FF_productions
Oct 28, 03:20 PM
Wow, and I thought the G5's were God.
kas23
May 5, 11:04 AM
I get about 0-1 dropped calls per day. That said, only about half of my incoming calls get through. The rest go straight to voicemail (so I am told).
Sounds Good
Apr 6, 08:22 AM
Good stuff, Spaceman, very helpful.
Question: where can I go online to learn about some of these "more advanced" things? Not just the basic "Why a Mac?" videos, but the good stuff.
Question: where can I go online to learn about some of these "more advanced" things? Not just the basic "Why a Mac?" videos, but the good stuff.
DHagan4755
Oct 28, 04:12 PM
Maybe Apple will replace the 2.0 and 2.6 models with the 1 new quad-core Clovertown. They are probably less expensive for 1 than 2 Woodcrests. This would allow Apple to drop the entry level pricing and raise the bar so to speak.
Standard configuration:
One 2.66GHz Quad-core Intel Xeon "Clovertown" processor
2GB memory (4 x 512MB) 667MHz DDR2 fully-buffered DIMM ECC
NVIDIA GeForce 7300 GT graphics with 256MB memory
250GB Serial ATA 3Gb/s 7200-rpm hard drive
16x double-layer SuperDrive
$2,499
Configurations — Low to High
- One 2.3GHz Quad-core Intel Xeon "Clovertown" processor (subtract $299)
- Standard configuration
- Two 3.0GHz Dual-core Intel Xeon "Woodcrest" processors (add $799)
- Two 2.6GHz Quad-core Intel Xeon "Clovertown" processors (add $1,399)
What do you think?
Standard configuration:
One 2.66GHz Quad-core Intel Xeon "Clovertown" processor
2GB memory (4 x 512MB) 667MHz DDR2 fully-buffered DIMM ECC
NVIDIA GeForce 7300 GT graphics with 256MB memory
250GB Serial ATA 3Gb/s 7200-rpm hard drive
16x double-layer SuperDrive
$2,499
Configurations — Low to High
- One 2.3GHz Quad-core Intel Xeon "Clovertown" processor (subtract $299)
- Standard configuration
- Two 3.0GHz Dual-core Intel Xeon "Woodcrest" processors (add $799)
- Two 2.6GHz Quad-core Intel Xeon "Clovertown" processors (add $1,399)
What do you think?
lbraud
Apr 6, 11:23 AM
Imagine Joe, who is strongly considering buying a Mac for the first time. He goes to the popular Mac sites to get excited about the purchase by being involved in the community. What does Joe find when he visits MacRumors? Big capital letters on the side bar, "SWITCHERS ONLY," discussing all possible reasons that switching could lead to, albeit minor, bad experiences. Joe wants to be informed. Joe reads the three pages of differences that other people found annoying.
These posts are from people that are similar to himself, he identifies with them. One minor annoyance that he reads about won't shift his attitude away from buying a Mac, nor will that one poster look like a troll. If he reads many slightly negative messages all at once, they will change Joe's attitude toward "switching." If Joe is tentative and apprehensive enough to read all these posts, then it is a good chance he isn't yet committed to buying a Mac. This is exactly the kind of attitude that is most influenced by these types of messages.
After reading the thread, Joe is left with Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fear,_uncertainty_and_doubt) about buying a Mac. His attitude has changed and in a couple of days he won't remember why it changed�just a vague, uneasy feeling of uncertainty.
Being informed is good. Free speech is good. Persuasion is a tool that is used for good and evil. Don't help evil screw Joe.
These posts are from people that are similar to himself, he identifies with them. One minor annoyance that he reads about won't shift his attitude away from buying a Mac, nor will that one poster look like a troll. If he reads many slightly negative messages all at once, they will change Joe's attitude toward "switching." If Joe is tentative and apprehensive enough to read all these posts, then it is a good chance he isn't yet committed to buying a Mac. This is exactly the kind of attitude that is most influenced by these types of messages.
After reading the thread, Joe is left with Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fear,_uncertainty_and_doubt) about buying a Mac. His attitude has changed and in a couple of days he won't remember why it changed�just a vague, uneasy feeling of uncertainty.
Being informed is good. Free speech is good. Persuasion is a tool that is used for good and evil. Don't help evil screw Joe.
Di9it8
Aug 29, 04:25 PM
I wonder if they mentioned the fact that Dell has made the computer a disposable purchase with their $299 PCs. I'm serious people buy a new Dell every few years because they are garbage. Do you honestly think people give them back for recycling. They sell them on ebay or craigslist, and the new owner after about a year puts them in the dumpster. With Apple people keep their machines much longer, and are much more likely to recycle them because they are smaller and easier to take to a recycling center (no CRT). This alone makes Apple greener then Dell.
We are still using on a daily basis a G3 WallStreet laptop, the battery is gone but otherwise it is quite reliable. This long life must make Apples greener as we have disposed of 1 Toshiba and 2 IBM machines in the same time span :rolleyes:
We are still using on a daily basis a G3 WallStreet laptop, the battery is gone but otherwise it is quite reliable. This long life must make Apples greener as we have disposed of 1 Toshiba and 2 IBM machines in the same time span :rolleyes:
jazzkids
May 6, 08:56 PM
Hopefully someone at ATT will read these posts! In the same boat, last 3-4 weeks been getting worse in R.I.
emotion
Sep 20, 08:40 AM
Come to think of it it is possible that the iTV is in fact an iPod underneath. Might explain some of those persistent wireless ipod rumours and that rumour about an iPod with a 'non-touch' interface.
Just idle thoughts... :)
Just idle thoughts... :)
Cerebrus' Maw
Feb 23, 06:40 PM
Android is going to do what Windows did. Those who like that Windows experience (read "cheap") are going to go in that direction. Those that want the elegant, minimalistic, rock solid OS, continue to stay with iPhone.
Cheap? Android is simply software. It could run on hardware that cost a billion dollars or substantially less. And I'm pretty sure that there are Android phones out there that actually cost more then the 3GS. Does that make the Iphone a 'cheap' product.
And even if your argument held, why do we always equate expense with quality. There are plenty of cheap products out there that perform significantly better then their so called premium rivals. Every one applauded Apple for lowering the initial target price of the Ipad. But you wouldn't exactly call it cheap in a derogatory way.
Lastly, I have tried both types of phones. Are you kidding me? 'Drois software is absolutely awful.
I don't know do you mean Droid or Android here (Remember, one does not equal the other. Droid is a name of a phone from Motorola, Android is the open software operating system) Droid runs V2.0 of Android. The current Android army is running on 2.1, which everyone agreed was a massive improvement, and generally put it on Iphone level. There are some areas that need improvement, such as the Media player, but then there are other area's where it simply excels.
Cheap? Android is simply software. It could run on hardware that cost a billion dollars or substantially less. And I'm pretty sure that there are Android phones out there that actually cost more then the 3GS. Does that make the Iphone a 'cheap' product.
And even if your argument held, why do we always equate expense with quality. There are plenty of cheap products out there that perform significantly better then their so called premium rivals. Every one applauded Apple for lowering the initial target price of the Ipad. But you wouldn't exactly call it cheap in a derogatory way.
Lastly, I have tried both types of phones. Are you kidding me? 'Drois software is absolutely awful.
I don't know do you mean Droid or Android here (Remember, one does not equal the other. Droid is a name of a phone from Motorola, Android is the open software operating system) Droid runs V2.0 of Android. The current Android army is running on 2.1, which everyone agreed was a massive improvement, and generally put it on Iphone level. There are some areas that need improvement, such as the Media player, but then there are other area's where it simply excels.
Bill McEnaney
Mar 28, 03:12 AM
What's pretty funny is that I'm sure Leonardo da Vinci did plenty of work for the pope and he was gay, and Michelangelo painted the roof of the Sistine Chapel, and he was almost certainly gay as well given what his art involves.
And clearly the popes at the time didn't give a damn about their homosexuality - I fail to see how in the intervening 500 years its suddenly become an issue.
It's one thing to say whether popes cared whether those artists were "gay." It's quite another to say that the popes thought the homosexuality of those artists was relevant to whether they would hire them. If I wanted someone to paint a mural in my home, I would be willing to hire a gay artist. But I still think gay people need to refrain from gay sex.
And clearly the popes at the time didn't give a damn about their homosexuality - I fail to see how in the intervening 500 years its suddenly become an issue.
It's one thing to say whether popes cared whether those artists were "gay." It's quite another to say that the popes thought the homosexuality of those artists was relevant to whether they would hire them. If I wanted someone to paint a mural in my home, I would be willing to hire a gay artist. But I still think gay people need to refrain from gay sex.
Moyank24
Mar 25, 11:52 PM
Prove why I should be denied the right to copulate in public, and think of the children is not an acceptable answer
Give me a break. Now you are just minimizing what is a violation of civil rights.
sure, homosexuals can go to a "church" and have a "wedding" ceremony, no one is preventing them.
Being able to have a "wedding ceremony" is not the issue. It's having the same rights as our heterosexual counterparts. This involves about 1000 tax benefits and simple things like hospital visitation.
Men are allowed to get married to women and vice versa everyone is equal (regardless of the reason).
We will be equal when men are allowed to marry men and women are allowed to marry women. There was a time when a Black man and white woman didn't have the right to get married. That wrong was righted and so will this one.
The Catholic Church recognizes that people don't choose to be homosexual, however it does recognize that acting on those urges is entirely their choice. Chastity is what they are called to.
Luckily I don't recognize what the Catholic Church recognizes. So they can call themselves to chastity. As I said, they need to worry about cleaning their own house, and stay out of mine.
Give me a break. Now you are just minimizing what is a violation of civil rights.
sure, homosexuals can go to a "church" and have a "wedding" ceremony, no one is preventing them.
Being able to have a "wedding ceremony" is not the issue. It's having the same rights as our heterosexual counterparts. This involves about 1000 tax benefits and simple things like hospital visitation.
Men are allowed to get married to women and vice versa everyone is equal (regardless of the reason).
We will be equal when men are allowed to marry men and women are allowed to marry women. There was a time when a Black man and white woman didn't have the right to get married. That wrong was righted and so will this one.
The Catholic Church recognizes that people don't choose to be homosexual, however it does recognize that acting on those urges is entirely their choice. Chastity is what they are called to.
Luckily I don't recognize what the Catholic Church recognizes. So they can call themselves to chastity. As I said, they need to worry about cleaning their own house, and stay out of mine.
iJohnHenry
Apr 25, 12:33 PM
This takes responsibility away from what God would want, to what we think is right. I believe this to be a more realistic approach.
Comma added, because my brain was starting to hurt. ;)
And I agree, but then 'power' is lost, and that just won't do, now will it? :rolleyes:
Comma added, because my brain was starting to hurt. ;)
And I agree, but then 'power' is lost, and that just won't do, now will it? :rolleyes:
adder7712
May 2, 10:24 AM
Still insignificant compared to Windows rogues.
Windows rogue do more to the system.
Hopefully, Chrome, Firefox and Opera users will be safe.
Windows rogue do more to the system.
Hopefully, Chrome, Firefox and Opera users will be safe.
LQYoshi
Apr 11, 11:01 AM
Unlikely, but you can install Lion on an external drive and boot from that when you want to.
B
Would it be considered switching if I bought the mini? I"ll still have a few laptops which I'll be using with XP, but then again; I can just VNC to the OSX mac mini
B
Would it be considered switching if I bought the mini? I"ll still have a few laptops which I'll be using with XP, but then again; I can just VNC to the OSX mac mini
jlc1978
Mar 18, 07:03 AM
Some users received the above SMS message with a followup email explaining tethering and warning them that tethering will be enabled if they continue to use that feature.TiPb speculates (http://www.tipb.com/2011/03/18/att-cracking-jailbroken-mywi-users/) on how they are detecting unauthorized tethering:
Article Link: AT&T Cracking Down on Unauthorized Tethering (http://www.macrumors.com/iphone/2011/03/18/atandt-cracking-down-on-unauthorized-tethering/)
Hmm - that would be a change in your contract and might just allow you to get out of it with no termination fee - just as any the change would. Unless hay could prove you violated the TOS they can't unilaterally change it and force you to accept it; especially when they change the price.
Article Link: AT&T Cracking Down on Unauthorized Tethering (http://www.macrumors.com/iphone/2011/03/18/atandt-cracking-down-on-unauthorized-tethering/)
Hmm - that would be a change in your contract and might just allow you to get out of it with no termination fee - just as any the change would. Unless hay could prove you violated the TOS they can't unilaterally change it and force you to accept it; especially when they change the price.
Aduntu
Apr 22, 09:14 PM
to think that the earth is only several thousand years old ... IMO is not intelligent or rational thinking.
I agree. It's also not a bible teaching.
I agree. It's also not a bible teaching.
MacinDoc
Apr 12, 10:51 PM
So this is basically a jazzed up Final Cut Express and the pros have been shown the door. Why am I not shocked about this. :mad:
Someday I'll tell my kids that Apple was the company for pros to which they will laugh in disbelief; kind of how I do now when old people tell me that American cars were once high quality.
So exactly what "pro" features were removed with this release?
Someday I'll tell my kids that Apple was the company for pros to which they will laugh in disbelief; kind of how I do now when old people tell me that American cars were once high quality.
So exactly what "pro" features were removed with this release?
rickdollar
Apr 13, 12:57 AM
I need more information before I can form an opinion about this.
Sorry, this is MacRumors. No rational statements are allowed. It's in the rules.
Sorry, this is MacRumors. No rational statements are allowed. It's in the rules.
macenforcer
Jul 12, 12:20 AM
Have fun!
Already am. Thanks. :cool:
Already am. Thanks. :cool:
Voltes V
Sep 26, 12:53 AM
start savings and look for stuff to sell.
What the hell am I going to do with 8 cores??? :-D
you can use it to browse the web.............................and all the things you thought impossible, oooops i got overboard. ;)
What the hell am I going to do with 8 cores??? :-D
you can use it to browse the web.............................and all the things you thought impossible, oooops i got overboard. ;)
fivepoint
Mar 16, 01:41 PM
I don't wish to piss on your bonfire too much, but I don't believe there are any nuclear plants anywhere in the world which have been built without government subsidy.
I was talking about the invention of hydro?
Regarding nuclear subsidization, I'm quite aware of this fact. We subsidize ethanol, we subsidize oil, we subsidize nuclear, we subsidize wind, we subsidize solar. Seems kind of pointless, doesn't it? It's like playing roulette and putting a chip on every single number.
Also, I find it odd that you'd argue for more oil production here as a means to drive the price down. Oil is sold on the international market, which is what sets the cost for it. Unless you want to artificially exclude it from that market and keep and use it exclusively in the USA our oil production wouldn't effect the international prices as we have far less of it. If you are in favor of keeping and using it exclusively here on the other hand, well thats not much of a free market approach now is it.
Simply put, just because we have something on paper, doesn't mean that it is an economically, environmentally, or logistically viable.
I'm not arguing for MORE oil production necessarily, I'm arguing for government to stay out of the freaking way and allow the free market to determine what we want/need more of. It might be oil, it might not be. In the immediate term, I'm sure it would be. You're right, I would not advocate any sort of government mandate forcing American oil to be marketed outside of the global markets, what I would be 100% ok with though would be a consortium of American drillers deciding that they wanted to keep their oil separate and market it to the American people as such so that people could make a decision. Additional American oil on the world market would increase supply in the supply/demand ratio which would result in the price being decreased to bring the balance back to the market place.
I was talking about the invention of hydro?
Regarding nuclear subsidization, I'm quite aware of this fact. We subsidize ethanol, we subsidize oil, we subsidize nuclear, we subsidize wind, we subsidize solar. Seems kind of pointless, doesn't it? It's like playing roulette and putting a chip on every single number.
Also, I find it odd that you'd argue for more oil production here as a means to drive the price down. Oil is sold on the international market, which is what sets the cost for it. Unless you want to artificially exclude it from that market and keep and use it exclusively in the USA our oil production wouldn't effect the international prices as we have far less of it. If you are in favor of keeping and using it exclusively here on the other hand, well thats not much of a free market approach now is it.
Simply put, just because we have something on paper, doesn't mean that it is an economically, environmentally, or logistically viable.
I'm not arguing for MORE oil production necessarily, I'm arguing for government to stay out of the freaking way and allow the free market to determine what we want/need more of. It might be oil, it might not be. In the immediate term, I'm sure it would be. You're right, I would not advocate any sort of government mandate forcing American oil to be marketed outside of the global markets, what I would be 100% ok with though would be a consortium of American drillers deciding that they wanted to keep their oil separate and market it to the American people as such so that people could make a decision. Additional American oil on the world market would increase supply in the supply/demand ratio which would result in the price being decreased to bring the balance back to the market place.
torbjoern
Apr 23, 11:27 PM
Spoken like a true empiricist.
Oh yes. A true empiricist I am, indeed. I will never follow any doctrine, faith or political ideology blindly just because a book tells me to do so, not even when it refers to itself (and particularly not then). Hey - I even had a schoolmate who tried to get me into believing that The Protocols of the Elderly of Zion was authentic, "proving" its authenticity by referencing the book itself. Of course I'm an empiricist - it would be madness to found my life on anything else, be it ever so sacred.
Asking how God existed prior to the known universe is meaningless in terms of invalidating any religion.
Asking how the universe existed prior to us has been quite meaningful for believers to invalidate the absence of religion. "The universe can't have always existed!" Yes, it can. If it's possible for God to have "always existed", then it's certainly possible for the universe. The universe is less advanced than its creator if there ever were one, so that should be even easier to accept.
Simple example: I make some robots. I put them into a world (let's say I put them in a room with no visible or perceptible interior doors/windows/etc). They interact and are reasonably self aware. Their entire world is this room. Gravity is "obvious" to them. Suddenly, I rotate the entire room 90 degrees. They would have a situation where the statement "no spiritual entity.. stand[s] above these laws."
What is your point? You would still not stand above the law of gravity and neither would your robots, which is why your robots would fall "down" and have to stand up again when you turned the room 90 degrees.
Oh yes. A true empiricist I am, indeed. I will never follow any doctrine, faith or political ideology blindly just because a book tells me to do so, not even when it refers to itself (and particularly not then). Hey - I even had a schoolmate who tried to get me into believing that The Protocols of the Elderly of Zion was authentic, "proving" its authenticity by referencing the book itself. Of course I'm an empiricist - it would be madness to found my life on anything else, be it ever so sacred.
Asking how God existed prior to the known universe is meaningless in terms of invalidating any religion.
Asking how the universe existed prior to us has been quite meaningful for believers to invalidate the absence of religion. "The universe can't have always existed!" Yes, it can. If it's possible for God to have "always existed", then it's certainly possible for the universe. The universe is less advanced than its creator if there ever were one, so that should be even easier to accept.
Simple example: I make some robots. I put them into a world (let's say I put them in a room with no visible or perceptible interior doors/windows/etc). They interact and are reasonably self aware. Their entire world is this room. Gravity is "obvious" to them. Suddenly, I rotate the entire room 90 degrees. They would have a situation where the statement "no spiritual entity.. stand[s] above these laws."
What is your point? You would still not stand above the law of gravity and neither would your robots, which is why your robots would fall "down" and have to stand up again when you turned the room 90 degrees.
The DRis
Mar 18, 12:16 PM
http://modmyi.com/forums/iphone-news/755094-t-cracking-down-mywi-tethering.html
They're bluffing and hoping to get those high data users off of their unlimited data plans by having them forget to call in and opt out. So just stay on your toes.
Dirty Mother*Bleeping* bandits.
Eff em all. Use the data.
They're bluffing and hoping to get those high data users off of their unlimited data plans by having them forget to call in and opt out. So just stay on your toes.
Dirty Mother*Bleeping* bandits.
Eff em all. Use the data.
munkery
May 3, 12:15 AM
Yes, and that prevents AntiVirus 2010 from successfully collecting credit card info too.
Check out this quote about the latest variant of that Windows malware called Antivirus 2011.
You're blocked from executing anything else, including trying to run your real anti-virus program.
This virus program renders your entire computer useless until you can get it removed. And some of its many variants are becoming immune to existing removal tools.
From here, http://detnews.com/article/20110502/BIZ04/105020317/1013/rss12
BTW, it renders Windows useless by corrupting the registry. No registry in OS X.
Luckily, this type of malware on a Mac is not nearly as bad if your clumsy enough to get infected. You can even remove it from the account that is infected without having to boot into a safe mode.
This post made me have to edit a previous post. Thought I should quote it,
Problems with Windows security in comparison to Mac OS X presented just in this thread:
1) Greater number of privilege escalation vulnerabilities:
Here is a list of privilege escalation (UAC bypass) vulnerabilities just related to Stuxnet (win32k.sys) in Windows in 2011:
http://cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvekey.cgi?keyword=win32k.sys+2011
Here is a list of all of the privilege escalation vulnerabilities in Mac OS X in 2011:
http://cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvekey.cgi?keyword=Mac+OS+X+privileges+2011
2) Earlier versions of NT based Windows (Windows XP and earlier) do not use discretionary access controls by default.
3) Permissions system does not include a user defined unique identifier (password) by default. More susceptible to user space exploitation leading to authentication stolen via spoofed prompt that appears unrelated to UAC because password not associated with authentication.
4) Windows sandbox mechanism relies on inherited permissions so that turning off UAC turns off the sandbox. This sandbox has been defeated in the wild (in the last two pwn2owns).
I do not know of any TrustedBSD MAC framework (BSD and Mac sandbox), AppArmor (openSUSE and Ubuntu), or SE Linux (Fedora) mandatory access control escapes? These sandbox mechanisms do not rely on inherited permissions.
5) The Windows registry is a single point of failure that can be leveraged by malware.
Check out this quote about the latest variant of that Windows malware called Antivirus 2011.
You're blocked from executing anything else, including trying to run your real anti-virus program.
This virus program renders your entire computer useless until you can get it removed. And some of its many variants are becoming immune to existing removal tools.
From here, http://detnews.com/article/20110502/BIZ04/105020317/1013/rss12
BTW, it renders Windows useless by corrupting the registry. No registry in OS X.
Luckily, this type of malware on a Mac is not nearly as bad if your clumsy enough to get infected. You can even remove it from the account that is infected without having to boot into a safe mode.
This post made me have to edit a previous post. Thought I should quote it,
Problems with Windows security in comparison to Mac OS X presented just in this thread:
1) Greater number of privilege escalation vulnerabilities:
Here is a list of privilege escalation (UAC bypass) vulnerabilities just related to Stuxnet (win32k.sys) in Windows in 2011:
http://cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvekey.cgi?keyword=win32k.sys+2011
Here is a list of all of the privilege escalation vulnerabilities in Mac OS X in 2011:
http://cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvekey.cgi?keyword=Mac+OS+X+privileges+2011
2) Earlier versions of NT based Windows (Windows XP and earlier) do not use discretionary access controls by default.
3) Permissions system does not include a user defined unique identifier (password) by default. More susceptible to user space exploitation leading to authentication stolen via spoofed prompt that appears unrelated to UAC because password not associated with authentication.
4) Windows sandbox mechanism relies on inherited permissions so that turning off UAC turns off the sandbox. This sandbox has been defeated in the wild (in the last two pwn2owns).
I do not know of any TrustedBSD MAC framework (BSD and Mac sandbox), AppArmor (openSUSE and Ubuntu), or SE Linux (Fedora) mandatory access control escapes? These sandbox mechanisms do not rely on inherited permissions.
5) The Windows registry is a single point of failure that can be leveraged by malware.
