Anonymous Freak
Sep 19, 10:38 PM
Oh God yes this is what I want.
I've read where iTunes 7 supports multiple libraries, but it's not the solution we're waiting for.
I want to rip a CD onto my powerbook and have iTunes sync it with a master library on a partition of my external drive next time I hook it up. Right now, I'd have to remember to copy the new files onto the external... no good—I want it to be automatic and just work (Apple has spoiled me).
It's called 'rsync', and it's one of the BSD utilities built into OS X.
If you either have a really small library, or money to burn (on .Mac and the storage upgrade; but even then, only up to 4 GB,) you could use .Mac as your library storage, and just have Automatic iDisk sync turned on.
edit: I know I saw something about how to trick your computer into thinking another computer on your network is the .Mac server, which would let you use all of the current .Mac functions hosted locally; this would work great for an 'iDisk-hosted' library. As long as you don't ever connect to a different internet connection, and it tries to sync with the real iDisk.
I've read where iTunes 7 supports multiple libraries, but it's not the solution we're waiting for.
I want to rip a CD onto my powerbook and have iTunes sync it with a master library on a partition of my external drive next time I hook it up. Right now, I'd have to remember to copy the new files onto the external... no good—I want it to be automatic and just work (Apple has spoiled me).
It's called 'rsync', and it's one of the BSD utilities built into OS X.
If you either have a really small library, or money to burn (on .Mac and the storage upgrade; but even then, only up to 4 GB,) you could use .Mac as your library storage, and just have Automatic iDisk sync turned on.
edit: I know I saw something about how to trick your computer into thinking another computer on your network is the .Mac server, which would let you use all of the current .Mac functions hosted locally; this would work great for an 'iDisk-hosted' library. As long as you don't ever connect to a different internet connection, and it tries to sync with the real iDisk.
karthi
Sep 19, 04:20 PM
It seems to me, apple is matching video quality of the downloads exactly to what the iPod can handle...
This seems logical now, so can we expect better movies after ture video iPods.
This seems logical now, so can we expect better movies after ture video iPods.
munkery
Mar 23, 04:20 PM
http://www.macforensicslab.com/ProductsAndServices/index.php?main_page=document_general_info&products_id=174
Much of the information in the PDF (http://www.macforensicslab.com/Malware_on_Mac_OS_X.pdf) associated with this article (http://www.macforensicslab.com/ProductsAndServices/index.php?main_page=document_general_info&products_id=174) is incorrect. For example:
Page 26
It refers to the bundle architecture as insecure. The argument presented would be true if security sensitive apps were not owned by system. Given that they are owned by system, malware cannot modify the bundle of an app owned by system without authentication when the app is run with user privileges in an admin or standard account.
For example, show package contents of iTunes, Safari, or Mail and try to create a folder in the bundle. In relation to the example in the article, try renaming iTunes. The argument in the article relies on actions that can not be completed in an OS X admin account; these type of changes are even more restricted in a standard account.
Apps not owned by system are vulnerable but without privilege escalation can not install rootkits or keyloggers. Even apps owned by system run with user privileges and require privilege escalation to install dangerous payloads.
Mac OS X does not prompt for authentication if you install apps in the proper location for that user account type. When installed in the proper location, apps are sandboxed from the system level of Mac OS X by the Unix DAC model used within Mac OS X.
Windows is less secure because most apps (Chrome only exception I can recall) install their associated files in levels of the system that require authentication regardless of user account type (unless Admin in Windows XP because running as superuser - no authentication required to install with elevated privileges - very dangerous). It is easier to trick Windows users to install a trojan with elevated privileges given that almost all apps ask for authentication to install and the user can not distinguish the intent of that authentication.
Page 30
The claim that the Application folder is unprotected is false. Security sensitive apps within the Application folder are owned by system.
Also, security sensitive system binaries are still stored in /bin and /sbin in Mac OS X.
Page 31
The ability to read the contacts stored in Address Book could be used by a worm to propagate. But, malware that uses this to spread is not likely to appear in the wild if the malware is not profitable. It is unlikely that malware will be profitable without being able to hook (this is a specific function) into apps owned by system.
Page 33
Starts off talking about trojans, trojans are easily avoided with user knowledge in Mac OS X because most apps do not require authentication to install if installed in the appropriate location where the Unix DAC model protects the system.
Viruses using the model shown in the article will not be successful without privilege escalation. This is the reason why Mac OS X malware is not successful in the wild.
By default, very few server side services are exposed in Mac OS X and those that are exposed are sandboxed. Vectors for worm propagation are limited to client side. Client side worms require authentication to install and spread if do not include privilege escalation via exploitation because of the Unix DAC model used in Mac OS X. Trojans used to trick users to authenticate are less likely to be successful in Mac OS X as stated above.
Much of the information in the PDF (http://www.macforensicslab.com/Malware_on_Mac_OS_X.pdf) associated with this article (http://www.macforensicslab.com/ProductsAndServices/index.php?main_page=document_general_info&products_id=174) is incorrect. For example:
Page 26
It refers to the bundle architecture as insecure. The argument presented would be true if security sensitive apps were not owned by system. Given that they are owned by system, malware cannot modify the bundle of an app owned by system without authentication when the app is run with user privileges in an admin or standard account.
For example, show package contents of iTunes, Safari, or Mail and try to create a folder in the bundle. In relation to the example in the article, try renaming iTunes. The argument in the article relies on actions that can not be completed in an OS X admin account; these type of changes are even more restricted in a standard account.
Apps not owned by system are vulnerable but without privilege escalation can not install rootkits or keyloggers. Even apps owned by system run with user privileges and require privilege escalation to install dangerous payloads.
Mac OS X does not prompt for authentication if you install apps in the proper location for that user account type. When installed in the proper location, apps are sandboxed from the system level of Mac OS X by the Unix DAC model used within Mac OS X.
Windows is less secure because most apps (Chrome only exception I can recall) install their associated files in levels of the system that require authentication regardless of user account type (unless Admin in Windows XP because running as superuser - no authentication required to install with elevated privileges - very dangerous). It is easier to trick Windows users to install a trojan with elevated privileges given that almost all apps ask for authentication to install and the user can not distinguish the intent of that authentication.
Page 30
The claim that the Application folder is unprotected is false. Security sensitive apps within the Application folder are owned by system.
Also, security sensitive system binaries are still stored in /bin and /sbin in Mac OS X.
Page 31
The ability to read the contacts stored in Address Book could be used by a worm to propagate. But, malware that uses this to spread is not likely to appear in the wild if the malware is not profitable. It is unlikely that malware will be profitable without being able to hook (this is a specific function) into apps owned by system.
Page 33
Starts off talking about trojans, trojans are easily avoided with user knowledge in Mac OS X because most apps do not require authentication to install if installed in the appropriate location where the Unix DAC model protects the system.
Viruses using the model shown in the article will not be successful without privilege escalation. This is the reason why Mac OS X malware is not successful in the wild.
By default, very few server side services are exposed in Mac OS X and those that are exposed are sandboxed. Vectors for worm propagation are limited to client side. Client side worms require authentication to install and spread if do not include privilege escalation via exploitation because of the Unix DAC model used in Mac OS X. Trojans used to trick users to authenticate are less likely to be successful in Mac OS X as stated above.
thegman1234
Jan 3, 12:26 AM
Ummm.... Didn't most of the early iOS jail breaking methods target holes in OS. Sure more grey hat than black hat but risk is there to be aware of regardless of platform.
That may be true, but the monitoring of the app store does decrease the chance of malicious apps making their way onto the device. Is it perfect? No. Is it safer than Android? Yes.
That may be true, but the monitoring of the app store does decrease the chance of malicious apps making their way onto the device. Is it perfect? No. Is it safer than Android? Yes.
k2director
Apr 4, 01:01 PM
Humans are pre-programmed to take such an action hard. Some don't, usually as a result of contemplation and training before such an incident. It is, however, natural to react that way. Best for all to recognize different people may take such a grave matter very differently, and that's ok.
Personally, if humans were pre-programmed to take killing another human so hard, I think we'd see a lot less senseless murder in the world.
Personally, if humans were pre-programmed to take killing another human so hard, I think we'd see a lot less senseless murder in the world.
~Shard~
Sep 13, 09:14 PM
Dear god, enough with the phone rumors already!:mad:
Would you prefer us to go back to the PowerBook G5 rumors instead? :p ;) :D
Would you prefer us to go back to the PowerBook G5 rumors instead? :p ;) :D
wwooden
Sep 12, 02:42 PM
I very much would like to have seen the prices remain the same and include an AC adapter again.
If you buy this iPod and an AC adapter it is still cheaper than before.
If you buy this iPod and an AC adapter it is still cheaper than before.
munkery
Jan 13, 01:41 PM
There's nothing to set up. You should increase the setting to maximum when you first install Windows 7, but other than that it has nothing to do with playing games online.
You should have a unique identifier (password) attached to authentication mechanism (UAC in Windows). So, Windows users should run as standard users. But, using a standard account in Windows causes issues with some software, such as some online games, that require admin accounts (or "run as administrator"; superuser) to function. Many online games on Windows 7 still require running as Administrator (superuser privileges) to function. This requires setting the "Properties" to allow "run as Administrator" or turning off UAC. This is risky as the games connect to remote servers and download content. Trojans are installed without authentication if accessed with superuser privileges. This example, using online games, shows the problem with how software is being written for Windows. This problem lead to DLL hijacking exploits (http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9181513/Hacking_toolkit_publishes_DLL_hijacking_exploit). You definitely need good antivirus software in Windows to more safely play games that require Administrator privileges.
The issue with online games found in Windows is not problematic on Mac OS X given that software for Mac is written following the guidelines of the principle of least privilege (https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Principle_of_least_privilege) more so than Windows software. For example, I have played online FPS games on my Mac with standard account privileges that require "run as Administrator" (superuser privileges) in Windows systems. Mac OS X is much better insulated from Malware.
Flash, Adobe, Java, etc. all have virtually identical issues under all three OSes. It's rare you see something that only affects one, unless it's a significantly different program.
Vulnerabilities in those components in Mac OS X are attributed as OS X vulnerabilities because OS X includes them by default so this artificially inflates the number of vulnerabilities in OS X when looking at vulnerability comparisons. These components have worse security in Windows. How these vulnerabilities manifest in Windows is through Internet Explorer.
Disney World Magic Kingdom Map
map of magic kingdom disney
map of magic kingdom disney
walt disney world magic
Disney World Magic Kingdom
disney world magic kingdom
disney world magic kingdom
disney magic kingdom map 2011.
disney magic kingdom map
disney world magic kingdom
magic kingdom disney world map
Reacent Post
You should have a unique identifier (password) attached to authentication mechanism (UAC in Windows). So, Windows users should run as standard users. But, using a standard account in Windows causes issues with some software, such as some online games, that require admin accounts (or "run as administrator"; superuser) to function. Many online games on Windows 7 still require running as Administrator (superuser privileges) to function. This requires setting the "Properties" to allow "run as Administrator" or turning off UAC. This is risky as the games connect to remote servers and download content. Trojans are installed without authentication if accessed with superuser privileges. This example, using online games, shows the problem with how software is being written for Windows. This problem lead to DLL hijacking exploits (http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9181513/Hacking_toolkit_publishes_DLL_hijacking_exploit). You definitely need good antivirus software in Windows to more safely play games that require Administrator privileges.
The issue with online games found in Windows is not problematic on Mac OS X given that software for Mac is written following the guidelines of the principle of least privilege (https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Principle_of_least_privilege) more so than Windows software. For example, I have played online FPS games on my Mac with standard account privileges that require "run as Administrator" (superuser privileges) in Windows systems. Mac OS X is much better insulated from Malware.
Flash, Adobe, Java, etc. all have virtually identical issues under all three OSes. It's rare you see something that only affects one, unless it's a significantly different program.
Vulnerabilities in those components in Mac OS X are attributed as OS X vulnerabilities because OS X includes them by default so this artificially inflates the number of vulnerabilities in OS X when looking at vulnerability comparisons. These components have worse security in Windows. How these vulnerabilities manifest in Windows is through Internet Explorer.
1984
Oct 12, 09:38 PM
http://www.chicagotribune.com/media/photo/2006-10/25865863.jpg
I haven't been to an Apple Store in ages so forgive me for asking but what kind of dock is that in the lower right? I'm sure it is a display designed only for the stores but is it actually a working dock as well?
I haven't been to an Apple Store in ages so forgive me for asking but what kind of dock is that in the lower right? I'm sure it is a display designed only for the stores but is it actually a working dock as well?
yg17
Sep 26, 10:34 AM
I'm surprised at all the Cingular hate here. At least in the D.C. area, the word is that they have the best coverage available - better than Verizon, who was the previous benchmark before the merger.
When I was in DC, my Cingular service was horrible. Just like it was in New York City, St. Louis and New Orleans (pre Katrina, when cell towers were still standing) and every other large city I've been in.
Yet, it works fine in the middle of nowhere. On my way down to New Orleans, I was on the phone in some tiny little town that couldn't have had more than 500 people. The only thing this place had was a gas station. I'm on my phone and call quality is excellent. An hour later in NO, dropped calls and low signal as usual. Or when I'm on the backroads in Missouri talking, again, perfect signal. Enter the STL city limits? Goodbye service.
Cingular has their priorities wrong. They go for the rural markets, where people don't want to have anything to do with cell phones, and they ignore the big cities. And if you try to call customer service to complain about the piss poor service, or to try to fix a billing error (which are common with Cingular) then you'll be on hold for half an hour, and get nowhere with their customer service rep who's over in India. They are the worst company we have ever dealt with, and will be leaving them the day our contract is up in December. IMO, Apple is making a huge mistake by being exclusive with Cingular.
When I was in DC, my Cingular service was horrible. Just like it was in New York City, St. Louis and New Orleans (pre Katrina, when cell towers were still standing) and every other large city I've been in.
Yet, it works fine in the middle of nowhere. On my way down to New Orleans, I was on the phone in some tiny little town that couldn't have had more than 500 people. The only thing this place had was a gas station. I'm on my phone and call quality is excellent. An hour later in NO, dropped calls and low signal as usual. Or when I'm on the backroads in Missouri talking, again, perfect signal. Enter the STL city limits? Goodbye service.
Cingular has their priorities wrong. They go for the rural markets, where people don't want to have anything to do with cell phones, and they ignore the big cities. And if you try to call customer service to complain about the piss poor service, or to try to fix a billing error (which are common with Cingular) then you'll be on hold for half an hour, and get nowhere with their customer service rep who's over in India. They are the worst company we have ever dealt with, and will be leaving them the day our contract is up in December. IMO, Apple is making a huge mistake by being exclusive with Cingular.
BenRoethig
Sep 1, 11:40 AM
wow. would that be the biggest mainstream desktop around?
Biggest, yes. Mainstream, not even close.
Biggest, yes. Mainstream, not even close.
Manic Mouse
Sep 9, 10:28 AM
The real problem isn't the OS as much as it is in applications.
A well-threaded O/S won't help make Photoshop or Avid run much faster, unless the application code is also able to use all of the cores that are present.
Some applications are inherently serial - you have to do step A, then step B (because step B depends on step A). It's not a matter of poor programming, it's that the task is serial. (Note that many Photoshop benchmarks quote "MP-aware" filters separately from actions that don't scale.)
For these "not well-threaded" applications, multiple cores will still be beneficial so that you can run multiple applications simultaneously - all at full speed.
There are some server-type applications (web or database) that run many (hundreds or thousands) threads simultaneously. (For a web server - each browser session is a natural thread.) For these applications, operating system efficiency is important. The reports that OSX is poor at threading (such as Mac OS X limits server performance (http://www.macnn.com/articles/05/06/15/os.x.server.review/)) aren't really that important for desktop apps that want to use all 4 cores (or soon 8).
http://www.anandtech.com/mac/showdoc.aspx?i=2436
The server performance of the Apple platform is, however, catastrophic.
...
Workstation apps will hardly mind, but the performance of server applications depends greatly on the threading, signalling and locking engine.
Ahh. Nice info Aiden, thanks for that!
Many BSODs today?
I must be one of the few windows users who has never seen a BSOD since Win 95...
I've been using the Vista Beta 2 exclusively since it's release and it's apparently a very unstable OS yet I haven't seen a single BSOD. Looking forward to upgrading to RC1 and all the performance improvements that will bring though! :D
What I'm wondering is how Leopard will change the performance of the iMacs and Mac Pros. Will having a full 64-bit operating system and applications mean they run faster, or will the end-user see little difference?
A well-threaded O/S won't help make Photoshop or Avid run much faster, unless the application code is also able to use all of the cores that are present.
Some applications are inherently serial - you have to do step A, then step B (because step B depends on step A). It's not a matter of poor programming, it's that the task is serial. (Note that many Photoshop benchmarks quote "MP-aware" filters separately from actions that don't scale.)
For these "not well-threaded" applications, multiple cores will still be beneficial so that you can run multiple applications simultaneously - all at full speed.
There are some server-type applications (web or database) that run many (hundreds or thousands) threads simultaneously. (For a web server - each browser session is a natural thread.) For these applications, operating system efficiency is important. The reports that OSX is poor at threading (such as Mac OS X limits server performance (http://www.macnn.com/articles/05/06/15/os.x.server.review/)) aren't really that important for desktop apps that want to use all 4 cores (or soon 8).
http://www.anandtech.com/mac/showdoc.aspx?i=2436
The server performance of the Apple platform is, however, catastrophic.
...
Workstation apps will hardly mind, but the performance of server applications depends greatly on the threading, signalling and locking engine.
Ahh. Nice info Aiden, thanks for that!
Many BSODs today?
I must be one of the few windows users who has never seen a BSOD since Win 95...
I've been using the Vista Beta 2 exclusively since it's release and it's apparently a very unstable OS yet I haven't seen a single BSOD. Looking forward to upgrading to RC1 and all the performance improvements that will bring though! :D
What I'm wondering is how Leopard will change the performance of the iMacs and Mac Pros. Will having a full 64-bit operating system and applications mean they run faster, or will the end-user see little difference?
erikistired
Sep 19, 04:54 PM
I don't think Apple is aiming for the uber-geek with $25k worth of home entertainment equipment. IMHO, they will never be able to compete in that market.
I think they are reaching for the average joe blow that has a servicable $400 TV that he bought at Wal-mart, and maybe, just maybe, has a stereo hooked up to it. The average Joe doesn't care, and can't tell, that it's Dolby Surround and not Dolby Digital.
you don't need 25k of equipment to notice the difference between dolby surround and dolby digital. contrary to what was posted before, you CAN hear the difference on a $200 htib system. even my half deaf dad has noticed the difference, especially if the soundtrack uses a lot of directional audio. the first time i had my family to my house (at the time my home audio system wasn't that great, but still good) to watch a movie with 5.1 surround they were jumping all over at bullets whizzing over their shoulder from behind. it was neat to watch people who would be considered "joe sixpack" enjoying good A/V. it's amazing how many people underestimate what the average joe has or cares about these days when it comes to home entertainment.
I think they are reaching for the average joe blow that has a servicable $400 TV that he bought at Wal-mart, and maybe, just maybe, has a stereo hooked up to it. The average Joe doesn't care, and can't tell, that it's Dolby Surround and not Dolby Digital.
you don't need 25k of equipment to notice the difference between dolby surround and dolby digital. contrary to what was posted before, you CAN hear the difference on a $200 htib system. even my half deaf dad has noticed the difference, especially if the soundtrack uses a lot of directional audio. the first time i had my family to my house (at the time my home audio system wasn't that great, but still good) to watch a movie with 5.1 surround they were jumping all over at bullets whizzing over their shoulder from behind. it was neat to watch people who would be considered "joe sixpack" enjoying good A/V. it's amazing how many people underestimate what the average joe has or cares about these days when it comes to home entertainment.
AidenShaw
Sep 10, 11:53 PM
They ... are using buffered memory (slow)
Have you seen the benchmarks?
The Xeon systems scream, even with the "slow" memory.
While some contrived tests showed real latency issues with the FB-DIMM memory, for real-life applications the faster busses and large L2 caches make it a non-issue.
Focus on *system* performance, not on a particular detail.
Have you seen the benchmarks?
The Xeon systems scream, even with the "slow" memory.
While some contrived tests showed real latency issues with the FB-DIMM memory, for real-life applications the faster busses and large L2 caches make it a non-issue.
Focus on *system* performance, not on a particular detail.
DudeMartin
Mar 29, 12:23 PM
Mac's are far from the top of the market share for computers... no one thinks any less of them?
Half Glass
Sep 14, 10:08 AM
Don't want to wait!
Come on Aperture update...that's why I've been waiting!
iPhone at Photokina? Seems odd. MBP updates for mobile ProPhotogs makes much more sense.
iSLR? Doubt it--the way rumor sites scour for patent filings you'd think they would've found something on this.
--HG
Come on Aperture update...that's why I've been waiting!
iPhone at Photokina? Seems odd. MBP updates for mobile ProPhotogs makes much more sense.
iSLR? Doubt it--the way rumor sites scour for patent filings you'd think they would've found something on this.
--HG
Hattig
Mar 29, 11:32 AM
The issue is that people don't care about Nokia phones any more.
Back in the day they had a big market in feature phones - what Symbian did quite well back in the day. However Symbian hasn't migrated to the SmartPhone era well. In that same vein, neither have Nokia's traditional customers, who have no reason to stick with Nokia if forced to get a SmartPhone.
And I think this research drastically underestimates HP's efforts with WebOS, which should start seeing results later this year.
Back in the day they had a big market in feature phones - what Symbian did quite well back in the day. However Symbian hasn't migrated to the SmartPhone era well. In that same vein, neither have Nokia's traditional customers, who have no reason to stick with Nokia if forced to get a SmartPhone.
And I think this research drastically underestimates HP's efforts with WebOS, which should start seeing results later this year.
logandzwon
Mar 30, 01:18 PM
iTunes is made by APPLE so of course its going to have application as the file names. Show a MS production that uses application as a term.
Again why cant MS just call is their MobileApp store? Adding mobile to the front of app would solve their problems no?
Or add WinApp Store. Why isnt MS doing that?
Its because they want to take a shot at apple, its the only small victory they can get since osx is better than windows, and of course the ipod is better than their joke of am mp3 player Zune.
That is MS Explorer calling the iTunes.exe file an Application. It has nothing to do with Apple. Anything ending in .exe will have the same description.
It's all irrelevant to the conversation though... we are discussing "App Store" not "Application."
Again why cant MS just call is their MobileApp store? Adding mobile to the front of app would solve their problems no?
Or add WinApp Store. Why isnt MS doing that?
Its because they want to take a shot at apple, its the only small victory they can get since osx is better than windows, and of course the ipod is better than their joke of am mp3 player Zune.
That is MS Explorer calling the iTunes.exe file an Application. It has nothing to do with Apple. Anything ending in .exe will have the same description.
It's all irrelevant to the conversation though... we are discussing "App Store" not "Application."
Jamesbot
Mar 23, 04:47 PM
Miles you make a great point... You also confirm that Apple better pull them, its a pointless app because if your so drunk then you can't operate a phone let alone an app.
Whatever. Just because you're over the legal limit doesn't mean you're so completely smashed that you can't operate a touch screen device. Using an iphone is much, much easier than driving a car while intoxicated.
That said, I don't want to make this about whether or not drunk driving is OK. We all know it's wrong. At least I hope we all know it.
The way I see it, a group of politicians get together to conceive some non-issue, complain about something that is completely legal, in order to score points with their constituents and look like they're being tough on drunk driving. I guarantee you that these guys have driven home drunk just as much as the average person. Maybe I'm being cynical, but come on! Don't we have enough on our plate already with all the actual work we need to get done. Enough with the goddamned showmanship already!
Ask apple to take the apps down, who are you kidding?
Whatever. Just because you're over the legal limit doesn't mean you're so completely smashed that you can't operate a touch screen device. Using an iphone is much, much easier than driving a car while intoxicated.
That said, I don't want to make this about whether or not drunk driving is OK. We all know it's wrong. At least I hope we all know it.
The way I see it, a group of politicians get together to conceive some non-issue, complain about something that is completely legal, in order to score points with their constituents and look like they're being tough on drunk driving. I guarantee you that these guys have driven home drunk just as much as the average person. Maybe I'm being cynical, but come on! Don't we have enough on our plate already with all the actual work we need to get done. Enough with the goddamned showmanship already!
Ask apple to take the apps down, who are you kidding?
cube
May 3, 11:04 AM
Would be great to have dual out on 11" MBA too. This way I could have dual displays at my remote office.
Blame Thunderbolt.
Blame Thunderbolt.
Digitalclips
Apr 30, 01:59 PM
Curious that everyone is clamoring for a thunderbolt-enabled machine, but there isn't a single thunderbolt drive available on the market.
I guess some people just need to feel like they have new stuff even if it's totally pointless.
Pointless? If you are about to upgrade soon anyway ... and we all know TB peripherals are coming soon ... why on earth would you want an iMac without TB? Even if you had to wait a few months for an external drive with TB surely that's far better than buying an iMac a few weeks too early without it and not having the ability till your next update which may be 3 years away. Plus remember, a lot of people use these machines for their digital business and TB will be an awesome, must have for HD Video etc. over the next few years.
I guess some people just need to feel like they have new stuff even if it's totally pointless.
Pointless? If you are about to upgrade soon anyway ... and we all know TB peripherals are coming soon ... why on earth would you want an iMac without TB? Even if you had to wait a few months for an external drive with TB surely that's far better than buying an iMac a few weeks too early without it and not having the ability till your next update which may be 3 years away. Plus remember, a lot of people use these machines for their digital business and TB will be an awesome, must have for HD Video etc. over the next few years.
roland.g
Mar 22, 03:09 PM
I am going to be in the market to replace my 24" 2.8 rev. A aluminum iMac (Aug 2007) when these come out with a new 27". I will be consolidating to an iMac and iPad 2 since I no longer feel the need for a 13" MacBook Pro as well.
Sell the MacBook Pro and iMac to fund the new iMac or close to it. However, I will wait until later in the summer and get a 10.7 Lion pre-loaded machine. No sense in buying that close to a major OS update.
Sell the MacBook Pro and iMac to fund the new iMac or close to it. However, I will wait until later in the summer and get a 10.7 Lion pre-loaded machine. No sense in buying that close to a major OS update.
Skika
Apr 25, 01:22 PM
Its fine, but if you need it get it, if you dont then wait, at the end of the day this is a rumor.
I would if id need it, but my current Macbook can keep me going till the refresh.
I would if id need it, but my current Macbook can keep me going till the refresh.
w00master
Sep 5, 04:40 PM
ok, just made a quick mockup of what i would like to see announced next week :cool:
http://users.pandora.be/blackbox/airport_video.png
and make shure it also works with video_ts folders and avi/divx files (maybe via a front row API for third party developers like VLC?) ;)
this would perfectly complement that itunes movie store
I think this is totally feasible, but one question that many of you haven't addressed is: "Do you see this interaction and interface happening for the Windows users?"
I know we're all Apple fans here, but in order for the iTunes Movie Store to be successful, it will have to include "them."
w00master
http://users.pandora.be/blackbox/airport_video.png
and make shure it also works with video_ts folders and avi/divx files (maybe via a front row API for third party developers like VLC?) ;)
this would perfectly complement that itunes movie store
I think this is totally feasible, but one question that many of you haven't addressed is: "Do you see this interaction and interface happening for the Windows users?"
I know we're all Apple fans here, but in order for the iTunes Movie Store to be successful, it will have to include "them."
w00master
0 comments:
Post a Comment