SBacklin
Apr 22, 10:00 AM
hence why i have unlimited data....when i am on the go i am not limited. do you know how much data it takes to stream something like pandora? not a lot. you are all acting like ur going to be hitting 50gb data usage by streaming something. I don't have abnormally high data usage at all. It's actually less most months than 2gb's but it's not worth it to me to give up unlimited data to save $5/month.
You still don't get it. Look at where the future is going. Look at the storage on iPads, MBA's etc. There is not a need for massive local storage like there was in the past. Heck i have a 64gb MBA and have over 40gb's free bc nothing is locally stored. I can access everything at anytime from any device. Local storage is not necessary and just makes things more difficult when wanting to get music on multiple devices. Physical media is slowly going away bc it's old technology and there are better ways to do things. Local storage is the same thing man.
No no, I do get it. If anything its a very fine line or grey area. Not everyone has unlimited data and not everyone can get unlimited data. You also ignored my statement about AT&T actively going after the heavy data users even on unlimited plans. Also, your issue is that your wanting people to "change" well before its really time do do so. I'm always up for the latest and greatest. Please, don't be wrong on that. I spend a lot of money on tech. However, the key crutch here is cellular data and bandwidth charges. Cellular data is not where it needs to be in terms of stability and coverage. Also, not all WiFi hotspots are all that great. I've seen instances and lot of them where cellular data was faster then the hotspot. Then again, there is bandwidth usage. Until the carriers can come up with a non-gouging pricing model...especially on a not so reliable connectivity, its not time to quickly do away with local storage. or physical media.
You still don't get it. Look at where the future is going. Look at the storage on iPads, MBA's etc. There is not a need for massive local storage like there was in the past. Heck i have a 64gb MBA and have over 40gb's free bc nothing is locally stored. I can access everything at anytime from any device. Local storage is not necessary and just makes things more difficult when wanting to get music on multiple devices. Physical media is slowly going away bc it's old technology and there are better ways to do things. Local storage is the same thing man.
No no, I do get it. If anything its a very fine line or grey area. Not everyone has unlimited data and not everyone can get unlimited data. You also ignored my statement about AT&T actively going after the heavy data users even on unlimited plans. Also, your issue is that your wanting people to "change" well before its really time do do so. I'm always up for the latest and greatest. Please, don't be wrong on that. I spend a lot of money on tech. However, the key crutch here is cellular data and bandwidth charges. Cellular data is not where it needs to be in terms of stability and coverage. Also, not all WiFi hotspots are all that great. I've seen instances and lot of them where cellular data was faster then the hotspot. Then again, there is bandwidth usage. Until the carriers can come up with a non-gouging pricing model...especially on a not so reliable connectivity, its not time to quickly do away with local storage. or physical media.
BenRoethig
Aug 28, 12:25 PM
I predict Apple will update from Core 1 to Core 2 within eight days. The only changes beside the CPU is perhaps a doubling of video memory on the iMac and MBPs.
GLS
Apr 19, 07:57 AM
Maybe....
Apple has other suppliers or manufacturers lined up for the items that Samsung produces for Apple at a better price than Apple is currently getting....Apple and Samsung have pre-existing contracts that cannot be terminated by either without cause....
So Apple files a lawsuit based on copyright infringement (questionable) and as terms of the (potential) settlement....Apple is free to go to other suppliers for the items they need....
Apple has other suppliers or manufacturers lined up for the items that Samsung produces for Apple at a better price than Apple is currently getting....Apple and Samsung have pre-existing contracts that cannot be terminated by either without cause....
So Apple files a lawsuit based on copyright infringement (questionable) and as terms of the (potential) settlement....Apple is free to go to other suppliers for the items they need....
rtdunham
Oct 27, 10:56 AM
Have you ever been to a tech convention? It is *not* a free-for-all where people roam around handing out fliers anywhere on the convention floor. Vendors are expected to stick to their designated booth that they paid for. Conventions make money by charging for floorspace. What kind of leverage would they have to charge for premium or larger floorspace, if vendors could just get the smallest booth possible, but then flood the convention floor with people handing out brochures?
You understand the conference/expo world. In my past life i produced conferences for up to 2000 people and trade shows with the floorspace of a MacWorld Expo. Managing your customers (exhibitors) is not a precise science, but you're always trying to sustain some sense of fairness: A's music can't drown out conversations in B's deal-making suite; the smell of goats in C's exhibit (this is a REAL example, from an otherwise suit-and-tie professional show!) can't keep people from approaching the exhibitors in adjacent booth D; and business is supposed to be confined to the space rented for that purpose--if you're not an exhibitor, you can't walk the floor and snag customers from in front of paying exhibitors' booths, to make deals; if you are an exhibitor, you're supposed to do your biz in the space you're paying for, for the reasons Imalave presented.
In practice, there's a considerable fudge factor, but show management does the best it can, if it wants to preserve the appeal of the show for the majority of the exhibitors and attendees. I wasn't at the Mac show in question so can't speak to the specifics, but these are certainly the principles that apply. I HAVE attended all the MWSF Expos for the past decade and COMDEX until it expired, and i know that exhibitors do roam the floors at those shows, awarding prizes to shoppers wearing designated badges, passing out literature, etc., and I know it IS often hard to converse at booth E due to the cheering/chanting/amplified presentations at booth F. But it's all managed into a mix that seems to work very well for everyone.
You understand the conference/expo world. In my past life i produced conferences for up to 2000 people and trade shows with the floorspace of a MacWorld Expo. Managing your customers (exhibitors) is not a precise science, but you're always trying to sustain some sense of fairness: A's music can't drown out conversations in B's deal-making suite; the smell of goats in C's exhibit (this is a REAL example, from an otherwise suit-and-tie professional show!) can't keep people from approaching the exhibitors in adjacent booth D; and business is supposed to be confined to the space rented for that purpose--if you're not an exhibitor, you can't walk the floor and snag customers from in front of paying exhibitors' booths, to make deals; if you are an exhibitor, you're supposed to do your biz in the space you're paying for, for the reasons Imalave presented.
In practice, there's a considerable fudge factor, but show management does the best it can, if it wants to preserve the appeal of the show for the majority of the exhibitors and attendees. I wasn't at the Mac show in question so can't speak to the specifics, but these are certainly the principles that apply. I HAVE attended all the MWSF Expos for the past decade and COMDEX until it expired, and i know that exhibitors do roam the floors at those shows, awarding prizes to shoppers wearing designated badges, passing out literature, etc., and I know it IS often hard to converse at booth E due to the cheering/chanting/amplified presentations at booth F. But it's all managed into a mix that seems to work very well for everyone.
aiqw9182
Apr 25, 02:55 PM
Please :rolleyes:
Do you mean they lack the power or that its not a selectable option? They have the power, have had it for years. Dual 2560x1600 screen setups off one graphics card is easily attainable.
Then show me a single modern GPU displaying more than 2560x1600 on a single display. I'd love to see it.
Do you mean they lack the power or that its not a selectable option? They have the power, have had it for years. Dual 2560x1600 screen setups off one graphics card is easily attainable.
Then show me a single modern GPU displaying more than 2560x1600 on a single display. I'd love to see it.
foo10
Sep 9, 05:13 AM
I was thinkin of buying a C2D MBP 17" + 23" ACD, but no i've been thinking of going for a 24" iMac and later for the cheapest Macbook. It will be still some time thought, this G5 iMac is still running good for me. Maybe when Leopard is released.
aloshka
Mar 29, 01:09 PM
Looking at the figures right now anyone can easily see that iOS is not the dominating platform. Not even the second most popular (which is Symbian), but does anyone really care ?. Same case with the Macs and Mac OS X.
I would really like to see Microsoft step up the game because in the end, we customers are the ones receiving most benefit.
I had been a loyal Windows user (up to Windows 7) when I switched to Mac last year. My take is that Windows and its creators are not technically inferior to Mac OS and Apple, but their corporate philosophy has never sported the acumen and, guess what, common sense with which Steve Jobs makes the his products so pleasant to use and look at.
I'm with you 100%, I just wish Apple would focus better on development languages, frameworks & environments. XCode4 is wonderful, but objective-c and the apple SDK libraries suck. Microsoft really wins with .NET where things are just logically placed and powerful. Apple SDK, however, you have some libraries that are in C, you have some that are in Objective-C, you have some that use a mixture of both. It feels like they glued crap together last minute, but never cleaned it up. This is actually why a lot of powerful software for the MAC is unavailable outside of already C-compiled programs like photoshop, etc. Take for instance Quicken, no good Mac alternative period. When I decided to develop it myself and make millions (joke), I realized that it would take me twice as long to develop a decent mac application because I had to design around memory management, etc that you simply don't worry about in .NET. Databases, etc, PIA. Yes, I understand it requires developers to think ahead, but it also means decent software for the mac requires teams on top of teams to develop thus software still sucks on the MAC outside of what Apple had their 10-man teams build in over a year (ie iWork, etc)
I would really like to see Microsoft step up the game because in the end, we customers are the ones receiving most benefit.
I had been a loyal Windows user (up to Windows 7) when I switched to Mac last year. My take is that Windows and its creators are not technically inferior to Mac OS and Apple, but their corporate philosophy has never sported the acumen and, guess what, common sense with which Steve Jobs makes the his products so pleasant to use and look at.
I'm with you 100%, I just wish Apple would focus better on development languages, frameworks & environments. XCode4 is wonderful, but objective-c and the apple SDK libraries suck. Microsoft really wins with .NET where things are just logically placed and powerful. Apple SDK, however, you have some libraries that are in C, you have some that are in Objective-C, you have some that use a mixture of both. It feels like they glued crap together last minute, but never cleaned it up. This is actually why a lot of powerful software for the MAC is unavailable outside of already C-compiled programs like photoshop, etc. Take for instance Quicken, no good Mac alternative period. When I decided to develop it myself and make millions (joke), I realized that it would take me twice as long to develop a decent mac application because I had to design around memory management, etc that you simply don't worry about in .NET. Databases, etc, PIA. Yes, I understand it requires developers to think ahead, but it also means decent software for the mac requires teams on top of teams to develop thus software still sucks on the MAC outside of what Apple had their 10-man teams build in over a year (ie iWork, etc)
Eduardo1971
Mar 22, 01:44 PM
Like Squirrels you must store these "Mac" rumor articles, for the cold, iOS rumor months to follow. ;)
Boy howdy!
I'm a'gonna hold on to this rumour as much as possible....oh man, what's that next thread coming up?
Shucks-another iOS/iPhone rumour!:p
Boy howdy!
I'm a'gonna hold on to this rumour as much as possible....oh man, what's that next thread coming up?
Shucks-another iOS/iPhone rumour!:p
macfan881
Sep 5, 05:26 PM
my predictions for the 12
Video airport express with 8021n
Aiport Basestation 8021n
6 and 10 gig nanos
23 inch imac
maybe 120 gig ipod video
Disney movies for download with all of pixar movies being availble at launch and special preorder for cars
one more thing.... new mac core 2 duo versions of both macbooks and mac mini
Video airport express with 8021n
Aiport Basestation 8021n
6 and 10 gig nanos
23 inch imac
maybe 120 gig ipod video
Disney movies for download with all of pixar movies being availble at launch and special preorder for cars
one more thing.... new mac core 2 duo versions of both macbooks and mac mini
OwlsAndApples
Oct 27, 08:45 AM
....it's a computer, what are you going to make it out of? oak leaves and wood?
Yeah, and i know extreme hyperbole when I see it...:D :D
Ummm...
How about this one (http://www.engadget.com/2005/09/12/russian-wooden-pc-bigger-than-a-breadbox/)
Or this one (http://www.engadget.com/2006/10/03/suissa-computers-offers-up-custom-wooden-pcs/)
:D
Love the first computer! Wonder if it has a glossy screen..
Yeah, and i know extreme hyperbole when I see it...:D :D
Ummm...
How about this one (http://www.engadget.com/2005/09/12/russian-wooden-pc-bigger-than-a-breadbox/)
Or this one (http://www.engadget.com/2006/10/03/suissa-computers-offers-up-custom-wooden-pcs/)
:D
Love the first computer! Wonder if it has a glossy screen..
GGJstudios
Mar 19, 02:17 PM
Malware includes computer viruses, worms, trojan horses, spyware and other malicious and unwanted software or programs. The idea that OSX and/or Unix/Linux based operating systems is free from such threats is absurd.
No one has presented the idea that Mac OS X is free from all malware threats. Since your reading comprehension might need some help, I'll repeat my statement again:
there is no Mac malware in the wild that can't be avoided with some common sense and prudent action on the part of the user.
Viruses for Mac OS X don't exist, so antivirus isn't needed to protect against them.
Trojans for Mac OS X do exist, but can be avoided by the user being careful what they install, so antivirus isn't needed to protect against them.
Meanwhile, the answer on here to avoiding potential pitfalls in things like Flash is to (surprise), not install or use it. Hey guys, don't power on your computers and you will always be safe! :rolleyes:
I use Flash all the time and have never had any issues with it.
Even Apple themselves regularly release security updates. WTF is the point of a security update if there's no possible threat to OSX?
Again, no one has said there are not threats to Mac OS X; only that those threats don't require any AV software to defend against them.
Just because a threat is less likely than on other systems does not mean that it does not exist. Yet people on here won't even admit that much.
Either you're not reading or not comprehending the posts that have been made. No one is saying that NO threats exist; only that those threats can be avoided by the user without the need for AV software.
Only a fanboy would take a post that suggests that a false sense of security can lead to dangerous behavior that might be a liability in the future (good advice in almost any market/situation) and twist it into "Boy you're ignorant; we are INVULNERABLE! OSX cannot be hacked or attacked! It's impossible!
Who are you referring to? I haven't seen anyone say such things in this thread or any other.
"fanboy"
Again, who are you referring to? I'm not a fanboy, or a boy of any kind. I have no allegiance or loyalty to any brand or manufacturer (except Harley-Davidson, but for very different reasons). It's amusing to see how people try to bash Apple or Macs for the wrong reasons, then resort to calling people "fanboys" when their arguments aren't accepted. Apple and Macs have plenty of weaknesses. Attack one of the legitimate ones and you'll have sensible people agree with you. Make a case against Apple or John Deere or Mattel or Coca-Cola or any other company that isn't based in fact, and you'll get resistance. That doesn't make those who oppose such a case "fanboys".
Malware includes computer viruses, worms, trojan horses, spyware and other malicious and unwanted software or programs. The idea that OSX and/or Unix/Linux based operating systems is free from such threats is absurd.
No one has presented the idea that Mac OS X is free from all malware threats. Since your reading comprehension might need some help, I'll repeat my statement again:
there is no Mac malware in the wild that can't be avoided with some common sense and prudent action on the part of the user.
Viruses for Mac OS X don't exist, so antivirus isn't needed to protect against them.
Trojans for Mac OS X do exist, but can be avoided by the user being careful what they install, so antivirus isn't needed to protect against them.
Meanwhile, the answer on here to avoiding potential pitfalls in things like Flash is to (surprise), not install or use it. Hey guys, don't power on your computers and you will always be safe! :rolleyes:
I use Flash all the time and have never had any issues with it.
Even Apple themselves regularly release security updates. WTF is the point of a security update if there's no possible threat to OSX?
Again, no one has said there are not threats to Mac OS X; only that those threats don't require any AV software to defend against them.
Just because a threat is less likely than on other systems does not mean that it does not exist. Yet people on here won't even admit that much.
Either you're not reading or not comprehending the posts that have been made. No one is saying that NO threats exist; only that those threats can be avoided by the user without the need for AV software.
Only a fanboy would take a post that suggests that a false sense of security can lead to dangerous behavior that might be a liability in the future (good advice in almost any market/situation) and twist it into "Boy you're ignorant; we are INVULNERABLE! OSX cannot be hacked or attacked! It's impossible!
Who are you referring to? I haven't seen anyone say such things in this thread or any other.
No one has presented the idea that Mac OS X is free from all malware threats. Since your reading comprehension might need some help, I'll repeat my statement again:
there is no Mac malware in the wild that can't be avoided with some common sense and prudent action on the part of the user.
Viruses for Mac OS X don't exist, so antivirus isn't needed to protect against them.
Trojans for Mac OS X do exist, but can be avoided by the user being careful what they install, so antivirus isn't needed to protect against them.
Meanwhile, the answer on here to avoiding potential pitfalls in things like Flash is to (surprise), not install or use it. Hey guys, don't power on your computers and you will always be safe! :rolleyes:
I use Flash all the time and have never had any issues with it.
Even Apple themselves regularly release security updates. WTF is the point of a security update if there's no possible threat to OSX?
Again, no one has said there are not threats to Mac OS X; only that those threats don't require any AV software to defend against them.
Just because a threat is less likely than on other systems does not mean that it does not exist. Yet people on here won't even admit that much.
Either you're not reading or not comprehending the posts that have been made. No one is saying that NO threats exist; only that those threats can be avoided by the user without the need for AV software.
Only a fanboy would take a post that suggests that a false sense of security can lead to dangerous behavior that might be a liability in the future (good advice in almost any market/situation) and twist it into "Boy you're ignorant; we are INVULNERABLE! OSX cannot be hacked or attacked! It's impossible!
Who are you referring to? I haven't seen anyone say such things in this thread or any other.
"fanboy"
Again, who are you referring to? I'm not a fanboy, or a boy of any kind. I have no allegiance or loyalty to any brand or manufacturer (except Harley-Davidson, but for very different reasons). It's amusing to see how people try to bash Apple or Macs for the wrong reasons, then resort to calling people "fanboys" when their arguments aren't accepted. Apple and Macs have plenty of weaknesses. Attack one of the legitimate ones and you'll have sensible people agree with you. Make a case against Apple or John Deere or Mattel or Coca-Cola or any other company that isn't based in fact, and you'll get resistance. That doesn't make those who oppose such a case "fanboys".
Malware includes computer viruses, worms, trojan horses, spyware and other malicious and unwanted software or programs. The idea that OSX and/or Unix/Linux based operating systems is free from such threats is absurd.
No one has presented the idea that Mac OS X is free from all malware threats. Since your reading comprehension might need some help, I'll repeat my statement again:
there is no Mac malware in the wild that can't be avoided with some common sense and prudent action on the part of the user.
Viruses for Mac OS X don't exist, so antivirus isn't needed to protect against them.
Trojans for Mac OS X do exist, but can be avoided by the user being careful what they install, so antivirus isn't needed to protect against them.
Meanwhile, the answer on here to avoiding potential pitfalls in things like Flash is to (surprise), not install or use it. Hey guys, don't power on your computers and you will always be safe! :rolleyes:
I use Flash all the time and have never had any issues with it.
Even Apple themselves regularly release security updates. WTF is the point of a security update if there's no possible threat to OSX?
Again, no one has said there are not threats to Mac OS X; only that those threats don't require any AV software to defend against them.
Just because a threat is less likely than on other systems does not mean that it does not exist. Yet people on here won't even admit that much.
Either you're not reading or not comprehending the posts that have been made. No one is saying that NO threats exist; only that those threats can be avoided by the user without the need for AV software.
Only a fanboy would take a post that suggests that a false sense of security can lead to dangerous behavior that might be a liability in the future (good advice in almost any market/situation) and twist it into "Boy you're ignorant; we are INVULNERABLE! OSX cannot be hacked or attacked! It's impossible!
Who are you referring to? I haven't seen anyone say such things in this thread or any other.
hulugu
Apr 18, 12:52 PM
That's incredible! How can that be the case? Here it is 28 days paid days off if you work a normal 5 day week.
Because we're a free people, unlike you socialists. We can choose to work longer hours for less money and no vacation, our jobs hanging on by the mercurial temperament of our betters. We prefer to work two jobs to make enough to keep the kids in diapers, driving two hours through traffic across crumbling infrastructure, and goddamn it if someone were to give us paternity leave.
Because we're a free people.
Because we're a free people, unlike you socialists. We can choose to work longer hours for less money and no vacation, our jobs hanging on by the mercurial temperament of our betters. We prefer to work two jobs to make enough to keep the kids in diapers, driving two hours through traffic across crumbling infrastructure, and goddamn it if someone were to give us paternity leave.
Because we're a free people.
twoodcc
Aug 31, 01:27 PM
all we can do is hope and pray
Changen
Apr 4, 12:39 PM
Damn, well I can tell you most of the security guards at otay ranch are unarmed but there are a handful of guys that do carry. Im surprised I just heard about this living 2 minutes from the mall.
tortoise
Sep 20, 02:40 PM
The only reason why CDMA is basically only in the US is because it was still being developed while the EU jumped on GSM and endorsed it for every country. If your reason why CDMA is terrible is due to limited use, then, that's at best poor reasoning.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
nick004
Oct 27, 11:04 AM
Apple is from California too though! And were not all hippies over here, for the record.
Sorry, I like to perpetuate stereotypes
Sorry, I like to perpetuate stereotypes
munkery
Apr 10, 04:17 PM
What exactly do you mean? Do you mean changing the default app for opening a file type, using the Get Info window? Or do you mean some modification to the app itself? If the former, it works the same in L and SL. I haven't tried the latter yet.
"Get Info" any of the softwares that came on your Mac by default, such as Safari, Mail, iTunes, etc. At the bottom of the "Get Info" screen, what users have write privileges to the app bundle?
In Leopard, both system and admin have write privileges. So, malware could modify these app bundles as a vector to hide payloads with user level access in admin accounts. Privilege escalation would still be required for more serious exploitation, such as rootkit installation.
In Snow Leopard, only system has write privileges. This represents a security improvement in SL. Apps installed via the Mac App Store also only have system with write privileges.
"Get Info" any of the softwares that came on your Mac by default, such as Safari, Mail, iTunes, etc. At the bottom of the "Get Info" screen, what users have write privileges to the app bundle?
In Leopard, both system and admin have write privileges. So, malware could modify these app bundles as a vector to hide payloads with user level access in admin accounts. Privilege escalation would still be required for more serious exploitation, such as rootkit installation.
In Snow Leopard, only system has write privileges. This represents a security improvement in SL. Apps installed via the Mac App Store also only have system with write privileges.
Manic Mouse
Sep 9, 07:13 AM
Until Leopard is out we wont see the true value of these babies. Also by then some of the apps will take advantage of the muti-cores and multi-cpus, and the changes to the OS will allow applications not written for more than 1 core to take some advantage also. So like I said Leopard will be the one showing the true potential of these babies. Can't wait!!!!!!!:cool:
The fact that the new iMacs can't address more than 3Gb of memory and are therefore operating on a 32bit logic-board makes me doubtful as to whether or not these systems are really 64-bit capable... It seems like some kind of hybrid 32/64bit system.
Will the C2D iMacs be able to run 64bit code, despite not having the 64bit address space (and being able to access over 4Gb or RAM)?
The fact that the new iMacs can't address more than 3Gb of memory and are therefore operating on a 32bit logic-board makes me doubtful as to whether or not these systems are really 64-bit capable... It seems like some kind of hybrid 32/64bit system.
Will the C2D iMacs be able to run 64bit code, despite not having the 64bit address space (and being able to access over 4Gb or RAM)?
Capt Underpants
Mar 23, 04:25 PM
It's very odd coming to MR and seeing a map of your own town on the front page.
Tonewheel
Apr 20, 10:18 AM
So how would I go about encrypting this backup file on my Mac?
Plug in your iPhone, open iTunes, and in the SUMMARY window check the box related to backup encryption.
Plug in your iPhone, open iTunes, and in the SUMMARY window check the box related to backup encryption.
dizastor
Aug 23, 06:53 PM
$100 million doesn't put a dent in Apple's reserves. It's best to just get this crap out of the way.
Seems like Creative should retire now, just make iPod accessories and license their interface.
Seems like Creative should retire now, just make iPod accessories and license their interface.
andiwm2003
Jul 14, 01:41 PM
After looking at a chart of all the Core 2 Duo's, it seems like the most reasonable implementation would be to but the 2MB L2 cache Allendale cores into the iMacs (1.86ghz for the 17" and 2.16ghz for the 20") and the 4MB L2cache Conroe cores into the 3 Mac Pros (2.33ghz @ $1999, 2.66ghz @ $2499, and 2.93ghz @ $2999), with possibly and ultra-high end Dual 3.0ghz Woodcrest offering @ $3499 (I don't think economy of scale effects that likleyhood as Apple will already be purchasing them for their entire X-Serve line).
That's probably how I would roll it out if it were up to me.
while i agree with you general lineup i don't think the imac goes below 2ghz for marketing reasons.
i also think the prices for the 2.33 and 2.66 are simply too high. the performance gain will not be that much over the one year old dual core g5's. so the price should go down.
but in general i would be happy with any 4MB conroe model.
in a few weeks we will know.
That's probably how I would roll it out if it were up to me.
while i agree with you general lineup i don't think the imac goes below 2ghz for marketing reasons.
i also think the prices for the 2.33 and 2.66 are simply too high. the performance gain will not be that much over the one year old dual core g5's. so the price should go down.
but in general i would be happy with any 4MB conroe model.
in a few weeks we will know.
Some_Big_Spoon
Sep 9, 06:47 PM
I was credit card in hand when these were released, but I stopped myself. I'd like to wait a bit and see the 64 bit boost (if there is any), and Leopard in general.
I feel like these are speed demons, but I can't take advantage of a lot of it due to my heavy use of CS2 and the in-between feeling of Apple's apps/OS right now.
The second Leopard is out, I'm on the 24" iMac train.
I feel like these are speed demons, but I can't take advantage of a lot of it due to my heavy use of CS2 and the in-between feeling of Apple's apps/OS right now.
The second Leopard is out, I'm on the 24" iMac train.
Eidorian
Sep 9, 02:30 PM
That would be an OS issue, would it not? It would be up to the OS to allocate cores to processes.Yes an OS issue.
http://www.math.purdue.edu/~abarreno/affinitydlg.gif
http://www.math.purdue.edu/~abarreno/affinitydlg.gif
0 comments:
Post a Comment