res1233
May 6, 03:43 AM
Lets face it: The intel transition was NOT painful. Most PowerPC apps that still exist, will run fine on snow leopard, and by now, every app still being maintained has been recompiled for intel CPUs. That really isn't so hard to do so long as all the libraries your app needs to run supports the architecture you're trying to compile in... Just a small settings change. Assuming you don't use assembler code, but nobody with dreams of porting their app uses assembler code, so... Anywho, if apple did make this transition, it wouldn't be as painful as you people seem to think it would be. PowerPC apps run quite well via rosetta.
mentaluproar
Nov 3, 07:10 PM
I used to have iantivirus, but got rid of it because it would grab onto 150% or some ridiculous number of the processor and never let go. Sophos, on the other hand, is lightweight and unobtrusive.
snberk103
May 5, 09:23 PM
Fine, but prove to me it's because of the metric system.
I don't know that it does.... I was merely rebutting the point that learning the Imperial measures gave US kids a competitive edge.
I don't know that it does.... I was merely rebutting the point that learning the Imperial measures gave US kids a competitive edge.
danielwsmithee
Aug 11, 05:32 PM
Man, I tell ya... 2 years+ ago when I wanted a new laptop, that's ALL I ever heard... I think Apple should build a one-off G5 laptop just to appease us crazy people in here, LOL! It would be an awesome tip-of-the-hat to us, don'tcha think? ;)Yeah it would be like twice as thick as the current MBP and they could auction it off to the highest bidder. Here is guessing that some Apple finatic would pay a million dollars for it to display in his gallery.
balamw
Apr 10, 09:54 AM
Dammit, I fell at the last hurdle. I get 288 but then clicked 2 by mistake!
There's another acronym/mnemonic for that.
PEBCAK. Problem Exists Between Chair and Keyboard.
B
There's another acronym/mnemonic for that.
PEBCAK. Problem Exists Between Chair and Keyboard.
B
fivetoadsloth
Apr 10, 02:38 AM
Oh really? Wow I didn't know that... Sarcasm.
I'm talking about on a calculator. Enter it EXACTLY how it was in the OP and you'll get 288.
Again, I'd like to warn people: this is not always true. Even if you enter it exactly as above, your calculator will not always give you 288. Some will give you two. Some settings may give you two. Don't trust a calculator blindly.
I'm talking about on a calculator. Enter it EXACTLY how it was in the OP and you'll get 288.
Again, I'd like to warn people: this is not always true. Even if you enter it exactly as above, your calculator will not always give you 288. Some will give you two. Some settings may give you two. Don't trust a calculator blindly.
SeattleMoose
Apr 25, 09:40 AM
Because "they" didn't slip this trojan into the phones...the government did via the phone companies/FCC.
It is not enough to track every internet/email action of the population, they also want to know where we are at all times and our habits so a "repairman" can enter the house of a "dissident" while they are at work and...
It is not enough to track every internet/email action of the population, they also want to know where we are at all times and our habits so a "repairman" can enter the house of a "dissident" while they are at work and...
anonalidall
May 7, 11:44 AM
Point taken but what kind of FOOL am I to trade my privacy to Google for a paltry $6 at any level?
Where you go, who you speak to and how you communicate is of tremendous value and I recommend that people think about actual value. We're moving from this era where the expectation should be that Cloud services at a basic level should be incorporated into the product without the vendor resorting to advertisements.
Google and Facebook have both come out with disturbing revelations about how they feel about consumer privacy. I think the beauty of the web is that no company is irreplaceable. I could continue to get email, online calendar, pictures, documents and more without Google and that's a great feeling.
First, it's the very nature of capitalism that provides you with the ability to pick and choose the best service/company that meets your needs.
Second, I'm not sure what you mean by "We're moving from this era where the expectation should be that Cloud services at a basic level should be incorporated into the product without the vendor resorting to advertisements." If you mean that we should get free Cloud services without ads then I think you're completely wrong and I'm most worried about sites that provide free services and have absolutely nothing but VC cash to pay for it. And if you mean we should have the option of paying for Cloud services to avoid ads, then fine, but you can do that with Gmail, so I don't see why you think MobileMe is any better than Gmail (from the privacy perspective).
Lastly, I wouldn't lump Google and Facebook together when it comes to privacy. Sergey Brin and Larry Page have made very strong statements about their respect for their users and they understand that without the users they'd have no company. Eric has made a lame-brained comment or two, and Google Buzz screwed up, but they fixed it (and at least when you signed into Gmail they had the option to opt out of it).
Facebook is a whole different story. Their whole exec branch seems to disregard privacy and they've been rolling out auto-opt-in feature after feature that removes your privacy.
Where you go, who you speak to and how you communicate is of tremendous value and I recommend that people think about actual value. We're moving from this era where the expectation should be that Cloud services at a basic level should be incorporated into the product without the vendor resorting to advertisements.
Google and Facebook have both come out with disturbing revelations about how they feel about consumer privacy. I think the beauty of the web is that no company is irreplaceable. I could continue to get email, online calendar, pictures, documents and more without Google and that's a great feeling.
First, it's the very nature of capitalism that provides you with the ability to pick and choose the best service/company that meets your needs.
Second, I'm not sure what you mean by "We're moving from this era where the expectation should be that Cloud services at a basic level should be incorporated into the product without the vendor resorting to advertisements." If you mean that we should get free Cloud services without ads then I think you're completely wrong and I'm most worried about sites that provide free services and have absolutely nothing but VC cash to pay for it. And if you mean we should have the option of paying for Cloud services to avoid ads, then fine, but you can do that with Gmail, so I don't see why you think MobileMe is any better than Gmail (from the privacy perspective).
Lastly, I wouldn't lump Google and Facebook together when it comes to privacy. Sergey Brin and Larry Page have made very strong statements about their respect for their users and they understand that without the users they'd have no company. Eric has made a lame-brained comment or two, and Google Buzz screwed up, but they fixed it (and at least when you signed into Gmail they had the option to opt out of it).
Facebook is a whole different story. Their whole exec branch seems to disregard privacy and they've been rolling out auto-opt-in feature after feature that removes your privacy.
linuxcooldude
Apr 22, 09:23 PM
Yet another sign Apple is going to kill the Mac Pro.
You'll see! With Final Cut Pro on it's deathbed there is no way the Mac Pro is sticking around!
/s
I think quite the opposite. I think It will increase the market.
You'll see! With Final Cut Pro on it's deathbed there is no way the Mac Pro is sticking around!
/s
I think quite the opposite. I think It will increase the market.
rdowns
Apr 14, 09:44 AM
Long and very interesting article on taxes. Very good read. (http://www.wweek.com/portland/article-17350-9_things_the_rich_dont_want_you_to_know_about_taxes.html)
As millions of Americans prepare to file their annual taxes, they do so in an environment of media-perpetuated tax myths. Here are a few points about taxes and the economy that you may not know, to consider as you prepare to file your taxes. (All figures are inflation-adjusted.)
The Internal Revenue Service issues an annual report on the 400 highest income-tax payers. In 1961, there were 398 taxpayers who made $1 million or more, so I compared their income tax burdens from that year to 2007.
Despite skyrocketing incomes, the federal tax burden on the richest 400 has been slashed, thanks to a variety of loopholes, allowable deductions and other tools. The actual share of their income paid in taxes, according to the IRS, is 16.6 percent. Adding payroll taxes barely nudges that number.
Compare that to the vast majority of Americans, whose share of their income going to federal taxes increased from 13.1 percent in 1961 to 22.5 percent in 2007.
(By the way, during seven of the eight George W. Bush years, the IRS report on the top 400 taxpayers was labeled a state secret, a policy that the Obama administration overturned almost instantly after his inauguration.)
A corporate tax rate that is too low actually destroys jobs. That�s because a higher tax rate encourages businesses (who don�t want to pay taxes) to keep the profits in the business and reinvest, rather than pull them out as profits and have to pay high taxes.
The 2004 American Jobs Creation Act, which passed with bipartisan support, allowed more than 800 companies to bring profits that were untaxed but overseas back to the United States. Instead of paying the usual 35 percent tax, the companies paid just 5.25 percent.
The companies said bringing the money home��repatriating� it, they called it�would mean lots of jobs. Sen. John Ensign, the Nevada Republican, put the figure at 660,000 new jobs.
Pfizer, the drug company, was the biggest beneficiary. It brought home $37 billion, saving $11 billion in taxes. Almost immediately it started firing people. Since the law took effect, Pfizer has let 40,000 workers go. In all, it appears that at least 100,000 jobs were destroyed.
As millions of Americans prepare to file their annual taxes, they do so in an environment of media-perpetuated tax myths. Here are a few points about taxes and the economy that you may not know, to consider as you prepare to file your taxes. (All figures are inflation-adjusted.)
The Internal Revenue Service issues an annual report on the 400 highest income-tax payers. In 1961, there were 398 taxpayers who made $1 million or more, so I compared their income tax burdens from that year to 2007.
Despite skyrocketing incomes, the federal tax burden on the richest 400 has been slashed, thanks to a variety of loopholes, allowable deductions and other tools. The actual share of their income paid in taxes, according to the IRS, is 16.6 percent. Adding payroll taxes barely nudges that number.
Compare that to the vast majority of Americans, whose share of their income going to federal taxes increased from 13.1 percent in 1961 to 22.5 percent in 2007.
(By the way, during seven of the eight George W. Bush years, the IRS report on the top 400 taxpayers was labeled a state secret, a policy that the Obama administration overturned almost instantly after his inauguration.)
A corporate tax rate that is too low actually destroys jobs. That�s because a higher tax rate encourages businesses (who don�t want to pay taxes) to keep the profits in the business and reinvest, rather than pull them out as profits and have to pay high taxes.
The 2004 American Jobs Creation Act, which passed with bipartisan support, allowed more than 800 companies to bring profits that were untaxed but overseas back to the United States. Instead of paying the usual 35 percent tax, the companies paid just 5.25 percent.
The companies said bringing the money home��repatriating� it, they called it�would mean lots of jobs. Sen. John Ensign, the Nevada Republican, put the figure at 660,000 new jobs.
Pfizer, the drug company, was the biggest beneficiary. It brought home $37 billion, saving $11 billion in taxes. Almost immediately it started firing people. Since the law took effect, Pfizer has let 40,000 workers go. In all, it appears that at least 100,000 jobs were destroyed.
Gottis
Apr 26, 02:13 PM
inevitable as android devices are available everywhere and in every price segment. remember, half of all American workers earn $505 or less per week.
lucabrasi
Mar 30, 06:39 PM
Will this work on the 2011 mbp's?
The installer does not error out and seems to work... rebooting now
The installer does not error out and seems to work... rebooting now
milo
Sep 11, 01:30 PM
No its not. Fast, but not as fast.
I can't find it now, but one of the mac websites did iPod transfer speed benchmarks on USB2 vs firewire, and the difference was negligible. I know the spec is different, but in real world tests they were virtually identical.
I can't find it now, but one of the mac websites did iPod transfer speed benchmarks on USB2 vs firewire, and the difference was negligible. I know the spec is different, but in real world tests they were virtually identical.
ChazUK
Mar 29, 11:34 AM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (Linux; U; Android 2.3.3; en-gb; Blade Build/FRG83) AppleWebKit/533.1 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0 Mobile Safari/533.1)
Storing some music locally on my phone and having a 20gb cloud of music and having it all accessable via a single app is brilliant.
A good move and potentially good product from Amazon. Looking forward to a UK release!
Storing some music locally on my phone and having a 20gb cloud of music and having it all accessable via a single app is brilliant.
A good move and potentially good product from Amazon. Looking forward to a UK release!
anti-microsoft
Apr 25, 09:03 AM
From what I've read, this really isn't that big of an issue. The database is just a list (that's locally stored) of places that you've been to. If it was uploaded to Apple, I would definitely be concerned but if it's a local file, then what's the fuss?
To get to the information, people would have to either:
A. Steal your phone and access the file
B. Steal your computer and access your iPhone backups
C. Hack your phone and find the file (if that's even possible)
D. Hack your computer and access the backups
E. Follow you wherever you go (unlikely, but who knows)
To me those options are more worrying when it comes to privacy than a list of coordinates stored locally on your phone, hidden in some sub-folder.
Anyway, someone correct me if I'm wrong.
Ams.
To get to the information, people would have to either:
A. Steal your phone and access the file
B. Steal your computer and access your iPhone backups
C. Hack your phone and find the file (if that's even possible)
D. Hack your computer and access the backups
E. Follow you wherever you go (unlikely, but who knows)
To me those options are more worrying when it comes to privacy than a list of coordinates stored locally on your phone, hidden in some sub-folder.
Anyway, someone correct me if I'm wrong.
Ams.
darrens
Aug 5, 03:04 AM
First, Apple's apps were easier to port because they were already XCode. So it was fairly easy for Apple to just recompile with the new compiler.
Are you sure that's true for all of them? They haven't owned Logic very long, and some of the others started life outside of Apple. I'm sure they had a few issues there.
Second, Adobe was using a lot of CodeWarrior code and it would be far more difficult to convert. Also having X86 code compiled using MS VStudio doesn't help Adobe to be ahead in generating X86 code under XCode because they run under a completely different GUI and access different libraries.
They have the MacOS X GUI code - that doesn't change for Intel - the OS is the same. The core logic endianness doesn't depend on the compiler - the code would be cross-platform and compile on GCC and Visual Studio anyway. Sure they have to deal with a few Codewarrior issues - but they have to do that for the new version anyway. It's not like they'd have to do it twice.
Third, even Apple released the UB code with a new updated version of their pro apps. Adobe's CS3 was not due for a year and a half.
True - but not all Apple's pro apps had a significant level of new features - they were just an interim release.
Fourth, Adobe announced their plans early on so that everyone would know what to expect.
Yes - don't expect us to be as pro-active as we've been in the past. I can remember when Apple went PPC - Adobe had an accelerator out for Photoshop close to the release date of the PPC Macs, and the fully PPC version followed shortly after.
My point about intuit is that Apple announced the transition before Intuit even began work on Quicken 2007. Quicken hardly relies on any graphics code, is mostly text, and number based. Yet they chose to ignore converting to UB code even though now would be perfect timing to do so. In addition they have not announced any plans to create UB's in the future.
This is also the sort of app that gets the least advantage from conversion. It's still a fair amount of work to change development environments when there's no real advantage to it. Especially when Intuit is really given token support to the Mac anyway.
Sure quicken will run with Rosetta, but is that what we want from developers. Forget about modernizing their code because they can make it run in an artificial emulated environment.
With that logic Intuit should have stuck with OS9 versions of quicken as it could always be run fine in classic.
It's hardly the same - you have to boot a second copy of MacOS to run a classic app (which is really slow) and it doesn't integrate seamlessly. You can hardly tell an app is running in Rosetta - there's no visual difference.
Are you sure that's true for all of them? They haven't owned Logic very long, and some of the others started life outside of Apple. I'm sure they had a few issues there.
Second, Adobe was using a lot of CodeWarrior code and it would be far more difficult to convert. Also having X86 code compiled using MS VStudio doesn't help Adobe to be ahead in generating X86 code under XCode because they run under a completely different GUI and access different libraries.
They have the MacOS X GUI code - that doesn't change for Intel - the OS is the same. The core logic endianness doesn't depend on the compiler - the code would be cross-platform and compile on GCC and Visual Studio anyway. Sure they have to deal with a few Codewarrior issues - but they have to do that for the new version anyway. It's not like they'd have to do it twice.
Third, even Apple released the UB code with a new updated version of their pro apps. Adobe's CS3 was not due for a year and a half.
True - but not all Apple's pro apps had a significant level of new features - they were just an interim release.
Fourth, Adobe announced their plans early on so that everyone would know what to expect.
Yes - don't expect us to be as pro-active as we've been in the past. I can remember when Apple went PPC - Adobe had an accelerator out for Photoshop close to the release date of the PPC Macs, and the fully PPC version followed shortly after.
My point about intuit is that Apple announced the transition before Intuit even began work on Quicken 2007. Quicken hardly relies on any graphics code, is mostly text, and number based. Yet they chose to ignore converting to UB code even though now would be perfect timing to do so. In addition they have not announced any plans to create UB's in the future.
This is also the sort of app that gets the least advantage from conversion. It's still a fair amount of work to change development environments when there's no real advantage to it. Especially when Intuit is really given token support to the Mac anyway.
Sure quicken will run with Rosetta, but is that what we want from developers. Forget about modernizing their code because they can make it run in an artificial emulated environment.
With that logic Intuit should have stuck with OS9 versions of quicken as it could always be run fine in classic.
It's hardly the same - you have to boot a second copy of MacOS to run a classic app (which is really slow) and it doesn't integrate seamlessly. You can hardly tell an app is running in Rosetta - there's no visual difference.
pizzafunghi
May 7, 04:03 PM
I'd get it if it were free!!
gmail is free... so why can't mobile me?
Now I start thinking about it, I've never paid Google a single cent, but I use
*Gmail
*Google search engine
*Google maps
*Google Earth
(*And I used Picasa for a short period of time)
Maybe some orther stuff but the point is... its all free!:)
Today:
Google -> Advertising - Free Services
mobile.me -> No Advertising - Paid Services
Tomorrow?:
mobile.me -> Free Services - iAds (thanks to Html5)
iWork.com -> Free Services - iAds
They are clearly entering googles market. Online services & advertising. I see Apple as the only company who could successfully compete with google.
gmail is free... so why can't mobile me?
Now I start thinking about it, I've never paid Google a single cent, but I use
*Gmail
*Google search engine
*Google maps
*Google Earth
(*And I used Picasa for a short period of time)
Maybe some orther stuff but the point is... its all free!:)
Today:
Google -> Advertising - Free Services
mobile.me -> No Advertising - Paid Services
Tomorrow?:
mobile.me -> Free Services - iAds (thanks to Html5)
iWork.com -> Free Services - iAds
They are clearly entering googles market. Online services & advertising. I see Apple as the only company who could successfully compete with google.
ten-oak-druid
Apr 18, 04:11 PM
The samsung devices look like rebranded apple products.
The GUI looks very similar.
This is really bad.
The GUI looks very similar.
This is really bad.
silentnite
Apr 25, 11:44 AM
Good answer, that's the same thing my attorney said to do. Deny everything.:D
GGJstudios
Dec 25, 08:30 AM
If mac users don't use av software, there's little motivation for anyone to supply it. If NO ONE is working on av software, then in the eventuality that we do need it, we're all starting from scratch. That's just never a good place to be if you can with minimal effort prevent it.
It's kind of like getting your flu shot in a year when the flu isn't supposed to be particularly bad. I seldom get the flu, but I go ahead and get the shot every year anyway because if no one does, there's little motivation for pharma companies to develop future flu shots. Which means in the really bad flu years, there's a shortage because only one company is making the shot.
There is simply no correlation between humans and flu and Macs and malware. They don't relate at all. Anti-virus is not necessary for protection for Macs against malware at this time. If you read this, you'll understand why: Mac Virus/Malware Info (http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=9400648&postcount=4)
It's kind of like getting your flu shot in a year when the flu isn't supposed to be particularly bad. I seldom get the flu, but I go ahead and get the shot every year anyway because if no one does, there's little motivation for pharma companies to develop future flu shots. Which means in the really bad flu years, there's a shortage because only one company is making the shot.
There is simply no correlation between humans and flu and Macs and malware. They don't relate at all. Anti-virus is not necessary for protection for Macs against malware at this time. If you read this, you'll understand why: Mac Virus/Malware Info (http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=9400648&postcount=4)
ptysell
May 6, 12:49 AM
Unless they want to make you pay for something you don't need... not necessary. The new Intel Macs that are being released right now have so much power that they could run every iOS app in emulated mode and the processor would hardly even notice it. That's today. Imagine where Intel will be in a couple of years? An ARM chip sitting next to an Intel powerhouse is not needed. As far as being instant on... I'd say my iMac wakes up from a sleep just about as fast as my iPad.
Yes, but what kind of video playback could I get on my Macbook Pro on international flights if it booted iOS off an ARM CPU......
Yes, but what kind of video playback could I get on my Macbook Pro on international flights if it booted iOS off an ARM CPU......
iphoneIA
Mar 28, 09:52 AM
Sort of relieved no iPhone 5 announcements, Im firmly bogged down into a 2 year contract.
I have to agree with this one. I have a two year contract and seeing a new iPhone would tempt my wallet.
I have to agree with this one. I have a two year contract and seeing a new iPhone would tempt my wallet.
Bonte
Apr 18, 04:01 PM
Looking at the TouchWiz UI, I see your point.
But, at what point does an interface become too generic? For example, the concept of pages of icons in a grid isn't really new or innovative. The concept of swiping across screens is simple and intuitive and should be standardized
(e.g. copied) for that exact reason. Should other phone makers put the icons in a circle, "just because" they need to be different? Should they force you to do something differently just because the best and most intuitive way was "already taken"?
We had smartphones, tablets and organisers years before the iPhone, if the layout and form-factor was so intuitive it should have been used before. Apple also uses the the start-screen a lot in promotions, it has become a logo for the device. Samsung also copy's the advertising to make it look like an Apple device, more than once i have to look more closely to a billboard to confirm it's not an iPhone. Samsung is the biggest copycat of them all.
But, at what point does an interface become too generic? For example, the concept of pages of icons in a grid isn't really new or innovative. The concept of swiping across screens is simple and intuitive and should be standardized
(e.g. copied) for that exact reason. Should other phone makers put the icons in a circle, "just because" they need to be different? Should they force you to do something differently just because the best and most intuitive way was "already taken"?
We had smartphones, tablets and organisers years before the iPhone, if the layout and form-factor was so intuitive it should have been used before. Apple also uses the the start-screen a lot in promotions, it has become a logo for the device. Samsung also copy's the advertising to make it look like an Apple device, more than once i have to look more closely to a billboard to confirm it's not an iPhone. Samsung is the biggest copycat of them all.
iMikeT
Aug 2, 05:21 PM
What isn't new?
This is what I think:
-Financial report
-Update report of Macs using Intel processors
-Update report of universal applications
-Mac OS 10.5 (Leopard) preview
One more thing......
-Mac Pro (Intel powered PowerMac) announced. Will ship with Woodcrest. Will ship early-mid September.
-(Very slim chance of announcement) Intel powered Xserve
This is what I think:
-Financial report
-Update report of Macs using Intel processors
-Update report of universal applications
-Mac OS 10.5 (Leopard) preview
One more thing......
-Mac Pro (Intel powered PowerMac) announced. Will ship with Woodcrest. Will ship early-mid September.
-(Very slim chance of announcement) Intel powered Xserve
