Stella
Aug 29, 03:53 PM
Why not target the bigger fish first? Too hard a target? Microsoft in its CD replication factories, Dell in its TV/monitor and board manufacturing facilities surely put out hundreds of tons of more toxic wastes than all of Apples productions combined. Why not start there?
Really, I thought it was a survey that happened to find Apple not so Green amongst other companies. Anything that puts Apple in a bad light is automatically deemed as "Singling out Apple".
I for one welcome this kind of thing - it names and shames.
Really, I thought it was a survey that happened to find Apple not so Green amongst other companies. Anything that puts Apple in a bad light is automatically deemed as "Singling out Apple".
I for one welcome this kind of thing - it names and shames.
Machoo
Jun 15, 06:02 PM
I live in good ole sunny California, down south. I don't have any troubles with dropped calls and I couldn't be happier with my at&t service. I am also totally stoked that the same company will be letting me upgrade early to the iphone 4. How awesome. I wish people all over the country had the same experience that I have that way maybe at&t wouldn't take so much grief for poor service.
MacFly123
Mar 18, 02:50 PM
I can maybe get behind the whole 'dishonest' thing, but... seriously. If I have an iphone and an ipad, and I decide to surf some sites or stream music through pandora on my ipad using tethering instead of doing those exact same actions on my phone, I'm now 'stealing' that data even though it would have been the exact same usage?
I realize there are other scenarios you could bring up that would be more like 'taking advantage' of the system, but me personally- if I'm using the data in a way I feel is no different than I would be using with my phone, I don't have any bad conscience about it whether it's allowed or not.
I thought I made clear in my post that this is simply double billing what is supposed to be an unlimited plan for many and I do NOT agree nor think it is ethical for the carriers to do this! But, when people sign a contract and agree to the terms doing otherwise is not being honest. Plain and simple.
I realize there are other scenarios you could bring up that would be more like 'taking advantage' of the system, but me personally- if I'm using the data in a way I feel is no different than I would be using with my phone, I don't have any bad conscience about it whether it's allowed or not.
I thought I made clear in my post that this is simply double billing what is supposed to be an unlimited plan for many and I do NOT agree nor think it is ethical for the carriers to do this! But, when people sign a contract and agree to the terms doing otherwise is not being honest. Plain and simple.
Mr. Gates
May 2, 03:59 PM
Macs are more vulnerable than people think.
They just have such a lower market share and percentage of users than Microsoft that its not worth it to write malware and virus's for them.
As Apple and OSX grows, this kind of thing will become more common and Apple will be more at risk
They just have such a lower market share and percentage of users than Microsoft that its not worth it to write malware and virus's for them.
As Apple and OSX grows, this kind of thing will become more common and Apple will be more at risk
RickyB
Apr 16, 11:30 AM
Also, if you enable "show path bar" in Finder, you can see the entire path you're in, and easily jump around.
And you can also go up a level in the directory structure by pressing [Command] + [Up arrow].
There's a load of shortcut keys here:
http://support.apple.com/kb/ht1343
And you can also go up a level in the directory structure by pressing [Command] + [Up arrow].
There's a load of shortcut keys here:
http://support.apple.com/kb/ht1343
AidenShaw
Jul 13, 07:07 AM
it depends whether you are looking at it from software-perspective or hardware-perspective.
Actually, it looks the same from both perspectives.
Yonah, Conroe and Merom have full hardware SMP support on the package (or on the chip itself).
The cache coherency and inter-processor (in this case meaning inter-core) communications features are present, and must be present in order to avoid corrupting memory data and to support an SMP operating system.
The difference with Woodcrest is that Yonah/Conroe/Merom do not support SMP features *between* sockets - the cache coherency and IPC mechanisms are not brought out to the pins on the package.
Woodcrest brings those signals out to the pins, and the Woodcrest's 5000x chipset connects those signals between sockets.
Actually, it looks the same from both perspectives.
Yonah, Conroe and Merom have full hardware SMP support on the package (or on the chip itself).
The cache coherency and inter-processor (in this case meaning inter-core) communications features are present, and must be present in order to avoid corrupting memory data and to support an SMP operating system.
The difference with Woodcrest is that Yonah/Conroe/Merom do not support SMP features *between* sockets - the cache coherency and IPC mechanisms are not brought out to the pins on the package.
Woodcrest brings those signals out to the pins, and the Woodcrest's 5000x chipset connects those signals between sockets.
AoWolf
Aug 29, 03:25 PM
To be honest I really don't care what green peace thinks. I wonder if you took all advancements that have benefited humanity made on macs versus all the work greenpeace has ever done who would come out on top. We definitely need to watch out for the environment but we need to do it logically not emotionally. Greenpeace is nothing but a group of eco-terriests in my opinion.
skunk
Mar 14, 04:09 PM
what they went through was unprecedented, and beyond the worst case scenarios they were designed for, so if the accident is fully contained (which unfortunately seems less likely as time goes by) the whole system should be commended.Trouble with this argument is that if everything goes completely tits-up with any other kind of power station, the results are indeed containable, but in the case of a nuclear power station, the results can be catastrophically bad. It is taking a worst case scenario to a whole different level.
HecubusPro
Sep 12, 06:52 PM
I don't think the box will have local storage per-se. - it isn't advertised (yet) as a DVR. It's more like the Elgato EyeHome as it streams content stored on your computer. So the HD issue will be on the computer.
That's why I put the "EDIT" in my above post. Thanks. :)
And I think it's a brilliant idea allowing it to stream from your computer. Looks like I'll be getting an external terabyte drive. :D
That's why I put the "EDIT" in my above post. Thanks. :)
And I think it's a brilliant idea allowing it to stream from your computer. Looks like I'll be getting an external terabyte drive. :D
UnixMac
Oct 12, 05:49 PM
You guys lost me and prolly (I like that, Prolly) about 90% of this forum....
have fun, and lets see how many pages you can get this thread to go to? I predict, 12.
have fun, and lets see how many pages you can get this thread to go to? I predict, 12.
appleguy123
Mar 24, 08:35 PM
I didn't realize that the Catholic Church had an irrational fear of homosexuals. Since the Catholic Church has an irrational fear of homosexuals could you please help me figure out the growing outreach (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Courage_International) to homosexuals?
You can't be serious.
We don't fear homosexuals. We just want them to live alone for all of their lives, as it is what God would have wanted.
An 'outreach to homosexuals' would be trying to find common ground between your religion and their orientation. Not sentencing them to a life of chastity to please your loving god.
Would you also live your entire life chastely, actively cursing every lustful thought you have(as jesus said if you lust you have already committed adultery in your heart)? It would show that you can empathize with the action plan your church advocates for homosexuals.
You can't be serious.
We don't fear homosexuals. We just want them to live alone for all of their lives, as it is what God would have wanted.
An 'outreach to homosexuals' would be trying to find common ground between your religion and their orientation. Not sentencing them to a life of chastity to please your loving god.
Would you also live your entire life chastely, actively cursing every lustful thought you have(as jesus said if you lust you have already committed adultery in your heart)? It would show that you can empathize with the action plan your church advocates for homosexuals.
KnightWRX
May 2, 05:51 PM
Until Vista and Win 7, it was effectively impossible to run a Windows NT system as anything but Administrator. To the point that other than locked-down corporate sites where an IT Professional was required to install the Corporate Approved version of any software you need to do your job, I never knew anyone running XP (or 2k, or for that matter NT 3.x) who in a day-to-day fashion used a Standard user account.
Of course, I don't know of any Linux distribution that doesn't require root to install system wide software either. Kind of negates your point there...
In contrast, an "Administrator" account on OS X was in reality a limited user account, just with some system-level privileges like being able to install apps that other people could run. A "Standard" user account was far more usable on OS X than the equivalent on Windows, because "Standard" users could install software into their user sandbox, etc. Still, most people I know run OS X as Administrator.
You could do the same as far back as Windows NT 3.1 in 1993. The fact that most software vendors wrote their applications for the non-secure DOS based versions of Windows is moot, that is not a problem of the OS's security model, it is a problem of the Application. This is not "Unix security" being better, it's "Software vendors for Windows" being dumber.
It's no different than if instead of writing my preferences to $HOME/.myapp/ I'd write a software that required writing everything to /usr/share/myapp/username/. That would require root in any decent Unix installation, or it would require me to set permissions on that folder to 775 and make all users of myapp part of the owning group. Or I could just go the lazy route, make the binary 4755 and set mount opts to suid on the filesystem where this binary resides... (ugh...).
This is no different on Windows NT based architectures. If you were so inclined, with tools like Filemon and Regmon, you could granularly set permissions in a way to install these misbehaving software so that they would work for regular users.
I know I did many times in a past life (back when I was sort of forced to do Windows systems administration... ugh... Windows NT 4.0 Terminal Server edition... what a wreck...).
Let's face it, Windows NT and Unix systems have very similar security models (in fact, Windows NT has superior ACL support out of the box, akin to Novell's close to perfect ACLs, Unix is far more limited with it's read/write/execute permission scheme, even with Posix ACLs in place). It's the hoops that software vendors outside the control of Microsoft made you go through that forced lazy users to run as Administrator all the time and gave Microsoft such headaches.
As far back as I remember (when I did some Windows systems programming), Microsoft was already advising to use the user's home folder/the user's registry hive for preferences and to never write to system locations.
The real differenc, though, is that an NT Administrator was really equivalent to the Unix root account. An OS X Administrator was a Unix non-root user with 'admin' group access. You could not start up the UI as the 'root' user (and the 'root' account was disabled by default).
Actually, the Administrator account (much less a standard user in the Administrators group) is not a root level account at all.
Notice how a root account on Unix can do everything, just by virtue of its 0 uid. It can write/delete/read files from filesystems it does not even have permissions on. It can kill any system process, no matter the owner.
Administrator on Windows NT is far more limited. Don't ever break your ACLs or don't try to kill processes owned by "System". SysInternals provided tools that let you do it, but Microsoft did not.
All that having been said, UAC has really evened the bar for Windows Vista and 7 (moreso in 7 after the usability tweaks Microsoft put in to stop people from disabling it). I see no functional security difference between the OS X authorization scheme and the Windows UAC scheme.
UAC is simply a gui front-end to the runas command. Heck, shift-right-click already had the "Run As" option. It's a glorified sudo. It uses RDP (since Vista, user sessions are really local RDP sessions) to prevent being able to "fake it", by showing up on the "console" session while the user's display resides on a RDP session.
There, you did it, you made me go on a defensive rant for Microsoft. I hate you now.
My response, why bother worrying about this when the attacker can do the same thing via shellcode generated in the background by exploiting a running process so the the user is unaware that code is being executed on the system
Because this required no particular exploit or vulnerability. A simple Javascript auto-download and Safari auto-opening an archive and running code.
Why bother, you're not "getting it". The only reason the user is aware of MACDefender is because it runs a GUI based installer. If the executable had had 0 GUI code and just run stuff in the background, you would have never known until you couldn't find your files or some chinese guy was buying goods with your CC info, fished right out of your "Bank stuff.xls" file.
That's the thing, infecting a computer at the system level is fine if you want to build a DoS botnet or something (and even then, you don't really need privilege escalation for that, just set login items for the current user, and run off a non-privilege port, root privileges are not required for ICMP access, only raw sockets).
These days, malware authors and users are much more interested in your data than your system. That's where the money is. Identity theft, phishing, they mean big bucks.
Of course, I don't know of any Linux distribution that doesn't require root to install system wide software either. Kind of negates your point there...
In contrast, an "Administrator" account on OS X was in reality a limited user account, just with some system-level privileges like being able to install apps that other people could run. A "Standard" user account was far more usable on OS X than the equivalent on Windows, because "Standard" users could install software into their user sandbox, etc. Still, most people I know run OS X as Administrator.
You could do the same as far back as Windows NT 3.1 in 1993. The fact that most software vendors wrote their applications for the non-secure DOS based versions of Windows is moot, that is not a problem of the OS's security model, it is a problem of the Application. This is not "Unix security" being better, it's "Software vendors for Windows" being dumber.
It's no different than if instead of writing my preferences to $HOME/.myapp/ I'd write a software that required writing everything to /usr/share/myapp/username/. That would require root in any decent Unix installation, or it would require me to set permissions on that folder to 775 and make all users of myapp part of the owning group. Or I could just go the lazy route, make the binary 4755 and set mount opts to suid on the filesystem where this binary resides... (ugh...).
This is no different on Windows NT based architectures. If you were so inclined, with tools like Filemon and Regmon, you could granularly set permissions in a way to install these misbehaving software so that they would work for regular users.
I know I did many times in a past life (back when I was sort of forced to do Windows systems administration... ugh... Windows NT 4.0 Terminal Server edition... what a wreck...).
Let's face it, Windows NT and Unix systems have very similar security models (in fact, Windows NT has superior ACL support out of the box, akin to Novell's close to perfect ACLs, Unix is far more limited with it's read/write/execute permission scheme, even with Posix ACLs in place). It's the hoops that software vendors outside the control of Microsoft made you go through that forced lazy users to run as Administrator all the time and gave Microsoft such headaches.
As far back as I remember (when I did some Windows systems programming), Microsoft was already advising to use the user's home folder/the user's registry hive for preferences and to never write to system locations.
The real differenc, though, is that an NT Administrator was really equivalent to the Unix root account. An OS X Administrator was a Unix non-root user with 'admin' group access. You could not start up the UI as the 'root' user (and the 'root' account was disabled by default).
Actually, the Administrator account (much less a standard user in the Administrators group) is not a root level account at all.
Notice how a root account on Unix can do everything, just by virtue of its 0 uid. It can write/delete/read files from filesystems it does not even have permissions on. It can kill any system process, no matter the owner.
Administrator on Windows NT is far more limited. Don't ever break your ACLs or don't try to kill processes owned by "System". SysInternals provided tools that let you do it, but Microsoft did not.
All that having been said, UAC has really evened the bar for Windows Vista and 7 (moreso in 7 after the usability tweaks Microsoft put in to stop people from disabling it). I see no functional security difference between the OS X authorization scheme and the Windows UAC scheme.
UAC is simply a gui front-end to the runas command. Heck, shift-right-click already had the "Run As" option. It's a glorified sudo. It uses RDP (since Vista, user sessions are really local RDP sessions) to prevent being able to "fake it", by showing up on the "console" session while the user's display resides on a RDP session.
There, you did it, you made me go on a defensive rant for Microsoft. I hate you now.
My response, why bother worrying about this when the attacker can do the same thing via shellcode generated in the background by exploiting a running process so the the user is unaware that code is being executed on the system
Because this required no particular exploit or vulnerability. A simple Javascript auto-download and Safari auto-opening an archive and running code.
Why bother, you're not "getting it". The only reason the user is aware of MACDefender is because it runs a GUI based installer. If the executable had had 0 GUI code and just run stuff in the background, you would have never known until you couldn't find your files or some chinese guy was buying goods with your CC info, fished right out of your "Bank stuff.xls" file.
That's the thing, infecting a computer at the system level is fine if you want to build a DoS botnet or something (and even then, you don't really need privilege escalation for that, just set login items for the current user, and run off a non-privilege port, root privileges are not required for ICMP access, only raw sockets).
These days, malware authors and users are much more interested in your data than your system. That's where the money is. Identity theft, phishing, they mean big bucks.
dante@sisna.com
Sep 12, 06:50 PM
So based on what was shown today, the iTV itself is not presenting itself as a recording solution, only playback.
If that is the case, then it still misses the mark because you cannot do the one thing that a PVR can do easily which is to pick up the remote and click record without getting out of your chair (assuming your Mac is in a different room than the TV).
That is by NO MEANS CERTAIN!!! Think about it: FrontRow's Remote will work through this device communicating with the desktop to load content. iTV itself connects directly to the web and to iTunes to get trailers, etc.
It is VERY feasible that a widget, or external USB device, of some sort will allow PVR (like elgato) to work via remote back to the software on the server. This would not be a difficult addon.
If that is the case, then it still misses the mark because you cannot do the one thing that a PVR can do easily which is to pick up the remote and click record without getting out of your chair (assuming your Mac is in a different room than the TV).
That is by NO MEANS CERTAIN!!! Think about it: FrontRow's Remote will work through this device communicating with the desktop to load content. iTV itself connects directly to the web and to iTunes to get trailers, etc.
It is VERY feasible that a widget, or external USB device, of some sort will allow PVR (like elgato) to work via remote back to the software on the server. This would not be a difficult addon.
wdogmedia
Aug 29, 03:52 PM
Even if, which I doubt, your theory of water vapour is correct - that does not give us the excuse to pollute this planet as we see fit. All industry and humans must clean up their act - literally.
Some of what I said was theory, but every factual statement I gave was just that - factual. No climatologist would argue with any of the facts I gave...it's just that, as with statistics, the interpretation of the fact differs.
And no, we have no excuse to pollute the planet....human actions proven to disrupt the environment (deforestation, toxic runoff, killing off animal species, etc.) should be stopped whenever possible. We are responsible for taking care of this planet, but at the same time we have to realize when advancements have been made. Our cars, boats, factories and city skies are infinitely more environmentally-friendly than they used to be, but if 30 years of industrial and personal "clean-up" have done nothing to stem global warming, it's only natural to wonder if maybe it's not us causing the problem.
In other words, if we've streamlined our machinery to be 99% more efficient, is it worth it to spend the billions of dollars to get rid of that last 1% if our original effort has done nothing to the greenhouse effect?
Some of what I said was theory, but every factual statement I gave was just that - factual. No climatologist would argue with any of the facts I gave...it's just that, as with statistics, the interpretation of the fact differs.
And no, we have no excuse to pollute the planet....human actions proven to disrupt the environment (deforestation, toxic runoff, killing off animal species, etc.) should be stopped whenever possible. We are responsible for taking care of this planet, but at the same time we have to realize when advancements have been made. Our cars, boats, factories and city skies are infinitely more environmentally-friendly than they used to be, but if 30 years of industrial and personal "clean-up" have done nothing to stem global warming, it's only natural to wonder if maybe it's not us causing the problem.
In other words, if we've streamlined our machinery to be 99% more efficient, is it worth it to spend the billions of dollars to get rid of that last 1% if our original effort has done nothing to the greenhouse effect?
dumb terminal
May 6, 02:42 AM
I challenge you to walk down the west side, anywhere... but take 9th avenue from say... the 57th St to the mid 30's. Just get in a cab. Make a phone call in regular traffic. I'd be willing to wager that at least 75% of the time you drop a call, once, if not twice during that trip. It happens to me nearly every day.
Heck, I work in an office in the Flatiron District, and on my work iPhone, it is literally an act of god if your call lasts longer than two minutes. I get slightly better times at home in Brooklyn (Prospect Heights), but I'm averaging about 5-6 dropped calls during the day. It's frustrating (and embarrassing at the same time) when I lose a call with a client, and after calling them back, they ask "Are you on AT&T?" And not to mention the absolutely atrocious data speeds.
Strangely, my (personal) Verizon Blackberry has never had a problem anywhere in NYC. Hmm :rolleyes:
Heck, I work in an office in the Flatiron District, and on my work iPhone, it is literally an act of god if your call lasts longer than two minutes. I get slightly better times at home in Brooklyn (Prospect Heights), but I'm averaging about 5-6 dropped calls during the day. It's frustrating (and embarrassing at the same time) when I lose a call with a client, and after calling them back, they ask "Are you on AT&T?" And not to mention the absolutely atrocious data speeds.
Strangely, my (personal) Verizon Blackberry has never had a problem anywhere in NYC. Hmm :rolleyes:
Cameront9
Apr 9, 10:07 PM
Nintendo will go out of business before they sell themselves to ANYONE. They're a proud Japanese company that's been around since 1889. They aren't going anywhere.
cambox
Apr 13, 01:03 PM
So basically what you are saying is that you are a two bit hack and a kid with just an ounce of creativity can easily replace you because any kid can afford a $300 program, whereas a $900 one keeps them artificially out of the game.
The really ironic thing about your post is that FCP 1.0 was a cost revolution itself bringing video editing to he masses for really the first time ever, which you took advantage of. Now that Apple is doing it again and you are at risk you seemingly outraged.
Try and get your facts right before spouting off and obviously you are no pro app user. Premier was before FCP and FCP was taken from premier as the person who built FCP was the same. Premier was the first cost revolution not FCP.1 as Macs didn't sell many at that point. It stands to reason that if you dilute something in price it will then be worth less, and in business you need a premium product to keep your head above water.. Its all very well Apple releasing garage band as this is ment for kids and individuals to play around with and when or if they decide to go and pursue this for a career they can up sell them to Logic or Pro Tools etc. This is a huge step up for that route, but what I am saying is this: If everyone has the same tools then how can it be called a pro app? The new FCP is pretty much based on Imovie and for those who dont except that try and use them both together and then you will see.
Take the Red camera.. this could sell for 5k and everyone would have one, so why would you pay a daily rate of $1500 to have someone use a camera that only costs $5k? Wake up and smell the coffee but as your post indicates you dont live in the real world as companies will pay more for something they feel is better than it really is. Its simple business logic and psychology. Companies pay a premium for a professional using professional gear not an app you download from the app store.
The really ironic thing about your post is that FCP 1.0 was a cost revolution itself bringing video editing to he masses for really the first time ever, which you took advantage of. Now that Apple is doing it again and you are at risk you seemingly outraged.
Try and get your facts right before spouting off and obviously you are no pro app user. Premier was before FCP and FCP was taken from premier as the person who built FCP was the same. Premier was the first cost revolution not FCP.1 as Macs didn't sell many at that point. It stands to reason that if you dilute something in price it will then be worth less, and in business you need a premium product to keep your head above water.. Its all very well Apple releasing garage band as this is ment for kids and individuals to play around with and when or if they decide to go and pursue this for a career they can up sell them to Logic or Pro Tools etc. This is a huge step up for that route, but what I am saying is this: If everyone has the same tools then how can it be called a pro app? The new FCP is pretty much based on Imovie and for those who dont except that try and use them both together and then you will see.
Take the Red camera.. this could sell for 5k and everyone would have one, so why would you pay a daily rate of $1500 to have someone use a camera that only costs $5k? Wake up and smell the coffee but as your post indicates you dont live in the real world as companies will pay more for something they feel is better than it really is. Its simple business logic and psychology. Companies pay a premium for a professional using professional gear not an app you download from the app store.
I'mAMac
Aug 29, 04:50 PM
THAT is something we agree completely on. :D ;) I bike back and forth to the university every day. I save money both on gas and gym at the same time as I do something for the environment.
Good we need more people to do that :) And i do agree with you about burning fossil fuels. Contributes the most.
Good we need more people to do that :) And i do agree with you about burning fossil fuels. Contributes the most.
ct2k7
Apr 24, 04:44 PM
If honour killings are cultural why do they seem sanctioned in muslim majority countries?
Are the action of a few countries a representative of Islam?
Have they, or have they not used the framework to full extent?
Did you notice that most of the situations talk about it being acceptable in Adultery? Not sure if you noticed, but they're also not following Sharia Law. These laws should not be implemented or executed, as per Sharia Law.
http://www.islamawareness.net/HonourKilling/honour_killings.pdf
Saudi Arabia, Indonesia, Nigeria, Turkey, Algeria, Morocco, Niger?
In Israr Ullah Zehri, a Pakistani politician in Balochistan, defended the honor killings of five women belonging to the Umrani tribe by a relative of a local Umrani politician[86].Zehri defended the killings in Parliament and asked his fellow legislators not to make a fuss about the incident. He said, "These are centuries-old traditions, and I will continue to defend them. Only those who indulge in immoral acts should be afraid."
From Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honor_killing#Support_and_sanction).
Are the action of a few countries a representative of Islam?
Have they, or have they not used the framework to full extent?
Did you notice that most of the situations talk about it being acceptable in Adultery? Not sure if you noticed, but they're also not following Sharia Law. These laws should not be implemented or executed, as per Sharia Law.
http://www.islamawareness.net/HonourKilling/honour_killings.pdf
Saudi Arabia, Indonesia, Nigeria, Turkey, Algeria, Morocco, Niger?
In Israr Ullah Zehri, a Pakistani politician in Balochistan, defended the honor killings of five women belonging to the Umrani tribe by a relative of a local Umrani politician[86].Zehri defended the killings in Parliament and asked his fellow legislators not to make a fuss about the incident. He said, "These are centuries-old traditions, and I will continue to defend them. Only those who indulge in immoral acts should be afraid."
From Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honor_killing#Support_and_sanction).
AlBDamned
Aug 29, 11:14 AM
zero evidence, other than my gut feeling.
Then that's nothing but semi-diluted Apple fanboi-ism which is, in my opinion, a lot worse than any Dell computer.
Given Greenpeace's mission and credibility, I think it's safe to assume that all manufacturers featured were graded on the same criteria. So at least in this survey, it's quite believable that Apple has dived compared to its competitors.
Apple does promote a hip, cool and socially aware image, but as a business it's quite far removed from that ideal.
Then that's nothing but semi-diluted Apple fanboi-ism which is, in my opinion, a lot worse than any Dell computer.
Given Greenpeace's mission and credibility, I think it's safe to assume that all manufacturers featured were graded on the same criteria. So at least in this survey, it's quite believable that Apple has dived compared to its competitors.
Apple does promote a hip, cool and socially aware image, but as a business it's quite far removed from that ideal.
spillproof
Oct 7, 10:44 AM
Other expected improvements in Android for its application store and development environment will be "backed by the power of Google's search engine,"
As in web apps?
As in web apps?
RedReplicant
Apr 5, 05:31 PM
One thing that got me was that you cannot make apps fill the screen without dragging and resizing. You can only resize from the bottom right corner. No real other annoyances for me that I can think of.
SizeUp is awesome for this, as well as tiling applications on the screen.
http://irradiatedsoftware.com/sizeup/
SizeUp is awesome for this, as well as tiling applications on the screen.
http://irradiatedsoftware.com/sizeup/
paulvee
Oct 31, 01:14 PM
Buy what you need when you need it and that's all there is to it.
That really is the truth. My dual 3.0 xeon will not be the top dawg within months, most likely, but I had to get it in order to finish this film and, as importantly, to bump my old top dawg Dual 2.0 G5 to my prep/photoshop/audio machine. My workflow involves two machines and my old MDD Dual 1.25 was the one that really needed to go.
I'm fine with four cores for now and, in a year or two, whenever I can justify a new machine, the Dual 3.0 will get knocked off the perch and I'll get the latest and greatest. I just wish that RAM and peripherals didn't add so much to the cost of a production machine these days, but that's life.
That really is the truth. My dual 3.0 xeon will not be the top dawg within months, most likely, but I had to get it in order to finish this film and, as importantly, to bump my old top dawg Dual 2.0 G5 to my prep/photoshop/audio machine. My workflow involves two machines and my old MDD Dual 1.25 was the one that really needed to go.
I'm fine with four cores for now and, in a year or two, whenever I can justify a new machine, the Dual 3.0 will get knocked off the perch and I'll get the latest and greatest. I just wish that RAM and peripherals didn't add so much to the cost of a production machine these days, but that's life.
HasanDaddy
Apr 13, 05:50 AM
Seriously - most you guys could walk into the Gates of Heaven, look at Jesus, and say "Is this all? This sucks."
I don't think I've read a comment here that even makes sense of the importance of this update - seriously - we have posters afraid that 10 year old kids will steal their jobs (get real people!)
The most important part of this update?
FCP is now 64 bit, using ALL parts of the processor, meaning that rendering is a thing of the past (depending on how souped up your system is) - that right there defeats Avid
This is a great update and one to be applauded - thank you APPLE for continually making video editing a cheap endeavor, that can remain professional - further pushing the forces at Avid to reduce the costs of their software
God Bless you Apple
(and last note - good editing happens because you're a GOOD EDITOR - not because you can 'afford' the right system)
I don't think I've read a comment here that even makes sense of the importance of this update - seriously - we have posters afraid that 10 year old kids will steal their jobs (get real people!)
The most important part of this update?
FCP is now 64 bit, using ALL parts of the processor, meaning that rendering is a thing of the past (depending on how souped up your system is) - that right there defeats Avid
This is a great update and one to be applauded - thank you APPLE for continually making video editing a cheap endeavor, that can remain professional - further pushing the forces at Avid to reduce the costs of their software
God Bless you Apple
(and last note - good editing happens because you're a GOOD EDITOR - not because you can 'afford' the right system)
No comments:
Post a Comment