BRLawyer
Nov 23, 03:54 PM
Sounds like a virus in itself. A pointless piece of software which just hogs your RAM. Totally useless for Mac OS X.
Absolutely true. Just for kicks I downloaded it and scanned ALL my HDs. Results?
- for 2,500,000 files, it took at least 8 hours while slowing my Mac to a crawl for anything else - Dual-core CPU usage of 100% on average (out of 200%);
- Of course it didn't find anything relevant for Macs; just 2 VERY old Windows worms that were apparently attached to a couple of archived Outlook messages received by my Windows PC at work - these files were just part of a dormant 2006 backup of my Windows work files stored on my Mac for more than 4 years.
Following that waste of time, I simply clicked on Remove Sophos and got rid of it. Nice effort and free, but irrelevant nonetheless. Wake me up again when there is a real virus for OS X.
Absolutely true. Just for kicks I downloaded it and scanned ALL my HDs. Results?
- for 2,500,000 files, it took at least 8 hours while slowing my Mac to a crawl for anything else - Dual-core CPU usage of 100% on average (out of 200%);
- Of course it didn't find anything relevant for Macs; just 2 VERY old Windows worms that were apparently attached to a couple of archived Outlook messages received by my Windows PC at work - these files were just part of a dormant 2006 backup of my Windows work files stored on my Mac for more than 4 years.
Following that waste of time, I simply clicked on Remove Sophos and got rid of it. Nice effort and free, but irrelevant nonetheless. Wake me up again when there is a real virus for OS X.
dbit
Sep 16, 02:45 PM
Quick question,
Is it possible to order online and pick up in a specified store when available?
This would be the most convinient way for me to purchase when the new MBP's come out.
Is it possible to order online and pick up in a specified store when available?
This would be the most convinient way for me to purchase when the new MBP's come out.
~Shard~
Aug 12, 12:41 AM
But then it wouldn't be a Mac Mini, now would it?
(My first MR post. Ever.)
It still would mini be if you were a giant. It all depends on your perspective.
(My 12,070th MR post. Ever.)
:p :cool:
(My first MR post. Ever.)
It still would mini be if you were a giant. It all depends on your perspective.
(My 12,070th MR post. Ever.)
:p :cool:
digitalbiker
Aug 4, 09:09 PM
Who cares for Quicken - it's not performance critical. It probably wasn't worth the effort given the gains probaby wouldn't even be noticeable.
I'd think that all Apple's Pro apps market to the same small intel mac userbase, and they're done. They weren't cross platform so I'd think they weren't easy to port.
We all know Adobe's reasons - but still, two years is a long time.
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.
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.
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.
Fourth, Adobe announced their plans early on so that everyone would know what to expect.
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.
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.
I'd think that all Apple's Pro apps market to the same small intel mac userbase, and they're done. They weren't cross platform so I'd think they weren't easy to port.
We all know Adobe's reasons - but still, two years is a long time.
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.
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.
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.
Fourth, Adobe announced their plans early on so that everyone would know what to expect.
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.
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.
supasubu
Mar 27, 04:51 PM
My thoughts exactly. Our school district (ISD 482) just bought 1,465 iPads for its students, and I can see us getting really mad if Apple were to release a new iPad 6 mos. later.
...the same way Apple will probably release the iphone 5 a few months after the Verizon iphone 4? :)
...the same way Apple will probably release the iphone 5 a few months after the Verizon iphone 4? :)
aricher
Jul 30, 09:27 AM
Also, I have a hard time believing that there is a " tech-unsavvy" photographer doing any work for Apple. Sounds a bit bogus to me.
I used to work as a photo studio manager back in the early/mid 90s. We shot a ton of new products for Motorola back then including one of the first ever small flip phones - the StarTac. The photographer was asked to sign an NDA but the stylist, caterer and me were not. First thing I did when I got out of the shoot that day was tell all my teck-savvy friends about this cool new phone from Moto - but at least I snagged a polaroid to prove it.
That said, this "leak" feels bogus to me as well. I guess we'll see soon enough.
I used to work as a photo studio manager back in the early/mid 90s. We shot a ton of new products for Motorola back then including one of the first ever small flip phones - the StarTac. The photographer was asked to sign an NDA but the stylist, caterer and me were not. First thing I did when I got out of the shoot that day was tell all my teck-savvy friends about this cool new phone from Moto - but at least I snagged a polaroid to prove it.
That said, this "leak" feels bogus to me as well. I guess we'll see soon enough.
infobhan
Jul 31, 05:17 AM
I'll be VERY surprised if the Apple phone doesn't support Wifi.
A WiFi phone would be unlikely, in my mind. WiFi is not yet ubiquitous, so this would be of limited usefulness. Furthermore, WiFi is a notorious waster of battery life, and this device will have to be small to be successful.
A WiFi phone would be unlikely, in my mind. WiFi is not yet ubiquitous, so this would be of limited usefulness. Furthermore, WiFi is a notorious waster of battery life, and this device will have to be small to be successful.
GeekLawyer
Apr 18, 03:18 PM
If Apple cannot beat them....they sue them.Why not, as in this case, do both?
Apple can beat them in the market; they can beat them in the courtroom.
Apple can beat them in the market; they can beat them in the courtroom.
Kane08
Mar 29, 07:22 PM
I like the competition, and the cloud concept is definitely promising, but I don't think this is a solution I want. Call me pessimistic, but I don't want to rely on another entity for access to my own information. I don't want to store all my music and movies "in the cloud" and hope there is no complications. Rather, what I want is to be able to access my home computer via the cloud, but if all else fails, it's still saved on my home computer, not some remote server I can't access
SuperCachetes
Apr 18, 12:28 PM
Interesting poll by Gallup:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/147152/Americans-Split-Whether-Taxes-High.aspx
That's good stuff. ;)
http://www.gallup.com/poll/147152/Americans-Split-Whether-Taxes-High.aspx
That's good stuff. ;)
Coolerking
Sep 11, 12:33 PM
I bet ya a Core 2 Duo processor in my new macbook that Apple will be showcasing some more (of the cooler) applications in Leopard. I wouldn't be suprised if they sync up to a new Ipod or Iphone.
You heard it here first.
:cool:
You heard it here first.
:cool:
vincenz
Mar 28, 10:46 AM
Surprised by the turn of events... but as all rumors, we have to take it with a grain of salt. Who knows who's right but Steve and his coterie?
d4rkc4sm
May 6, 03:06 AM
this stupid rumor is stupid
martygras9
Mar 29, 08:41 AM
Pricing is fairly high when compared to external drives one can purchase. But the convenience of having your data WHEREVER you are is extremely tempting. Has anyone tried pogoplug before? It seems like an affordable solution to the cloud with its one time fee, but I'm not sure what the download speeds are like.
E.Lizardo
Apr 20, 07:12 AM
If you can have a bigger screen without a physically larger device size and weight, then yes, it is necessarily better.
+1
Emphasis on same size device.I don't want an Android size brick.
+1
Emphasis on same size device.I don't want an Android size brick.
lilo777
Mar 29, 10:42 AM
And Amazon thinks crippling ioS compatibility will be good business? FAIL.
I agree. I am absolutely convinced that Amazon's decision has nothing to do with the fact that their new cloud service gives free storage for MP3 files purchased from Amazon. Those idiots at Amazon probably still think that iOS is a close ecosystem where Apple restricts competitors in order to be able to rip off their loyal customer base.
I agree. I am absolutely convinced that Amazon's decision has nothing to do with the fact that their new cloud service gives free storage for MP3 files purchased from Amazon. Those idiots at Amazon probably still think that iOS is a close ecosystem where Apple restricts competitors in order to be able to rip off their loyal customer base.
Caliber26
Mar 29, 02:46 PM
I'm really neutral toward all this, but I really just have one very valid question.......... Why, WHY does EVERYTHING Amazon does have to be sooooooooooooo DISGUSTINGLY HIDEOUS!!!??? :rolleyes:
I challenge anyone in here to show me a website uglier than amazon.com! Seriously!!!
craigslist.org? :p
I challenge anyone in here to show me a website uglier than amazon.com! Seriously!!!
craigslist.org? :p
![earth day coloring pages for kids. [PDF] Nice little coloring](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/blogger_img_proxy/AEn0k_syr_7dvXqF0ZuANB28WzsUvO0654kmFtTW2YW0fkofmLwxLKXkg77h_dDe2CFiy7TUvM0iWV9cpHd87LrrexnlLRz5MrdqSjWsLZOAfy2xnEdCvc4kO9vAxAGdG14m6NwNDX2noZnDGNnh=s0-d "[PDF] Nice little coloring")
Eidorian
Aug 11, 09:12 AM
I'm pretty sure Conroe has no performance gains over Merom. Why is your friend opposed to Merom in a desktop? Merom is supposed to run cooler correct?Conroe has a much faster FSB, more cache, and ramps up much faster in clock speed.
Merom and Yonah are replacements for Pentium-M. While Conroe is the replacement for the Pentium D. Conroe runs much hotter but not as hot as the old G5's. 45 C at full load for Conroe and 75 C for the 970FX.
And if you're worried about wattage...
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/core2duo-shootout_11.html
Merom and Yonah are replacements for Pentium-M. While Conroe is the replacement for the Pentium D. Conroe runs much hotter but not as hot as the old G5's. 45 C at full load for Conroe and 75 C for the 970FX.
And if you're worried about wattage...
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/core2duo-shootout_11.html
iJohnHenry
Apr 10, 06:15 PM
Multiplication is always what you do, when there is a term directly adjacent to the ().
"Oh, I did not know that!!" - Johnny Carson, The Tonight Show
I get 61,835, but I'm beginning to think someone has mucked around with the keys on my calculator.
Finally, humour.
Check your IMOS battery. I think it's failing. :p
"Oh, I did not know that!!" - Johnny Carson, The Tonight Show
I get 61,835, but I'm beginning to think someone has mucked around with the keys on my calculator.
Finally, humour.
Check your IMOS battery. I think it's failing. :p
heisetax
Aug 2, 04:47 PM
Why is everyone so convinced that there will be significant updates to the Cinema Displays? Remember how long the non-Alu plastic displays were out? It must have been five years, while the Alu displays have been out for less then two years.
I can't see Apple making a bigger screen then 30" for desktop use. And if they were to, it would be for a multimedia center type thing, which not only is unlikely, but would never be released at WWDC. As a 30" display owner, theres no way a screen larger then 30" would be a feasible desktop display. Besides, anything larger then 30" is just too niche of a market.
Regarding a built-in iSight, I think the Pro market is just the wrong market for that. Apple has to be aware of its market, and b/c of security reasons, cameras just aren't feasible at this point.
Hell, who knows, I'm probably 100% wrong :p.
Edit: Perhaps Apple will just bump the display to be HDCP compliant. HDMI is pretty much the same as DVI, for everyone who doesn't know ;).
I agree with you that the 30" display is big. I disagree with you about any larger display as being too big. It may be for you but not for others. When I first starting using my 30" display besides my 23" display I thought it was big. Using it with my 17" PowerBook even makes it seem bigger. But the only thing that could hold me back from purchasing a larger display would be the need of purchasing a new computer to be able to use 2 larger screens at the same time. My 17" PowerBook can only use one. My MDD PowerMac can only use one. But that is really a different question.
Many people seem to have tunnel vision when they use their computers & are or at least think they are happy with one 15" display. Others can see the need & usefulness of a larger display. At least you use a 30". But if Apple would have come out with a 32", 35" or larger display instead would you have purchased it the same as you did your 30" model? Then it would take a 40" or 45" display to be too larger.
With DualLink only able to support 3840 X 2400 & Single Link only able to support up to 1920 X 1200, there will be a natural size limitation until one of the new systems come around. The need probably isn't there yet, but a couple more size and/or reolution increases would change all of that.
How long do you think it will be before someone else says that his 45" display is all the larger anyone would ever need, so why make one larger? Whan I sold computers many thought that the 17" CRT was too larger, why go larger than 15"?
Bill the TaxMan
I can't see Apple making a bigger screen then 30" for desktop use. And if they were to, it would be for a multimedia center type thing, which not only is unlikely, but would never be released at WWDC. As a 30" display owner, theres no way a screen larger then 30" would be a feasible desktop display. Besides, anything larger then 30" is just too niche of a market.
Regarding a built-in iSight, I think the Pro market is just the wrong market for that. Apple has to be aware of its market, and b/c of security reasons, cameras just aren't feasible at this point.
Hell, who knows, I'm probably 100% wrong :p.
Edit: Perhaps Apple will just bump the display to be HDCP compliant. HDMI is pretty much the same as DVI, for everyone who doesn't know ;).
I agree with you that the 30" display is big. I disagree with you about any larger display as being too big. It may be for you but not for others. When I first starting using my 30" display besides my 23" display I thought it was big. Using it with my 17" PowerBook even makes it seem bigger. But the only thing that could hold me back from purchasing a larger display would be the need of purchasing a new computer to be able to use 2 larger screens at the same time. My 17" PowerBook can only use one. My MDD PowerMac can only use one. But that is really a different question.
Many people seem to have tunnel vision when they use their computers & are or at least think they are happy with one 15" display. Others can see the need & usefulness of a larger display. At least you use a 30". But if Apple would have come out with a 32", 35" or larger display instead would you have purchased it the same as you did your 30" model? Then it would take a 40" or 45" display to be too larger.
With DualLink only able to support 3840 X 2400 & Single Link only able to support up to 1920 X 1200, there will be a natural size limitation until one of the new systems come around. The need probably isn't there yet, but a couple more size and/or reolution increases would change all of that.
How long do you think it will be before someone else says that his 45" display is all the larger anyone would ever need, so why make one larger? Whan I sold computers many thought that the 17" CRT was too larger, why go larger than 15"?
Bill the TaxMan
jaduffy108
Sep 16, 09:12 PM
Dreaming really (note 1920 res. hack for PB thread here has over 100k views, Apple get a clue!), but hopefully the delay has more to do with better upgrades, vid chip (Nvidia GeForce Go 7900 GTX, 512 MB please), a true HD screen (WQUXGA (http://www.videotechnology.com/0904/formats.html) would be even nicer, 4k res, yeah baby, just the ticket for Leopard and the 17in model), etc. ; than limited supply of Merom's...why put them in the iMac 1st when the profit margin is higher on the MBP's- which are in more need of an early upgrade than the iMac?
Dell already has these features in one of it's expensive laptops (though almost twice as thick, which makes it much easier to implement):
http://www.mobilityguru.com/2006/08/28/see_eurocom_emperor_fly_with_nvidia_sli/page2.html
### I hope you're right about a GO 7900 gtx, but it will shock me. Apple has always had limited choices (if any)...lower performance gpu's in their laptops compared to Dell or Alienware. *I* don't want 1920res...1680 is a nice res.
Dell already has these features in one of it's expensive laptops (though almost twice as thick, which makes it much easier to implement):
http://www.mobilityguru.com/2006/08/28/see_eurocom_emperor_fly_with_nvidia_sli/page2.html
### I hope you're right about a GO 7900 gtx, but it will shock me. Apple has always had limited choices (if any)...lower performance gpu's in their laptops compared to Dell or Alienware. *I* don't want 1920res...1680 is a nice res.
AaronEdwards
Apr 26, 03:55 PM
Just a sample size of one, but I'm a good example of a customer that Apple might not get:
Sprint user for years. Good discounts, etc. and the service has worked fine for me over the years. For me to switch carriers for an iPhone I'd spend $40-$50 a month more. As much as I want an iphone (I own a 3gs I use internationally and really like it), unless Apple and Sprint make a deal I'm probably gonna end up with an Android phone to replace my barely functional Palm Pre. I'm heading out of the country for a couple months, hopefully Sprint has the iPhone when I return, haha...
Another name for a sample size of one. An anecdote... ;)
Sprint user for years. Good discounts, etc. and the service has worked fine for me over the years. For me to switch carriers for an iPhone I'd spend $40-$50 a month more. As much as I want an iphone (I own a 3gs I use internationally and really like it), unless Apple and Sprint make a deal I'm probably gonna end up with an Android phone to replace my barely functional Palm Pre. I'm heading out of the country for a couple months, hopefully Sprint has the iPhone when I return, haha...
Another name for a sample size of one. An anecdote... ;)
milozauckerman
Aug 7, 09:59 PM
Not everyone is going to use a powerful card for gaming, and I wouldn't want to pay more than I need for my uses.
Uh, that's the point: you shouldn't have to 'pay more' - it should be standard, and shouldn't raise the price-point, if other manufacturers can do it.
I don't get the apologists who defend every questionable component from Apple by saying 'well, I don't want to pay extra in the base price' (for a reasonable amount of RAM or for a decent videocard) - demand more from Apple.
Ask why you can't have a $2500 flagship desktop with a graphics card that didn't cost Apple $40, why Apple can't eat the extra $45 to offer their consumer items with a usable amount of RAM standard.
Uh, that's the point: you shouldn't have to 'pay more' - it should be standard, and shouldn't raise the price-point, if other manufacturers can do it.
I don't get the apologists who defend every questionable component from Apple by saying 'well, I don't want to pay extra in the base price' (for a reasonable amount of RAM or for a decent videocard) - demand more from Apple.
Ask why you can't have a $2500 flagship desktop with a graphics card that didn't cost Apple $40, why Apple can't eat the extra $45 to offer their consumer items with a usable amount of RAM standard.
NebulaClash
Apr 25, 10:20 AM
I still don't get the outrage of many people.
I can think of four reasons for outrage:
1. People who are scared by the media and do not think it through enough to see the media have it wrong.
2. People who like to stir up trouble for the sake of trouble.
3. People who hate Apple and use any excuse to blast them, true or not.
4. People who are paid to provide misinformation against Apple.
I can think of four reasons for outrage:
1. People who are scared by the media and do not think it through enough to see the media have it wrong.
2. People who like to stir up trouble for the sake of trouble.
3. People who hate Apple and use any excuse to blast them, true or not.
4. People who are paid to provide misinformation against Apple.
