Rt&Dzine
Apr 22, 11:02 PM
"I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."
I'd be curious if any Christians here are open to considering other God(s) or a different type of creator than Jesus. Especially the ones who challenge atheists to be open to the possibility of God.
I'd be curious if any Christians here are open to considering other God(s) or a different type of creator than Jesus. Especially the ones who challenge atheists to be open to the possibility of God.
leekohler
Mar 28, 03:22 AM
It's one thing to say whether popes cared whether those artists were "gay." It's quite another to say that the popes thought the homosexuality of those artists was relevant to whether they thought they they would hire them. If I wanted someone to paint a mural in my home, I would be willing to hire a gay artist. But I still wouldn't accept gay sex. Neither would any orthodox pope.
I'm sorry, but who says you have to have gay sex? Obviously, it's what made those artists happy, but ultimately it's none of your or anyone else's business. Why you constantly try to make it your business is puzzling.
Then I don't know what you mean by "accept."
Oh- I most certainly do. It means, "Be who you are, just don't act like who you are." It's quite clear. And if me loving another human being and building a life with them makes your god angry, so be it. I have no use for that god. I'd rather spend eternity in hell than spend eternity with something that horrible and judgemental. Fortunately, "god" does not exist, and when we die, we die. While I'm here, I will make the most of my life and help others do the same. You can do what you want.
I'm sorry, but who says you have to have gay sex? Obviously, it's what made those artists happy, but ultimately it's none of your or anyone else's business. Why you constantly try to make it your business is puzzling.
Then I don't know what you mean by "accept."
Oh- I most certainly do. It means, "Be who you are, just don't act like who you are." It's quite clear. And if me loving another human being and building a life with them makes your god angry, so be it. I have no use for that god. I'd rather spend eternity in hell than spend eternity with something that horrible and judgemental. Fortunately, "god" does not exist, and when we die, we die. While I'm here, I will make the most of my life and help others do the same. You can do what you want.
*LTD*
Apr 9, 12:51 AM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Mobile/8G4)
These people are fleeing the "yellow light of death� on PS3 or "red ring of death' on 360.
That's a complete joke, surely? There's no way you can compare console gaming, in basically a home arcade, to swiping your fingers around on a 3.5" screen. No way. I am a gamer, and always will be.
Gaming on the iPhone is good for 2-minute bursts, such as when sitting on the toilet. It's not a great games device. Most of the games are cheap with no replay value.
Oops. Looks like someone hasn't visited the App Store in like, never.
Since you're still in can you grab me a Palm Centro? I'm feelin nostalgic.
These people are fleeing the "yellow light of death� on PS3 or "red ring of death' on 360.
That's a complete joke, surely? There's no way you can compare console gaming, in basically a home arcade, to swiping your fingers around on a 3.5" screen. No way. I am a gamer, and always will be.
Gaming on the iPhone is good for 2-minute bursts, such as when sitting on the toilet. It's not a great games device. Most of the games are cheap with no replay value.
Oops. Looks like someone hasn't visited the App Store in like, never.
Since you're still in can you grab me a Palm Centro? I'm feelin nostalgic.
dgree03
Apr 21, 08:49 AM
I agree with everything you just said, it's the same concept as tethering without paying the mandatory fee. People will try to justify stealing in any way possible.
So are you going to tell me that paying for tethering ON TOP OF DATA YOU ALREADY PAID FOR is fair? Data is data is data... 4gb is 4gb no matter how I use it. Tethering cost are a joke!:mad: /end rant
You are joking right?
So are you going to tell me that paying for tethering ON TOP OF DATA YOU ALREADY PAID FOR is fair? Data is data is data... 4gb is 4gb no matter how I use it. Tethering cost are a joke!:mad: /end rant
You are joking right?
GulGnu
Aug 29, 02:26 PM
I'm not sure you understand the situation we're in right now.
Do you understand? Humanity may be destroyed. We're not talking about a natural disaster or two here, we're not talking about something like an economic depression, we're talking about a major, if not total anihilation of our species.
Indeed - repent sinners, etc. etc. It's an old game - and the catastrophe is always just so far into the future that the doomsayers can never be held to account once the apocalypse fails to materialize... How convenient!
Plus, it's always nice to have the "preserve freedom of speech!" and 'Viva Che!' in the same sig - lends a nice air of irony to the post!
Do you understand? Humanity may be destroyed. We're not talking about a natural disaster or two here, we're not talking about something like an economic depression, we're talking about a major, if not total anihilation of our species.
Indeed - repent sinners, etc. etc. It's an old game - and the catastrophe is always just so far into the future that the doomsayers can never be held to account once the apocalypse fails to materialize... How convenient!
Plus, it's always nice to have the "preserve freedom of speech!" and 'Viva Che!' in the same sig - lends a nice air of irony to the post!
LagunaSol
Apr 28, 02:13 PM
Software might not need that powerful of a processor, but what about OS? Heck Itunes shutters on my bros 2008 Macbook Pro, which is basic software.
Huh? A 2008 MBP should have no problem running iTunes.
Flash can barely run on his computer also.
Flash for Mac sucks even on the most high-end Macs. Why do you think Mac users tend to dislike Flash? It's not the Mac - it's Adobe.
Huh? A 2008 MBP should have no problem running iTunes.
Flash can barely run on his computer also.
Flash for Mac sucks even on the most high-end Macs. Why do you think Mac users tend to dislike Flash? It's not the Mac - it's Adobe.
kdarling
May 8, 04:56 PM
Sounds exactly like my story. I liked Verizon, but couldn't justify another 45 bucks extra for service.
I think that ATT and Verizon are basically the same price nowadays.
If Sprint could roam with EVDO data on Verizon, I'd jump to them in a heartbeat. Hot phones, low price.
I think that ATT and Verizon are basically the same price nowadays.
If Sprint could roam with EVDO data on Verizon, I'd jump to them in a heartbeat. Hot phones, low price.
itickings
Apr 15, 07:09 AM
I still miss the ability to easily control the computer with only a keyboard without reaching for the mouse/trackpad all the time.
Sure, there are many shortcuts, but no real equivalent to the underlined entries in menus, and the obvious keyboard navigation in dialogs. But then again, I'd been primed to that since Windows 3.0 through XP and other systems.
I'm sure some people will want to correct me now by pointing out the keyboard control possibility available in the accessibility settings, but that'll only end with uncontrollable laughter...
Sure, there are many shortcuts, but no real equivalent to the underlined entries in menus, and the obvious keyboard navigation in dialogs. But then again, I'd been primed to that since Windows 3.0 through XP and other systems.
I'm sure some people will want to correct me now by pointing out the keyboard control possibility available in the accessibility settings, but that'll only end with uncontrollable laughter...
BoyBach
Aug 29, 04:08 PM
Greenpeace are terrorists.
:eek:
Why the vitriol against Greenpeace? It appears that a lot of people on this forum HATE them. What have they done to deserve this?
:eek:
Why the vitriol against Greenpeace? It appears that a lot of people on this forum HATE them. What have they done to deserve this?
326
Jun 18, 08:17 AM
new to the forums but not new with ATT. I used to own a nokia phone thru ATT and have never had any dropped call issues until after they merged with cingular which cingular used to be pacific bell cellular phones.
Pacific Bell cellular phones I used to be on years ago which lasted no more then 8months tops. Reason being was thier connection reliability was absolute junk. Didnt matter where I was standing the signal strength was garbage.
So then I switched to ATT not knowing that they two companys would merge a year and a half later.
During my time with ATT the signal strength was solid, secure and very reliable. Consistant.
Then the merge happend and the service customer service is where I noticed a significant Nose Dive heading south. Poor Service.
I continued to my time as an ATT customer being that the Nokia phone was still reliable and the signal strength consistant. Then upgraded to a Motorola flip which was also reliable.
When I made the move to the iPhone3g is when I noticed my signal strength consistancy begin to weaken. However I love my iPhone so much and use it for everything mobile that its tolerable.
I am hoping that this new anntenna system thats integrated in the new iPhone4 to put strong signal strength and reliability back into the hands that ATT used to have and be known for.
Hopefully one day this world will unify as one to focus forward to reach outside of the box, instead of focusing on the $ sign which divides the world into pieces:apple:
Pacific Bell cellular phones I used to be on years ago which lasted no more then 8months tops. Reason being was thier connection reliability was absolute junk. Didnt matter where I was standing the signal strength was garbage.
So then I switched to ATT not knowing that they two companys would merge a year and a half later.
During my time with ATT the signal strength was solid, secure and very reliable. Consistant.
Then the merge happend and the service customer service is where I noticed a significant Nose Dive heading south. Poor Service.
I continued to my time as an ATT customer being that the Nokia phone was still reliable and the signal strength consistant. Then upgraded to a Motorola flip which was also reliable.
When I made the move to the iPhone3g is when I noticed my signal strength consistancy begin to weaken. However I love my iPhone so much and use it for everything mobile that its tolerable.
I am hoping that this new anntenna system thats integrated in the new iPhone4 to put strong signal strength and reliability back into the hands that ATT used to have and be known for.
Hopefully one day this world will unify as one to focus forward to reach outside of the box, instead of focusing on the $ sign which divides the world into pieces:apple:
mkrishnan
Sep 12, 03:19 PM
So it seems from the coverage that the device has no optical drive, and no internal mass storage? Is that correct? And also that it is not itself a DVR? Don't get me wrong -- I'm reserving judgment. I just want to understand at this point. It sounds as if the basic purpose of the device is to draw high quality AV off a computer and onto a home entertainment system, sort of as the Roku SoundBridge did for the iPod's audio, but in a very Apple sort of way? In other words, it follows the computer-centric sort of model where a desktop or notebook Mac on the network is the "server"?
ddtlm
Oct 10, 01:10 PM
alex_ant:
Great to see you fighting the good fight!
others:
As true as it is that the G4 is slower than most of its compeditiors, when it is performing as bad as the numbers that some people have posted here then I can just about assure you that the Mac is at a severe software disadvantage. I mean really, look at the specs of a G4, the worst case performance delta between it and a top-of-the-line PC should be maybe 4x or 5x, not these 10x and higher numbers. There are very few situations when a G4 should do less work per clock than a P4.
So lets try to remain realistic here. It is virtually gaurenteed that the actual performance potential of a 1.25ghz G4 falls between that of a 1.3ghz P4 and the 2.8ghz P4.
EDIT:
Almost forgot to talk about SPEC. Some time ago, the only SPEC results that I know of for Macs were obtained by c't:
http://www.heise.de/ct/english/02/05/182/
In these they showed the G4 was more or less the same speed as a P3 of equal clock (1.0ghz) in the integer tests, when both where done done with GCC. Intel's compiler can give the P3 at 30% edge or something, so we know that the quality of compiler is hurting the G4 here. It is not fair to look at SPEC and declare other chips to be a zillion times faster than the G4, simply because they are all using very good compilers whereas Apple is stuck with GCC. Apple is working to improve GCC however, so things may get better.
(In SPEC FP the G4 get beat worse, I might add. Compilers played a role for sure, but can't explain the whole loss.)
Great to see you fighting the good fight!
others:
As true as it is that the G4 is slower than most of its compeditiors, when it is performing as bad as the numbers that some people have posted here then I can just about assure you that the Mac is at a severe software disadvantage. I mean really, look at the specs of a G4, the worst case performance delta between it and a top-of-the-line PC should be maybe 4x or 5x, not these 10x and higher numbers. There are very few situations when a G4 should do less work per clock than a P4.
So lets try to remain realistic here. It is virtually gaurenteed that the actual performance potential of a 1.25ghz G4 falls between that of a 1.3ghz P4 and the 2.8ghz P4.
EDIT:
Almost forgot to talk about SPEC. Some time ago, the only SPEC results that I know of for Macs were obtained by c't:
http://www.heise.de/ct/english/02/05/182/
In these they showed the G4 was more or less the same speed as a P3 of equal clock (1.0ghz) in the integer tests, when both where done done with GCC. Intel's compiler can give the P3 at 30% edge or something, so we know that the quality of compiler is hurting the G4 here. It is not fair to look at SPEC and declare other chips to be a zillion times faster than the G4, simply because they are all using very good compilers whereas Apple is stuck with GCC. Apple is working to improve GCC however, so things may get better.
(In SPEC FP the G4 get beat worse, I might add. Compilers played a role for sure, but can't explain the whole loss.)
I'mAMac
Aug 29, 04:01 PM
Dont you think people can google it for themselves if they feel a need to know?
sorry for trying to provide easy info...
sorry for trying to provide easy info...
AppliedVisual
Oct 11, 06:22 PM
Hmph... I haven't been to the Dell forums in a while or I probably wouldv'e seen that. Oh, well. Already ordered my other 30" display the other day, I'm not going to complain. :cool:
Iscariot
Mar 25, 04:50 PM
And...?
I'm far from the first or only person who has deviated from the original topic. You can either move with the discussion, or virtually everything from page 2 on is off-topic. For those of you playing at home, the goalposts have now been moved from hatred to violence to violence specifically from a catholic source to violence specifically from a "real" catholic.
IIRC, you're also the one that made up a statistic
Despite your disregard for the pretext of civility, my source was wikipedia, which I did in fact cite in post #27. I'll thank you not to make unfounded accusations.
I'm far from the first or only person who has deviated from the original topic. You can either move with the discussion, or virtually everything from page 2 on is off-topic. For those of you playing at home, the goalposts have now been moved from hatred to violence to violence specifically from a catholic source to violence specifically from a "real" catholic.
IIRC, you're also the one that made up a statistic
Despite your disregard for the pretext of civility, my source was wikipedia, which I did in fact cite in post #27. I'll thank you not to make unfounded accusations.
�algiris
May 2, 09:34 AM
Any software for a Mac that says "MAC" in the title or in any documentation would already be suspect to me. Pretty much every person I have run across that thinks it is spelled in all caps as "MAC" has been a moron.
And just simply in general anti-virus software is useless on Mac, so why would anyone download and install any anti-virus, defender or scanner is above me.
And just simply in general anti-virus software is useless on Mac, so why would anyone download and install any anti-virus, defender or scanner is above me.
sinsin07
Apr 9, 03:03 AM
lol you are saying it like they can be strong armed. If you call paying large sums of money for exclusives "strong arming" then it's already happening in the gaming world.
mothers day quotes in spanish.
mothers day poems from daughter to mother. To be a mother is not an easy; To be a mother is not an easy task, yet you do it proudly everyday no matter what
jettredmont
May 3, 03:44 PM
Of course, I don't know of any Linux distribution that doesn't require root to install system wide software either. Kind of negates your point there...
I wasn't specific enough there. I was talking about how "Unix security" has been applied to the overall OS X permissions system, not just "Unix security" in the abstract. I'll cede the point that this does mean that "Unix security" in the abstract is no better than NT security, as I can not refute the claim that Linux distributions share the same problem (the need to run as "root" to do day-to-day computer administration). I would point out, though, that unless things have changed significantly, most window managers for Linux et al refuse to run as root, so you can't end up with a full-fledged graphical environment running as root.
You could do the same as far back as Windows NT 3.1 in 1993. The fact that most software vendors wrote their applications for the non-secure DOS based versions of Windows is moot, that is not a problem of the OS's security model, it is a problem of the Application. This is not "Unix security" being better, it's "Software vendors for Windows" being dumber.
Yes and no. You are looking at "Unix security" as a set of controls. I'm looking at it as a pragmatic system. As a system, Apple's OS X model allowed users to run as standard users and non-root Administrators while XP's model made non-Administrator access incredibly cumbersome.
You can blame that on Windows developers just being dumber, or you can blame it on Microsoft not sufficiently cracking the whip, or you can blame it on Microsoft not making the "right way" easy enough. Wherever the blame goes, the practical effect is that Windows users tended to run as Administrator and locking them down to Standard user accounts was a slap in the face and serious drain on productivity.
Actually, the Administrator account (much less a standard user in the Administrators group) is not a root level account at all.
Notice how a root account on Unix can do everything, just by virtue of its 0 uid. It can write/delete/read files from filesystems it does not even have permissions on. It can kill any system process, no matter the owner.
Administrator on Windows NT is far more limited. Don't ever break your ACLs or don't try to kill processes owned by "System". SysInternals provided tools that let you do it, but Microsoft did not.
Interesting. I do remember being able to do some pretty damaging things with Administrator access in Windows XP such as replacing shared DLLs, formatting the hard drive, replacing any executable in c:\windows, etc, which OS X would not let me do without typing in a password (GUI) or sudo'ing to root (command line).
But, I stand corrected. NT "Administrator" is not equivalent to "root" on Unix. But it's a whole lot more "trusted" (and hence all apps it runs are a lot more trusted) than the equivalent OS X "Administrator" account.
UAC is simply a gui front-end to the runas command. Heck, shift-right-click already had the "Run As" option. It's a glorified sudo. It uses RDP (since Vista, user sessions are really local RDP sessions) to prevent being able to "fake it", by showing up on the "console" session while the user's display resides on a RDP session.
Again, the components are all there, but while the pragmatic effect was that a user needed to right-click, select "Run as Administrator", then type in their password to run something ... well, that wasn't going to happen. Hence, users tended to have Administrator access accounts.
There, you did it, you made me go on a defensive rant for Microsoft. I hate you now.
Sorry! I know; it burns!
...
Why bother, you're not "getting it". The only reason the user is aware of MACDefender is because it runs a GUI based installer. If the executable had had 0 GUI code and just run stuff in the background, you would have never known until you couldn't find your files or some chinese guy was buying goods with your CC info, fished right out of your "Bank stuff.xls" file.
Well, unless you have more information on this than I do, I'm assuming that the .zip file was unarchived (into a sub-folder of ~/Downloads), a .dmg file with an "Internet Enabled" flag was found inside, then the user was prompted by the OS if they wanted to run this installer they downloaded, then the installer came up (keeping in mind that "installer" is a package structure potentially with some scripts, not a free-form executable, and that the only reason it came up was that the 'installer' app the OS has opened it up and recognized it). I believe the Installer also asks the user permission before running any of the preflight scripts.
Unless there is a bug here exposing a security hole, this could not be done without multiple user interactions. The "installer" only ran because it was a set of instructions for the built-in installer. The disk image was only opened because it was in the form Safari recognizes as an auto-open disk image. The first time "arbitrary code" could be run would be in the preflight script of the installer.
I wasn't specific enough there. I was talking about how "Unix security" has been applied to the overall OS X permissions system, not just "Unix security" in the abstract. I'll cede the point that this does mean that "Unix security" in the abstract is no better than NT security, as I can not refute the claim that Linux distributions share the same problem (the need to run as "root" to do day-to-day computer administration). I would point out, though, that unless things have changed significantly, most window managers for Linux et al refuse to run as root, so you can't end up with a full-fledged graphical environment running as root.
You could do the same as far back as Windows NT 3.1 in 1993. The fact that most software vendors wrote their applications for the non-secure DOS based versions of Windows is moot, that is not a problem of the OS's security model, it is a problem of the Application. This is not "Unix security" being better, it's "Software vendors for Windows" being dumber.
Yes and no. You are looking at "Unix security" as a set of controls. I'm looking at it as a pragmatic system. As a system, Apple's OS X model allowed users to run as standard users and non-root Administrators while XP's model made non-Administrator access incredibly cumbersome.
You can blame that on Windows developers just being dumber, or you can blame it on Microsoft not sufficiently cracking the whip, or you can blame it on Microsoft not making the "right way" easy enough. Wherever the blame goes, the practical effect is that Windows users tended to run as Administrator and locking them down to Standard user accounts was a slap in the face and serious drain on productivity.
Actually, the Administrator account (much less a standard user in the Administrators group) is not a root level account at all.
Notice how a root account on Unix can do everything, just by virtue of its 0 uid. It can write/delete/read files from filesystems it does not even have permissions on. It can kill any system process, no matter the owner.
Administrator on Windows NT is far more limited. Don't ever break your ACLs or don't try to kill processes owned by "System". SysInternals provided tools that let you do it, but Microsoft did not.
Interesting. I do remember being able to do some pretty damaging things with Administrator access in Windows XP such as replacing shared DLLs, formatting the hard drive, replacing any executable in c:\windows, etc, which OS X would not let me do without typing in a password (GUI) or sudo'ing to root (command line).
But, I stand corrected. NT "Administrator" is not equivalent to "root" on Unix. But it's a whole lot more "trusted" (and hence all apps it runs are a lot more trusted) than the equivalent OS X "Administrator" account.
UAC is simply a gui front-end to the runas command. Heck, shift-right-click already had the "Run As" option. It's a glorified sudo. It uses RDP (since Vista, user sessions are really local RDP sessions) to prevent being able to "fake it", by showing up on the "console" session while the user's display resides on a RDP session.
Again, the components are all there, but while the pragmatic effect was that a user needed to right-click, select "Run as Administrator", then type in their password to run something ... well, that wasn't going to happen. Hence, users tended to have Administrator access accounts.
There, you did it, you made me go on a defensive rant for Microsoft. I hate you now.
Sorry! I know; it burns!
...
Why bother, you're not "getting it". The only reason the user is aware of MACDefender is because it runs a GUI based installer. If the executable had had 0 GUI code and just run stuff in the background, you would have never known until you couldn't find your files or some chinese guy was buying goods with your CC info, fished right out of your "Bank stuff.xls" file.
Well, unless you have more information on this than I do, I'm assuming that the .zip file was unarchived (into a sub-folder of ~/Downloads), a .dmg file with an "Internet Enabled" flag was found inside, then the user was prompted by the OS if they wanted to run this installer they downloaded, then the installer came up (keeping in mind that "installer" is a package structure potentially with some scripts, not a free-form executable, and that the only reason it came up was that the 'installer' app the OS has opened it up and recognized it). I believe the Installer also asks the user permission before running any of the preflight scripts.
Unless there is a bug here exposing a security hole, this could not be done without multiple user interactions. The "installer" only ran because it was a set of instructions for the built-in installer. The disk image was only opened because it was in the form Safari recognizes as an auto-open disk image. The first time "arbitrary code" could be run would be in the preflight script of the installer.
r0k
Apr 14, 02:57 PM
Stompy, a few posts back somebody mentioned that the OP was later banned. That might explain why he hasn't come back. I am a fairly recent switcher. In fact I can honestly say I switch daily.
I switch whenever I manage to unchain myself from the Windows oars at the office and sit down in front of my lag-free, freeze-free, are you sure? free, (almost) trouble free, pleasant to use, easy to look at Mac.
There has been some good discussion here and there has been some wasted discussion. I think it's worth keeping this thread around for the sake of the good stuff. One of the things I like to do is to come in here and be reminded of some of the misconceptions I had when I first started switching over 5 years ago.
I don't have an ignore list for MR, but it's threads like this that draw out the kind of posts that make it fairly easy to put one together if someone is so inclined.
One thing that I stumbled across today was this...
One of my earliest Macs was a lowly Quadra 605. I was gonna put a picture of the 605 in here when I stumbled across this...
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f6/Apple_mac_quadra_800.jpg/220px-Apple_mac_quadra_800.jpg
We all know how Macs look nowadays (iMac, Mini, Macbooks, etc) and with the possible exception of the Mac Pro, none of them look much like the 1990s era Mac Quadra 800. Meanwhile, if you want to see something that looks like this today, it's readily available from Dell, HP, and half a dozen other "mini tower" PC makers. Wow.
http://i.dell.com/das/xa.ashx/global-site-design%20WEB/795f5356-a523-8089-dc4c-13112bb4c05d/1/OriginalPng?id=Dell/Product_Images/Dell_Client_Products/Desktops/Inspiron_Desktops/inspiron_570/hero/desktop-inspiron-570-left-piano-black-hero-504x350.png
That ancient form factor is one thing I don't miss after switching. It's like somebody on the PC side hit the "pause" button when they got their 1994 mini tower PC design completed and all these years later still I see more mini towers than any other PC form factor but I see very few Macs with this ancient form factor.
At the end of your post, you mention needs and tastes and I must admit that industrial design figures prominently in my tastes since switching to Apple gear. Even if the OS were equal (which they are not), I want stuff that doesn't take up more room than necessary, isn't noisier or hotter than necessary and looks good.
I switch whenever I manage to unchain myself from the Windows oars at the office and sit down in front of my lag-free, freeze-free, are you sure? free, (almost) trouble free, pleasant to use, easy to look at Mac.
There has been some good discussion here and there has been some wasted discussion. I think it's worth keeping this thread around for the sake of the good stuff. One of the things I like to do is to come in here and be reminded of some of the misconceptions I had when I first started switching over 5 years ago.
I don't have an ignore list for MR, but it's threads like this that draw out the kind of posts that make it fairly easy to put one together if someone is so inclined.
One thing that I stumbled across today was this...
One of my earliest Macs was a lowly Quadra 605. I was gonna put a picture of the 605 in here when I stumbled across this...
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f6/Apple_mac_quadra_800.jpg/220px-Apple_mac_quadra_800.jpg
We all know how Macs look nowadays (iMac, Mini, Macbooks, etc) and with the possible exception of the Mac Pro, none of them look much like the 1990s era Mac Quadra 800. Meanwhile, if you want to see something that looks like this today, it's readily available from Dell, HP, and half a dozen other "mini tower" PC makers. Wow.
http://i.dell.com/das/xa.ashx/global-site-design%20WEB/795f5356-a523-8089-dc4c-13112bb4c05d/1/OriginalPng?id=Dell/Product_Images/Dell_Client_Products/Desktops/Inspiron_Desktops/inspiron_570/hero/desktop-inspiron-570-left-piano-black-hero-504x350.png
That ancient form factor is one thing I don't miss after switching. It's like somebody on the PC side hit the "pause" button when they got their 1994 mini tower PC design completed and all these years later still I see more mini towers than any other PC form factor but I see very few Macs with this ancient form factor.
At the end of your post, you mention needs and tastes and I must admit that industrial design figures prominently in my tastes since switching to Apple gear. Even if the OS were equal (which they are not), I want stuff that doesn't take up more room than necessary, isn't noisier or hotter than necessary and looks good.
sunfast
Sep 20, 03:46 AM
If Iger is correct and iTV has a hard drive.. then I beleive iTV could serve as an external iTunes Library server/device. Authorized computers can access and manage it using iTunes (running as a client). iTS downloads, podcasts, imported physical CDs, etc would all be stored on iTV.
Look at your hard drive usage, Music takes up a significant amount of it. Why does it need to be kept on your local machine if iTV provides a network?
That would be sweet. I hate having to keep plugging and unplugging an external HDD into my MacBook.
Look at your hard drive usage, Music takes up a significant amount of it. Why does it need to be kept on your local machine if iTV provides a network?
That would be sweet. I hate having to keep plugging and unplugging an external HDD into my MacBook.
AidenShaw
Sep 21, 09:03 AM
So it looks like I'm back to building a HTPC sometime next spring. Pitty too. It looks like a slick device. Just not what I'm looking to put under my TV. :(
By next spring, Apple will have the rest of the Media Center - one of the "super-secret" bits of Leopard is a full clone of Microsoft's Media Center Edition, built upon a greatly enhanced Front Row. (And accompanied by a full-featured AV remote.)
The iTV is just Apple's copy of Microsoft's "Media Center Extender" and/or "Media Center Connect" (see Media Center Extender or Windows Media Connect. Which Do You Need? (http://www.mediacenterpcworld.com/news/218)) or Intel's wireless extender that will be part of the Viiv platform.
Leopard has the other piece - the real multiple tuner support and PVR system.
Couple that with a dual-core Conroe in a TiVo-sized box, and you'll have the option of a dedicated Apple Media Center in the living room, or the "iTV" feeding from the Apple Media Center in the office.
Windows Media Center Edition supports up to five extenders. Apple certainly will do the same, so whether you choose the Conroe HTPC pizza-box, or a bigger Mac in the office - TVs throughout the house can access the single copy of the media library with "iTV" boxes.
By next spring, Apple will have the rest of the Media Center - one of the "super-secret" bits of Leopard is a full clone of Microsoft's Media Center Edition, built upon a greatly enhanced Front Row. (And accompanied by a full-featured AV remote.)
The iTV is just Apple's copy of Microsoft's "Media Center Extender" and/or "Media Center Connect" (see Media Center Extender or Windows Media Connect. Which Do You Need? (http://www.mediacenterpcworld.com/news/218)) or Intel's wireless extender that will be part of the Viiv platform.
Leopard has the other piece - the real multiple tuner support and PVR system.
Couple that with a dual-core Conroe in a TiVo-sized box, and you'll have the option of a dedicated Apple Media Center in the living room, or the "iTV" feeding from the Apple Media Center in the office.
Windows Media Center Edition supports up to five extenders. Apple certainly will do the same, so whether you choose the Conroe HTPC pizza-box, or a bigger Mac in the office - TVs throughout the house can access the single copy of the media library with "iTV" boxes.
Sounds Good
Apr 14, 10:15 PM
Nah, no feathers were ruffled.
Just trying to show some FEELING by using UPPER CASE words. ;)
Just trying to show some FEELING by using UPPER CASE words. ;)
dudemac
Mar 19, 07:51 AM
As of this morning sometime it seems that it is no longer able to download, but still allows browsing and account login.
el-John-o
Nov 29, 08:15 PM
You know the ironic thing is, I live in a rural area and AT&T is flawless. People talk about dropped calls and I'm like "what's that". Oh and the "hold it this way" I dare someone to drop a call on my iPhone, I'll give you a dollar. No buildings, time machines, etc. to screw up the signal. The flipside, is that AT&T is my only option. Sprint, Verizon, and T-Mobile do not work AT ALL out here, as in 0 bars no signal until you drive 30 miles or so in any direction.
Interestingly enough, we had 3G out here before the nearby populated cities did, I guess AT&T knew an aircard was the best possible internet solution (back when it was unlimited), because the only other options are dial up and -shudders- Sattelite. In fact, I get 5 megs down and 1 meg up on 3G.
Nowadays I've moved into 'town', a small town that actually has Charter Cable internet. Still rural enough though to have excellent service.
I went to Chicago not too long ago though, thought I was gonna chuck that stupid phone. Couldn't have a conversation to save my life. My buddy who has an iPhone at the time (I was using my Samsung Epix) was experiencing similar problems BUT it was much better than mine.
-John
Interestingly enough, we had 3G out here before the nearby populated cities did, I guess AT&T knew an aircard was the best possible internet solution (back when it was unlimited), because the only other options are dial up and -shudders- Sattelite. In fact, I get 5 megs down and 1 meg up on 3G.
Nowadays I've moved into 'town', a small town that actually has Charter Cable internet. Still rural enough though to have excellent service.
I went to Chicago not too long ago though, thought I was gonna chuck that stupid phone. Couldn't have a conversation to save my life. My buddy who has an iPhone at the time (I was using my Samsung Epix) was experiencing similar problems BUT it was much better than mine.
-John
אין תגובות:
הוסף רשומת תגובה