snebes
Apr 14, 05:40 PM
Does a proximity sensor work off light? (Honest question, I'm ignorant)
Some light wave. I believe it is infrared, but don't quote me on it.
Some light wave. I believe it is infrared, but don't quote me on it.
Eduardo1971
Mar 31, 10:44 AM
WOW! It looks like wIndows 3.1! :eek:
Ha. That's funny. Who knows maybe Apple will release something like this...
:D
Ha. That's funny. Who knows maybe Apple will release something like this...
:D
powers74
Apr 12, 10:01 AM
I see the logic, I'm still betting on Jan.
gtmac
May 4, 12:37 AM
pfft, this should not be front page news, hell not even second page... just a bunch of hearsay from a CR that knows nothing about it and speculates BS.
Yes I agree, not sure why this makes the cut just because it was stated as fact?????
Yes I agree, not sure why this makes the cut just because it was stated as fact?????
more...
goosnarrggh
Dec 5, 12:48 PM
Furthermore, one of the MOKB flaws is just a bug and is not actually a security vulnerability. The dmg vulnerability, wherein a malformed disk image can crash OS X and during this inject uknown code, has been debunked according to this guy (http://alastairs-place.net/2006/11/dmg-vulnerability/).
Indeed on first read, I'd say that he presents a convincing argument. I'll go along with his diagnosis that there's no hole that could open you up to arbitrary code execution. If that's your definition of a security hole, then it follows that there's no security hole there. But it's still leaving you open the possibility that the operating system may crash for no apparent reason, causing you to lose any unsaved work.
Lost work... Depending on how productive you are, that can easily result in monetary damage being done.
As I posted previously, that leaves you in no worse a situation than you always are if you're running a desktop computer without a UPS. But I think that it still warrants attention.
At best it still qualifies as an inconvenience, because the savvy user who saves her work regularly will only have lost 5 or 6 minutes of productivity including the reboot. At worst, it can result in hours of lost work for the user who doesn't understand the "save your work" mantra -- especially if we're talking about somebody who's protected by a battery backup and doesn't think that unexpected reboots should be possible on such an inherently stable operating system.
And it's undoubtedly a bug inside Apple's software that's causing this problem, therefore it is absolutely appropriate that Apple should be expected to fix it. I appreciate anybody's effort to bring such bugs to light, because that increases the probability that Apple will find out about it and fix it.
Indeed on first read, I'd say that he presents a convincing argument. I'll go along with his diagnosis that there's no hole that could open you up to arbitrary code execution. If that's your definition of a security hole, then it follows that there's no security hole there. But it's still leaving you open the possibility that the operating system may crash for no apparent reason, causing you to lose any unsaved work.
Lost work... Depending on how productive you are, that can easily result in monetary damage being done.
As I posted previously, that leaves you in no worse a situation than you always are if you're running a desktop computer without a UPS. But I think that it still warrants attention.
At best it still qualifies as an inconvenience, because the savvy user who saves her work regularly will only have lost 5 or 6 minutes of productivity including the reboot. At worst, it can result in hours of lost work for the user who doesn't understand the "save your work" mantra -- especially if we're talking about somebody who's protected by a battery backup and doesn't think that unexpected reboots should be possible on such an inherently stable operating system.
And it's undoubtedly a bug inside Apple's software that's causing this problem, therefore it is absolutely appropriate that Apple should be expected to fix it. I appreciate anybody's effort to bring such bugs to light, because that increases the probability that Apple will find out about it and fix it.
MikeTheC
Jan 26, 12:20 AM
Much like stupid users, stock market investors are a whole class of people for whom I have not the slightest bit of pity.
Apple's stock went down basically due to two factors. First, Apple's Stevenote and subsequent quarterly were lackluster. That's under Apple's direct control.
Second, the market was going down anyhow, so it dragged Apple's stock with it. Yet somehow Apple (or any other company) is supposed to react to this? Why? Because a bunch of fickle-minded simpletons want their money after behaving in a way which helped to contribute to lower stock prices? Yech. Give me a break.
Yes, I know the economy is in a slump. Er, downturn. Um, recession. Yeah, whatever. Call it what you will. But why companies have this fear-threat knee-jerk reaction to stock price when it has absolutely nothing to do with what they have done (which, again to be clear, is only 50% true here in Apple's case), I'll simply never know.
I, for one, didn't care for Stevenote '08. I think there should have been other things for Steve to have introduced. And they wouldn't have to be lavishly over-the-top, either. Just good, useful, and desired things. But nevertheless, it's not like I think Apple's leadership suddenly all developed alzheimers' and now *oh my God* the ship's going to run a-ground, oh save us, save us!
Load of crap, the lot of it.
Apple's stock went down basically due to two factors. First, Apple's Stevenote and subsequent quarterly were lackluster. That's under Apple's direct control.
Second, the market was going down anyhow, so it dragged Apple's stock with it. Yet somehow Apple (or any other company) is supposed to react to this? Why? Because a bunch of fickle-minded simpletons want their money after behaving in a way which helped to contribute to lower stock prices? Yech. Give me a break.
Yes, I know the economy is in a slump. Er, downturn. Um, recession. Yeah, whatever. Call it what you will. But why companies have this fear-threat knee-jerk reaction to stock price when it has absolutely nothing to do with what they have done (which, again to be clear, is only 50% true here in Apple's case), I'll simply never know.
I, for one, didn't care for Stevenote '08. I think there should have been other things for Steve to have introduced. And they wouldn't have to be lavishly over-the-top, either. Just good, useful, and desired things. But nevertheless, it's not like I think Apple's leadership suddenly all developed alzheimers' and now *oh my God* the ship's going to run a-ground, oh save us, save us!
Load of crap, the lot of it.
more...
nies
Apr 27, 08:58 PM
maybe i should just vote myself huh?
Digital Dude
Apr 13, 11:16 PM
Oh great! Now Steve Jobs will add an even larger non-visible glossy-ass display and consumers� will embrace it, because Steve will convince you it�s �magical�.
more...
steveh
Apr 12, 02:23 PM
Wouldn't matter anyway if you were using a ThunderBolt external hard drive. Very few mechanical hard drives can even reach 1Gbps-2Gbps. You'll need several of the fastest SSDs in RAID to even reach ThunderBolt speeds.
USB 3.0 FTW. More practical.
This week, mostly. In a year or three?
Don't forget that ThunderBolt can support USB x, as well as several other connection standards, including DisplayPort, hence any display connection standard that you can drive through it.
USB 3.0 FTW. More practical.
This week, mostly. In a year or three?
Don't forget that ThunderBolt can support USB x, as well as several other connection standards, including DisplayPort, hence any display connection standard that you can drive through it.
stroked
Apr 24, 07:06 PM
Define "dude".
anyone born with a penis
except a child of course
anyone born with a penis
except a child of course
more...
bdkennedy1
Mar 31, 01:56 PM
If you want functionality, then go use Windows. Most Mac users are designers and the look of something is just as important as functionality. Steve Jobs may love the look of his day planner, that doesn't mean I have to be stuck with it.
Personally? I find it humorous that so many people on here refuse to use the app, or have big issues with it, all because of the faux leather look to the top bar, or other attempts to make the app look like its physical counterpart. If the app has the FUNCTIONALITY you need, that's what makes it good! I've come to expect that Apple will regularly revise the LOOK of these applications. Even if they had a look that 99.9% of users agreed was "perfect"? They'd revise it with the next major release of the app or OS, simply because they know people don't feel like they really "got enough for their money" if it doesn't look different at a quick glance....
The way it defaults to entering new appointments with that "unnamed appointment" heading drives me nuts too. Accidental taps on the iPhone or iPad can lead to those things being added to your schedule, and if you don't notice it until later? You're left wondering if it's supposed be a real appointment for something, or if it was just a screw-up. They should make it so if you don't actually fill something in, it cancels adding it.
Another feature I'd like to see? It needs a way to easily open up a list of your contacts from the Address Book inside a pane in iCal itself, and drag one over to the calendar to add an appointment with their address inserted as the "location", and name plus maybe phone number(s) in the title. Like many people, I use iCal to track appointments I have with clients, so this info usually needs to go into them.
I saw where someone wrote a fancy Applescript to accomplish this, but IMHO, that's still a "hack" for functionality Apple could/should include!
Personally? I find it humorous that so many people on here refuse to use the app, or have big issues with it, all because of the faux leather look to the top bar, or other attempts to make the app look like its physical counterpart. If the app has the FUNCTIONALITY you need, that's what makes it good! I've come to expect that Apple will regularly revise the LOOK of these applications. Even if they had a look that 99.9% of users agreed was "perfect"? They'd revise it with the next major release of the app or OS, simply because they know people don't feel like they really "got enough for their money" if it doesn't look different at a quick glance....
The way it defaults to entering new appointments with that "unnamed appointment" heading drives me nuts too. Accidental taps on the iPhone or iPad can lead to those things being added to your schedule, and if you don't notice it until later? You're left wondering if it's supposed be a real appointment for something, or if it was just a screw-up. They should make it so if you don't actually fill something in, it cancels adding it.
Another feature I'd like to see? It needs a way to easily open up a list of your contacts from the Address Book inside a pane in iCal itself, and drag one over to the calendar to add an appointment with their address inserted as the "location", and name plus maybe phone number(s) in the title. Like many people, I use iCal to track appointments I have with clients, so this info usually needs to go into them.
I saw where someone wrote a fancy Applescript to accomplish this, but IMHO, that's still a "hack" for functionality Apple could/should include!
mymacluvsme
Jul 11, 07:39 PM
http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com)
This would represent an more "end-to-end" business model described by Walk Mossberg (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/05/20060511102446.shtml) that has brought Apple a lot of success with their Music Store/iTunes/iPod integration.
Who's "Walk Mossberg"?
This would represent an more "end-to-end" business model described by Walk Mossberg (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/05/20060511102446.shtml) that has brought Apple a lot of success with their Music Store/iTunes/iPod integration.
Who's "Walk Mossberg"?
more...
backupdrummer
Jul 10, 10:49 AM
For me to upgrade iWork it will need to have some pretty killer features. I do like a different view for Pages as the alway layout view can be very annoying when you just want something simple.
One of my biggest gripes with Pages is when you select Blank page it still populates it with fields like header that drives me crazy.
One of my biggest gripes with Pages is when you select Blank page it still populates it with fields like header that drives me crazy.
Gamoe
Apr 30, 12:56 AM
Yes, competition is a good thing... But how much real leeway do any of these companies have to set price points? It seems to me that the labels are the ones mostly setting the pricing, and that's in their favor, not in the customer's favor.
It seems the labels allow different prices for different stores in order to "game" the system in their favor- they'll allow Amazon to sell for less in the hopes of eating into Apple's market share and taking away more of Apple's leverage to negotiate for lower costs for itself (and customers).
It seems the labels allow different prices for different stores in order to "game" the system in their favor- they'll allow Amazon to sell for less in the hopes of eating into Apple's market share and taking away more of Apple's leverage to negotiate for lower costs for itself (and customers).
more...
InfinitiG
Apr 28, 04:46 PM
Does this mean the white iphone is 10% more durable?
nagromme
Jul 24, 05:34 PM
I love the shape of the Mighty Mouse, but not the function (weird right-click). Or the name :)
It's a personal call, and I could get used to it, but for ME, I'd choose a different mouse.
I also have done a 180 on Bluetooth: I now feel that for ME, batteries and charging are more of a hassle than a single cord.
But I wouldn't mind a BT mouse as PowerBook/MacBook's travel companion.
It's a personal call, and I could get used to it, but for ME, I'd choose a different mouse.
I also have done a 180 on Bluetooth: I now feel that for ME, batteries and charging are more of a hassle than a single cord.
But I wouldn't mind a BT mouse as PowerBook/MacBook's travel companion.
more...
pkson
Apr 21, 11:44 PM
woohoo!
Samsung trying to save face!
I'd like to see what Apple Korea does about this! haha
They'd better be better in court than they are in customer service.
Samsung trying to save face!
I'd like to see what Apple Korea does about this! haha
They'd better be better in court than they are in customer service.
Corban987
May 3, 07:54 AM
Should I get the 2G Graphic option, is it worth the $100?
I will go the i7 for sure!
I will go the i7 for sure!
Jswoosh
Apr 28, 11:38 PM
Uhh... this thread is about LAST Tuesday... Or do you guys just plan on recycling it every week??
No this thread is about this upcoming Tuesday. You know the one in 5 days from now.
No this thread is about this upcoming Tuesday. You know the one in 5 days from now.
mc68k
Oct 29, 07:18 PM
right now its reformatting into a RAID, boss wanted to RAID it. lost 2 frames no biggie. here's what i got before that
[22:05:44] pleted 2500 out of 250000 steps (1%)
[22:54:37] Completed 5000 out of 250000 steps (2%)
so thats about 50 mins per frame. i was thinking maybe that was due to the clock speed being 2.26 or the HT. the old 3ghz MP does a frame in the low to mid 40s
wont get to test until tomorrow
[22:05:44] pleted 2500 out of 250000 steps (1%)
[22:54:37] Completed 5000 out of 250000 steps (2%)
so thats about 50 mins per frame. i was thinking maybe that was due to the clock speed being 2.26 or the HT. the old 3ghz MP does a frame in the low to mid 40s
wont get to test until tomorrow
mazola
Oct 18, 05:07 PM
I'm thinking the same thing ... So what did Steve promise for 06? And what fits that bill?
2006 was a very good year (http://store.apple.com/1-800-MY-APPLE/WebObjects/AppleStore.woa/6474003/wo/Sk3OE9fyakUZ2FK2BCb15VLTifN/4.0.21.1.0.8.25.7.11.0.3)
2006 was a very good year (http://store.apple.com/1-800-MY-APPLE/WebObjects/AppleStore.woa/6474003/wo/Sk3OE9fyakUZ2FK2BCb15VLTifN/4.0.21.1.0.8.25.7.11.0.3)
tny
Oct 6, 04:23 PM
You are assuming that the amount of spectrum available will never change. There's a reason they just shut off analog TV. Yes, spectrum is a finite resource, but they're shifting more to mobile voice/data very soon.
You are also assuming that all the frequencies available to each tower are already in use on that tower - that the towers are saturated. I think that's an unlikely assumption, outside very dense areas like Manhattan and DC. (And in Manhattan, you probably don't have the whole "can't get towers approved because of community opposition" problem because the towers are just installed on or in existing buildings, albeit at some expense; and you probably need a denser tower population anyway because of all the ground clutter; so a denser tower population probably already exists).
I imagine that the transceivers used on the towers have channel limits - that each transceiver can only handle a certain number of handsets k, within the limits of the number of available frequency sets n (the phone doesn't just use one frequency; I'm pretty sure they are spread-spectrum devices, so you are better off thinking of frequency sets rather than frequencies), and that k <<< n . That would explain AT&T's claims that their ongoing upgrades will mitigate the problem - they may be upgrading the transceivers on the towers so that each tower can use more of the frequencies theoretically available than has been true so far.
The other cell companies also have to segregate their frequencies from one another. If T-Mobile (the other GSM/3G carrier) isn't having this problem, it means either a. their network utilization is a lot lower, or b. they're doing something right and AT&T is doing something wrong. That's also true with the CDMA carriers, of course, but I think they use different parts of the spectrum - and Verizon is a pretty big network.
It's interesting how cell service works. Here's a simplistic summary:
Only a certain number of users can use a tower at any given time. There is only a certain range of frequencies that can be used. All towers use these same frequencies. This means that each tower must not overlap the others in terms of coverage area and frequenceis. To ensure this, companies actually use different frequency ranges on adjacent towers. Further limiting how many users can use each tower.
[cropped out a lot of the quote]
When I was in NYC I noticed by data speeds were much slower. I didn't make enough calls to have any problems with that though.
You are also assuming that all the frequencies available to each tower are already in use on that tower - that the towers are saturated. I think that's an unlikely assumption, outside very dense areas like Manhattan and DC. (And in Manhattan, you probably don't have the whole "can't get towers approved because of community opposition" problem because the towers are just installed on or in existing buildings, albeit at some expense; and you probably need a denser tower population anyway because of all the ground clutter; so a denser tower population probably already exists).
I imagine that the transceivers used on the towers have channel limits - that each transceiver can only handle a certain number of handsets k, within the limits of the number of available frequency sets n (the phone doesn't just use one frequency; I'm pretty sure they are spread-spectrum devices, so you are better off thinking of frequency sets rather than frequencies), and that k <<< n . That would explain AT&T's claims that their ongoing upgrades will mitigate the problem - they may be upgrading the transceivers on the towers so that each tower can use more of the frequencies theoretically available than has been true so far.
The other cell companies also have to segregate their frequencies from one another. If T-Mobile (the other GSM/3G carrier) isn't having this problem, it means either a. their network utilization is a lot lower, or b. they're doing something right and AT&T is doing something wrong. That's also true with the CDMA carriers, of course, but I think they use different parts of the spectrum - and Verizon is a pretty big network.
It's interesting how cell service works. Here's a simplistic summary:
Only a certain number of users can use a tower at any given time. There is only a certain range of frequencies that can be used. All towers use these same frequencies. This means that each tower must not overlap the others in terms of coverage area and frequenceis. To ensure this, companies actually use different frequency ranges on adjacent towers. Further limiting how many users can use each tower.
[cropped out a lot of the quote]
When I was in NYC I noticed by data speeds were much slower. I didn't make enough calls to have any problems with that though.
Rodimus Prime
Oct 1, 02:28 PM
All emergency calls are placed on a separate priority line/ or are given preference over all other calls at any point in time.
On top of that they will grab the tower with the best signal no matter what carrier it is on.
If you place a 911 call from an ATT phone and T-Mobile has a better tower in the area then you can sure as hell bet that the phone will be going to that tower.
emergency mode on a phone is very different than a normal call. It has the power to kick others off the line and you are given more dedicated bandwithe for the phone.
On top of that they will grab the tower with the best signal no matter what carrier it is on.
If you place a 911 call from an ATT phone and T-Mobile has a better tower in the area then you can sure as hell bet that the phone will be going to that tower.
emergency mode on a phone is very different than a normal call. It has the power to kick others off the line and you are given more dedicated bandwithe for the phone.
bankshot
Nov 3, 06:12 PM
From the screenshots alone, it looks like a Cocoa app, which pretty much guarantees it'll be faster because it won't have the extra Qt bloated code in it ;)
Right, and Cocoa isn't the slightest bit bloated? :rolleyes: (can you say runtime messaging and binding overhead?)
Regardless of the relative difference in overhead, I'd expect it to be negligible in both cases. This is just the gui that sits around the virtual machine, a nice window dressing to make it accessible to the user. It should only be exercised when you're doing stuff like editing configurations or attaching devices. The real meat of either VMware or Parallels should have nothing to do with what gui toolkit they use to display the window.
It's exciting to see this finally moving along. I really think virtualization will play a much larger role in everyday computing in the future. Forget backwards compatibility nightmares, just virtualize it. I'm already hogging way too much disk space on my Macbook with a few Parallels VMs that I use on a regular basis. Whenever Apple releases an affordable desktop Mac that can take more than 4 GB of memory, I might check out VMware at that time and see if it's any better.
Right, and Cocoa isn't the slightest bit bloated? :rolleyes: (can you say runtime messaging and binding overhead?)
Regardless of the relative difference in overhead, I'd expect it to be negligible in both cases. This is just the gui that sits around the virtual machine, a nice window dressing to make it accessible to the user. It should only be exercised when you're doing stuff like editing configurations or attaching devices. The real meat of either VMware or Parallels should have nothing to do with what gui toolkit they use to display the window.
It's exciting to see this finally moving along. I really think virtualization will play a much larger role in everyday computing in the future. Forget backwards compatibility nightmares, just virtualize it. I'm already hogging way too much disk space on my Macbook with a few Parallels VMs that I use on a regular basis. Whenever Apple releases an affordable desktop Mac that can take more than 4 GB of memory, I might check out VMware at that time and see if it's any better.
Không có nhận xét nào:
Đăng nhận xét