BenRoethig
Aug 29, 08:00 AM
Michael Dell as a PERSON made those comments. Since then he has said that he would sell Mac OS X in a heartbeat. The public doesn't hear those comments. We hear them, but not the general public.
I am talking about messages the general public does see: magazine and TV ads.
Apple's ads are about PCs being bad and Macs being good.
They don't say Dell or HP. But who makes PC's?
I have never seen a PC manufacturer put out an ad that attacks Macs.
When Dell made those comments, Apple was a mess. Has anyone ever actually read the rest if the article for context? Beleive it or not, things actually change in a decade. If Steve Jobs had not taken over when he did, it is likely that the company would have folded. Even then it was touch and go for a couple years. What has changed? Apple has gone from behind in almost every single category to carving out its own niche of the market and releasing new innovative products.
I am talking about messages the general public does see: magazine and TV ads.
Apple's ads are about PCs being bad and Macs being good.
They don't say Dell or HP. But who makes PC's?
I have never seen a PC manufacturer put out an ad that attacks Macs.
When Dell made those comments, Apple was a mess. Has anyone ever actually read the rest if the article for context? Beleive it or not, things actually change in a decade. If Steve Jobs had not taken over when he did, it is likely that the company would have folded. Even then it was touch and go for a couple years. What has changed? Apple has gone from behind in almost every single category to carving out its own niche of the market and releasing new innovative products.
cwt1nospam
Jan 1, 07:18 PM
i think it's pretty common knowledge that Apple devices will be targeted more by virus making idiots in the future as they become more popular.
Targeting is one thing. Successfully attacking is a completely different animal. They've been targeting OS X since it came out a decade ago. Successful attacks range from barely a blip on the radar to nonexistent, depending on how you define success. There's no reason to believe that attacks on IOS will be half as successful as the pitiful attacks on OS X.
Targeting is one thing. Successfully attacking is a completely different animal. They've been targeting OS X since it came out a decade ago. Successful attacks range from barely a blip on the radar to nonexistent, depending on how you define success. There's no reason to believe that attacks on IOS will be half as successful as the pitiful attacks on OS X.
rstansby
Apr 19, 11:17 PM
Yeah Apple has never done that.
Except for NeXT, Motion, Final Cut Pro, Color, Aperture, the list goes on...
NeXT, you mean the computer company founded by Apple co-founder Steve Jobs?
Except for NeXT, Motion, Final Cut Pro, Color, Aperture, the list goes on...
NeXT, you mean the computer company founded by Apple co-founder Steve Jobs?
flopticalcube
Apr 19, 11:00 PM
No, I truly hate that place.. and all it stands for.
Not you, the poster you were quoting was being sarcastic. I was drawing your attention to his sarcasism.
Not you, the poster you were quoting was being sarcastic. I was drawing your attention to his sarcasism.
MattSepeta
Apr 20, 04:44 PM
For all the bleeding heart liberals I've spoken with over the years, who want crazy amounts taxed in order to support social uplift programs, I never see any of them giving away 50+% of their income to charity. It's a lot easier to ask the government to give other peoples money to charity.
Sure is. A hypothetical I like to propose:
Considering that the discrepancies between "rich" and "poor" as far as voting goes are far over blown (http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/10/24/even-more-on-income-and-voting/) (Rich DO vote liberal and poor DO vote conservative) with the top third of white income earners STILL voting liberal, despite their high incomes and the ever-pervasive myth that rich people vote republican.
If this top third of income earners, instead of trying to legislate their charities through democratic votes and the force of law, simply put 50%, 60%, 70%, hell, 90% of their incomes towards charity rather than owning a home, owning multiple vehicles, owning boats, "traveling", shopping at Lunds or Kowalskis, etc, the poverty problem would be fixed, or at the very least, helped significantly without forcing ANYBODY to do ANYTHING.
But then again, these people would rather force everyone to pony up the dough rather than take a hit to their lifestyles.
Charity is a beautiful thing, but forced charity?
Sure is. A hypothetical I like to propose:
Considering that the discrepancies between "rich" and "poor" as far as voting goes are far over blown (http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/10/24/even-more-on-income-and-voting/) (Rich DO vote liberal and poor DO vote conservative) with the top third of white income earners STILL voting liberal, despite their high incomes and the ever-pervasive myth that rich people vote republican.
If this top third of income earners, instead of trying to legislate their charities through democratic votes and the force of law, simply put 50%, 60%, 70%, hell, 90% of their incomes towards charity rather than owning a home, owning multiple vehicles, owning boats, "traveling", shopping at Lunds or Kowalskis, etc, the poverty problem would be fixed, or at the very least, helped significantly without forcing ANYBODY to do ANYTHING.
But then again, these people would rather force everyone to pony up the dough rather than take a hit to their lifestyles.
Charity is a beautiful thing, but forced charity?
PlaceofDis
Oct 12, 06:57 PM
im so tired about apple having partnerships with groups i dont like. to each his own but why does U2 have to keep pushing their own ipod, i thought the last one sucked. give me a band i actually like
except this isn't about a band. its about a charity.
except this isn't about a band. its about a charity.
puma1552
Apr 22, 08:33 AM
ever heard of the pandora app??
If Pandora actually worked overseas...just like Hulu...
If Pandora actually worked overseas...just like Hulu...
enklined
Mar 23, 05:34 PM
Isn't it possible that the heads up provided up this app (and friends, newspapers, etc) may make people who know they will be drinking later in the evening re-think their mode of transportation? Could be saving a life or two.
Eh not really. If you've been drinking. Don't drive. Not a difficult dilemma to solve. No technology required to solve it.
And if you are planning to go out and get hammered, take a taxi.
I agree, no one could argue against that. However, for the guy who thinks he may be sober enough to drive: he checks his phone and gets discouraged by the local check points and decides to hail a cab.
Seems like a very decent possibility of this happening. Could save a life, or many. For that alone, the app shouldn't be pulled.
Eh not really. If you've been drinking. Don't drive. Not a difficult dilemma to solve. No technology required to solve it.
And if you are planning to go out and get hammered, take a taxi.
I agree, no one could argue against that. However, for the guy who thinks he may be sober enough to drive: he checks his phone and gets discouraged by the local check points and decides to hail a cab.
Seems like a very decent possibility of this happening. Could save a life, or many. For that alone, the app shouldn't be pulled.
tigress666
Apr 4, 12:20 PM
I haven't read the article but it sounds like the guard was shot at.
So for those saying the guard shouldn't have killed the crook? Should the guard just sit there and let the guy kill him? If some one must die, I vote the crook!!! Why shouldn't the guard defend himself?! If the crook didn't want to take that chance, he could at the very least not be shooting at the guard!!!!! Even better, don't rob a store.
And shooting to wound really is not feasible in that situation. You shoot the guy who has a gun in the leg, he can still shoot you. The only place to stop him without killing him is to get both hands or both arms.... while being shot at, do you really want to try for such small targets (not to mention even the legs are not big targets. Big target = torso which can very well be a shot that kills)? Sorry, but the only way to defend yourself in that situation is shoot areas that quite possibly will kill the guy as it will have to be something that renders him unable to do anything.
Shoot, if you shoot him anywhere there is always the possibility that he will die. Just cause it's not instantly lethal doesn't mean stuff doesn't happen. You just gave him a chance that some infection will come in, or more blood will come out before the paramedics an come and stop it, etc etc.
So for those saying the guard shouldn't have killed the crook? Should the guard just sit there and let the guy kill him? If some one must die, I vote the crook!!! Why shouldn't the guard defend himself?! If the crook didn't want to take that chance, he could at the very least not be shooting at the guard!!!!! Even better, don't rob a store.
And shooting to wound really is not feasible in that situation. You shoot the guy who has a gun in the leg, he can still shoot you. The only place to stop him without killing him is to get both hands or both arms.... while being shot at, do you really want to try for such small targets (not to mention even the legs are not big targets. Big target = torso which can very well be a shot that kills)? Sorry, but the only way to defend yourself in that situation is shoot areas that quite possibly will kill the guy as it will have to be something that renders him unable to do anything.
Shoot, if you shoot him anywhere there is always the possibility that he will die. Just cause it's not instantly lethal doesn't mean stuff doesn't happen. You just gave him a chance that some infection will come in, or more blood will come out before the paramedics an come and stop it, etc etc.
kingtj
Oct 27, 10:33 AM
More and more devices come with "non replaceable" batteries, and it's often because this allows for more design flexibility. If your device uses a standard, "off the shelf" rechargeable battery pack, you're limited to certain dimensions for the battery compartment. Newer battery packs can be custom molded into all sorts of odd shapes - and that allows for making thinner or more "shapely" products. However, it also means they'd have to sell MANY more varieties of battery packs if they still made these oddballs "replaceable". Nobody would be able to locate the proper battery when it came time to do a replacement anyway.....
Realistically though, almost any consumer electronics device I've seen has *some* way to open it up. And assuming the internal battery works for at least 2 or 3 years, it's not unreasonable to say "Hey... you still want to keep this device going for another 2-3 years? Ok... go to some extra effort prying it open once and do a battery swap with a custom replacement battery." That's what you're looking at on an iPod. After 5 or 6 years, are you REALLY going to keep using the same product anyway? If so, ok ... you have to hassle with prying it open 2 times in the lifespan of the product then. Doesn't sound horrible to me.
They do build in obsolescence into the ipod as you can't replace the battery (easily). It does become a disposable item, although a pricey one at that. I do love the ipod (even though I don't own one) but this puts me off to the point where I just can't go through with actually buying one. My experience with rechargeable batteries in mobile phones and lap top isn't good.
Realistically though, almost any consumer electronics device I've seen has *some* way to open it up. And assuming the internal battery works for at least 2 or 3 years, it's not unreasonable to say "Hey... you still want to keep this device going for another 2-3 years? Ok... go to some extra effort prying it open once and do a battery swap with a custom replacement battery." That's what you're looking at on an iPod. After 5 or 6 years, are you REALLY going to keep using the same product anyway? If so, ok ... you have to hassle with prying it open 2 times in the lifespan of the product then. Doesn't sound horrible to me.
They do build in obsolescence into the ipod as you can't replace the battery (easily). It does become a disposable item, although a pricey one at that. I do love the ipod (even though I don't own one) but this puts me off to the point where I just can't go through with actually buying one. My experience with rechargeable batteries in mobile phones and lap top isn't good.
danbolling
Aug 31, 12:49 PM
Some things are coming together that are not pointed out in the post about the upcoming new iTMS (iTunes Media Store)
1) If the movies are only available in the US (at least initially), then this explains why Apple would not announce it at Paris Expo.
2) Movies will be larger resolution, of course. This now makes the "Advance -> Convert Video for iPod" command make a lot more sense. This will be the easy way to get downloaded movies onto old (smaller resolution) video iPods. And, maybe new iPod nanos which will do video with smaller screens.
3) And, of course, an updated video iPod is no surprise at this point. The details and the specs may be, but the update is not.
1) If the movies are only available in the US (at least initially), then this explains why Apple would not announce it at Paris Expo.
2) Movies will be larger resolution, of course. This now makes the "Advance -> Convert Video for iPod" command make a lot more sense. This will be the easy way to get downloaded movies onto old (smaller resolution) video iPods. And, maybe new iPod nanos which will do video with smaller screens.
3) And, of course, an updated video iPod is no surprise at this point. The details and the specs may be, but the update is not.
cozmot
Mar 18, 12:00 AM
The Safari exploit launched a Mac OSX program. How is that NOT an "OS" issue? The exploit could have just as easily told the Mac to delete a directory on the hard drive, for instance. So it's not just Safari that's an issue but the fact that OSX would let Safari execute a program outside the browser.
I'd like to know where this idea that "many have tried" to create viruses and/or malware for OSX comes from. How do you know what people have done or tried? I'm not saying Unix is easy to exploit, but I know darn well it's not invulnerable. If they held an OS hacking event with a prize, I'm sure someone would prove my point for me.
And this idea that nothing can be done on the Mac until a virus or other malware exploit shows up on a news site is absurd. There are plenty of tools out there, for instance, to point out dangerous web sites that could be a threat to a computer. Most OSX users wouldn't bother to install one if one was offered to them because they believe themselves invulnerable. So why worry about visiting a malware site? Some exploits are potentially cross-platform (adobe flash, for example). Again, I say most OSX users are far too comfortable in a foolish belief that they are not in danger from anything out there.
Before I could even get to this, cwt1nospam and GGJstudios jumped on it. I'll add that a Safari exploit just can't take over an OS X system. It can do some minor things, but doesn't give admin or root access to the OS.
You nervous Windows users -- and you have every right to be -- are used to exploits commandeering your computers. It's your every day reality. For Mac users, it doesn't happen. Never has. But to characterize us as engaging in "foolish belief" that we're not in danger out there is a false argument.
Rather than go through the laborious repeat of my earlier post to you, please re-read it. Mac users don't deny the dangers. Unlike Windows users we're just not lulled into installing expensive, beastly software that drags our systems down that gives us a false sense of security that we're safe and protected. Most exploits come from unsafe computing, including the incomplete list I assembled above. Mac users don't take this dope, and have clearer minds about the proper steps to protect their systems.
I have multiple lines of defense built up against attackers using malware, viruses, worms, Trojan Horses and the like. It starts with the firewall in my wireless router, OpenDNS, safe practices and other methods I've learned from Mac and other forums.
I have never experienced a hack, a virus, a worm, a Trojan Horse or any other exploit in over 20 years because of this. And in the next 20 I will not either, because I'll keep learning and building up my defenses, without wasting a dollar on beastly software that gives me a false sense of security and relieves me of my responsibility for safe computing.
I'd like to know where this idea that "many have tried" to create viruses and/or malware for OSX comes from. How do you know what people have done or tried? I'm not saying Unix is easy to exploit, but I know darn well it's not invulnerable. If they held an OS hacking event with a prize, I'm sure someone would prove my point for me.
And this idea that nothing can be done on the Mac until a virus or other malware exploit shows up on a news site is absurd. There are plenty of tools out there, for instance, to point out dangerous web sites that could be a threat to a computer. Most OSX users wouldn't bother to install one if one was offered to them because they believe themselves invulnerable. So why worry about visiting a malware site? Some exploits are potentially cross-platform (adobe flash, for example). Again, I say most OSX users are far too comfortable in a foolish belief that they are not in danger from anything out there.
Before I could even get to this, cwt1nospam and GGJstudios jumped on it. I'll add that a Safari exploit just can't take over an OS X system. It can do some minor things, but doesn't give admin or root access to the OS.
You nervous Windows users -- and you have every right to be -- are used to exploits commandeering your computers. It's your every day reality. For Mac users, it doesn't happen. Never has. But to characterize us as engaging in "foolish belief" that we're not in danger out there is a false argument.
Rather than go through the laborious repeat of my earlier post to you, please re-read it. Mac users don't deny the dangers. Unlike Windows users we're just not lulled into installing expensive, beastly software that drags our systems down that gives us a false sense of security that we're safe and protected. Most exploits come from unsafe computing, including the incomplete list I assembled above. Mac users don't take this dope, and have clearer minds about the proper steps to protect their systems.
I have multiple lines of defense built up against attackers using malware, viruses, worms, Trojan Horses and the like. It starts with the firewall in my wireless router, OpenDNS, safe practices and other methods I've learned from Mac and other forums.
I have never experienced a hack, a virus, a worm, a Trojan Horse or any other exploit in over 20 years because of this. And in the next 20 I will not either, because I'll keep learning and building up my defenses, without wasting a dollar on beastly software that gives me a false sense of security and relieves me of my responsibility for safe computing.
Marx55
Sep 10, 09:32 AM
What about Clovertown - Quad-core - Xeon-class - 8 CORES ON 2 PROCESSORS (4th quarter 2006)?
scrapple
Apr 28, 03:28 PM
yawn..
they both made billions... who cares.
they both made billions... who cares.
Cander
Apr 22, 09:04 AM
I'd love to save this quote and show it to you in a couple years... I bet you'll feel differently.
I am sure you can find that quote used plenty of times in the past about graphical UIs and touchscreens.
I am sure you can find that quote used plenty of times in the past about graphical UIs and touchscreens.
spicyapple
Sep 11, 09:37 PM
Since we are on the eve of the announcement, I thought I'd give my 2 cents. :)
I hoping for downloadable movies to own at either $9.99 or $14.99 and in high definition. It might be in 720P as a download service just can't compete with Netflix or walking to your friendly neighbourhood DVD rental store. And because the movies are in H.264, the download of HD movies should not take any more time than regular DVD, although if they released movies in 480P, it wouldn't be too bad, either, although with DRM and the time to download, doesn't make it competitive against DVD, plus you don't get the fancy packaging or the hard-disc copy.
I hoping for downloadable movies to own at either $9.99 or $14.99 and in high definition. It might be in 720P as a download service just can't compete with Netflix or walking to your friendly neighbourhood DVD rental store. And because the movies are in H.264, the download of HD movies should not take any more time than regular DVD, although if they released movies in 480P, it wouldn't be too bad, either, although with DRM and the time to download, doesn't make it competitive against DVD, plus you don't get the fancy packaging or the hard-disc copy.
kingtj
Sep 19, 02:00 PM
That statement isn't *quite* true. A lot of people bought the DLO Home Docks (sold at Best Buy and other retail outlets) largely because they allow a docked iPod video to send video out to a TV set via s-video or RCA cables, and the user to control it remotely with the dock's included remote.
This is fairly remarkable, considering that the really only viable place to watch these movies is on an iPod! Yes, you can watch it on your iMac, or on your television hooked to a Mac Mini, but really, the set top box (iTV) can't come soon enough! Furthermore, this is really the kind of content that lends itself to the TV, rather than the iPod (Disney movies that parents put on replay for hours on end.)
Of course, maybe these stats are dominated by those who wanted to watch Coyote Ugly on the train, on their way to work ;-) .
This is fairly remarkable, considering that the really only viable place to watch these movies is on an iPod! Yes, you can watch it on your iMac, or on your television hooked to a Mac Mini, but really, the set top box (iTV) can't come soon enough! Furthermore, this is really the kind of content that lends itself to the TV, rather than the iPod (Disney movies that parents put on replay for hours on end.)
Of course, maybe these stats are dominated by those who wanted to watch Coyote Ugly on the train, on their way to work ;-) .
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.
dethmaShine
Apr 20, 10:07 AM
It *is* private now. This information isn't broadcast anywhere but your own personal computer in the form of an encrypted backup file. The information won't go anywhere but with you and your property.
However, if your iphone gets stolen, the GPS log is likely the least private thing you need to worry about. The thief will have access to your entire contact list, browsing history, etc..
Agree to that, but why is it being collected without permission?
However, if your iphone gets stolen, the GPS log is likely the least private thing you need to worry about. The thief will have access to your entire contact list, browsing history, etc..
Agree to that, but why is it being collected without permission?
MacBoobsPro
Jul 14, 09:31 AM
Does anyone think we should be hitting 4ghz about now?
I mean weve been stuck on 2.x for ages. Whats the deal? A 4ghz quad would be frickin awesome. :confused:
I mean weve been stuck on 2.x for ages. Whats the deal? A 4ghz quad would be frickin awesome. :confused:
revfife
Sep 12, 02:35 PM
lol!
And so the cries of disappointment begin...
Thats the best part of these forums is watching the buildup until it reaches some ungodly device that is not probable or even possible and then sheer disappointment when Apple announces a decent upgrade to a great product. :rolleyes:
And so the cries of disappointment begin...
Thats the best part of these forums is watching the buildup until it reaches some ungodly device that is not probable or even possible and then sheer disappointment when Apple announces a decent upgrade to a great product. :rolleyes:
rjohnstone
Apr 28, 03:27 PM
That much money selling expensive toys. :eek:
ciTiger
May 3, 10:58 AM
I want dual out screen on the MBP =(:(
paulsecic
Aug 28, 02:50 PM
A week Tuesday, a week Tuesday! I just put my mini on eBay and I'll get a good chunk less if they update them tomorrow! I thought the original rumour said after Labor day which is next week isn't it?
Im broke now. I hope they wait til October. :(
Im broke now. I hope they wait til October. :(