ABernardoJr
Apr 20, 09:37 PM
Is that a prerequisite? I have Apple battery charger.
lol It is not a prerequisite, but it might become a bit problematic when assumptions like these are made:
I don't. I just don't have OS/X. I just assumed that OS/X might not have it since some OS/X users here were confused about Windows hiding system files. :)
I'm not saying the assumption was true or false but assumptions on things that can be clarified by having the product certainly make it seem that it might help lol
lol It is not a prerequisite, but it might become a bit problematic when assumptions like these are made:
I don't. I just don't have OS/X. I just assumed that OS/X might not have it since some OS/X users here were confused about Windows hiding system files. :)
I'm not saying the assumption was true or false but assumptions on things that can be clarified by having the product certainly make it seem that it might help lol
firewood
Apr 28, 11:44 AM
I dont think iPads should be included. A computer shouldn't need a computer to be usable.
It doesn't matter what you think. It only matters what people are buying. Many are buying iPads for browsing/facebook/farmville instead of another HP or Dell laptop.
And a Mac or Dell PC needs a computer to be usable. Several of them. There's a computer (maybe two) inside the disk drive that it boots from, the mouse, and any access points or routers that it uses to connect to the net. Etc.
It doesn't matter what you think. It only matters what people are buying. Many are buying iPads for browsing/facebook/farmville instead of another HP or Dell laptop.
And a Mac or Dell PC needs a computer to be usable. Several of them. There's a computer (maybe two) inside the disk drive that it boots from, the mouse, and any access points or routers that it uses to connect to the net. Etc.
Elfear
Nov 1, 03:24 PM
Well the Maya application itself won't benefit anymore from 8 cores than it would from 2 or 4. But 8-cores will help immensely with rendering, especially if he uses MentalRay and has enough licenses. Currently Maya Complete has 2 licenses and Maya Unlimited has 8. I'm not sure how the Maya licenses will apply to quad-core CPUs just yet.
Sweet. That's what we needed to know. I believe he has Maya Unlimited so he should be good for the 8 cores no matter how they decide to license it.
Is the ability to render using more than 2 cores a feature of both Maya 7 and Maya 8?
Sweet. That's what we needed to know. I believe he has Maya Unlimited so he should be good for the 8 cores no matter how they decide to license it.
Is the ability to render using more than 2 cores a feature of both Maya 7 and Maya 8?
SPUY767
Mar 19, 08:31 PM
You are one of the few moral and sane individuals who I see on this server. People who see beyond this robin hood mentality that permeates the computer world like a plague. People don't seem to feel as though they have done anything wrong when they have stolen something that is not physical.
Now I won't sit here and claim that I have never ever stolen music or software. I have downloaded my fair share of warez in my day, we all have. To deny that is to deny the very thing that makes us human. Ok, maybe not, but I'm not going to play holier than thou. Software companies, however get it, where movie companies don't. Software companies understand that they aren't Losing money by having software pirated (with the exception of game publishers, and office style software.) The fact is, that five to ten years ago, when i warezed it up, and stole a copy of say, Photoshop, and FinalCutPro 1, the software company was not losing money. Why? Because there is no way that I would have purchased the software did I not steal it. It was a zero sum game then. Now, that I use Photoshop, FCP, DVD SP, and a load of other expensive apps, (My computer is worth a third of what the software installed on it is,) for business purposes, I purchase them legally. Most businesses do the same thing.
Recording companies should realize the same thing. I have never downloaded a song that i would have purchased could I not have downloaded it. If I like something enough to buy it, the I buy it. Recodring companies don't lose that much to file sharing for that very reason. People download music as a preview a majority of the time. Give the rate faeces that the recording companies want to release, thank god for that ability too. My rant is over, I'm getting bored.
Peace
Now I won't sit here and claim that I have never ever stolen music or software. I have downloaded my fair share of warez in my day, we all have. To deny that is to deny the very thing that makes us human. Ok, maybe not, but I'm not going to play holier than thou. Software companies, however get it, where movie companies don't. Software companies understand that they aren't Losing money by having software pirated (with the exception of game publishers, and office style software.) The fact is, that five to ten years ago, when i warezed it up, and stole a copy of say, Photoshop, and FinalCutPro 1, the software company was not losing money. Why? Because there is no way that I would have purchased the software did I not steal it. It was a zero sum game then. Now, that I use Photoshop, FCP, DVD SP, and a load of other expensive apps, (My computer is worth a third of what the software installed on it is,) for business purposes, I purchase them legally. Most businesses do the same thing.
Recording companies should realize the same thing. I have never downloaded a song that i would have purchased could I not have downloaded it. If I like something enough to buy it, the I buy it. Recodring companies don't lose that much to file sharing for that very reason. People download music as a preview a majority of the time. Give the rate faeces that the recording companies want to release, thank god for that ability too. My rant is over, I'm getting bored.
Peace
whooleytoo
Sep 21, 02:47 PM
I think there's (at least!) two separate debates going on here -
- what is the best home entertainment network design/topology?
- how well does the iTV serve the topology Apple has chosen?
The first question is a doozy. Personally, I think Apple's choice is a bit unwieldy. Have your entertainment network rely on your Mac/PC is fine; except when you need to restart after installing software (could the hard disk in the iTV buffer enough content to keep going until the Mac restarts? Possibly). Another problem is if your home PC is a laptop, which might not be in the home, or will sleep if inadvertently shut.
Also, it is a bit tedious if you have to get up from your sofa to your Mac, start downloading the film/show, then return to the couch and wait for the film/show to start playing. Wouldn't it be far better if you could purchase the film via the iTV, without having to go to your Mac/PC? (If this is possible, feel free to ignore this paragraph. ;) )
Personally, I'd prefer to have a home entertainment storage server, essentially something akin to the iTV but with a large hard disk (or RAID) attached, which stores all my iTunes and other media. Anything I buy on my MacBook - songs, TV shows, movies - are backed up to the server when I plug it into my home network (could the Leopard backup APIs achieve this?) and thus always available regardless of where my Mac is. And, I'd watch far more moves if they were just a menu click away, rather than rooting around the house for a DVD case.
As for the second question, if you accept Apple's argument that the Mac/PC will be the entertainment centre for the home, the iTV is probably the simplest device you could come up with. It's basically an Airport Express with "AirFlicks".
One thing puzzles me though - the iTV is not a complicated piece of kit, hardly any more so than the mini or any other Mac. So, why did Apple pre-announce earlier this month for release early next year, and not release a finished product?
Did they think of it too late to finish it in time for the iTunes Movie store announcement? Unlikely - people have been calling for video streaming for some time; and Apple would have been working behind the scenes on the iTunes movie store for some months. The fact that they appear to have finalised the configuration, aesthetics and price would indicate it's more or less done. More likely - iTV is waiting on some other key piece of technology before it can be released. And the obvious answer would be - Leopard.
iTV isn't being released until the Leopard timeframe, and Leopard has major unannounced features which we won't hear about until Macworld '07. Could it be some Mac media centre functionality as some have suggested?
p.s. as for a name, how about the "Apple Jack"? Rhymes with Apple Mac, and implies "jacking" all your content into your TV? Whaddya think?
Eeek! sorry. This post was far longer than I expected!
- what is the best home entertainment network design/topology?
- how well does the iTV serve the topology Apple has chosen?
The first question is a doozy. Personally, I think Apple's choice is a bit unwieldy. Have your entertainment network rely on your Mac/PC is fine; except when you need to restart after installing software (could the hard disk in the iTV buffer enough content to keep going until the Mac restarts? Possibly). Another problem is if your home PC is a laptop, which might not be in the home, or will sleep if inadvertently shut.
Also, it is a bit tedious if you have to get up from your sofa to your Mac, start downloading the film/show, then return to the couch and wait for the film/show to start playing. Wouldn't it be far better if you could purchase the film via the iTV, without having to go to your Mac/PC? (If this is possible, feel free to ignore this paragraph. ;) )
Personally, I'd prefer to have a home entertainment storage server, essentially something akin to the iTV but with a large hard disk (or RAID) attached, which stores all my iTunes and other media. Anything I buy on my MacBook - songs, TV shows, movies - are backed up to the server when I plug it into my home network (could the Leopard backup APIs achieve this?) and thus always available regardless of where my Mac is. And, I'd watch far more moves if they were just a menu click away, rather than rooting around the house for a DVD case.
As for the second question, if you accept Apple's argument that the Mac/PC will be the entertainment centre for the home, the iTV is probably the simplest device you could come up with. It's basically an Airport Express with "AirFlicks".
One thing puzzles me though - the iTV is not a complicated piece of kit, hardly any more so than the mini or any other Mac. So, why did Apple pre-announce earlier this month for release early next year, and not release a finished product?
Did they think of it too late to finish it in time for the iTunes Movie store announcement? Unlikely - people have been calling for video streaming for some time; and Apple would have been working behind the scenes on the iTunes movie store for some months. The fact that they appear to have finalised the configuration, aesthetics and price would indicate it's more or less done. More likely - iTV is waiting on some other key piece of technology before it can be released. And the obvious answer would be - Leopard.
iTV isn't being released until the Leopard timeframe, and Leopard has major unannounced features which we won't hear about until Macworld '07. Could it be some Mac media centre functionality as some have suggested?
p.s. as for a name, how about the "Apple Jack"? Rhymes with Apple Mac, and implies "jacking" all your content into your TV? Whaddya think?
Eeek! sorry. This post was far longer than I expected!
samcraig
Mar 18, 09:09 AM
How is someone stealing bandwidth, if they are paying for unlimited data. If anything ATT is stealing from them by not allowing them to use their data that they paying for....
ATT isn't stealing anything. And they are giving you unlimited data on your phone and your phone only because THAT is what you agreed to.
If you want to change the rules, then att can enforce the rules YOU agreed to.
ATT isn't stealing anything. And they are giving you unlimited data on your phone and your phone only because THAT is what you agreed to.
If you want to change the rules, then att can enforce the rules YOU agreed to.
Evangelion
Jul 13, 09:17 AM
Intel and AMD push hard to make sure that a dual-core processor is *licensed* as a single CPU.
And quite a few software-firms agree with them. Those that do not, are retarded. But my point remains: According to Intel, single-socket, dualcore system is a 1-way system, dual-socket, dual-core system is a 2-way system.
This is because there are a lot of big software packages that are priced according to the number of processors, often much more expensive for a 4-way than a 2-way.
And that's retarded. And those companies that do charge like that are not going to change their mind based on few paragraphs on intel.com.
So, Intel/AMD have an agenda that requires them to distort the meaning of the word "processor". They have to warp the word "processor" to justify the licensing stance.
So, your argument is basically that even though AMD and Intel disagree with you, you are still right, because this is just a vast conspiracy?
Finally, a source that doesn't have a marketing agenda says:
Like I have said: there are more than one way of looking at this thing. That is one way. The "other" way isn't really wrong either.
...enough said.
hopefully so. You seem to have some major problems accepting the fact that not everyone shares your viewpoint? So you then proceed to cram your viewpoint down other people's throats.
And quite a few software-firms agree with them. Those that do not, are retarded. But my point remains: According to Intel, single-socket, dualcore system is a 1-way system, dual-socket, dual-core system is a 2-way system.
This is because there are a lot of big software packages that are priced according to the number of processors, often much more expensive for a 4-way than a 2-way.
And that's retarded. And those companies that do charge like that are not going to change their mind based on few paragraphs on intel.com.
So, Intel/AMD have an agenda that requires them to distort the meaning of the word "processor". They have to warp the word "processor" to justify the licensing stance.
So, your argument is basically that even though AMD and Intel disagree with you, you are still right, because this is just a vast conspiracy?
Finally, a source that doesn't have a marketing agenda says:
Like I have said: there are more than one way of looking at this thing. That is one way. The "other" way isn't really wrong either.
...enough said.
hopefully so. You seem to have some major problems accepting the fact that not everyone shares your viewpoint? So you then proceed to cram your viewpoint down other people's throats.
grubesteak
Sep 26, 12:29 AM
What incentive does anyone ever have to buy if they keep announcing new chips? I'm all for the advancement of new technology, but I'm not forking over any money just yet.
Seems like there's a new "just around the corner" press release/rumor every other week.
Seems like there's a new "just around the corner" press release/rumor every other week.
mward333
Apr 15, 10:26 AM
Everybody deserves love and respect--it seems to me that this project is supportive of this notion. Very cool indeed.
CaryMacGuy
Mar 18, 09:11 AM
I will do what I want when I want on a device that I purchased. If AT&T doesn't like it, I can tell them where to go. They can cancel me and I will just take my business to Verizon. I am sure they don't want that.
AlBDamned
Aug 30, 11:38 AM
From Cult of Mac's blog (http://blog.wired.com/cultofmac/) on the issue:
I have now had the chance to read through Greenpeace's "Guide to Greener Electronics," and there are a few things that should be clarified about where Apple ranks.
First of all, the article I linked this morning claimed that Apple and Lenovo were at the bottom of the charts. Well, that's not true. Lenovo scored an appalling 1.3 out of 10 while Apple pulled a marginally more successful 2.7 out of 10. In between were Motorola and Acer.
The criticisms of Apple are fair, I would say, though I think there's some nuance to what HP is doing with recycling that tends to make it look unfavorably better than others. Why? Ink cartridges and printers. HP has a lot more to take back than any other company, so their commitment to percentage of sales taken back is actually a possibility.
Given that Apple actually offers free computer recycling with the purchase of a computer, something that Dell does but HP does not, it's odd to say they're doing less to keep computers out of the waste stream. On the other hand, Apple has no takeback goals, so it really does balance out.
The other criticisms of Apple are on target, however. The company is secretive, and that meets they tend to be secretive about their environmental planning as well. They have a regulated substances list, but it isn't public. They're committed to eliminating PVCs, but won't say when. Ditto for BFRs.
It's not necessarily that Apple's environmental record is legitimately bad, but they do a very poor job of informing their customers about their environmental efforts. Silence is suspicious here, folks.
I have now had the chance to read through Greenpeace's "Guide to Greener Electronics," and there are a few things that should be clarified about where Apple ranks.
First of all, the article I linked this morning claimed that Apple and Lenovo were at the bottom of the charts. Well, that's not true. Lenovo scored an appalling 1.3 out of 10 while Apple pulled a marginally more successful 2.7 out of 10. In between were Motorola and Acer.
The criticisms of Apple are fair, I would say, though I think there's some nuance to what HP is doing with recycling that tends to make it look unfavorably better than others. Why? Ink cartridges and printers. HP has a lot more to take back than any other company, so their commitment to percentage of sales taken back is actually a possibility.
Given that Apple actually offers free computer recycling with the purchase of a computer, something that Dell does but HP does not, it's odd to say they're doing less to keep computers out of the waste stream. On the other hand, Apple has no takeback goals, so it really does balance out.
The other criticisms of Apple are on target, however. The company is secretive, and that meets they tend to be secretive about their environmental planning as well. They have a regulated substances list, but it isn't public. They're committed to eliminating PVCs, but won't say when. Ditto for BFRs.
It's not necessarily that Apple's environmental record is legitimately bad, but they do a very poor job of informing their customers about their environmental efforts. Silence is suspicious here, folks.
SuperCachetes
Mar 26, 08:05 PM
I didn't say in the street
Examine the benefits of heterosexual marriage, examine why they are given and then compare with homosexual couples
Marriages don't need to be about love, they need to be a permanent commitment.
Fine, you said "in public," but it's irrelevant given the explanation that was, as I said, already furnished. It's not an arbitrary rule based on any morality.
I can examine the benefits of a heterosexual marriage from within one. They have nothing to do with the sex life of my wife and I.
And I don't really know how you got off on the tangent of love and commitment. In either case, these are things that gays are just as capable of as any straight couple.
Nothing other than they are both expected to practice abstinence according to one of our Catholic posters here. I thought that point was pretty clear in my post.
It wasn't clear in the least. Your post:
I'm not condoning the belief but priests are expected to do it, so why not gay people?
...seems to be asking the absurd question, so I guess I'm asking not "why are condoning the belief or not condoning it," but rather "what possible sense could it make from a practical perspective." Being gay and being a priest have absolutely nothing in common.
Examine the benefits of heterosexual marriage, examine why they are given and then compare with homosexual couples
Marriages don't need to be about love, they need to be a permanent commitment.
Fine, you said "in public," but it's irrelevant given the explanation that was, as I said, already furnished. It's not an arbitrary rule based on any morality.
I can examine the benefits of a heterosexual marriage from within one. They have nothing to do with the sex life of my wife and I.
And I don't really know how you got off on the tangent of love and commitment. In either case, these are things that gays are just as capable of as any straight couple.
Nothing other than they are both expected to practice abstinence according to one of our Catholic posters here. I thought that point was pretty clear in my post.
It wasn't clear in the least. Your post:
I'm not condoning the belief but priests are expected to do it, so why not gay people?
...seems to be asking the absurd question, so I guess I'm asking not "why are condoning the belief or not condoning it," but rather "what possible sense could it make from a practical perspective." Being gay and being a priest have absolutely nothing in common.
dicklacara
Apr 12, 10:50 PM
Does anyone know if the new FC will take AVCHD files natively as Premiere CS5 does?
AVCHD...RED in supported and immediately rendered.
AVCHD...RED in supported and immediately rendered.
luci216
Apr 28, 08:34 AM
The top 3 also have much cheaper models than Apple.. which can contribute to their higher sale spots. Not many people are willing to sell out $1k for a computer, especially internationally. In Brazil, a MBP costs about $3k. DOLLARS. Not many people can afford that..
AppleScruff1
Apr 28, 02:58 PM
That makes me smile.. :)
You must be very young :D
It's funny as I'm sure the world of computing managed to perform quite well as did I with all my many computers, many many MANY years before the internet was around and in use my the public in any real numbers and we could download pictures of naked ladies :eek:
A PC can do anything and everything you want, It's a full computer, not a web browser.
But the internet brought p0rn mainstream. :D
You must be very young :D
It's funny as I'm sure the world of computing managed to perform quite well as did I with all my many computers, many many MANY years before the internet was around and in use my the public in any real numbers and we could download pictures of naked ladies :eek:
A PC can do anything and everything you want, It's a full computer, not a web browser.
But the internet brought p0rn mainstream. :D
ddtlm
Oct 11, 01:45 AM
javajedi:
70-ish seconds navtive on a G3
90-ish seconds on a native on a G4
5.9-6-ish seconds running under JVM 1.4.1 on a P4
Admittedly I am getting lost in what all the numbers people have mentioned are for, but looking at these numbers you have here and assuming that they are doing the same task, you can rest assured that the G3/G4 are running far inferior software. AltiVec and SSE2 or not, there is just nothing that can explain this difference other than an unfair playing field. There is no task that a P4 can do 11x or 12x the speed of a G4 (comparing top-end models here). The P4 posseses nothing that runs at 11x or 12x the speed. Not the clock, not the units, the bandwidth to memory and caches are not 11x or 12x as good, it is not 11x better at branch prediction. I absolutely refuse to accept these results without very substantial backing because they contradict reality as I know it. I know a lot about the P4 and the G4, and I know a lot about programming in a fair number of different languages, even some assembly. I insist that these results do not reflect the actual performance of the processors, until irrefutable proof is presented to show how they do.
I guess the 70 and 90 don't surprise me a lot for the G3/G4, depending on clock speed difference. But all this trendy wandwagon-esque G4-bashing is not correct just cause every one else is doing it. There are things about the G3 that are very nice, but the G4 is no slouch compared to it, and given the higher clock that it's pipeline allows, the G3 really can't keep up. The G4 not only sports a better standard FPU, but it also sports better integer units.
70-ish seconds navtive on a G3
90-ish seconds on a native on a G4
5.9-6-ish seconds running under JVM 1.4.1 on a P4
Admittedly I am getting lost in what all the numbers people have mentioned are for, but looking at these numbers you have here and assuming that they are doing the same task, you can rest assured that the G3/G4 are running far inferior software. AltiVec and SSE2 or not, there is just nothing that can explain this difference other than an unfair playing field. There is no task that a P4 can do 11x or 12x the speed of a G4 (comparing top-end models here). The P4 posseses nothing that runs at 11x or 12x the speed. Not the clock, not the units, the bandwidth to memory and caches are not 11x or 12x as good, it is not 11x better at branch prediction. I absolutely refuse to accept these results without very substantial backing because they contradict reality as I know it. I know a lot about the P4 and the G4, and I know a lot about programming in a fair number of different languages, even some assembly. I insist that these results do not reflect the actual performance of the processors, until irrefutable proof is presented to show how they do.
I guess the 70 and 90 don't surprise me a lot for the G3/G4, depending on clock speed difference. But all this trendy wandwagon-esque G4-bashing is not correct just cause every one else is doing it. There are things about the G3 that are very nice, but the G4 is no slouch compared to it, and given the higher clock that it's pipeline allows, the G3 really can't keep up. The G4 not only sports a better standard FPU, but it also sports better integer units.
diamond.g
Apr 21, 07:34 AM
I have the job that I do because I know MUCH more about Windows than you do obviously. If you think what I posted above is a bunch of fud then you really don't know anything about Windows OS or manual malware removal. There is all kinds of ways malware can hide and on Windows many times the only way you know its on the system is by finding altered registry keys, but removing the key doesn't remove the malware so you have to manually dig for files. Most of the time you can find them by looking but some malware uses the feature to hide folders completely even if you tell the system to show all files. If you want a prime example of a virus that does this look up and infect your system with Oboma (yes its spelled incorrectly). It went around our workplace all the time and most of the time it used the file hiding technique mentioned above. Another is WD32Silly (or something close to that). Thats another one that always did it. With over 6,000 users to support I see this stuff all the time.
EDIT: This is why tools that access files outside the OS are popular, like BartPE and various other packages. You can see these files if Windows is not booted up and your not plugging the drive into another machine.
Actually....we use Symantec which is the the first scanner we use which doesn't find anything ;) Or, to its credit it will find something, but not remove it (hence how we find out the names half of the time). Honestly though you really want multi-layered scanning. If the program on the computer doesn't catch anything it goes to IT and we scan it with other tools, as a last resort we will manually remove it but if it doesn't work or ends up being to "messy" the machine gets re-imaged.Um, not to sound mean, but if your users still have rights to install software/malware then you are doing it wrong.
No worries gwangung - anyone who admits to listening to Lil Wayne isn't worth your time lol
What is wrong with Lil Wayne?
EDIT: This is why tools that access files outside the OS are popular, like BartPE and various other packages. You can see these files if Windows is not booted up and your not plugging the drive into another machine.
Actually....we use Symantec which is the the first scanner we use which doesn't find anything ;) Or, to its credit it will find something, but not remove it (hence how we find out the names half of the time). Honestly though you really want multi-layered scanning. If the program on the computer doesn't catch anything it goes to IT and we scan it with other tools, as a last resort we will manually remove it but if it doesn't work or ends up being to "messy" the machine gets re-imaged.Um, not to sound mean, but if your users still have rights to install software/malware then you are doing it wrong.
No worries gwangung - anyone who admits to listening to Lil Wayne isn't worth your time lol
What is wrong with Lil Wayne?
Dr.Gargoyle
Aug 29, 04:40 PM
We also dont need to buy an escalade that gets about 10 miles to the gallon and then drive it EVERYWHERE. take a walk, ride your bike. every little bit helps
THAT is something we agree completely on. :D ;) I bike back and forth to the university every day. I save money both on gas and gym at the same time as I do something for the environment.
THAT is something we agree completely on. :D ;) I bike back and forth to the university every day. I save money both on gas and gym at the same time as I do something for the environment.
tigress666
Apr 10, 12:25 PM
Trying to use a finger controlled touch screen as the new answer to everything, and young people thinking this is right, in a way reminds me of being at work.
No one is saying it is best for everything.
What I am saying is that while it may not be as good as actual buttons, it is still fun even with the virtual joysticks. And honestly, when we're talking handheld games, you already are compromising ease of control for that portability. I've never had a handheld game system that was as ergonomic as a dedicated controller on a console system.
You make compromises for that portability (smaller screen, not as powerful hardware, form of the controller is dictated by the fact it has to accommodate a screen). Of the things I listed right there, the hardware is the one most likely that they can maybe stop compromising on but the other stuff is going to get sacrificed for having a small, all in one, handheld system.
Look, I know what you are saying. I completely agree (I use the same argument why a touchscreen keyboard will not replace an actual physical keyboard. Just cause it is newer tech does not make it better).
But what some of us are saying is that for the advantages (Some of which really have nothing to do with the touchscreen really, like the cheap prices of games on the iphone), the compromise is worth it. I have played games that I will fully agree buttons would be better. But for the fact that I have these games on my iphone that is with me everywhere and is more portable than any of the handhelds I've seen and are cheaper plus I don't have to take a whole bunch of cartridges to have all my games with me, the compromise is worth it. And the virtual joystick and buttons don't ruin my enjoyment of the game (but I agree buttons would make it better).
No one is saying it is best for everything.
What I am saying is that while it may not be as good as actual buttons, it is still fun even with the virtual joysticks. And honestly, when we're talking handheld games, you already are compromising ease of control for that portability. I've never had a handheld game system that was as ergonomic as a dedicated controller on a console system.
You make compromises for that portability (smaller screen, not as powerful hardware, form of the controller is dictated by the fact it has to accommodate a screen). Of the things I listed right there, the hardware is the one most likely that they can maybe stop compromising on but the other stuff is going to get sacrificed for having a small, all in one, handheld system.
Look, I know what you are saying. I completely agree (I use the same argument why a touchscreen keyboard will not replace an actual physical keyboard. Just cause it is newer tech does not make it better).
But what some of us are saying is that for the advantages (Some of which really have nothing to do with the touchscreen really, like the cheap prices of games on the iphone), the compromise is worth it. I have played games that I will fully agree buttons would be better. But for the fact that I have these games on my iphone that is with me everywhere and is more portable than any of the handhelds I've seen and are cheaper plus I don't have to take a whole bunch of cartridges to have all my games with me, the compromise is worth it. And the virtual joystick and buttons don't ruin my enjoyment of the game (but I agree buttons would make it better).
SugCain
Apr 13, 06:26 AM
I'm a full time editor of 12 years. I use FCP 5 days a week. Is it too much to ask for something as simple as being able to sort by date? IMO, that would put the "pro" in FCP.
GGJstudios
May 2, 11:36 AM
4. Run a Spotlight search for "MACDefender" to check for any associated files that might still be lingering
That's a sure way *not* to find any related files.
The only effective method for complete app removal is manual deletion:
Best way to FULLY DELETE a program (http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=11171082&postcount=16)
One thing Macs need anti-virus is to scan mails for Windows viruses, so that those doesn't to you PC. That is all.
That doesn't protect Windows PCs from malware from other sources, which is a far greater threat than receiving files from a Mac. Each Windows user should be running their own anti-virus, to protect them from malware from all sources.
Yes so much. Because Malware can copy itself and infect a computer.
No, only a virus can do that. A trojan requires user involvement to spread.
So few virus for MAC than when one appears it is news... :)
This isn't a virus.
Mac OS X fanboys really need to stop clinging to the mentality that "viruses" don't exist for OS X and that "malware" is a Windows-only problem.
I agree. While no Mac OS X viruses exist at this time, that doesn't mean they won't in the future. And malware has always been a threat. What's important is to understand the kinds of threats and the most effective methods for protection.
The fact is, the days of viruses are long gone.
I wouldn't go so far as to say that. Just when you do, someone will release a new virus into the wild. While they may not be as prevalent as they once were, they're by no means extinct.
The fact is, understanding the proper terminology and different payloads and impacts of the different types of malware prevents unnecessary panic and promotes a proper security strategy.
I'd say it's people that try to just lump all malware together in the same category, making a trojan that relies on social engineering sound as bad as a self-replicating worm that spreads using a remote execution/privilege escalation bug that are quite ignorant of general computer security.
The best defense a Mac user has against current malware threats is education and common sense. Understanding the basic differences between a virus, trojan, worm, and other types of malware will help a user defend against them. Doing simple things like unchecking the "Open "safe" files after downloading" option is quite effective.
I despise the "X is a file downloaded from the Internet" dialog introduced in SL. Really wish you could disable it.
That's one of the simple lines of defense for a user, as it lets them know they're about to open a newly-downloaded app. It only does that the first time you launch the app, so why bother disabling such a helpful reminder?
To the end user it makes no difference. It's fine if you know, but to a novice quickly correcting them on the difference between a virus, a trojan, or whatever else contributes approximately zero percent towards solving the problem.
Actually, it helps a user to have some understanding about malware. Part of the problem is a novice user is likely to engage in dangerous activities, such as installing pirated software, unless they know what a trojan is and how it infects a system. Also, understanding what a virus is, how it spreads, and the fact that none exist for Mac OS X will prevent them from instantly assuming that everything unexpected that happens on their Mac is the result of a virus. Also, understanding that antivirus apps can't detect a virus that doesn't yet exist will prevent them from installing AV and having a false sense of security, thinking they're immune to threats. Educating a user goes a very long way in protecting them, by teaching them to practice safe computing habits.
Mac Virus/Malware Info (http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=9400648&postcount=4)
That's a sure way *not* to find any related files.
The only effective method for complete app removal is manual deletion:
Best way to FULLY DELETE a program (http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=11171082&postcount=16)
One thing Macs need anti-virus is to scan mails for Windows viruses, so that those doesn't to you PC. That is all.
That doesn't protect Windows PCs from malware from other sources, which is a far greater threat than receiving files from a Mac. Each Windows user should be running their own anti-virus, to protect them from malware from all sources.
Yes so much. Because Malware can copy itself and infect a computer.
No, only a virus can do that. A trojan requires user involvement to spread.
So few virus for MAC than when one appears it is news... :)
This isn't a virus.
Mac OS X fanboys really need to stop clinging to the mentality that "viruses" don't exist for OS X and that "malware" is a Windows-only problem.
I agree. While no Mac OS X viruses exist at this time, that doesn't mean they won't in the future. And malware has always been a threat. What's important is to understand the kinds of threats and the most effective methods for protection.
The fact is, the days of viruses are long gone.
I wouldn't go so far as to say that. Just when you do, someone will release a new virus into the wild. While they may not be as prevalent as they once were, they're by no means extinct.
The fact is, understanding the proper terminology and different payloads and impacts of the different types of malware prevents unnecessary panic and promotes a proper security strategy.
I'd say it's people that try to just lump all malware together in the same category, making a trojan that relies on social engineering sound as bad as a self-replicating worm that spreads using a remote execution/privilege escalation bug that are quite ignorant of general computer security.
The best defense a Mac user has against current malware threats is education and common sense. Understanding the basic differences between a virus, trojan, worm, and other types of malware will help a user defend against them. Doing simple things like unchecking the "Open "safe" files after downloading" option is quite effective.
I despise the "X is a file downloaded from the Internet" dialog introduced in SL. Really wish you could disable it.
That's one of the simple lines of defense for a user, as it lets them know they're about to open a newly-downloaded app. It only does that the first time you launch the app, so why bother disabling such a helpful reminder?
To the end user it makes no difference. It's fine if you know, but to a novice quickly correcting them on the difference between a virus, a trojan, or whatever else contributes approximately zero percent towards solving the problem.
Actually, it helps a user to have some understanding about malware. Part of the problem is a novice user is likely to engage in dangerous activities, such as installing pirated software, unless they know what a trojan is and how it infects a system. Also, understanding what a virus is, how it spreads, and the fact that none exist for Mac OS X will prevent them from instantly assuming that everything unexpected that happens on their Mac is the result of a virus. Also, understanding that antivirus apps can't detect a virus that doesn't yet exist will prevent them from installing AV and having a false sense of security, thinking they're immune to threats. Educating a user goes a very long way in protecting them, by teaching them to practice safe computing habits.
Mac Virus/Malware Info (http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=9400648&postcount=4)
recursivejon
Mar 20, 02:23 PM
If this is true (transfer of the music without DRM to be added by iTunes), then couldn't anyone with a bit of networking knowledge just pipe the packets into a file when they purchase something from the store using iTunes?
edifyingGerbil
Apr 22, 08:28 PM
I would argue not choosing to believe in a divine being is more rational than hedging your bets.
Why?
Look up Pascal's wager
Why?
Look up Pascal's wager
CoryTV
Apr 12, 10:33 PM
Ugh... you guys speak as if you are all full-time film editors...
The new features are amazing! The hall that they presented at, well they were pretty much all "pros" in the industry. They were all pretty much PSYCHED about these features..
For what it's worth, I'm a film production major...
I'm a full time professional editor who has edited on Avid since 1997 and FCP since 2005.. Does that not count? Almost every 'pro film' editor I have ever met (and I'm talking people who make hollywood films) barely knows how to turn the machine on.
The new features are amazing! The hall that they presented at, well they were pretty much all "pros" in the industry. They were all pretty much PSYCHED about these features..
For what it's worth, I'm a film production major...
I'm a full time professional editor who has edited on Avid since 1997 and FCP since 2005.. Does that not count? Almost every 'pro film' editor I have ever met (and I'm talking people who make hollywood films) barely knows how to turn the machine on.
