators, the standard - a development of work being done by France Telecom at the time - was made and agreed to by the operators. Those same operators would have looked at IS-95, or even at CDMA incorporated into GSM at the air interface level - had it been a mature, viable, technology at the time. It wasn't.
The only practical advantage IS-95 had over GSM was better capacity. This in theory meant cheaper minutes. For a time, that was true. Today, most US operators offer close to identical tariffs and close to identical reliability. But I can choose which GSM phone I leave the house with, and I know it'll work consistantly regardless of where I am.
Ultimately, the GSM consortium lost and Qualcomm got the last laugh because the technology does not scale as well as CDMA. Every last telecom equipment provider in Europe has since licensed the CDMA technology, and some version of the technology is part of the next generation cellular infrastructure under a few different names.
This paragraph is bizarrely misleading and I'm wondering if you just worded it poorly. GSM is still the worldwide standard. The newest version, UMTS, uses a CDMA air interface but is otherwise a clear development of GSM. It has virtually nothing in common with IS-95. "The GSM consortium" consists of GSM operators and handset makers. They're doing pretty well. What have they lost? Are you saying that because GSM's latest version includes one aspect of the IS-95 standard that GSM is worse? Or that IS-95 is suddenly better?
While GSM has better interoperability globally, I would make the observation that CDMA works just fine in the US, which is no small region of the planet and the third most populous country. For many people, the better quality is worth it.
Given the choice between 2G IS-95 or GSM, I'd pick GSM every time. Given the choice between 3G IS-95 (CDMA2000) and UMTS, I'd pick UMTS every time. The quality is generally better with the GSM equivalent - you're getting a well designed, digitial, integrated, network with GSM with all the features you'd expect. The advantages of the IS-95 equivalent are harder to come by. Slightly better data rates with 3G seems to be the only major one. Well, maybe the only one. Capacity? That's an operator issue. Indeed, with the move to UMA (presumably there'll be an IS-95 equivalent), it wouldn't surprise me if operators need less towers in the future regardless of which network technology they picked. The only other "advantages" IS-95 brings to the table seem to be imaginary.
CJM
Aug 31, 11:38 AM
... Who cares about iTunes?
I've been putting off a new mac for YEARS! Gief Core Duo 2 iMacs!
I've been putting off a new mac for YEARS! Gief Core Duo 2 iMacs!
GGJstudios
Feb 25, 10:16 AM
It makes sense. iProducts are increasingly becoming ubiquitous, therefore they will become more profitable for malware developers to attack. It's not a McAfee sales pitch so much as it's stating the obvious. Same with Android.
i think it's pretty common knowledge that Apple devices will be targeted more by virus making idiots in the future as they become more popular.
The "Market Share Myth" has been around a long time, and it's exactly that: a myth. It's displays ignorance of the facts to say, "When Apple has more market share, they'll be more of a target." 10 or so years ago, Mac had a very small market share, and there were a handful of viruses that ran on Mac OS 9 and earlier. Today, Mac has a much larger market share than ever before (and growing at the rate of a million Macs a month), and the number of viruses in the wild that run on current Macs has not increased, but has declined.... to exactly zero. There has never been a virus in the wild that runs on Mac OS X. That completely nullifies the "market share" argument. The fact is, Macs already DO have a larger market share, not to mention iPhones and other iDevices. Are they immune to threats? Absolutely not. No device is immune. The fact is, at the present time, there are no threats to Mac OS X or iDevices except one: the user.
Sad, but true :(
(And I don't feel the need to argue or debate or say more in this thread to justify this obvious fact.)
In other words, "My mind's made up. Don't confuse me with facts." You don't feel the need to argue or debate, because you have no facts to support your opinion.
Made a correction to the headline. It should be:
McAfee faces obsolescence with increasing Apple popularity.;)
Exactly! It's really a matter of greed. McAfee has plenty of work in the Windows world to keep them in business for a very long time. However, they look that the growth and popularity and, yes, market share enjoyed by Apple, and they want a piece of that lucrative pie. But how do they get it, when there's obviously no need for their product? Well, you attempt to create a need, with FUD.
A little reading material: Mac Virus/Malware Info (http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=9400648&postcount=4)
i think it's pretty common knowledge that Apple devices will be targeted more by virus making idiots in the future as they become more popular.
The "Market Share Myth" has been around a long time, and it's exactly that: a myth. It's displays ignorance of the facts to say, "When Apple has more market share, they'll be more of a target." 10 or so years ago, Mac had a very small market share, and there were a handful of viruses that ran on Mac OS 9 and earlier. Today, Mac has a much larger market share than ever before (and growing at the rate of a million Macs a month), and the number of viruses in the wild that run on current Macs has not increased, but has declined.... to exactly zero. There has never been a virus in the wild that runs on Mac OS X. That completely nullifies the "market share" argument. The fact is, Macs already DO have a larger market share, not to mention iPhones and other iDevices. Are they immune to threats? Absolutely not. No device is immune. The fact is, at the present time, there are no threats to Mac OS X or iDevices except one: the user.
Sad, but true :(
(And I don't feel the need to argue or debate or say more in this thread to justify this obvious fact.)
In other words, "My mind's made up. Don't confuse me with facts." You don't feel the need to argue or debate, because you have no facts to support your opinion.
Made a correction to the headline. It should be:
McAfee faces obsolescence with increasing Apple popularity.;)
Exactly! It's really a matter of greed. McAfee has plenty of work in the Windows world to keep them in business for a very long time. However, they look that the growth and popularity and, yes, market share enjoyed by Apple, and they want a piece of that lucrative pie. But how do they get it, when there's obviously no need for their product? Well, you attempt to create a need, with FUD.
A little reading material: Mac Virus/Malware Info (http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=9400648&postcount=4)
EricNau
Sep 19, 11:12 PM
I downloaded 1 movie (FlightPlan) to test the system out, but I won't be buying anymore until it is at least DVD quality (640 x 272 isn't close enough).
It's bad enough buying a movie without a case, hardcopy, or any bonus features, but to top it off, it isn't even DVD quality... and for that I pay $10?
Why is Apple always cutting corners? They get so close to great things, but not close enough.
It's bad enough buying a movie without a case, hardcopy, or any bonus features, but to top it off, it isn't even DVD quality... and for that I pay $10?
Why is Apple always cutting corners? They get so close to great things, but not close enough.
MacQuest
Apr 29, 12:29 AM
It's (winBlows 7) awesome by contrast to Vista.
ROFLMAO!!!
Lower that minimum expectation bar much?
miCrapsoft apologists... gotta luv 'em!
ROFLMAO!!!
Lower that minimum expectation bar much?
miCrapsoft apologists... gotta luv 'em!
DVK916
Jul 16, 01:02 AM
There is no way apple with go with Merom for the imac. One huge factor you are all ignoring, is price. Merom cost alot more than conroe for the same speed. Apple will try to lower cost, and that means going with Conroe.
BlizzardBomb
Jul 14, 12:49 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_Xeon#Dual-Core_Xeon_.2865_nm_Intel_Core_Microarchitecture.29
Looks like a number game.
Hey, it beats Sudoku anyday. :)
Looks like a number game.
Hey, it beats Sudoku anyday. :)
Cinch
Oct 12, 03:44 PM
I admire your commitment to the evolutionary approach. I would just like to point out that evolution has also created the compassion (or at least social conscience) that inspires this sort of effort. Perhaps this compassion is a trait that increases the survivability of our species in a way too. (I'm not suggesting that all traits increase survivability, but evolution has been going for some time now, and compassion has been a human trait for some time as well, so perhaps the two are friends for some reason).
digressing to the point of no return..:D
Compassion I think is an emergent phenomenon and I think there is an simpler explanation to your "quest" or debate here. What about individual wanting to create a nurturing environment (society) and helping others in time of need is a result of this behavior. Consequently, we construct a positive nurturing environment that is the "best" environement to raise our children (offspring). I think the new field of evolutionary psychology provides a very useful tool of looking human behavior.
digressing to the point of no return..:D
Compassion I think is an emergent phenomenon and I think there is an simpler explanation to your "quest" or debate here. What about individual wanting to create a nurturing environment (society) and helping others in time of need is a result of this behavior. Consequently, we construct a positive nurturing environment that is the "best" environement to raise our children (offspring). I think the new field of evolutionary psychology provides a very useful tool of looking human behavior.
JobsRules
Oct 27, 10:45 AM
There's two things going on here...
2) More importantly, the big problem is the loud minority that has emerged from within Greenpeace (and other similar organizations). There is a growing problem in this country of people taking the "one person can make a difference" idea and translating it into "act inapporpriately and without moral or social constraint, or you wont get noticed." This is GIANT problem. People aren't being held accountable for their actions anymore, especially when their actions are tied to some sort of noble cause.
Amen.
Yes, they should just just shut-up and vote for corporate-sponsored Republicrats or Converalabour every four or five years and take it.
It's a shame that there is no longer any meaningful democracy.
2) More importantly, the big problem is the loud minority that has emerged from within Greenpeace (and other similar organizations). There is a growing problem in this country of people taking the "one person can make a difference" idea and translating it into "act inapporpriately and without moral or social constraint, or you wont get noticed." This is GIANT problem. People aren't being held accountable for their actions anymore, especially when their actions are tied to some sort of noble cause.
Amen.
Yes, they should just just shut-up and vote for corporate-sponsored Republicrats or Converalabour every four or five years and take it.
It's a shame that there is no longer any meaningful democracy.
Mac Dummy
Sep 12, 11:27 PM
The new 'pod pricing seems to be at the old Education Store levels anyway. So basically they got rid of it for students and gave it to everyone.
That's right, the 5G 60Gb was $369 normally, and with the Educational discount it was $349, and the 30Gb was the same way $269 vs. $249. I least I think that's right?
That's right, the 5G 60Gb was $369 normally, and with the Educational discount it was $349, and the 30Gb was the same way $269 vs. $249. I least I think that's right?
Eidorian
Sep 9, 12:27 PM
Maybe they should have run all their benchmarks at the same time!It also depends if you can run multiple instances of that application. A little help here Multimedia? I know you've used multiple instances of Toast. Care to enlighten us on what other applications we can do the same? Maybe we should make a guide on it...
http://www.xbitlabs.com/web/2006-6-22.html
Kentsfield consists of two Conroe dies, each featuring two cores and 4MB of L2 cache.
I thought so. We've beaten Core 2 Duo chips to death and their design.
http://www.xbitlabs.com/web/2006-6-22.html
Kentsfield consists of two Conroe dies, each featuring two cores and 4MB of L2 cache.
I thought so. We've beaten Core 2 Duo chips to death and their design.