BlizzardBomb
Jul 14, 12:28 PM
Yeah, if they can fit a Conroe into the iMac, more power to Apple. I just hope it doesn't turn it into the blast furnace my iMac G5 was.
From what I can tell Merom is just a Conroe that can operate at a lower TDP. They're all just fabricated off the same piece of silicon. (Someone posted an image on this.)
I believe only Rev. As and Rev. Bs are blast furnaces, Rev. C iMac G5 was supposedly much quieter thanks to the bulged case.
I know the image you're talking about. Meroms on the inside, Conroes on the outside ring, Celerons furthest out.
From what I can tell Merom is just a Conroe that can operate at a lower TDP. They're all just fabricated off the same piece of silicon. (Someone posted an image on this.)
I believe only Rev. As and Rev. Bs are blast furnaces, Rev. C iMac G5 was supposedly much quieter thanks to the bulged case.
I know the image you're talking about. Meroms on the inside, Conroes on the outside ring, Celerons furthest out.
MisterMe
Jan 1, 11:47 AM
Sad, but true :(
(And I don't feel the need to argue or debate or say more in this thread to justify this obvious fact.)Sad, but false.
Wishing will not make it so.
(And I don't feel the need to argue or debate or say more in this thread to justify this obvious fact.)Sad, but false.
Wishing will not make it so.
cmaier
Nov 14, 12:08 AM
Dude. You have a double standard. If Apple were to infringe on the copyright of someone else, you would be here pitchfork in hand screaming for blood.
If you look on other sites like macnn, you will see that the airfoil app does not only display Apple icons but rather the icon of whatever browser is configured as the main browser. They cannot make the claim that they have to right to use the Firefox, Camino or Omniweb icon in their app. It is not "streaming" the icon data, it is copied over and displayed superimposed on another icon which is presumably an internal OS X bundle. The audio is streamed but those icons are copied over and superimposed on each other on the phone. That is a clear violation of the IP of other programs in a manner that is not consistent with use on the mac it was pulled from.
Mozilla's trademark policy appears to allow this sort of use:
http://www.mozilla.org/foundation/trademarks/policy.html
More importantly, each of these companies is likely to argue for trademark infringement/unfair competition, not copyright infringement, particularly when the icon is trademarked (which is a different case than the Mac icons we are talking about).
It is permissible to use a trademark so long as there is no confusion as to source. That is, if people using the RA software are likely to think that somehow Mozilla (or the other companies) are the source of the software, this would be impermissible. It is permissible to use trademarks in a descriptive sense - i.e.: this icon means that the thing you are connecting to is the product Mozilla. There is also a fair use/non-trademark use defense. As long as the message I am sending is not "this product IS mozilla" it probably is not trademark infringement.
If you look on other sites like macnn, you will see that the airfoil app does not only display Apple icons but rather the icon of whatever browser is configured as the main browser. They cannot make the claim that they have to right to use the Firefox, Camino or Omniweb icon in their app. It is not "streaming" the icon data, it is copied over and displayed superimposed on another icon which is presumably an internal OS X bundle. The audio is streamed but those icons are copied over and superimposed on each other on the phone. That is a clear violation of the IP of other programs in a manner that is not consistent with use on the mac it was pulled from.
Mozilla's trademark policy appears to allow this sort of use:
http://www.mozilla.org/foundation/trademarks/policy.html
More importantly, each of these companies is likely to argue for trademark infringement/unfair competition, not copyright infringement, particularly when the icon is trademarked (which is a different case than the Mac icons we are talking about).
It is permissible to use a trademark so long as there is no confusion as to source. That is, if people using the RA software are likely to think that somehow Mozilla (or the other companies) are the source of the software, this would be impermissible. It is permissible to use trademarks in a descriptive sense - i.e.: this icon means that the thing you are connecting to is the product Mozilla. There is also a fair use/non-trademark use defense. As long as the message I am sending is not "this product IS mozilla" it probably is not trademark infringement.
munkery
Jan 14, 01:11 PM
Maybe theoretically you should do that, but I don't know anyone that actually does on Windows or OS X. In both cases you aren't actually running with your full powers all the time, and get prompted to escalate if something needs admin access.
The default account created in Mac OS X has password authentication. Your password is the unique identifier. Most people use the default account created by the OS for day to day computing.
Commercial software shouldn't be installing malware...I mean tons of it now has all kinds of DRM that is arguably malware, but...
While I'd rather run something without giving it full access to the system, ultimately you're trusting the publisher either way.
When the software is running with superuser privilege and connects to servers that can be controlled by anybody such as in many online games for Windows, the content downloaded from the server can be written anywhere in your system. This allows keyloggers, backdoors, and malware rootkits to be installed.
Why?
Why! (http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=11720477&postcount=182).
I really doubt they double count things like that, given they're counted separately. I suppose there might be some validity to it if they did.
They count the number of items in each vendors security releases. Mac OS X includes Flash, Java, & etc by default so vulnerabilities in those are counted for Mac OS X because included in Apple security releases. Often these items constitute the majority of vulnerabilities in the security release. It is only valid if Windows users don't install Flash, Java, various ActiveX components, codecs, etc, etc, etc...
I'm not seeing why you're saying there's any difference. I don't use IE or Safari as my primary browser, though there may be some validity to including one or the other in the list of OS issues, but at any rate neither yet sandboxes plug-ins to my knowledge.
There's a flag that can be set for that, but I'm not sure where you're getting it from that article. Regardless 'some' is better than 'none'.
Except for Chrome which is sandboxed, all browser are susceptible to the security problems of the underlying OS but these issues arise in more than just the browser. An example of how they are different is Java has no security mitigations (DER or ASLR) in Windows (as shown in article) but Java has hardware based DEP and partial ASLR in Mac OS X as Java is 64 bit in OS X. Also, Mac OS X randomizes memory space into 4 byte chunks making it more difficult to defeat ASLR while Windows uses 64 byte chunks. Like you said, some is better than none.
Security mitigations, such as DEP and ASLR, can be optionally set in Windows OSes for various reasons such as support for legacy software. A lot of software for Windows comes with weak security by default and will break if the user tries to modify its settings. In Mac OS X, apps have a standard level of security mitigations dependent on the type of process (32 or 64 bit) that are set at that standard level when the app is compiled and not modifiable as in Windows (Opt-in, Opt-out, etc).
Which is different from Windows how?
Because Windows has a history of malware that achieves privilege escalation and Mac OS X does not? Check out these from late November 2010:
Security hole in Windows kernel allows UAC bypass (http://www.zdnet.com/blog/security/security-hole-in-windows-kernel-allows-uac-bypass/7752)
Nightmare kernel bug lets attackers evade Windows UAC security (http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9198158/_Nightmare_kernel_bug_lets_attackers_evade_Windows_UAC_security)
UAC bypass exploit for Metasploit (http://www.exploit-db.com/bypassing-uac-with-user-privilege-under-windows-vista7-mirror/)
short hair on girls.
Image of Short Hairstyles With
Short Hair Styles Older Women
short haircuts for older women
pictures
hair style is so versatile
short haircuts for older women
Hairstyles For Short Hair For
short hair cuts for women over
hair style for girls. Short
hairstyles for short hairquot;
Short Curly Hairstyles For
Hair Short Hairstyles Anna
Short Hair
The short pixie hairstyle for
The default account created in Mac OS X has password authentication. Your password is the unique identifier. Most people use the default account created by the OS for day to day computing.
Commercial software shouldn't be installing malware...I mean tons of it now has all kinds of DRM that is arguably malware, but...
While I'd rather run something without giving it full access to the system, ultimately you're trusting the publisher either way.
When the software is running with superuser privilege and connects to servers that can be controlled by anybody such as in many online games for Windows, the content downloaded from the server can be written anywhere in your system. This allows keyloggers, backdoors, and malware rootkits to be installed.
Why?
Why! (http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=11720477&postcount=182).
I really doubt they double count things like that, given they're counted separately. I suppose there might be some validity to it if they did.
They count the number of items in each vendors security releases. Mac OS X includes Flash, Java, & etc by default so vulnerabilities in those are counted for Mac OS X because included in Apple security releases. Often these items constitute the majority of vulnerabilities in the security release. It is only valid if Windows users don't install Flash, Java, various ActiveX components, codecs, etc, etc, etc...
I'm not seeing why you're saying there's any difference. I don't use IE or Safari as my primary browser, though there may be some validity to including one or the other in the list of OS issues, but at any rate neither yet sandboxes plug-ins to my knowledge.
There's a flag that can be set for that, but I'm not sure where you're getting it from that article. Regardless 'some' is better than 'none'.
Except for Chrome which is sandboxed, all browser are susceptible to the security problems of the underlying OS but these issues arise in more than just the browser. An example of how they are different is Java has no security mitigations (DER or ASLR) in Windows (as shown in article) but Java has hardware based DEP and partial ASLR in Mac OS X as Java is 64 bit in OS X. Also, Mac OS X randomizes memory space into 4 byte chunks making it more difficult to defeat ASLR while Windows uses 64 byte chunks. Like you said, some is better than none.
Security mitigations, such as DEP and ASLR, can be optionally set in Windows OSes for various reasons such as support for legacy software. A lot of software for Windows comes with weak security by default and will break if the user tries to modify its settings. In Mac OS X, apps have a standard level of security mitigations dependent on the type of process (32 or 64 bit) that are set at that standard level when the app is compiled and not modifiable as in Windows (Opt-in, Opt-out, etc).
Which is different from Windows how?
Because Windows has a history of malware that achieves privilege escalation and Mac OS X does not? Check out these from late November 2010:
Security hole in Windows kernel allows UAC bypass (http://www.zdnet.com/blog/security/security-hole-in-windows-kernel-allows-uac-bypass/7752)
Nightmare kernel bug lets attackers evade Windows UAC security (http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9198158/_Nightmare_kernel_bug_lets_attackers_evade_Windows_UAC_security)
UAC bypass exploit for Metasploit (http://www.exploit-db.com/bypassing-uac-with-user-privilege-under-windows-vista7-mirror/)
tehreflex
Apr 11, 07:16 AM
Now Apple is going to sue him.
DHagan4755
Sep 14, 03:29 PM
You guys are forgetting that last year, at a photography-related event, Apple bumped the PowerBooks. That was the event where they introduced Aperture. If it happened before, it could happen again!
mobilehavoc
Mar 29, 11:40 AM
Microsoft overtaking Apple for marketshare. Hmm...sounds familiar.
musiclover137
Aug 23, 11:06 PM
Apple makes money off of iTunes Music Store - they won't tell us how much, but it is a money maker (all be it insignificant compared to the iPod)
Right, insignificant.
Sure, a few cents a song. But not the reason for the iTMS. It's all just fodder for the iPod machine.
I don't think he is joking, it is about more than sales, but 100m songs on Itunes did make apple roughly 100M. So I think he is speaking solely about the moetary aspect of the Itunes sales. So no joke: money is money.
The money from each iTunes song DOES NOT go to Apple. It is split up widely amoungst publishers, record labels and the artist, and if there's any left, then to Apple.
100 millions songs sold DOES NOT EQUAL $100 million
Right, insignificant.
Sure, a few cents a song. But not the reason for the iTMS. It's all just fodder for the iPod machine.
I don't think he is joking, it is about more than sales, but 100m songs on Itunes did make apple roughly 100M. So I think he is speaking solely about the moetary aspect of the Itunes sales. So no joke: money is money.
The money from each iTunes song DOES NOT go to Apple. It is split up widely amoungst publishers, record labels and the artist, and if there's any left, then to Apple.
100 millions songs sold DOES NOT EQUAL $100 million
jimmyjoemccrow
Jan 2, 11:58 AM
I accessed a site a couple of days ago and it said "You have a problem with your Mac please click OK to fix the problem." I was on my iPhone at the time but it does show that someone took the trouble to write a program that identified I was on an Apple operating system.
gri
Apr 25, 02:46 PM
Well they arent going to get worse are they!!
They could, e.g. by leaving out features we got used to and like (see back lit keyboard in current MBA)
They could, e.g. by leaving out features we got used to and like (see back lit keyboard in current MBA)
spicyapple
Sep 19, 01:41 PM
I have an idea:
Sell Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest in a High Definition format to test the waters. I think a lot of people would buy it in HD since they already have computers capable of decoding it. Why the need to invest in an expensive HD DVD player?
Sell Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest in a High Definition format to test the waters. I think a lot of people would buy it in HD since they already have computers capable of decoding it. Why the need to invest in an expensive HD DVD player?
rmhop81
Apr 22, 07:50 AM
I'm amazed that no-one is seeing the very dangerous path we could be heading down here. Will people only see it when it's too late?
Are we looking into the jaws of the future where you pay, but never OWN anything? Music, Movies, Apps.
You pay to have the right to listen/watch/use the data.
The data is never downloaded to your device to do as you wish, it's always held by the owners. or distributors.
I can see this coming like a flashing red warning sign.
what are you going to do with your downloaded song? if you still use cd's, you're an old timer when it comes to technology. My wife and i both listen to pandora/itunes music in the car and hooked up wirelessly throughout the house. Boom, all the music in the cloud service could be right there right now. Instead of having to go to my computer, sync what music i want so i can load up my phone with music i want for my trip.
Times are changing. Once this cloud service is the standard, you won't have to have multiple hard drives with your data or music/photos. Go look at dropbox and how popular that is. There is no need for users to have mass amaount of storage when you can access it in the cloud.
Are we looking into the jaws of the future where you pay, but never OWN anything? Music, Movies, Apps.
You pay to have the right to listen/watch/use the data.
The data is never downloaded to your device to do as you wish, it's always held by the owners. or distributors.
I can see this coming like a flashing red warning sign.
what are you going to do with your downloaded song? if you still use cd's, you're an old timer when it comes to technology. My wife and i both listen to pandora/itunes music in the car and hooked up wirelessly throughout the house. Boom, all the music in the cloud service could be right there right now. Instead of having to go to my computer, sync what music i want so i can load up my phone with music i want for my trip.
Times are changing. Once this cloud service is the standard, you won't have to have multiple hard drives with your data or music/photos. Go look at dropbox and how popular that is. There is no need for users to have mass amaount of storage when you can access it in the cloud.
TerryJ
Jul 14, 09:48 AM
Note that if I'm right (trust me!), then there's a gap.... no Apple box with a Conroe? I don't think so.... Apple will introduce a new system with support for a single Conroe. Hopefully it won't be the MacPro with a different mobo, but a completely new box (fingers crossed).
Perhaps some kind of high performance consumer-oriented/gaming-oriented tower?
(Just pure speculation...)
-Terry
Perhaps some kind of high performance consumer-oriented/gaming-oriented tower?
(Just pure speculation...)
-Terry
Macnoviz
Sep 14, 10:03 AM
Could they BE any more obvious ?
still, hoping for Core 2 MBP, not for me, but for a friend and "co-worker"
still, hoping for Core 2 MBP, not for me, but for a friend and "co-worker"
gri
Apr 22, 03:53 PM
Apple should produce a really light and small MacBook Air: 400 to 600 g and 7-inches. The Mac in your pocket. Always.
Its already there and even smaller - and called iPhone...:rolleyes:
Its already there and even smaller - and called iPhone...:rolleyes:
Zwhaler
Sep 5, 05:54 PM
Strange, the movie store is the thing that I am least excited about :confused: But I still hope for new imac and/or mbp.
Flake
Apr 20, 02:09 PM
The application is working terribly for me..I zoom into the map and it doesn't get any sharper, and lags horribly
MegaSignal
Sep 15, 05:51 PM
If, for example, someone is using Verizon Wireless, would the Apple Phone work for them? In other words, how "universal" would this phone truly be? Would it be able to compete in international markets?
(edited: clarification)
(edited: clarification)
vitaboy
Aug 24, 05:01 AM
I hope you're joking about that. iTunes is not about making money for apple
It may not be making the kind of money that iPod is making, but iTunes is indeed making money for Apple. Indeed, it has become a significant revenue story for Apple, if only recently.
In fact, contrary to popular belief, iTMS has been marginally profitable for many quarters now, although of course its profit margins are small compared to iPods and Macs.
Just remember - iTunes is profitable and a billion plus song sales a year makes it a Top 10 music retailer in the U.S., behind only the likes of Walmart, Best Buy, Target, and FYE.
iTunes Outsells Traditional Music Stores (http://news.com.com/iTunes+outsells+traditional+music+stores/2100-1027_3-5965314.html)
It's the iTunes wannabes that are neither profitable nor revenue machines! ;-)
It may not be making the kind of money that iPod is making, but iTunes is indeed making money for Apple. Indeed, it has become a significant revenue story for Apple, if only recently.
In fact, contrary to popular belief, iTMS has been marginally profitable for many quarters now, although of course its profit margins are small compared to iPods and Macs.
Just remember - iTunes is profitable and a billion plus song sales a year makes it a Top 10 music retailer in the U.S., behind only the likes of Walmart, Best Buy, Target, and FYE.
iTunes Outsells Traditional Music Stores (http://news.com.com/iTunes+outsells+traditional+music+stores/2100-1027_3-5965314.html)
It's the iTunes wannabes that are neither profitable nor revenue machines! ;-)
TheIguana
Nov 13, 11:50 PM
Which law firm please. We'd all like to know for future reference, who to not trust our cases with. While most law has to do with the letter of the law, jury trials often are won or lost based on what the jury believes to be the intent or spirit of the law.
The british common law legal system was never intended to be like this. The lawyers have destroyed and twisted it beyond all recognition. It was originally supposed to be based on judeo-christian morals and ethics. There is not supposed to be a grey area. You are either deliberately infringing on the rights of others or you are not. The original intent was to have a court case as the last resort where parties would first try to solve the problem by talking to each other, then go to arbitration and then court as a last resort.
Come off it, cmaier has a darn good point. Apple is being utterly ridiculous in this debacle between themselves and Rogue Amoeba. There was no reason at all that such a debate should have evolved into a 3 month conflict, nor was it necessary that it should have ended with Rogue Amoeba having to indulge their customers in a battle with Apple over icons. Having user interface unity is something Apple strives for in all of their products. By giving 3rd party developers the ninth degree over something so ingrained in this product is simply stupid. It does nothing to help the end user, ingrain the confidence of developers, or aid Apple. It just brings out end users and developers with grievances and sharpened pitchforks.
The british common law legal system was never intended to be like this. The lawyers have destroyed and twisted it beyond all recognition. It was originally supposed to be based on judeo-christian morals and ethics. There is not supposed to be a grey area. You are either deliberately infringing on the rights of others or you are not. The original intent was to have a court case as the last resort where parties would first try to solve the problem by talking to each other, then go to arbitration and then court as a last resort.
Come off it, cmaier has a darn good point. Apple is being utterly ridiculous in this debacle between themselves and Rogue Amoeba. There was no reason at all that such a debate should have evolved into a 3 month conflict, nor was it necessary that it should have ended with Rogue Amoeba having to indulge their customers in a battle with Apple over icons. Having user interface unity is something Apple strives for in all of their products. By giving 3rd party developers the ninth degree over something so ingrained in this product is simply stupid. It does nothing to help the end user, ingrain the confidence of developers, or aid Apple. It just brings out end users and developers with grievances and sharpened pitchforks.
rhomsy
Apr 4, 12:57 PM
It is amazing just how many times this same stupid comment has been made in this thread. Why do people have to regurgitate the same thing over and over?
Why is is sad a criminal dies while firing at a guard. Why is it sad a person who knows the consequences of carrying a weapon while attempting to rob a store? You play with fire and get burned. Nothing sad about it.
Kudos for the guard for protecting himself. He can sleep at night knowing he is not instead DEAD.
I'm with you. I don't understand these people that think there is NEVER any justification to take someone's life. This mentality is why the pirates off the coast of Somalia continue to harass and shoot up cargo ships. God forbid that the US crushes these vermin with superior fire-power. No, they are humans, and we are so enlightened, so let them shoot at us, take people hostage for years, and steal our ships and cargo. We are powerless to an gang of violent thugs because of our "moral superiority". More like a mental disorder to me.
Why is is sad a criminal dies while firing at a guard. Why is it sad a person who knows the consequences of carrying a weapon while attempting to rob a store? You play with fire and get burned. Nothing sad about it.
Kudos for the guard for protecting himself. He can sleep at night knowing he is not instead DEAD.
I'm with you. I don't understand these people that think there is NEVER any justification to take someone's life. This mentality is why the pirates off the coast of Somalia continue to harass and shoot up cargo ships. God forbid that the US crushes these vermin with superior fire-power. No, they are humans, and we are so enlightened, so let them shoot at us, take people hostage for years, and steal our ships and cargo. We are powerless to an gang of violent thugs because of our "moral superiority". More like a mental disorder to me.
AidenShaw
Sep 9, 06:25 PM
Isn't that the same thing as assigning priorities to processes in OS X? Terminal or Developer Tools already do that, as well as several freeware apps...
No, not at all.
An affinity mask sets the set of CPUs that can be scheduled. A job won't be run on another CPU, even if the assigned CPUs are at 100% and other idle CPUs are available.
And that, by the way, is why setting affinity is usually a bad idea. Let the system dynamically schedule across all available resources -- or you might have some CPUs very busy, and others idle.
Win2k3 also has "soft" affinity masks, which define a preferred set of CPUs. If all of the preferred CPUs are busy, and other CPUs are idle, then soft affinity allows the system to run the jobs on the idle CPUs - even though the idle CPUs aren't in the preferred affinity mask.
No, not at all.
An affinity mask sets the set of CPUs that can be scheduled. A job won't be run on another CPU, even if the assigned CPUs are at 100% and other idle CPUs are available.
And that, by the way, is why setting affinity is usually a bad idea. Let the system dynamically schedule across all available resources -- or you might have some CPUs very busy, and others idle.
Win2k3 also has "soft" affinity masks, which define a preferred set of CPUs. If all of the preferred CPUs are busy, and other CPUs are idle, then soft affinity allows the system to run the jobs on the idle CPUs - even though the idle CPUs aren't in the preferred affinity mask.
iKyle0990
Apr 22, 08:42 AM
This is exciting, since my music library already tops 16 GB and isn't shrinking any time soon. Now, I saw a little bit about it in the article, but does anyone else know if the general consensus is that ALL of ones music could be stored? As opposed to just iTunes-purchased songs. That's crucial.
Mattsasa
Apr 30, 06:47 PM
Glad, hoping for a redesign, but probably unlikely, also would be great to see the yellow tint issue resolved..
Yea I don't think I redesign is likely, Apple likes the current one still, and it is pretty nice IMO
Yea I don't think I redesign is likely, Apple likes the current one still, and it is pretty nice IMO
No comments:
Post a Comment