spriter
Sep 9, 02:08 AM
I am moving up from an eMac 1 gigahertz G4. So I'm sure it will seem very fast to me. Probably more than I need.
You're in for a treat. I went from a 1.2GHz G4 to MacBook (2HGz Yonah) and it's streets ahead in terms of performance. 4 times faster encoding a DVD with Handbrake is a godsend.
The Merom iMac's are a great spec for the price.
You're in for a treat. I went from a 1.2GHz G4 to MacBook (2HGz Yonah) and it's streets ahead in terms of performance. 4 times faster encoding a DVD with Handbrake is a godsend.
The Merom iMac's are a great spec for the price.
homsar
May 3, 10:21 AM
Who has room for two external displays on a desk that already has a 27" iMac?! Dual outs on the MBP would make much more sense, although achieving it may be more of a technical challenge in terms of GPU power.
ETA: Of course, having an external display connected directly and using the other ThunderBolt port for non-display ThunderBolt devices makes much sense, especially seeing as ThunderBolt devices can't be daisy-chained after a display. So I'm not saying the two ports don't make sense.
ETA: Of course, having an external display connected directly and using the other ThunderBolt port for non-display ThunderBolt devices makes much sense, especially seeing as ThunderBolt devices can't be daisy-chained after a display. So I'm not saying the two ports don't make sense.
Peace
Sep 1, 11:44 AM
With speculation that Apple will be switching to NVidia I wonder if this 23" will have the new NVidia with HDMI support ?
MacVault
Sep 19, 06:19 PM
...How do they check their email when you take the notebook on the road?
iTunes places content into that folder when you download or rip. But you can put content anywhere, just drag it into iTunes from the new location. I'd like to see them support multiple folders in the future, but you can certainly use content without having it in the folder already.
They don't care about email. They just want to watch the movies I buy from iTunes, etc.
As for where iTunes puts it's content... the original poster had a good point - how to have the content synched between the external/networked storage device and the local machine, for example an laptop, so when one is on the road they can have access to the content on their storage server at home, although limited by the laptops available hard drive space, etc.
iTunes places content into that folder when you download or rip. But you can put content anywhere, just drag it into iTunes from the new location. I'd like to see them support multiple folders in the future, but you can certainly use content without having it in the folder already.
They don't care about email. They just want to watch the movies I buy from iTunes, etc.
As for where iTunes puts it's content... the original poster had a good point - how to have the content synched between the external/networked storage device and the local machine, for example an laptop, so when one is on the road they can have access to the content on their storage server at home, although limited by the laptops available hard drive space, etc.
Minimum91
Apr 11, 04:31 AM
Is anyone here educated enough to explain to me how to compile and run this thing?
I can't find a way to install avahi. Tried installing it via fink - no luck.
MacPorts requires xcode, but I don't really want to install xcode. takes up a lot of space.
Even though I know some things I'd still prefer if someone would make a step-by-step how-to for me.
Thank you in advance.
I can't find a way to install avahi. Tried installing it via fink - no luck.
MacPorts requires xcode, but I don't really want to install xcode. takes up a lot of space.
Even though I know some things I'd still prefer if someone would make a step-by-step how-to for me.
Thank you in advance.
aloshka
Apr 4, 12:03 PM
I don't think the "deserve" to be shot but if they get shot and killed while doing it, they should have known better. What if someone broke into your house and mentally harmed your family? They only deserve to be locked up for a couple of months, right?
- Joe
A better example, what if they broke into the house and shot at you multiple times. So unless they successfully kill you, they should just see a few years prison and when they are out they are free to come out and try again, over and over again until they finally do hit your sorry ass?
- Joe
A better example, what if they broke into the house and shot at you multiple times. So unless they successfully kill you, they should just see a few years prison and when they are out they are free to come out and try again, over and over again until they finally do hit your sorry ass?
munkery
Mar 23, 04:20 PM
http://www.macforensicslab.com/ProductsAndServices/index.php?main_page=document_general_info&products_id=174
Much of the information in the PDF (http://www.macforensicslab.com/Malware_on_Mac_OS_X.pdf) associated with this article (http://www.macforensicslab.com/ProductsAndServices/index.php?main_page=document_general_info&products_id=174) is incorrect. For example:
Page 26
It refers to the bundle architecture as insecure. The argument presented would be true if security sensitive apps were not owned by system. Given that they are owned by system, malware cannot modify the bundle of an app owned by system without authentication when the app is run with user privileges in an admin or standard account.
For example, show package contents of iTunes, Safari, or Mail and try to create a folder in the bundle. In relation to the example in the article, try renaming iTunes. The argument in the article relies on actions that can not be completed in an OS X admin account; these type of changes are even more restricted in a standard account.
Apps not owned by system are vulnerable but without privilege escalation can not install rootkits or keyloggers. Even apps owned by system run with user privileges and require privilege escalation to install dangerous payloads.
Mac OS X does not prompt for authentication if you install apps in the proper location for that user account type. When installed in the proper location, apps are sandboxed from the system level of Mac OS X by the Unix DAC model used within Mac OS X.
Windows is less secure because most apps (Chrome only exception I can recall) install their associated files in levels of the system that require authentication regardless of user account type (unless Admin in Windows XP because running as superuser - no authentication required to install with elevated privileges - very dangerous). It is easier to trick Windows users to install a trojan with elevated privileges given that almost all apps ask for authentication to install and the user can not distinguish the intent of that authentication.
Page 30
The claim that the Application folder is unprotected is false. Security sensitive apps within the Application folder are owned by system.
Also, security sensitive system binaries are still stored in /bin and /sbin in Mac OS X.
Page 31
The ability to read the contacts stored in Address Book could be used by a worm to propagate. But, malware that uses this to spread is not likely to appear in the wild if the malware is not profitable. It is unlikely that malware will be profitable without being able to hook (this is a specific function) into apps owned by system.
Page 33
Starts off talking about trojans, trojans are easily avoided with user knowledge in Mac OS X because most apps do not require authentication to install if installed in the appropriate location where the Unix DAC model protects the system.
Viruses using the model shown in the article will not be successful without privilege escalation. This is the reason why Mac OS X malware is not successful in the wild.
By default, very few server side services are exposed in Mac OS X and those that are exposed are sandboxed. Vectors for worm propagation are limited to client side. Client side worms require authentication to install and spread if do not include privilege escalation via exploitation because of the Unix DAC model used in Mac OS X. Trojans used to trick users to authenticate are less likely to be successful in Mac OS X as stated above.
Much of the information in the PDF (http://www.macforensicslab.com/Malware_on_Mac_OS_X.pdf) associated with this article (http://www.macforensicslab.com/ProductsAndServices/index.php?main_page=document_general_info&products_id=174) is incorrect. For example:
Page 26
It refers to the bundle architecture as insecure. The argument presented would be true if security sensitive apps were not owned by system. Given that they are owned by system, malware cannot modify the bundle of an app owned by system without authentication when the app is run with user privileges in an admin or standard account.
For example, show package contents of iTunes, Safari, or Mail and try to create a folder in the bundle. In relation to the example in the article, try renaming iTunes. The argument in the article relies on actions that can not be completed in an OS X admin account; these type of changes are even more restricted in a standard account.
Apps not owned by system are vulnerable but without privilege escalation can not install rootkits or keyloggers. Even apps owned by system run with user privileges and require privilege escalation to install dangerous payloads.
Mac OS X does not prompt for authentication if you install apps in the proper location for that user account type. When installed in the proper location, apps are sandboxed from the system level of Mac OS X by the Unix DAC model used within Mac OS X.
Windows is less secure because most apps (Chrome only exception I can recall) install their associated files in levels of the system that require authentication regardless of user account type (unless Admin in Windows XP because running as superuser - no authentication required to install with elevated privileges - very dangerous). It is easier to trick Windows users to install a trojan with elevated privileges given that almost all apps ask for authentication to install and the user can not distinguish the intent of that authentication.
Page 30
The claim that the Application folder is unprotected is false. Security sensitive apps within the Application folder are owned by system.
Also, security sensitive system binaries are still stored in /bin and /sbin in Mac OS X.
Page 31
The ability to read the contacts stored in Address Book could be used by a worm to propagate. But, malware that uses this to spread is not likely to appear in the wild if the malware is not profitable. It is unlikely that malware will be profitable without being able to hook (this is a specific function) into apps owned by system.
Page 33
Starts off talking about trojans, trojans are easily avoided with user knowledge in Mac OS X because most apps do not require authentication to install if installed in the appropriate location where the Unix DAC model protects the system.
Viruses using the model shown in the article will not be successful without privilege escalation. This is the reason why Mac OS X malware is not successful in the wild.
By default, very few server side services are exposed in Mac OS X and those that are exposed are sandboxed. Vectors for worm propagation are limited to client side. Client side worms require authentication to install and spread if do not include privilege escalation via exploitation because of the Unix DAC model used in Mac OS X. Trojans used to trick users to authenticate are less likely to be successful in Mac OS X as stated above.
CorvusCamenarum
Apr 19, 10:52 PM
Those who believe in making children obese should be put up against a wall and shot in the head...
That would leave an awful lot of parents dead.
That would leave an awful lot of parents dead.
donlphi
Sep 26, 11:29 AM
Oh man. Verizon early termination fee, here I come.
Why would anybody stop their Verizon or Sprint service for an iPHONE? Does cingular even carry a broadband wireless service? EV-DO is only getting better and Cingular can't even come close to the same offerings.
I'm sure it will be a nice phone, but don't be disappointed when you can't call anybody without being in roaming. Also don't be disappointed when your bluetooth tethering for internet is slower than a 300 baud modem on a commodore 64. :D
Once again... Apple teams up with a loser. Misery loves company. I pray this contract only lasts a year or LESS. CINGULAR... jeeze:mad:
Why would anybody stop their Verizon or Sprint service for an iPHONE? Does cingular even carry a broadband wireless service? EV-DO is only getting better and Cingular can't even come close to the same offerings.
I'm sure it will be a nice phone, but don't be disappointed when you can't call anybody without being in roaming. Also don't be disappointed when your bluetooth tethering for internet is slower than a 300 baud modem on a commodore 64. :D
Once again... Apple teams up with a loser. Misery loves company. I pray this contract only lasts a year or LESS. CINGULAR... jeeze:mad:
swingerofbirch
Oct 12, 09:52 PM
I have to pay an extra $10 and that goes where?
The extra $10 comes out of the $50/month wages of the iPod oompa loompa workers in China and goes to African AIDS relief.
It makes it so much more convenient for the Chinese to donate directly in this way.
The extra $10 comes out of the $50/month wages of the iPod oompa loompa workers in China and goes to African AIDS relief.
It makes it so much more convenient for the Chinese to donate directly in this way.
JimMacFan
Mar 23, 09:45 PM
Dont forget you'll need an SSD too inside the iMac to achieve the Thunderbolt speeds!!
And it must be a very good and expensive SSD, with more than 700MB/s.
Thunderbolt not worth it right now because its TOO expensive. I'll wait 2 years, when SSDs are much MUCH more cheaper.
So its only SSD to SSD where you get the performance? For example, if I have a regular HD 7200 WD in my Imac and an externall Lacie SSD, I wont see the speeds posted? I needs to be SSD to SSD?
And it must be a very good and expensive SSD, with more than 700MB/s.
Thunderbolt not worth it right now because its TOO expensive. I'll wait 2 years, when SSDs are much MUCH more cheaper.
So its only SSD to SSD where you get the performance? For example, if I have a regular HD 7200 WD in my Imac and an externall Lacie SSD, I wont see the speeds posted? I needs to be SSD to SSD?
Onimusha370
Mar 22, 01:49 PM
Finally some Mac rumors.. :D
my thoughts exactly :)
my thoughts exactly :)
iMacZealot
Sep 20, 08:00 PM
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.
I find a few things wrong with this:
1) I don't think EU chose GSM because it was European and not American --- according to Wikipedia, GSM publicly came out in 1990 and CDMA (or IS-95) in 1996.
2) I think it's hard to compare IS-95 and GSM. It's comparing apples to oranges. Sure, there are some things better about them, but CDMA and TDMA are completely different techniques and hard to compare.
3) When you're talking about CDMA being used in future technologies in Europe, if you mean UMTS, that's not CDMA. It's the next generation GSM 3G technology, but uses wideband CDMA or WCDMA in the process. It is considered GSM technology.
4) If you're choosing your new cellular provider based on whether they use CDMA or GSM, that's sad because you're going to get a phone that makes calls anyway. The rest, in my opinion, differs between what the execs at T-Cingizon PCS are thinking.
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.
I find a few things wrong with this:
1) I don't think EU chose GSM because it was European and not American --- according to Wikipedia, GSM publicly came out in 1990 and CDMA (or IS-95) in 1996.
2) I think it's hard to compare IS-95 and GSM. It's comparing apples to oranges. Sure, there are some things better about them, but CDMA and TDMA are completely different techniques and hard to compare.
3) When you're talking about CDMA being used in future technologies in Europe, if you mean UMTS, that's not CDMA. It's the next generation GSM 3G technology, but uses wideband CDMA or WCDMA in the process. It is considered GSM technology.
4) If you're choosing your new cellular provider based on whether they use CDMA or GSM, that's sad because you're going to get a phone that makes calls anyway. The rest, in my opinion, differs between what the execs at T-Cingizon PCS are thinking.
macenforcer
Sep 1, 11:38 AM
Bring on the 30" imac.
kurtsayin
Oct 27, 12:37 PM
I'm so sick of environmentalists. It is just self-righteous bigotry that has very little basis in actual facts. We don't live in some kind of uber-polluted country where the air is unbreathable and garbage heaps block scenic viewing. We are not short on trees, we are not short on resources, we are not all dying from PVC poisoning...
Greenpeace's website was talking about how children in far-East countries were poisoned from rummaging through apple computer parts and that it is some how apple's fault?! If Greenpeace had any kind of results-oriented logic, they would focus their efforts on governmental reforms in other countries that [U]buy our garbage![U] Why should apple be forced to change products that function almost perfectly because some backward governments in Asia enslave their people and buy our garbage to let people try and rummage through it for parts?
Greenpeace is a fringe, extremist group that hates industry above all else - Industry that brings us computers, cars, phones, televisions, radios... If they had their way, we would be living in the 18th century again, in which case we would be swiftly taken over by China... :(
Greenpeace's website was talking about how children in far-East countries were poisoned from rummaging through apple computer parts and that it is some how apple's fault?! If Greenpeace had any kind of results-oriented logic, they would focus their efforts on governmental reforms in other countries that [U]buy our garbage![U] Why should apple be forced to change products that function almost perfectly because some backward governments in Asia enslave their people and buy our garbage to let people try and rummage through it for parts?
Greenpeace is a fringe, extremist group that hates industry above all else - Industry that brings us computers, cars, phones, televisions, radios... If they had their way, we would be living in the 18th century again, in which case we would be swiftly taken over by China... :(
Surely
Apr 4, 12:25 PM
I'm amazed that so many people are basing their judgment of the "head shot" on 3rd person shooter games and CSI. In the real world, anyone with training will always be aiming for the center of mass, and where he actually hits depends more on luck than anything else.
In other words, just because the criminal was hit in the head, doesn't mean that the security guard was aiming for his head. A mall security guard with a pistol shooting at a moving target during a gunfight doesn't have the accuracy of a Marine sniper shooting a sniper rifle at a stationary target.
+1
Especially when ~40 shots were exchanged in the gunfight. It sounds like the guard was shooting to save his own life.
In other words, just because the criminal was hit in the head, doesn't mean that the security guard was aiming for his head. A mall security guard with a pistol shooting at a moving target during a gunfight doesn't have the accuracy of a Marine sniper shooting a sniper rifle at a stationary target.
+1
Especially when ~40 shots were exchanged in the gunfight. It sounds like the guard was shooting to save his own life.
FloatingBones
Apr 20, 10:08 AM
Shame that everyone is going to jump to conclusions rather than work out why this is stored.
The obvious problem is that the data may be extracted -- against the will of the owner -- for a completely different reason than it was initially stored. See this comment (http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=12427513&postcount=17) in the discussion thread.
The obvious problem is that the data may be extracted -- against the will of the owner -- for a completely different reason than it was initially stored. See this comment (http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=12427513&postcount=17) in the discussion thread.
BC2009
Mar 30, 11:47 AM
Yes, but that doesn't matter. The word Windows is no generic IT word, while app(lication) is. That's the difference.
"Apple" can't be used to trademark a fruit, but it can be used to trademark a computer. "Windows" can't be used to trademark "windows of a house" but it can be for an operating system. "App store" can be trademarked for a brothel but not for a store that sells computer applications.
We all called those things "windows operating systems" or "windows-based operating systems" (and "graphical operating systems") in the IT industry back in the day when Microsoft got the trademark. You very heavily focus on the slang word "app" in the IT industry rather than the term "App Store" which is what the trademark application is for. Oddly, Microsoft did not trademark "Windows Operating System" they trademarked "Windows" which is more akin to your argument against the single word being generic. Nobody is saying that "Windows" is something on a house and therefore can be trademarked in the computer industry -- I am saying that "windows" and "windows operating systems" had a meaning in the computer industry BEFORE Microsoft was given a trademark.
Oddly, Apple got them to rename to their "Trash" to "Recycle Bin" -- I wonder why Microsoft didn't just trademark "Trash" instead of "Windows" for the operating system -- seems a much more fitting metaphor for their windows-based operating system latch on to.
By the way.... after the Windows trademark, Apple had to be careful in their literature with over-using the term "Windows" lest somebody think that Mac OS, being a windows-based operating system, was based on Microsoft Windows.
"Apple" can't be used to trademark a fruit, but it can be used to trademark a computer. "Windows" can't be used to trademark "windows of a house" but it can be for an operating system. "App store" can be trademarked for a brothel but not for a store that sells computer applications.
We all called those things "windows operating systems" or "windows-based operating systems" (and "graphical operating systems") in the IT industry back in the day when Microsoft got the trademark. You very heavily focus on the slang word "app" in the IT industry rather than the term "App Store" which is what the trademark application is for. Oddly, Microsoft did not trademark "Windows Operating System" they trademarked "Windows" which is more akin to your argument against the single word being generic. Nobody is saying that "Windows" is something on a house and therefore can be trademarked in the computer industry -- I am saying that "windows" and "windows operating systems" had a meaning in the computer industry BEFORE Microsoft was given a trademark.
Oddly, Apple got them to rename to their "Trash" to "Recycle Bin" -- I wonder why Microsoft didn't just trademark "Trash" instead of "Windows" for the operating system -- seems a much more fitting metaphor for their windows-based operating system latch on to.
By the way.... after the Windows trademark, Apple had to be careful in their literature with over-using the term "Windows" lest somebody think that Mac OS, being a windows-based operating system, was based on Microsoft Windows.
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.
Peace
Sep 5, 04:46 PM
ok, just made a quick mockup of what i would like to see announced next week :cool:
http://users.pandora.be/blackbox/airport_video.png
and make shure it also works with video_ts folders and avi/divx files (maybe via a front row API for third party developers like VLC?) ;)
this would perfectly complement that itunes movie store
Only one problem with that..
You can already do it with iTunes sharing.Just have a Mini next to the TV.
And it would be hard to go to one room and start the movie then go to the other room and start watching it.
If there is a media device it will be set-top box or Mini style that sits next to the main TV.
http://users.pandora.be/blackbox/airport_video.png
and make shure it also works with video_ts folders and avi/divx files (maybe via a front row API for third party developers like VLC?) ;)
this would perfectly complement that itunes movie store
Only one problem with that..
You can already do it with iTunes sharing.Just have a Mini next to the TV.
And it would be hard to go to one room and start the movie then go to the other room and start watching it.
If there is a media device it will be set-top box or Mini style that sits next to the main TV.
dolph0291
Mar 30, 01:18 PM
They are bothered because they want to be able to describe their app store. They want to be able to say:
"We have this thing called Marketplace. What is it? Well, it's a place where you can by apps. Think of it as a grocery store for apps. You know, an app store."
In the Windows world, it would be a Program Store. Look at any Windows computer and there's nothing called an application or an app. MS claims to have, like 95% of the desktop market. How would the gazillion Windows users out there even know what an "app" was? They've had zero exposure to it, it's a totally foreign term. Wait a minute, it's an Apple term that is coming into common usage and now MS might have to change their language to get rid of the goofy term "program", conceding defeat, so its usage must be stopped or curtailed. That's what this is really about.
"We have this thing called Marketplace. What is it? Well, it's a place where you can by apps. Think of it as a grocery store for apps. You know, an app store."
In the Windows world, it would be a Program Store. Look at any Windows computer and there's nothing called an application or an app. MS claims to have, like 95% of the desktop market. How would the gazillion Windows users out there even know what an "app" was? They've had zero exposure to it, it's a totally foreign term. Wait a minute, it's an Apple term that is coming into common usage and now MS might have to change their language to get rid of the goofy term "program", conceding defeat, so its usage must be stopped or curtailed. That's what this is really about.
MacAddict1978
Apr 30, 04:08 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_2 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8H7 Safari/6533.18.5)
Neither will be redesigned next year. Look at the length of time Apple stuck with the previous design. There are still a few years left to this "look."
No offense, but it's rather likely the following revision will launch a refined design. (It's usually done in the fall refresh historically.) This design is rather old and still fashions the old poly carbonite white i-Mac design. Changing the material to unibody aluminum was just a material change that gave it a "newer more modern" look, but it still wasn't a full on redeux. The last major complete redesign was when it went from the iLamp to this form factor.
Though maybe 1 more year.... not quite sure what more than can do with the design except maybe ditch the entire bezzle for 21.5-27" of sexy screen.
Neither will be redesigned next year. Look at the length of time Apple stuck with the previous design. There are still a few years left to this "look."
No offense, but it's rather likely the following revision will launch a refined design. (It's usually done in the fall refresh historically.) This design is rather old and still fashions the old poly carbonite white i-Mac design. Changing the material to unibody aluminum was just a material change that gave it a "newer more modern" look, but it still wasn't a full on redeux. The last major complete redesign was when it went from the iLamp to this form factor.
Though maybe 1 more year.... not quite sure what more than can do with the design except maybe ditch the entire bezzle for 21.5-27" of sexy screen.
Gem�tlichkeit
Apr 22, 08:24 PM
Backlit keyboard on it and I am in. Perfect form factor and feature set for what I do all day every day. And less weight in my bag
Currently have the 13 mbp and would love to get a MBA to lighten my load.
I've heard this request from a lot of people on this forum. Is this really a deal breaker for you? the screen isn't bright enough at night to illuminate the keys that you need a separate source of light?
Currently have the 13 mbp and would love to get a MBA to lighten my load.
I've heard this request from a lot of people on this forum. Is this really a deal breaker for you? the screen isn't bright enough at night to illuminate the keys that you need a separate source of light?
codymac
Apr 11, 09:18 PM
The more paranoid might suggest that oil companies are collaborating with auto makers and the government to keep efficiency as low as they can get away with. Remember, the record for fuel economy was set in the mid 70s in a slightly modified Opel: something like 237 miles on a gallon (US) of gasoline. Highly idealized conditions no doubt, but my goodness, the average automobile today should be at least a third of the way there.
Well, if we're talking about ideal conditions...
;)
The Shell Opel got close to 400mpg back in the 70s. Now Shell sponsors the Eco Challenge and the top internal combustion car for 2010 was over 6000mpg while the top fuel cell car was over 10,000mpg.
No... those aren't typos.
http://www.sonoma.fr/projects/SECOM_EU/src/iFrame.php?f_compGroup=7vtbzw2hj2&f_DispUnits=mpg&
Well, if we're talking about ideal conditions...
;)
The Shell Opel got close to 400mpg back in the 70s. Now Shell sponsors the Eco Challenge and the top internal combustion car for 2010 was over 6000mpg while the top fuel cell car was over 10,000mpg.
No... those aren't typos.
http://www.sonoma.fr/projects/SECOM_EU/src/iFrame.php?f_compGroup=7vtbzw2hj2&f_DispUnits=mpg&
No comments:
Post a Comment