Prom1
Jan 1, 05:48 PM
It makes sense. iProducts are increasingly becoming ubiquitous, therefore they will become more profitable for malware developers to attack. It's not a McAfee sales pitch so much as it's stating the obvious. Same with Android.
I'm sorry but for 10 YEARS McAfee, Symantec, and other smaller players have tried to push this junk on the LARGEST distributed smartphone platform in the world - EVEN today its THE LARGEST (though dwindling VERY fast) - S60 Symbian. Although that platform has its own issues with security the amount of security holes in it is STILL minimal: address book plagiarizing, taking BT control to browse file system (which was patched by Nokia VERY quickly), and a few others.
Point being that if the OS is secure enough to begin with and patches & updates are made & distributed QUICKLY & TIMELY by Apple or Google for their respective platforms then its quite possible this is just FUD at ground roots.
Yes. Absolutely. A closed filesystem where you're only able to download anything significant through a moderated app store is going to be riddled with viruses. :rolleyes:
I do recall a particular Camera app in the AppStore that was VERY VERY popular just 3months ago that took address book information and served it out to a server! This got through your "moderated app store" with complete ease and remained available for quite a few months before being pulled (both the store and during sync as well).
I'm sorry but for 10 YEARS McAfee, Symantec, and other smaller players have tried to push this junk on the LARGEST distributed smartphone platform in the world - EVEN today its THE LARGEST (though dwindling VERY fast) - S60 Symbian. Although that platform has its own issues with security the amount of security holes in it is STILL minimal: address book plagiarizing, taking BT control to browse file system (which was patched by Nokia VERY quickly), and a few others.
Point being that if the OS is secure enough to begin with and patches & updates are made & distributed QUICKLY & TIMELY by Apple or Google for their respective platforms then its quite possible this is just FUD at ground roots.
Yes. Absolutely. A closed filesystem where you're only able to download anything significant through a moderated app store is going to be riddled with viruses. :rolleyes:
I do recall a particular Camera app in the AppStore that was VERY VERY popular just 3months ago that took address book information and served it out to a server! This got through your "moderated app store" with complete ease and remained available for quite a few months before being pulled (both the store and during sync as well).
jwdsail
Sep 16, 09:49 AM
Hmmm that is an intresting thought. I saw a demo, over a year ago, of a wireles VoIP phone at Dartmouth University that did just that. They wear them around their neck or use a clip, but it was voice activated, and they actually called them their "Star Trek badges".
http://www.vocera.com/
So a quad-band gsm iPhone based on the new clip shuffle? Perfect! Speaker phone mode or BT headset .. voice activated.. Sync the phone number and voice dialing through an updated AddressBook. Perfect!
;-)
jwd
http://www.vocera.com/
So a quad-band gsm iPhone based on the new clip shuffle? Perfect! Speaker phone mode or BT headset .. voice activated.. Sync the phone number and voice dialing through an updated AddressBook. Perfect!
;-)
jwd
Multimedia
Sep 10, 09:33 PM
Flame me if you must, but what is the sense in having multiple cores if the software running on it doesn't take advantage of it? Same thing with advertising the new chips as being 64 bit. That's great, but I don't have anything (not in beta) that can use it.
Apple themselves have never been great at making use of multiple processors (in tandem), so I'm not getting how 4, 8, 32 cores makes much difference?How many times do I need to remind some of you that it doesn't matter if applications can only use one or two cores? You can run a bunch of things at once with all these cores at your disposal. That to me is what's important, as I think so should you think - not that one application can't use more than one or two cores. If anything, it's a good thing some only use one or two cores.
You can run a bunch of things at once - Simultaneously - with all these cores at your disposal. That's what's important - not that one application can't use more than one or two cores. On the contrary. If I had 8 cores I wouldn't have to quit Mail all the time.
Do you realize that Mail uses 100% of a core ALL THE TIME? If I leave it open I only have 3 cores to work with. I mean it's rediculous. I have to QUIT Mail to do my work. Absurd.
We Need More Cores And We Need Them NOW!According to the Page 2 Rumors there are some significant speed ups to OpenGL in the next update to 10.4 due to multithreading. Apple has had 4 processor systems for over a year now. I would think they have some ideas about how to make use of it.
Things like the next version of iChat... 1 core to run some application, another for the computer to compress that image into a nice stream to be broadcast over the net, and another to do the actual operation of iChat and the OS and whatever else you have in the background at the time.
There are all sorts of stupid (and not so stupid) ways to eat up processor cycles if you have them. :rolleyes:You took the words right out of my fingers. Bravo sisyphus.
Apple themselves have never been great at making use of multiple processors (in tandem), so I'm not getting how 4, 8, 32 cores makes much difference?How many times do I need to remind some of you that it doesn't matter if applications can only use one or two cores? You can run a bunch of things at once with all these cores at your disposal. That to me is what's important, as I think so should you think - not that one application can't use more than one or two cores. If anything, it's a good thing some only use one or two cores.
You can run a bunch of things at once - Simultaneously - with all these cores at your disposal. That's what's important - not that one application can't use more than one or two cores. On the contrary. If I had 8 cores I wouldn't have to quit Mail all the time.
Do you realize that Mail uses 100% of a core ALL THE TIME? If I leave it open I only have 3 cores to work with. I mean it's rediculous. I have to QUIT Mail to do my work. Absurd.
We Need More Cores And We Need Them NOW!According to the Page 2 Rumors there are some significant speed ups to OpenGL in the next update to 10.4 due to multithreading. Apple has had 4 processor systems for over a year now. I would think they have some ideas about how to make use of it.
Things like the next version of iChat... 1 core to run some application, another for the computer to compress that image into a nice stream to be broadcast over the net, and another to do the actual operation of iChat and the OS and whatever else you have in the background at the time.
There are all sorts of stupid (and not so stupid) ways to eat up processor cycles if you have them. :rolleyes:You took the words right out of my fingers. Bravo sisyphus.
Peace
Aug 28, 12:41 PM
Why so many negative votes?
I'm guessing it's because every computer maker has announced the new Core 2 Duo but Apple hasn't.That's why I voted negative.
I'm guessing it's because every computer maker has announced the new Core 2 Duo but Apple hasn't.That's why I voted negative.
PghLondon
Apr 30, 07:10 PM
I beg to differ, My iMac 7,1 looks like the new ones. I have had it for over 3 years.
Similar, but not the same. The new design came out in October 2009.
New sizes, new aspect ratio, removal of plastic from the enclosure, removed the outer aluminum bezel, etc. And new guts, of course.
Similar, but not the same. The new design came out in October 2009.
New sizes, new aspect ratio, removal of plastic from the enclosure, removed the outer aluminum bezel, etc. And new guts, of course.
aohus
Apr 20, 12:23 PM
android enthusiast here.
i don't see what the big deal is. so what if Apple is storing your location data.
everyone here is on facebook, exposing their real names, friends, user uploaded photos that are under the control of facebook under the new TOS agreement, where they live, phone numbers, what they like, what they dislike, their status updates, etc.
so please, everyone be quiet about this 'omg my civil liberties are being trampled on!'
the moment you go on the internet, privacy goes right out the window.
and btw, google stores location data allll the time.
facebook.com? lol, more like facebook.gov
i don't see what the big deal is. so what if Apple is storing your location data.
everyone here is on facebook, exposing their real names, friends, user uploaded photos that are under the control of facebook under the new TOS agreement, where they live, phone numbers, what they like, what they dislike, their status updates, etc.
so please, everyone be quiet about this 'omg my civil liberties are being trampled on!'
the moment you go on the internet, privacy goes right out the window.
and btw, google stores location data allll the time.
facebook.com? lol, more like facebook.gov
SeattleMoose
Apr 30, 03:20 PM
for a couple more years.....
Thunderboy is still "bleeding edge" and nobody wants to go and have to buy a bunch of new peripherals (as if there were any yet....:eek:)
Thunderboy is still "bleeding edge" and nobody wants to go and have to buy a bunch of new peripherals (as if there were any yet....:eek:)
bdj21ya
Oct 12, 03:30 PM
This will probably go over like a lead balloon, but there is something to be said for natural selection. NOW BEFORE YOU START SCREAMING, hear me out...
AIDS is an awful thing, especially to the proportions it has affected the people of Africa. But there is also a reason AIDS has taken over there the way it is, and it's only partially to do with poverty. AIDS has exploded in that population, because it is a population that is extremely traditional, rudimentary, and in many ways archaic. There are many wonderful things about the African people, but there were also many wonderful things about the Dinosaurs, the Dodo bird, and numerous others.
Please don't take this to mean I'm equating the people of Africa with wild animals. I'm not. But in many ways, the people of Africa are in the situation they are in because they have not evolved the same way as most of the world, and in that respect, they are paying a price. Yes, it is our responsibility as human beings to try and help people in need, and that is a wonderful thing. But at the end of the day, if we did nothing, there would still be a small percentage of African people who will survive this epidemic, and they will be more educated and elightened than the ones who do not.
Much in the way that forest fires, although terrible in some respects, are essential to the rejuvenation of the population and ecosystem in that area, so too are epidemics and catastrophes. And this not a bash-on-Africa comment... the Black Plague was the same idea. Too many people, living in too close quarters, with too little regard for health or wellbeing. Millions died, but many survived, and the ones that did were smarter and wiser for it.
The people of Africa are not necessarily as helpless as the may seem from the outside. They just have a different culture and mindset than Western people do. Right or wrong is not for us to decide, but adapting to nature is part of life on Earth... and sometimes that means that large numbers of people or animals die, needlessly or otherwise. Just my two cents.
I admire your commitment to the evolutionary approach. I would just like to point out that evolution has also created the compassion (or at least social conscience) that inspires this sort of effort. Perhaps this compassion is a trait that increases the survivability of our species in a way too. (I'm not suggesting that all traits increase survivability, but evolution has been going for some time now, and compassion has been a human trait for some time as well, so perhaps the two are friends for some reason).
AIDS is an awful thing, especially to the proportions it has affected the people of Africa. But there is also a reason AIDS has taken over there the way it is, and it's only partially to do with poverty. AIDS has exploded in that population, because it is a population that is extremely traditional, rudimentary, and in many ways archaic. There are many wonderful things about the African people, but there were also many wonderful things about the Dinosaurs, the Dodo bird, and numerous others.
Please don't take this to mean I'm equating the people of Africa with wild animals. I'm not. But in many ways, the people of Africa are in the situation they are in because they have not evolved the same way as most of the world, and in that respect, they are paying a price. Yes, it is our responsibility as human beings to try and help people in need, and that is a wonderful thing. But at the end of the day, if we did nothing, there would still be a small percentage of African people who will survive this epidemic, and they will be more educated and elightened than the ones who do not.
Much in the way that forest fires, although terrible in some respects, are essential to the rejuvenation of the population and ecosystem in that area, so too are epidemics and catastrophes. And this not a bash-on-Africa comment... the Black Plague was the same idea. Too many people, living in too close quarters, with too little regard for health or wellbeing. Millions died, but many survived, and the ones that did were smarter and wiser for it.
The people of Africa are not necessarily as helpless as the may seem from the outside. They just have a different culture and mindset than Western people do. Right or wrong is not for us to decide, but adapting to nature is part of life on Earth... and sometimes that means that large numbers of people or animals die, needlessly or otherwise. Just my two cents.
I admire your commitment to the evolutionary approach. I would just like to point out that evolution has also created the compassion (or at least social conscience) that inspires this sort of effort. Perhaps this compassion is a trait that increases the survivability of our species in a way too. (I'm not suggesting that all traits increase survivability, but evolution has been going for some time now, and compassion has been a human trait for some time as well, so perhaps the two are friends for some reason).
AvSRoCkCO1067
Sep 14, 08:04 AM
Is there any chance that they'll release the MBPs here?
Kalach
Apr 30, 02:00 PM
no new gpu? :(
Caitlyn
Aug 31, 11:56 AM
New Apple Cinema Displays with glossy screens and iSights would be amazing. :)
Dave00
Mar 29, 12:58 PM
It's utter silliness to try to predict market share for four years from now. Especially laughable that they try to predict it to the tenth of a percentage point. Four years way more than enough time for a new player to come in and dominate the field, not to mention time for a new kind of phone/device to appear.
Dave
Dave
goron59
May 3, 10:30 AM
Isn't a single TB bus capable of driving more than one display.... so can you drive two displays from a single port?
Might need a powered hub perhaps.. Dunno.
:confused:
Might need a powered hub perhaps.. Dunno.
:confused:
cxny
Sep 13, 08:57 PM
Odd that Jobs forgot to announce it yesterday......
halhiker
Sep 5, 01:31 AM
I don't really get the point of wireless video unless you can somehow incorporate a pause feature into it. What am I going to do with the video if I have to answer the door or phone or go to the can or get a snack? Do I have to go to my computer and reset the video and hope that when it streams to the TV or whatever it's at the right spot? For me it would be much easier to just move the movie to my iPod, put the iPod in a dock with a remote and watch it that way. Unless maybe the new airport device has it's own remote! Now that might be interesting. :D
Hal
Hal
miles01110
Apr 20, 12:55 PM
Innocent until proven guilty ... what happend to that? You cant just claim 'Apple has a centralized database with all your location information' when the only thing that is know is that it is stored locally on your device.
Well it's a good thing that's not what I claimed, isn't it then?
Just claiming a stupid thing and say it is true until you prove it's wrong does not work. There is no evidence whatsoever that it is stored somewhere else.
Did you even read the post I was responding to? I made no claim other than it is impossible to say whether or not the data is stored somewhere else unless you have some sort of evidence to suggest that it isn't. Since it's on an Apple (a company that's all about data collection) device and the data itself isn't particularly useful stored locally, it's not unreasonable to guess that it is indeed being stored somewhere else.
Well it's a good thing that's not what I claimed, isn't it then?
Just claiming a stupid thing and say it is true until you prove it's wrong does not work. There is no evidence whatsoever that it is stored somewhere else.
Did you even read the post I was responding to? I made no claim other than it is impossible to say whether or not the data is stored somewhere else unless you have some sort of evidence to suggest that it isn't. Since it's on an Apple (a company that's all about data collection) device and the data itself isn't particularly useful stored locally, it's not unreasonable to guess that it is indeed being stored somewhere else.
amac4me
Sep 13, 09:00 PM
When this thing is released, it's gonna sell like hot cakes :eek:
SeaFox
Sep 16, 12:18 PM
why is the US so far behind Europe with this kind of technology?
(edit: maybe it isn't i haven't shopped for a phone in nearly a year)
It's certainly why I haven't. I wouldn't say the U.S. is so much behind the rest of the world (although that is true) but keep in mind U.S. carriers are all about keeping people locked into contracts. It's much easier to get a phone and change providers in Europe because they don't do hardware locking to network and prepaid is more proliferant. You can get lots of these great phones (by the way, they do make 10 megapixel camera phones now) if you buy them online, paying retail prices.
The problem is most U.S. consumers are cheap as far as I can tell, most will not pay at all for a phone and even few will pay more than $100. The carriers cannot afford to subsidize these phones because even with them partially covering the cost a consumer will be looking at an over $250 cost with a contract..
The U.S. cell phone is behind other countries because the U.S. cell phone network is behind other countries. We're just now getting 3G out in most of the country but Japan has had it and two way video calls for years.
If I could afford it and was willing to take the gamble of learning a new UI, I would get the Nokia N73. But it's hard to justify spending that much on a cell phone for me and I'm more familiar with Nokia series 40 phones.
(edit: maybe it isn't i haven't shopped for a phone in nearly a year)
It's certainly why I haven't. I wouldn't say the U.S. is so much behind the rest of the world (although that is true) but keep in mind U.S. carriers are all about keeping people locked into contracts. It's much easier to get a phone and change providers in Europe because they don't do hardware locking to network and prepaid is more proliferant. You can get lots of these great phones (by the way, they do make 10 megapixel camera phones now) if you buy them online, paying retail prices.
The problem is most U.S. consumers are cheap as far as I can tell, most will not pay at all for a phone and even few will pay more than $100. The carriers cannot afford to subsidize these phones because even with them partially covering the cost a consumer will be looking at an over $250 cost with a contract..
The U.S. cell phone is behind other countries because the U.S. cell phone network is behind other countries. We're just now getting 3G out in most of the country but Japan has had it and two way video calls for years.
If I could afford it and was willing to take the gamble of learning a new UI, I would get the Nokia N73. But it's hard to justify spending that much on a cell phone for me and I'm more familiar with Nokia series 40 phones.
Eduardo1971
Mar 22, 01:38 PM
As someone looking forward to buying my very first Mac desktop; I must say this is a pretty lame rumour. 'Sandy Bridge'? 'Thunderbolt'? Nothing surprising; everyone here was expecting these two items. I want more specific rumours!:p
The wait continues...:(
The wait continues...:(
danielwsmithee
Apr 25, 02:44 PM
But I fear what Apple has in mind is basically an entire range of Macbook Air laptops. The Air is a fine computer, no doubt, but it's not the portable desktop I want and never can be without supporting two drives and discrete graphics in one way or another.That is exactly what I envision for the next Mac Book Pro. Take a MacBook Air make it just thick enough to handle an additional 2.5" Hard Drive, dedicated graphics, and a high performance processor. Ditch the optical drive, make SSD+HD the standard configuration.
seashellz
Nov 13, 01:50 PM
99% of these are in a huff self important 'tempest in a teapot' stories;
its not required-nay not even helpful to be a fanboy to point this out-just 2 good eyes and a brain;
Alway been complainers, always will be;
If the rules are clearly spelled out and they dont follow them-then they shouldnt be crybabies in public
simple
CAREFULLY read APPLEs developers rules
follow them
dont try to breach them
its not required-nay not even helpful to be a fanboy to point this out-just 2 good eyes and a brain;
Alway been complainers, always will be;
If the rules are clearly spelled out and they dont follow them-then they shouldnt be crybabies in public
simple
CAREFULLY read APPLEs developers rules
follow them
dont try to breach them
erikistired
Sep 19, 04:54 PM
I don't think Apple is aiming for the uber-geek with $25k worth of home entertainment equipment. IMHO, they will never be able to compete in that market.
I think they are reaching for the average joe blow that has a servicable $400 TV that he bought at Wal-mart, and maybe, just maybe, has a stereo hooked up to it. The average Joe doesn't care, and can't tell, that it's Dolby Surround and not Dolby Digital.
you don't need 25k of equipment to notice the difference between dolby surround and dolby digital. contrary to what was posted before, you CAN hear the difference on a $200 htib system. even my half deaf dad has noticed the difference, especially if the soundtrack uses a lot of directional audio. the first time i had my family to my house (at the time my home audio system wasn't that great, but still good) to watch a movie with 5.1 surround they were jumping all over at bullets whizzing over their shoulder from behind. it was neat to watch people who would be considered "joe sixpack" enjoying good A/V. it's amazing how many people underestimate what the average joe has or cares about these days when it comes to home entertainment.
I think they are reaching for the average joe blow that has a servicable $400 TV that he bought at Wal-mart, and maybe, just maybe, has a stereo hooked up to it. The average Joe doesn't care, and can't tell, that it's Dolby Surround and not Dolby Digital.
you don't need 25k of equipment to notice the difference between dolby surround and dolby digital. contrary to what was posted before, you CAN hear the difference on a $200 htib system. even my half deaf dad has noticed the difference, especially if the soundtrack uses a lot of directional audio. the first time i had my family to my house (at the time my home audio system wasn't that great, but still good) to watch a movie with 5.1 surround they were jumping all over at bullets whizzing over their shoulder from behind. it was neat to watch people who would be considered "joe sixpack" enjoying good A/V. it's amazing how many people underestimate what the average joe has or cares about these days when it comes to home entertainment.
jwdsail
Oct 12, 04:00 PM
No, this is the Target special edition nano that comes with a Target gift card.
I'm glad I'm not the only one that though along that line, lol.
I'm glad I'm not the only one that though along that line, lol.
vvswarup
Apr 29, 12:46 AM
That can be viewed another way. Apple is too cheap to bother risking anything that is not a sure bet.
MS willing to risk R&D and a lot of R&D on things that might be a dead end.
MS R&D is more like a university Research compared to Apple R&D that is only about profit.
Guess which one adds more better for the people. Correct answer is not Apple
Your remark reminds me of a conversation I had with my brother. He was talking about starting a business. Now, to preface my next statement, let me offer a little background. A while ago, I suggested to my brother that he invest in stocks and he was not ready to take on the risk of it, so he refused to invest. So, when he said he wanted to start a business, my response was something like: "So you don't want to invest in stocks because it's too risky but you don't mind starting a business."
His response was: "Stocks have no value to society. With this business that I start, I would be able to make something of value to society."
I did not respond to it then, but after thinking about that remark, my response should have been that if the intention is create a for-profit business, an activity to make money for oneself, the value that the product adds to society is irrelevant. Also, companies use the cash from stock investors to fund capital expenditures. So the argument can be made that stocks indirectly add value to society because companies use the cash from stock investors to make more things that people can consume.
Your left-handed remark about Apple R&D vs. MS R&D is baseless and irrelevant. MS is not a university. It's a business. Businesses exist to make money. Also, Bill Gates did not start MS out of some altruistic intention of doing good for people. He started it to make money. Same goes for Steve Jobs.
Don't blow smoke and make this more than it really is. You were replying to the OP who said that Microsoft doesn't seem to be getting its money's worth on R&D. Don't aggrandize it fact by saying that MS is "adding more better for society" and Apple is "only about profit." The OP is right. Microsoft is not getting its money's worth on its R&D expenditure. Something has to change.
MS is a public corporation. Its first duty is to its shareholders. If spending better on R&D in order to get more profit out of it will enhance shareholder value, then Microsoft has an obligation to do so.
MS willing to risk R&D and a lot of R&D on things that might be a dead end.
MS R&D is more like a university Research compared to Apple R&D that is only about profit.
Guess which one adds more better for the people. Correct answer is not Apple
Your remark reminds me of a conversation I had with my brother. He was talking about starting a business. Now, to preface my next statement, let me offer a little background. A while ago, I suggested to my brother that he invest in stocks and he was not ready to take on the risk of it, so he refused to invest. So, when he said he wanted to start a business, my response was something like: "So you don't want to invest in stocks because it's too risky but you don't mind starting a business."
His response was: "Stocks have no value to society. With this business that I start, I would be able to make something of value to society."
I did not respond to it then, but after thinking about that remark, my response should have been that if the intention is create a for-profit business, an activity to make money for oneself, the value that the product adds to society is irrelevant. Also, companies use the cash from stock investors to fund capital expenditures. So the argument can be made that stocks indirectly add value to society because companies use the cash from stock investors to make more things that people can consume.
Your left-handed remark about Apple R&D vs. MS R&D is baseless and irrelevant. MS is not a university. It's a business. Businesses exist to make money. Also, Bill Gates did not start MS out of some altruistic intention of doing good for people. He started it to make money. Same goes for Steve Jobs.
Don't blow smoke and make this more than it really is. You were replying to the OP who said that Microsoft doesn't seem to be getting its money's worth on R&D. Don't aggrandize it fact by saying that MS is "adding more better for society" and Apple is "only about profit." The OP is right. Microsoft is not getting its money's worth on its R&D expenditure. Something has to change.
MS is a public corporation. Its first duty is to its shareholders. If spending better on R&D in order to get more profit out of it will enhance shareholder value, then Microsoft has an obligation to do so.
No comments:
Post a Comment