skunk
Apr 24, 07:20 PM
Those verses you quoted are, as I said, historical.They purport to be the historical record of the exhortations to kill of El himself, much as the Quran.
millerb7
May 2, 10:59 AM
Are you sure that is the end of it, just having safe files checked and this thing installs itself? I'm trying to figure out where this is happening (i tested it myself and all it did was unzip the .zip file, it didn't automatically launch the package installer and then click the Install button for me).
I mean your #1 issue is using safari... it sucks for anything of importance anyways besides random basic surfing.
I mean your #1 issue is using safari... it sucks for anything of importance anyways besides random basic surfing.
munkery
May 2, 01:38 PM
That's what I'd like to know. I can't even open HTML pages downloaded from my own website without OS X warning me before opening it, and yet this story makes it sound as if the file contained in the zip is somehow launching on its own without any user notification. Sounds like BS to me. What is the source for this?
It decompressed the zip file and executes code to launch an installer. This is considered a safe action because the user still has to continue to run the installer.
Installation of MacDefender via the installer requires password authentication by the user.
It decompressed the zip file and executes code to launch an installer. This is considered a safe action because the user still has to continue to run the installer.
Installation of MacDefender via the installer requires password authentication by the user.
InfoTime
Apr 28, 08:05 AM
iPads retail at $499+. HP, Acer and Dell sell lots of laptops for $399+. Based on the retail pricing of the devices, I'd say it makes sense to count iPads.
rasmasyean
Apr 22, 11:47 PM
It's believed that the Higgs Boson exists but as yet there is no proof of its existence. Despite this respected physicists continue to try and prove its existence.
There are many things we believe in the existence of despite lack of tangible proof.
The Higgs Boson is something that is speculated to exist based on mathematical models and observation of other properties in theory. Therefore they try to "look for it" in order to confirm their models.
Einstein's special relativity was also speculated to exist based on mathematical models. And there was no way to observe that and "prove" that those phenomenon exist until modern equipment was invented...like GPS.
Even when Einstein derived that light travels in "particles", it explained a lot of things, but it isn't really until now that we use "photons" to bombard atoms to do quantum mechanical work...like solar panels. But they were derived to exist based on some other doctrine that works in real life (not just your mind).
There is a line between using an established doctrine to determine something can exist vs. "faith" in something that exists with no basis to draw upon other than some book written thousands of years ago...presumably. That's why it's called "faith".
There are many things we believe in the existence of despite lack of tangible proof.
The Higgs Boson is something that is speculated to exist based on mathematical models and observation of other properties in theory. Therefore they try to "look for it" in order to confirm their models.
Einstein's special relativity was also speculated to exist based on mathematical models. And there was no way to observe that and "prove" that those phenomenon exist until modern equipment was invented...like GPS.
Even when Einstein derived that light travels in "particles", it explained a lot of things, but it isn't really until now that we use "photons" to bombard atoms to do quantum mechanical work...like solar panels. But they were derived to exist based on some other doctrine that works in real life (not just your mind).
There is a line between using an established doctrine to determine something can exist vs. "faith" in something that exists with no basis to draw upon other than some book written thousands of years ago...presumably. That's why it's called "faith".
Multimedia
Nov 3, 03:28 AM
Well a significant amount of 3D and video software currently uses more than 2 cores but that's still a very small segment of the overall computing market. The multi-core market can't be ignored, I'm not saying it should be, but it's still not going to appeal to the masses until the rest, the majority, of the software out there catches up.
Quad core imac's would be pointless right now but maybe they wont be in 6 months if software catches up. It's pretty clear that hardware is ahead software at the moment but it will catch up again. It's gone back and forth for as long as I can remember.Boy are you out of touch with reality.
Let's say I'm a consumer who just bought a $150 EyeTV Hybrid digital broadcast TV Tuner-recorder software package (http://www.elgato.com/index.php?file=products_eyetvhybridna) so I can play HDTV on my 24" iMac. And let's say I decided I'd like to archive my HD broadcast recordings on that iMac. I can tell you with no uncertain terms that if that consumer does not have 4 cores in that iMac, he/she can forgetabout it. Moreover, I can say with absolute 100% metaphysical certainty that if he/she has four cores in an iMac TODAY, that he/she will find that they can only run the compression software that will accomplish that MENIAL TASK in very limited serial fashion.
In other words you don't know what you are writing about at all. I apologize for my anger. But it really chafes my hide whenever I read a post written by someone who has never tried to crush television programming so it can be stored in a reasonable size on large HDs and/or DVDs for viewing later. mp4 files are the 21st Century equivalent of a 20th Century VHS tape or DVD collection.
The job is not only slow and arduous, the consumer software, Toast 7.1 and Handbrake UB, is also 4 core ready and would hose a 4-core iMac in about oh say 5 seconds from the beginning of executing two processes.
The level of ignorance about the state of consumer software technology and the mass market for 4-core processor hardware technology today on this front is frightening to me. :eek:
You could not be more mistaken about your opinion stated above than about anything you have ever misunderstood. I have almost a year of experience in this exercise and I can tell you that it is nothing less than a full time job due to lack of appropriate hardware. The software is WAY ahead of the hardware and of that I have no doubt.
div>Quad core imac's would be pointless right now but maybe they wont be in 6 months if software catches up. It's pretty clear that hardware is ahead software at the moment but it will catch up again. It's gone back and forth for as long as I can remember.Boy are you out of touch with reality.
Let's say I'm a consumer who just bought a $150 EyeTV Hybrid digital broadcast TV Tuner-recorder software package (http://www.elgato.com/index.php?file=products_eyetvhybridna) so I can play HDTV on my 24" iMac. And let's say I decided I'd like to archive my HD broadcast recordings on that iMac. I can tell you with no uncertain terms that if that consumer does not have 4 cores in that iMac, he/she can forgetabout it. Moreover, I can say with absolute 100% metaphysical certainty that if he/she has four cores in an iMac TODAY, that he/she will find that they can only run the compression software that will accomplish that MENIAL TASK in very limited serial fashion.
In other words you don't know what you are writing about at all. I apologize for my anger. But it really chafes my hide whenever I read a post written by someone who has never tried to crush television programming so it can be stored in a reasonable size on large HDs and/or DVDs for viewing later. mp4 files are the 21st Century equivalent of a 20th Century VHS tape or DVD collection.
The job is not only slow and arduous, the consumer software, Toast 7.1 and Handbrake UB, is also 4 core ready and would hose a 4-core iMac in about oh say 5 seconds from the beginning of executing two processes.
The level of ignorance about the state of consumer software technology and the mass market for 4-core processor hardware technology today on this front is frightening to me. :eek:
You could not be more mistaken about your opinion stated above than about anything you have ever misunderstood. I have almost a year of experience in this exercise and I can tell you that it is nothing less than a full time job due to lack of appropriate hardware. The software is WAY ahead of the hardware and of that I have no doubt.
skunk
Apr 27, 01:15 PM
The main argument against the Judaeo-Christian God is: there is evil in the world, God is meant to be all-powerful and all-loving, and all-knowing, yet evil continues unabated.The real point is that the "Judaeo-Christian God" is not Judaeo-Christian at all, but the chief god of the Ugaritic pantheon, and no more "real" than Zeus, Jupiter, Horus or Astarte.
DemSpursBro
Apr 11, 08:21 AM
I love building my own rig every year and it keeps me current with the ever evolving computer technology.
Just out of curiosity, why do you build one each year?
Just out of curiosity, why do you build one each year?
ZilogZ80
Apr 14, 05:48 AM
screen maximizing is an annoyance on mac
RightZoom
RightZoom
FoxyKaye
Jul 11, 10:57 PM
So, what, this leaves us with:
* Mac Pro - Xeon/Woodcrest
* iMac - Core2 Duo/Conroe
* Mac Mini - Core Duo or Core2 Duo
Would the laptops get updated with the Core2 Duo - Intel's roadmap has some lower watt stuff that IIRC were Conroe varients, can't remember if there's a portable varient of the Woodcrest... Though any lower wattage processor would be nice, since our office's MacBook actually left a red mark on my left leg from where I was resting it during an extended meeting...
It's going to be fun to see what comes out of WWDC!
* Mac Pro - Xeon/Woodcrest
* iMac - Core2 Duo/Conroe
* Mac Mini - Core Duo or Core2 Duo
Would the laptops get updated with the Core2 Duo - Intel's roadmap has some lower watt stuff that IIRC were Conroe varients, can't remember if there's a portable varient of the Woodcrest... Though any lower wattage processor would be nice, since our office's MacBook actually left a red mark on my left leg from where I was resting it during an extended meeting...
It's going to be fun to see what comes out of WWDC!
OllyW
Apr 21, 07:28 AM
Wondering why Android users are on a Mac forum?
Perhaps they also own Macs, after all a lot of iPhone owners have Windows PCs.
Perhaps they also own Macs, after all a lot of iPhone owners have Windows PCs.
Panther
Mar 18, 02:26 PM
Note: This application has been untested by this site, and Apple will likely take steps to prevent future usage.iTMS just used web service interfaces and XML over HTTP... It will be interesting to see just how they could stop an app from accessing.
What is more likely is that the iTMS servers would add in the DRM and buyer metadata before it gets downloaded. Its actually a little shocking that it wasn't designed to do that in the first place!
What is more likely is that the iTMS servers would add in the DRM and buyer metadata before it gets downloaded. Its actually a little shocking that it wasn't designed to do that in the first place!
ddtlm
Oct 12, 06:40 PM
The result for my OSX 10.2 DP 800 G4 on the floating test is 85.56 seconds. I used -O and -funroll-loops as flags.
So this is about 45% the speed of my P3-Xeon 700. Not very good at all, but it falls within the ream of believeability.
So this is about 45% the speed of my P3-Xeon 700. Not very good at all, but it falls within the ream of believeability.
Th3Crow
Apr 21, 09:13 AM
Interesting and "generic" use by Apple execs. This could be used against them, as compared to saying that our "App Store" is the largest of any of the available applications stores. Subtle, but significant.
Oooooh...quite right. A very astute observation.
Oooooh...quite right. A very astute observation.
Liquorpuki
Mar 14, 12:43 AM
Why can't people get away from the concept of a centralized power source, like a coal or nuclear plant or even a wind farm to generate their national needs? I even see arguments that 'we don't have the space' for alternative power. Look at an aerial photo of any city and all you see is miles and miles of dead empty blank rooves. Solar panels or even small wind turbines on every single roof in every city will have people either reducing their reliance on a central power source or even contributing their own electricity to the grid to the point you may not even need a central power source, or maybe just one - which could be a wind farm or a nice clean geothermal plant.
Even with residential solar or turbines, you still need centralized power to cover base load. Geothermal would work if you can could actually find a heat pocket. A windfarm doesn't. All of this is also very expensive and your distributed generation sources are not economically feasible in a lot of cities. You'll never see turbines mounted on roofs in Southern California where the wind barely blows. It'd be a waste of money.
Geothermal. Magma is 24/7.
Geothermal is probably the only renewable that would cover a significant part of base load for a local grid. But it's expensive as hell and it's a gamble. First of all, you're not tapp
ing into Magma. You're trying to find a heat pocket underground. The research costs about 10 million and this is before you even start drilling. Then when you find a site and spend tens of millions of dollars to drill, there's still a 10% chance that there was really nothing there and you just wasted all that money. If there's something there, then you spend more money to build a plant and there's a chance that after 30 years, the heat will run out and your plant will be useless. Geothermal capacity was about 10,000 MW worldwide in 2010. LA alone has a capacity of 6,000 MW. No way is Geothermal going to cover capacity for the whole entire country.
Even with residential solar or turbines, you still need centralized power to cover base load. Geothermal would work if you can could actually find a heat pocket. A windfarm doesn't. All of this is also very expensive and your distributed generation sources are not economically feasible in a lot of cities. You'll never see turbines mounted on roofs in Southern California where the wind barely blows. It'd be a waste of money.
Geothermal. Magma is 24/7.
Geothermal is probably the only renewable that would cover a significant part of base load for a local grid. But it's expensive as hell and it's a gamble. First of all, you're not tapp
ing into Magma. You're trying to find a heat pocket underground. The research costs about 10 million and this is before you even start drilling. Then when you find a site and spend tens of millions of dollars to drill, there's still a 10% chance that there was really nothing there and you just wasted all that money. If there's something there, then you spend more money to build a plant and there's a chance that after 30 years, the heat will run out and your plant will be useless. Geothermal capacity was about 10,000 MW worldwide in 2010. LA alone has a capacity of 6,000 MW. No way is Geothermal going to cover capacity for the whole entire country.
DeathChill
Apr 20, 10:09 PM
Outside of Apple's app and music apps, all other applications go into a saved state; i.e. not running in the background.
Uh, that's not true. Applications that don't use any of the seven (I think) multitasking API's go into a saved state; an application that uses one of those API's continues running (the particular task that the API allows).
The funny thing is that it is almost identical to Android's implementation. Unless an application is explicitly programmed to run in the background it goes into a saved state.
Uh, that's not true. Applications that don't use any of the seven (I think) multitasking API's go into a saved state; an application that uses one of those API's continues running (the particular task that the API allows).
The funny thing is that it is almost identical to Android's implementation. Unless an application is explicitly programmed to run in the background it goes into a saved state.
pdjudd
Oct 7, 04:57 PM
Have you actually READ the link you posted?
Times have changed a bit since then, you know ...
Yes, I have. Several times. Things have changed, but the base premise of the article still applies - Microsoft Got Lucky - there is no way to suggest that Apple can pull that off in this day in age when the world depends too much on Microsoft. The article deals with past actions affecting the present. Its very relevant. Its point is that MS got successful because of how it parlayed successes over time, not because it embraced an "open strategy". They did that years ago. Read the whole thing. Grueber makes a point that still applies today because marketshare in the OS world has changed very little.
Due to Apple's grown popularity (if not ubiquity) it can be safely assumed that quite a few more people would install Mac OS if it were officially supported on non-Mac hardware. A highly significant number of people? Good question. To Apple's benefit? Probably not.
Popularity is irrelevant. Going up against Microsoft is suicide. Period. Their market share is too large and Apple's success is too dependent on hardware sales. Microsoft's objective is to rule the roost. They did that way back in the early 90's and they are too well entrenched to be taken out directly. They are just too big. You are simply conjecturing without any basis in reality. Apple tried the cloning market and it failed because people by in large do not want to undertake the massive pains to go to a completely different platform without somewhat of a safety platform. People want Windows because the stuff they run on depend on it. Thant and competing with Microsoft directly is a folly - going up against MS is going to be very bloody. You have better luck elephant hunting with a pea shooter.
Take a look at any other market that involves hardware and software. The article makes a good point about video games. They are totally incompatible with each other and are very closed systems. They remain successful because they can take one success and transition it to another - like the Mario franchise. MS did the same thing with computers years ago (with the objective of being really lucky thanks to boneheaded decisions by IBM). Apple did not. Of course Apple's objectives were far different back then, but Apple operates differently than MS does.
While Apple could get a few more customers, it just wouldn't last. There is no reason to think that it would or that they could sustain it. Its about making a good choice.
You cannot say that Apple's market strategy would gain them more money from copying MS business strategy, you just can't because they aren't the same. You cannot make a flawed assumption and think that Microsoft got achieved success by doing things the way the market was meant to be. They didn't. Microsoft got real lucky and rode on the coat tails of IBM business mentality and got massive market share because of that - way back in the 80's. That's just how things ended up. Doesn't mean that it works that way all the time and there is no reason to suggest that Apple is gonna want to chance it.
At this point in the game Microsoft has won - Jobs has admitted that years ago. Microsoft makes billions from the business market that by in large has no interest in making a risky and expensive change that going to Mac entails. Microsoft provides a very prediction, safe route that has massive industry support. Apple would have needed this kind of success really early on - but back in that day, they were adopting practices that were fundamentally different.
It doesn't matter that Apple's system is better - the lions share of the market made their choice years ago and that market doesn't tolerate direct competition. In Microsoft's world - they are the only game in town. And I say that the reason is that Apple is still around because they don't encroach into Microsoft's big markets. They don't license their software out to Microsoft's partners, they don't sell office software to PC's. There is a reason - Microsoft is far too big.
Times have changed a bit since then, you know ...
Yes, I have. Several times. Things have changed, but the base premise of the article still applies - Microsoft Got Lucky - there is no way to suggest that Apple can pull that off in this day in age when the world depends too much on Microsoft. The article deals with past actions affecting the present. Its very relevant. Its point is that MS got successful because of how it parlayed successes over time, not because it embraced an "open strategy". They did that years ago. Read the whole thing. Grueber makes a point that still applies today because marketshare in the OS world has changed very little.
Due to Apple's grown popularity (if not ubiquity) it can be safely assumed that quite a few more people would install Mac OS if it were officially supported on non-Mac hardware. A highly significant number of people? Good question. To Apple's benefit? Probably not.
Popularity is irrelevant. Going up against Microsoft is suicide. Period. Their market share is too large and Apple's success is too dependent on hardware sales. Microsoft's objective is to rule the roost. They did that way back in the early 90's and they are too well entrenched to be taken out directly. They are just too big. You are simply conjecturing without any basis in reality. Apple tried the cloning market and it failed because people by in large do not want to undertake the massive pains to go to a completely different platform without somewhat of a safety platform. People want Windows because the stuff they run on depend on it. Thant and competing with Microsoft directly is a folly - going up against MS is going to be very bloody. You have better luck elephant hunting with a pea shooter.
Take a look at any other market that involves hardware and software. The article makes a good point about video games. They are totally incompatible with each other and are very closed systems. They remain successful because they can take one success and transition it to another - like the Mario franchise. MS did the same thing with computers years ago (with the objective of being really lucky thanks to boneheaded decisions by IBM). Apple did not. Of course Apple's objectives were far different back then, but Apple operates differently than MS does.
While Apple could get a few more customers, it just wouldn't last. There is no reason to think that it would or that they could sustain it. Its about making a good choice.
You cannot say that Apple's market strategy would gain them more money from copying MS business strategy, you just can't because they aren't the same. You cannot make a flawed assumption and think that Microsoft got achieved success by doing things the way the market was meant to be. They didn't. Microsoft got real lucky and rode on the coat tails of IBM business mentality and got massive market share because of that - way back in the 80's. That's just how things ended up. Doesn't mean that it works that way all the time and there is no reason to suggest that Apple is gonna want to chance it.
At this point in the game Microsoft has won - Jobs has admitted that years ago. Microsoft makes billions from the business market that by in large has no interest in making a risky and expensive change that going to Mac entails. Microsoft provides a very prediction, safe route that has massive industry support. Apple would have needed this kind of success really early on - but back in that day, they were adopting practices that were fundamentally different.
It doesn't matter that Apple's system is better - the lions share of the market made their choice years ago and that market doesn't tolerate direct competition. In Microsoft's world - they are the only game in town. And I say that the reason is that Apple is still around because they don't encroach into Microsoft's big markets. They don't license their software out to Microsoft's partners, they don't sell office software to PC's. There is a reason - Microsoft is far too big.
KnightWRX
May 2, 04:35 PM
Is anybody actually bothering to do this in the wild against any OS?
The types of attacks you are referring to are not occurring in the wild on a massive scale. When was the last time you heard about one in the media?
Again, look, if you're not interested in the mechanics, that's fine. Stop replying to me.
My post is inquiring about the mechanics. For the past hour, I've been trying to find how this thing ticks by searching around for in-depth articles (none to find, everyone just points to Intego's brief overview that is seriously lacking in details) or for the archive itself.
If you don't want to take this discussion to the technical level I am trying to take it, just don't participate.
At the moment, there is no way to prevent the kinds of attacks you are referring to on any OS if a vulnerability exists that allows the attacker to exploit a running application.
I don't know of any other Web browser (this is not a OS problem, it's a Safari problem). that automatically assumes executables are safe and thus should be auto-executed.
Webkit2 will reduce access to user space when Safari (or any app using webkit2) is exploited by restricting the privileges o
f apps on a per app basis.
What does Webkit2 have anything to do with running an installer on the OS after downloading it ? That happens outside the rendering engine's sandbox. You're not quite understanding what this sandbox does if you think this protects you against these types of attacks.
Turn off "Open safe files after downloading" if you are worried about that type of attack implemented via "safe" files.
I think you missed the part where I don't use Safari. I'm pretty far away from allowing it to "auto-run" "safe" files (I choose what I want to run).
Again munkery, I appreciate you taking the time to respond, but I'm not some noob user. You are not answering my inquiries nor helping any here at the level I want to discuss this. I get everything you are saying. I've been getting that level for quite a few years. I'm trying to discuss at another level here. Do you want to participate or not at a higher level where we discuss the actual mechanics of this rather than just starring at the tip of the iceberg ?
The types of attacks you are referring to are not occurring in the wild on a massive scale. When was the last time you heard about one in the media?
Again, look, if you're not interested in the mechanics, that's fine. Stop replying to me.
My post is inquiring about the mechanics. For the past hour, I've been trying to find how this thing ticks by searching around for in-depth articles (none to find, everyone just points to Intego's brief overview that is seriously lacking in details) or for the archive itself.
If you don't want to take this discussion to the technical level I am trying to take it, just don't participate.
At the moment, there is no way to prevent the kinds of attacks you are referring to on any OS if a vulnerability exists that allows the attacker to exploit a running application.
I don't know of any other Web browser (this is not a OS problem, it's a Safari problem). that automatically assumes executables are safe and thus should be auto-executed.
Webkit2 will reduce access to user space when Safari (or any app using webkit2) is exploited by restricting the privileges o
f apps on a per app basis.
What does Webkit2 have anything to do with running an installer on the OS after downloading it ? That happens outside the rendering engine's sandbox. You're not quite understanding what this sandbox does if you think this protects you against these types of attacks.
Turn off "Open safe files after downloading" if you are worried about that type of attack implemented via "safe" files.
I think you missed the part where I don't use Safari. I'm pretty far away from allowing it to "auto-run" "safe" files (I choose what I want to run).
Again munkery, I appreciate you taking the time to respond, but I'm not some noob user. You are not answering my inquiries nor helping any here at the level I want to discuss this. I get everything you are saying. I've been getting that level for quite a few years. I'm trying to discuss at another level here. Do you want to participate or not at a higher level where we discuss the actual mechanics of this rather than just starring at the tip of the iceberg ?
dethmaShine
May 2, 04:47 PM
There, fixed it for ya (and the "'s too) ;)
OS X and Windows have their pro's and con's, no OS is 100% secure. However (and read my posts), working in the field I can assure you 75%+ of my clients have security/virus/malware issues with everything from XP-W7. Executable's are the equivalent to barfing into your system; they get everywhere and are difficult to remove.
If Windows followed Apple and developed hardware to utilize their OS instead of coding an OS for a myriad of profiles (and ditching antiquated BIOS for EFI) it would allow for a better end user experience and for MS to focus on better security. Yet this would mean millions to billions for businesses to reinvest in new hardware as well as MS producing a good product (based on their industrial design team and product history, I wouldn't bet on it).
OS X based systems are generally more secure than Windows systems. I could google "OS X safer than Windows" and find as many claims as you suggest, but that would be bias. Google " 'OS X versus Windows' security' ", you will most likely discover articles/studies with no bias/agenda. If OS X wasn't more secure than Windows OS systems, why aren't more users running anti-virus/malware utilities?
Ah well, forget google-ing "windows is more secure than OS X",
just ask google; they know better I guess. ;)
OS X and Windows have their pro's and con's, no OS is 100% secure. However (and read my posts), working in the field I can assure you 75%+ of my clients have security/virus/malware issues with everything from XP-W7. Executable's are the equivalent to barfing into your system; they get everywhere and are difficult to remove.
If Windows followed Apple and developed hardware to utilize their OS instead of coding an OS for a myriad of profiles (and ditching antiquated BIOS for EFI) it would allow for a better end user experience and for MS to focus on better security. Yet this would mean millions to billions for businesses to reinvest in new hardware as well as MS producing a good product (based on their industrial design team and product history, I wouldn't bet on it).
OS X based systems are generally more secure than Windows systems. I could google "OS X safer than Windows" and find as many claims as you suggest, but that would be bias. Google " 'OS X versus Windows' security' ", you will most likely discover articles/studies with no bias/agenda. If OS X wasn't more secure than Windows OS systems, why aren't more users running anti-virus/malware utilities?
Ah well, forget google-ing "windows is more secure than OS X",
just ask google; they know better I guess. ;)
balamw
Apr 6, 08:59 AM
I am not a "switcher" per se, but I did spend 15 years using Microsoft OSes as my main OS from DOS all the way to Windows Vista. A lot of that time spent as a Windows evangelist. Today, all my Macs also run XP (for the 2006 iMac) or W7 for the newer boxes and I also own a Windows Home Server and a generic W7 desktop (though I specced it so it can run OS X via Kakewalk trivially should I ever want it to).
OS X generally strikes a better balance for me than Windows. The default settings are good enough. I don't have a laundry list of things I have to tweak on a new system as I do on Windows. (Like making file extensions visible in Explorer).
I came back to the Mac near the end of the PPC era. Vista was a miserable transition for me. My first upgrade went terribly and when I got it installed performance was atrocious. SP1 made that better. The fairly radical changes from XP about where settings were to be located, etc... also drove me to consider alternatives. If I have to learn all this stuff again, why don't I learn it on a Mac?
Watching long term XP users when they first look at Vista or W7, I often see that same look of bewilderment as they have when they look at a Mac for the first time. Even though there is a lot that is the same, there is so much that seems fundamentally different.
After years of custom building, tweaking and maintaining my computers, I finally had enough. I just want to use the darned thing, and Macs offer a tremendous out of box integrated experience. For me, iTunes was the gateway drug. When I finally gave in to letting iTunes be iTunes on my Windows box and let it manage my music, I realized how simple it could be. This led me to my first iPod and then to the iBook.
The integrated hardware/software experience is a big part of the appeal of a Mac and all Apple products. You won't get this from a video or a post in a thread like this.
I remember shocking my colleagues at work when we needed an 8 core box and I went to the Apple Store, walked out with a Mac Pro in less than 15 minutes, and had it fully functional with my MATLAB code utilizing all 8 cores in less than half an hour from unboxing. By that point our usual Dells would still be over in IT getting updates, tweaks, etc..
I've replied to several of your threads, and have a request of you which I think is an important one in these questions.
What do you DO with your Windows box. What applications are important to you? What is your typical workflow?
This is a big one for seeing if a Mac will fit you or not and where you might find the biggest stumbling blocks.
B
OS X generally strikes a better balance for me than Windows. The default settings are good enough. I don't have a laundry list of things I have to tweak on a new system as I do on Windows. (Like making file extensions visible in Explorer).
I came back to the Mac near the end of the PPC era. Vista was a miserable transition for me. My first upgrade went terribly and when I got it installed performance was atrocious. SP1 made that better. The fairly radical changes from XP about where settings were to be located, etc... also drove me to consider alternatives. If I have to learn all this stuff again, why don't I learn it on a Mac?
Watching long term XP users when they first look at Vista or W7, I often see that same look of bewilderment as they have when they look at a Mac for the first time. Even though there is a lot that is the same, there is so much that seems fundamentally different.
After years of custom building, tweaking and maintaining my computers, I finally had enough. I just want to use the darned thing, and Macs offer a tremendous out of box integrated experience. For me, iTunes was the gateway drug. When I finally gave in to letting iTunes be iTunes on my Windows box and let it manage my music, I realized how simple it could be. This led me to my first iPod and then to the iBook.
The integrated hardware/software experience is a big part of the appeal of a Mac and all Apple products. You won't get this from a video or a post in a thread like this.
I remember shocking my colleagues at work when we needed an 8 core box and I went to the Apple Store, walked out with a Mac Pro in less than 15 minutes, and had it fully functional with my MATLAB code utilizing all 8 cores in less than half an hour from unboxing. By that point our usual Dells would still be over in IT getting updates, tweaks, etc..
I've replied to several of your threads, and have a request of you which I think is an important one in these questions.
What do you DO with your Windows box. What applications are important to you? What is your typical workflow?
This is a big one for seeing if a Mac will fit you or not and where you might find the biggest stumbling blocks.
B
samcraig
Mar 18, 08:58 AM
Sir what is being stolen?
Data=Data
At&t; adds the data together for a month of use in your plan
2=2=4gb of data a month, this has been explained by At&t; over and over
So If I use 2gb and use it on the phone or tether its the same
I have unlimited
if I use 3 gb of data next month I have stole nothing
I used data
what is your point?
Crap about TOS, so what If I write a contract that you agree to buy Gas at my station for $2 a gallon when you fill up your car for a year. You then show up with a red gallon gas can I run out and say "The TOS says Car not Gas can" and I want to charge you $4 for the same gas now, this is not crap?
You know companies lie and steal from us everyday doesn't make it right.
I see you have an issue with those grandfathered, like we are stealing because we have unlimited? At&t; has unlimited Data for $45 a month, its called Enterprise I see it in my account every month.
It's not my fault you did not own an Iphone before unlimited was stopped.
Also how about the two years I paid for 3g service and could not get 3g in my area? I disputed this with At&t; and won.
Stop making excuses for bad behavior (By At&t;)
And stop making silly assumptions about subjects you know nothing about.
I've had an iPhone for a few years now and have unlimited data.
It's a very clear line to me and many/most people who aren't so stubborn to think of the big picture.
You can only use x amount of data a month using your phone if you're on an unlimited plan. Realistically - even if you're eating as much as you can - there's a "limit" you can reach. Not because of ATT - but because of what your phone can actually access/handle. ATT's bean counters multiply/average out typical usage on a single device basis.
Now if you use that phone to supply 2,3,4
or more devices - you are using data in a way that was not agreed upon and isn't in line with what has been accounted for. If you don't understand this basic concept - there's little I can do. You can not LIKE it. But if you don't understand that there's a difference here - then you're lost.
Conversely - if someone spends money to buy a clearly finite (and smaller) chunk of data - and they want to spread it out however they want - I see little problem with that. The fact that ATT does bothers me. But it's not my problem as I don't have that plan and I don't tether using my iPhone.
This same thread/discussion has happened a million times before. Those that feel "entitled" will argue every excuse under the sun why they should be allowed and how evil ATT is. And those that can see the big picture of cause/effect will be seen by those people as shills or some other name calling word.
And I just LOVE (sarcasm) that people bring up wanting to sue or that they could go to court over this. Whatever happened to taking responsibility for ones own actions.
ETA:
Not AT&Ts; fault for selling unlimited data that they've violated and chose to limit?
Stfup, you have no idea what you're talking about.
AT&T;, you've stepped over the line. I've contacted my attorney about this issue months ago letting him know something needs to be done about this flagrant misuse of the word unlimited, and AT&Ts; attempts to back out of their commitment.
Forcibly changing my plan with zero evidence of anything is illegal and they will pay for it. Tme to start blasting them on Facebook, twitter, everywhere possible.
ATT sold you an iPhone Unlimited Data Plan
Do you understand - it was an IPHONE unlimited data plan. They didn't sell you an unlimited iPhone + laptop + desktop + ipad + other device data plan.
It's always the guilty who shout the loudest because they really have nothing to lose, do they. At best - they might get away with it - at worst, their situation remains the same.
Sounds to me like you're pissed you got caught. That's all that's happening here...
Data=Data
At&t; adds the data together for a month of use in your plan
2=2=4gb of data a month, this has been explained by At&t; over and over
So If I use 2gb and use it on the phone or tether its the same
I have unlimited
if I use 3 gb of data next month I have stole nothing
I used data
what is your point?
Crap about TOS, so what If I write a contract that you agree to buy Gas at my station for $2 a gallon when you fill up your car for a year. You then show up with a red gallon gas can I run out and say "The TOS says Car not Gas can" and I want to charge you $4 for the same gas now, this is not crap?
You know companies lie and steal from us everyday doesn't make it right.
I see you have an issue with those grandfathered, like we are stealing because we have unlimited? At&t; has unlimited Data for $45 a month, its called Enterprise I see it in my account every month.
It's not my fault you did not own an Iphone before unlimited was stopped.
Also how about the two years I paid for 3g service and could not get 3g in my area? I disputed this with At&t; and won.
Stop making excuses for bad behavior (By At&t;)
And stop making silly assumptions about subjects you know nothing about.
I've had an iPhone for a few years now and have unlimited data.
It's a very clear line to me and many/most people who aren't so stubborn to think of the big picture.
You can only use x amount of data a month using your phone if you're on an unlimited plan. Realistically - even if you're eating as much as you can - there's a "limit" you can reach. Not because of ATT - but because of what your phone can actually access/handle. ATT's bean counters multiply/average out typical usage on a single device basis.
Now if you use that phone to supply 2,3,4
or more devices - you are using data in a way that was not agreed upon and isn't in line with what has been accounted for. If you don't understand this basic concept - there's little I can do. You can not LIKE it. But if you don't understand that there's a difference here - then you're lost.
Conversely - if someone spends money to buy a clearly finite (and smaller) chunk of data - and they want to spread it out however they want - I see little problem with that. The fact that ATT does bothers me. But it's not my problem as I don't have that plan and I don't tether using my iPhone.
This same thread/discussion has happened a million times before. Those that feel "entitled" will argue every excuse under the sun why they should be allowed and how evil ATT is. And those that can see the big picture of cause/effect will be seen by those people as shills or some other name calling word.
And I just LOVE (sarcasm) that people bring up wanting to sue or that they could go to court over this. Whatever happened to taking responsibility for ones own actions.
ETA:
Not AT&Ts; fault for selling unlimited data that they've violated and chose to limit?
Stfup, you have no idea what you're talking about.
AT&T;, you've stepped over the line. I've contacted my attorney about this issue months ago letting him know something needs to be done about this flagrant misuse of the word unlimited, and AT&Ts; attempts to back out of their commitment.
Forcibly changing my plan with zero evidence of anything is illegal and they will pay for it. Tme to start blasting them on Facebook, twitter, everywhere possible.
ATT sold you an iPhone Unlimited Data Plan
Do you understand - it was an IPHONE unlimited data plan. They didn't sell you an unlimited iPhone + laptop + desktop + ipad + other device data plan.
It's always the guilty who shout the loudest because they really have nothing to lose, do they. At best - they might get away with it - at worst, their situation remains the same.
Sounds to me like you're pissed you got caught. That's all that's happening here...
iJohnHenry
Mar 14, 09:22 AM
In case anyone was wondering. ;)
Lennholm
May 2, 02:03 PM
That's the thing, though. It's not only old software that behaves this way. There are all kinds of modern software that require administrator access to run. One of the biggest ones I can think are games... typically those with some sort of anti-hack system.
MS has done nothing to discourage developers from writing their software to work this way and it's unfortunate.
They have done nothing to discourage it? Well, they introduced an annoying pop-up asking for confirmation that makes the developers customers frustrated. Any suggestion what other meaningful action they can take?
Also, I can't think of any application I have installed on my Windows PC that behaves like this.
When I first started using a Mac seriously, which was when Vista was out and got criticized for UAC, I was really surprised to discover that OS X has the exact same thing. In Windows 7 you not only have the option to switch it on and off, you can also customize the intrusiveness of it, I find it much more user friendly than in OS X.
I think a lot of people here need to actually try Windows 7 out instead of categorically dismiss it.
MS has done nothing to discourage developers from writing their software to work this way and it's unfortunate.
They have done nothing to discourage it? Well, they introduced an annoying pop-up asking for confirmation that makes the developers customers frustrated. Any suggestion what other meaningful action they can take?
Also, I can't think of any application I have installed on my Windows PC that behaves like this.
When I first started using a Mac seriously, which was when Vista was out and got criticized for UAC, I was really surprised to discover that OS X has the exact same thing. In Windows 7 you not only have the option to switch it on and off, you can also customize the intrusiveness of it, I find it much more user friendly than in OS X.
I think a lot of people here need to actually try Windows 7 out instead of categorically dismiss it.
Ivan0310
Apr 28, 07:39 AM
I dont think iPads should be included. A computer shouldn't need a computer to be usable.
Agreed. I disagree completely with Steve & Co. when they refer to this or any other of their mobile devices as a 'Post-PC' device. Something that is 'after' the PC shouldn't rely on one (in large or small part) in order to function.
Agreed. I disagree completely with Steve & Co. when they refer to this or any other of their mobile devices as a 'Post-PC' device. Something that is 'after' the PC shouldn't rely on one (in large or small part) in order to function.
