kiwi-in-uk
Aug 7, 06:51 PM
... as of present the trash can will not allow you to selectively undelete a file?
What?
What?
boncellis
Aug 11, 01:43 PM
There's something fishy about this "story." The premise just seems unlikely.
That said, I think Apple will end up doing something about the gradual encroachment of their market share by mobile phone manufacturers. There are some qualifiers, however:
* It can't cannibalize iPod sales, which means either the "iPhone" will somehow be limited, or the iPod will see new features separating the two.
* It will have to be more than just a mobile phone with iTunes, integrating essential smartphone functions and something else that makes it stand out (maybe VoIP capability).
These are pretty obvious when you think about it, and I'm sure Apple has been thinking about it for some time. An Apple mobile phone could be imminent, you can sometimes tell by looking around the industry and spotting the "preemptive" or anticipatory products from competitors. It's not an accident that the LG "chocolate" phone looks a lot like the iPod Nano, in my opinion.
That said, I think Apple will end up doing something about the gradual encroachment of their market share by mobile phone manufacturers. There are some qualifiers, however:
* It can't cannibalize iPod sales, which means either the "iPhone" will somehow be limited, or the iPod will see new features separating the two.
* It will have to be more than just a mobile phone with iTunes, integrating essential smartphone functions and something else that makes it stand out (maybe VoIP capability).
These are pretty obvious when you think about it, and I'm sure Apple has been thinking about it for some time. An Apple mobile phone could be imminent, you can sometimes tell by looking around the industry and spotting the "preemptive" or anticipatory products from competitors. It's not an accident that the LG "chocolate" phone looks a lot like the iPod Nano, in my opinion.
Surreal
Mar 26, 07:40 AM
Thank you for your constructive reply but ....
to be fair, devs care about that... users won't until they see new things that they can use. then they/we can complain about backward compatibility!
to be fair, devs care about that... users won't until they see new things that they can use. then they/we can complain about backward compatibility!
Virtualball
Apr 19, 02:13 PM
According to Wikipedia It was released in Feb before the iPhone was released..
Please stop spreading FUD. If you knew anything about the history of the iPhone, you would know that it was announced and previewed at MacWorld 2007. That means they showed the world the interface, the phone, and most of the features in January 2007.
Also, http://gizmodo.com/#!234901/samsung-f700-smartphone-looks-awfully-familiar
"Samsung is also trying to one up its competitor [link leads to Apple] with one specific feature... a slide out full-QWERTY keyboard."
Seriously, this is all FUD.
Please stop spreading FUD. If you knew anything about the history of the iPhone, you would know that it was announced and previewed at MacWorld 2007. That means they showed the world the interface, the phone, and most of the features in January 2007.
Also, http://gizmodo.com/#!234901/samsung-f700-smartphone-looks-awfully-familiar
"Samsung is also trying to one up its competitor [link leads to Apple] with one specific feature... a slide out full-QWERTY keyboard."
Seriously, this is all FUD.
QCassidy352
Jul 20, 03:53 PM
I hate to burst everyone's bubble, but Kentsfield will not be appearing in any of the Pro machines for some time.
Apple will be using them exclusively in the Xserves, at for the most part of 2007. This will finally give Apple another way to distinguish their server line from their pro line.
What? Apple*differentiates the XServes by having them 1U thick and rackmountable. One buys a rackmount server not because it's faster but because it's smaller and fits in a rack.
yeah, what he said. Apple does not have to distinguish powermacs from servers with processor speeds. People (businesses) who need servers are not going to buy powermacs to do the job even if they are a little bit faster or cheaper; they are going to buy real rack-mounted servers.
Apple will be using them exclusively in the Xserves, at for the most part of 2007. This will finally give Apple another way to distinguish their server line from their pro line.
What? Apple*differentiates the XServes by having them 1U thick and rackmountable. One buys a rackmount server not because it's faster but because it's smaller and fits in a rack.
yeah, what he said. Apple does not have to distinguish powermacs from servers with processor speeds. People (businesses) who need servers are not going to buy powermacs to do the job even if they are a little bit faster or cheaper; they are going to buy real rack-mounted servers.
Platform
Sep 13, 09:13 AM
Most people run more than one app at once.
Most are multi-threaded though and if I am not incorrect it doesn't matter for Photoshop if there are two or 72 cores...;)
Most are multi-threaded though and if I am not incorrect it doesn't matter for Photoshop if there are two or 72 cores...;)
roadbloc
Apr 27, 10:58 AM
Damn. some of you guys are *really* reaching here.
It clearly is an issue if they have a federal lawsuit on it. The fact that Apple are rolling out an update that changes the way it works alone shows that there is clearly a problem. Apple vary rarely roll out updates that change things, even if consumers are screaming for it (mouse acceleration in OS X for example).
You refuse to accept there is a problem. You refuse to see the breech of privacy. Why? The government and Apple have clearly accepted it.
It clearly is an issue if they have a federal lawsuit on it. The fact that Apple are rolling out an update that changes the way it works alone shows that there is clearly a problem. Apple vary rarely roll out updates that change things, even if consumers are screaming for it (mouse acceleration in OS X for example).
You refuse to accept there is a problem. You refuse to see the breech of privacy. Why? The government and Apple have clearly accepted it.
ImAlwaysRight
Apr 12, 09:16 AM
Im waiting til June, if iphone 5 is delayed then i will jump to a nice android smartphone. Many people forget that cellular market has changed a lot and now competition is harder than before, there are nice alternatives, very nice ones.
Just what do all you whiners NEED in a smartphone that you can't wait for a 3 month "delay" in release of a phone? Cracks me up.
And if any of you actually switch, I'll bet 2 months after the release of the iPhone 5 you'll be so jealous of its superiority over your current smartphone that you'll end up coming back to Apple. Apple knows this, which is why they laugh in your face.
Apple iPhones are everywhere. I think I saw a gal in line at the supermarket on food stamps whip out an iPhone.
And over 95% of iPhone owners are "dumb" users. They don't visit sites like this and if they are on iPhone 3G will probably upgrade to iPhone 4 if that is all that is available in June/July. And they will be happy. They will hear a little about iPhone 5 in Sept. but won't really care. That's the pulse of the American people. Geeks on this forum are in the minority.
Just what do all you whiners NEED in a smartphone that you can't wait for a 3 month "delay" in release of a phone? Cracks me up.
And if any of you actually switch, I'll bet 2 months after the release of the iPhone 5 you'll be so jealous of its superiority over your current smartphone that you'll end up coming back to Apple. Apple knows this, which is why they laugh in your face.
Apple iPhones are everywhere. I think I saw a gal in line at the supermarket on food stamps whip out an iPhone.
And over 95% of iPhone owners are "dumb" users. They don't visit sites like this and if they are on iPhone 3G will probably upgrade to iPhone 4 if that is all that is available in June/July. And they will be happy. They will hear a little about iPhone 5 in Sept. but won't really care. That's the pulse of the American people. Geeks on this forum are in the minority.
H. Flower
Apr 12, 11:45 AM
"grue likes this"
Good call on the "insufficient content" / transition split errors, those drive me right to the edge of madness sometimes.
Another one: TRUTHFUL !*@(#(!@#!@ ERROR MESSAGES!
Another one: Let's say I want to export a marked clip from my timeline and I call it "Hurf", and then go "Oh whoops I meant to mark that out point 8 frames later", I want to replace "Hurf" but I can't because the program is dumb and says the file is in use. So I have to go to the file location and delete the incorrect-made file, or give it a diff name and THEN delete the original.
ahhh.....Bane of my existence. Not an issue with After Effects and its annoying as hell!
Good call on the "insufficient content" / transition split errors, those drive me right to the edge of madness sometimes.
Another one: TRUTHFUL !*@(#(!@#!@ ERROR MESSAGES!
Another one: Let's say I want to export a marked clip from my timeline and I call it "Hurf", and then go "Oh whoops I meant to mark that out point 8 frames later", I want to replace "Hurf" but I can't because the program is dumb and says the file is in use. So I have to go to the file location and delete the incorrect-made file, or give it a diff name and THEN delete the original.
ahhh.....Bane of my existence. Not an issue with After Effects and its annoying as hell!
Silentwave
Jul 14, 05:28 PM
All three chips produce the same performance at the same clockspeed. Cache size may make a difference, but the Conroe models starting at 2.4 GHz all have the large 4 MB cache. So a single 2.66 GHz Woodcrest will be substantially slower than a 2.93 GHz Conroe. Not that it matters; the 2.93 GHz Conroe is extremely overpriced and unlikely to be used in any Macintosh.
While I agree that the 2.93 Conroe is unlikely to make its way into the macs, I don't think the difference will be 'substantial.' The Woodcrest has a faster FSB, and most other variables are equal except clock speed. Based on the benchmarks on the various Conroe versions, I think that the 2.66 Woodcrest will offer performance only very slightly slower than Conroe 2.93.
I personally would expect 2.0GHz Conroe, 2.66 GHz Conroe, 2 x 2 GHz Woodcrest and 2 x 2.66 GHz Woodcrest for a wide range from cheap to maximum performance.
Just a nit, but IIRC isn't the codename for conroe based chips running at 2.4 and below with 2MB L2 caches Allendale? (there is a separate 2.4 with 4mb L2)
I'm still not sure whether Apple will go all woodcrest to get better prices on chips and RAM (FB-DIMM is exclusive to woodcrest in apple's potential lineup)but I would expect either 2x2GHz or 2x2.3GHz as a low end quad, and either a 2x2.66 or 2x3.0 for the high end. Perhaps the 3.0GHz will be a BTO option for the 2x2.66, like the 2.16 was a BTO originally on the 2.0 MBP.
"One more thing, you know we complained about not breaking 3GHz with Power-PC, so for our latest quad, we figured you'd all like to finally do that. So, you can order your top level 2.66 Xeon quad as a build to order with two of the 3.0GHz Xeon chips!"
While I agree that the 2.93 Conroe is unlikely to make its way into the macs, I don't think the difference will be 'substantial.' The Woodcrest has a faster FSB, and most other variables are equal except clock speed. Based on the benchmarks on the various Conroe versions, I think that the 2.66 Woodcrest will offer performance only very slightly slower than Conroe 2.93.
I personally would expect 2.0GHz Conroe, 2.66 GHz Conroe, 2 x 2 GHz Woodcrest and 2 x 2.66 GHz Woodcrest for a wide range from cheap to maximum performance.
Just a nit, but IIRC isn't the codename for conroe based chips running at 2.4 and below with 2MB L2 caches Allendale? (there is a separate 2.4 with 4mb L2)
I'm still not sure whether Apple will go all woodcrest to get better prices on chips and RAM (FB-DIMM is exclusive to woodcrest in apple's potential lineup)but I would expect either 2x2GHz or 2x2.3GHz as a low end quad, and either a 2x2.66 or 2x3.0 for the high end. Perhaps the 3.0GHz will be a BTO option for the 2x2.66, like the 2.16 was a BTO originally on the 2.0 MBP.
"One more thing, you know we complained about not breaking 3GHz with Power-PC, so for our latest quad, we figured you'd all like to finally do that. So, you can order your top level 2.66 Xeon quad as a build to order with two of the 3.0GHz Xeon chips!"
lazyrighteye
Aug 11, 10:50 AM
Using TimeMachine, Steve is going to release it two years ago.
That made my Friday... which may actually be a sad comment on things in my world. :D
That made my Friday... which may actually be a sad comment on things in my world. :D
jrhone
Sep 13, 11:58 AM
Man, I don't know why people keep saying this. On OS X, *all software utilizes the extra cores*. The only way it wouldn't is if you have less than 8 processes running, which I guarantee you that you don't. (System alone requires 20-30 processes to run.)
Granted, 8 cores won't make Mail open up faster, but there are still plenty of ways to use those cores, and that's only going to increase as apps are re-written to be more heavily multi-threaded.
NOT TRUE....The Quad core G5 people are in an uproar because Logic Pro only uses 2 cores on the G5....they updated Logic Pro so it uses 4 cores, but the G5 Quad still only uses 2 cores....there are also photoshop actions that are NOT multi core aware so will only run on one core.....Hopefully 10.5 will make all this irrelevant.
Granted, 8 cores won't make Mail open up faster, but there are still plenty of ways to use those cores, and that's only going to increase as apps are re-written to be more heavily multi-threaded.
NOT TRUE....The Quad core G5 people are in an uproar because Logic Pro only uses 2 cores on the G5....they updated Logic Pro so it uses 4 cores, but the G5 Quad still only uses 2 cores....there are also photoshop actions that are NOT multi core aware so will only run on one core.....Hopefully 10.5 will make all this irrelevant.
Kebabselector
Mar 22, 12:53 PM
Competition is great, but they market the playbook as a Professional Tablet - which is fine, but if it's a Professional tablet why have so many pictures of it running games?
hyperpasta
Aug 5, 04:50 PM
I'd be willing to bet that there will be at least two major surprises on Monday, one to do with some fab capability in Leopard that Apple has succeeded in keeping us in the dark about, and one fab piece of consumer hardware. By the second, I don't mean something we all expect like Mac Pros or Meroms in the MBPs. I mean something radical. Something that will make some real headlines.
They can't do things according to their old schedules now that they are on with Intel. Get used to new patterns. Apple is coming out of the shadows now, with sales and mindshare building at a strong pace. Waiting until January to annouce big new consumer pushes because WWDC is for developers won't do anymore. Welcome to the new Apple.
Think big. It's okay. Apple won't disappoint.
I will remember you said that when the announcements are dissapointing :)
Maybe they will and maybe they won't. But in the mean time, it's best to be conservative and hope we might be surprised.
They can't do things according to their old schedules now that they are on with Intel. Get used to new patterns. Apple is coming out of the shadows now, with sales and mindshare building at a strong pace. Waiting until January to annouce big new consumer pushes because WWDC is for developers won't do anymore. Welcome to the new Apple.
Think big. It's okay. Apple won't disappoint.
I will remember you said that when the announcements are dissapointing :)
Maybe they will and maybe they won't. But in the mean time, it's best to be conservative and hope we might be surprised.
MacAddict1978
Mar 26, 02:41 PM
Ridiculous. Mac OS X and iOS can never merge because their UI paradigms are completely different. Why don't people understand this?
And on what computers would iOS apps be developed on of Apple were to can the Mac? iOS may be much more popular, but the Mac is more popular now than it ever has been and still makes then plenty of money.
You're too lost in a programing manual to see the point people are making. Blending is taking 2 things and mixing them together, or parts of things. Merging would be taking 2 things to make 1 new thing. Don't be so literal.
A more unified experience is definitley in Apple's plans for the future of both OS-es. Not my opinion. They've said so. That does not say, however, having one OS to rule them all. Lion takes a lot of cues from IOS (have you looked at it? Watched the Back To The Mac keynote and listened to Steve Jobs talk about this strategy?) The Mac OS will get more IOS like over time. And that might not be a bad thing. Jobs claims they don't want a touch screen Macintosh, yet they've patented the hell out of them and have bought components and things (obviously they've got something in the labs). When that day does come, and it most likely will be sooner than later... a blending of the two OS-es makes a lot of sense. The way people want to interact with technology is changing. Your operating system has to change too. To something more exciting that what we've had since the 1980's. Apple holds a patent on a sensor that works something like the Kinect does. This is where things are going. In a few years you'll swipe i the air without the need to a track pad. A mix of touch, sight, and gestures and perhaps voice. All this tech is here and has been for awhile. Time for the software to hit puberty, and this is the right track to go.
Personally, I'm bored with IOS and Mac OSX on an aesthetic level. I don't want the ugly IOS folders for my Apps anywhere, but I don't want the same old finder either.
And on what computers would iOS apps be developed on of Apple were to can the Mac? iOS may be much more popular, but the Mac is more popular now than it ever has been and still makes then plenty of money.
You're too lost in a programing manual to see the point people are making. Blending is taking 2 things and mixing them together, or parts of things. Merging would be taking 2 things to make 1 new thing. Don't be so literal.
A more unified experience is definitley in Apple's plans for the future of both OS-es. Not my opinion. They've said so. That does not say, however, having one OS to rule them all. Lion takes a lot of cues from IOS (have you looked at it? Watched the Back To The Mac keynote and listened to Steve Jobs talk about this strategy?) The Mac OS will get more IOS like over time. And that might not be a bad thing. Jobs claims they don't want a touch screen Macintosh, yet they've patented the hell out of them and have bought components and things (obviously they've got something in the labs). When that day does come, and it most likely will be sooner than later... a blending of the two OS-es makes a lot of sense. The way people want to interact with technology is changing. Your operating system has to change too. To something more exciting that what we've had since the 1980's. Apple holds a patent on a sensor that works something like the Kinect does. This is where things are going. In a few years you'll swipe i the air without the need to a track pad. A mix of touch, sight, and gestures and perhaps voice. All this tech is here and has been for awhile. Time for the software to hit puberty, and this is the right track to go.
Personally, I'm bored with IOS and Mac OSX on an aesthetic level. I don't want the ugly IOS folders for my Apps anywhere, but I don't want the same old finder either.
epitaphic
Aug 18, 09:06 PM
Do you think a Conroe iMac will beat a Mac Pro due to lower memory latency alone? Do you have real experience or data regarding how horrendous a problem this is? Extra dual-core processor aside, the Mac Pro has a higher speed FSB, higher memory bus bandwidth, higher RAM capacity, and ability to set up internal RAID amongst other advantages over a Conroe iMac.
Obviously, inherently the iMac design is inferior to the Mac Pro/Powermac. But I think there's a bigger reason why Apple chose to go all quad with the Mac Pro: Apple chose all quad because a duo option would have had the same performance in professional apps (again, excluding handbrake and toast which are the only two examples touted about). A single processor Woodcrest or Conroe option will have the same obtainable CPU power for 90-95% of the professional market for another 6-12 months at the very least.
Here's some data regarding the Mac Pro's FSB:
the Mac Pro (...) actually takes longer to access main memory than the Core Duo processor in the MacBook Pro. This is much worse than it sounds once you take into account the fact that the MacBook Pro features a 667MHz FSB compared to the 1333MHz FSB (per chip) used in the Mac Pro.
What can we take from this? Because of the use of FB-DIMMs, the Mac Pro's effective FSB is that of ~640MHz DDR2 system.
And how does it fare in memory latency?
It's not Apple's fault, but FB-DIMMs absolutely kill memory latency; even running in quad channel mode, the FB-DIMM equipped Mac Pro takes 45% more time to access memory than our DDR2 equipped test bed at the same memory frequency.
As for bandwidth, although the Mac Pro has a load of theoretical bandwidth, the efficiency is an abysmal 20%. In real use a DDR2 system has 72% more usable bandwidth. (source here (http://www.anandtech.com/mac/showdoc.aspx?i=2816&p=11))
I don't know bout you, but if I were a heavy user of memory intensive apps such as Photoshop, I'd be worried. Worried in the sense that a Conroe would be noticeably faster.
Memory issues aside, Woodcrests are faster than Conroes, 2.4% on average (source here (http://www.anandtech.com/showdoc.aspx?i=2795&p=6))
Obviously, inherently the iMac design is inferior to the Mac Pro/Powermac. But I think there's a bigger reason why Apple chose to go all quad with the Mac Pro: Apple chose all quad because a duo option would have had the same performance in professional apps (again, excluding handbrake and toast which are the only two examples touted about). A single processor Woodcrest or Conroe option will have the same obtainable CPU power for 90-95% of the professional market for another 6-12 months at the very least.
Here's some data regarding the Mac Pro's FSB:
the Mac Pro (...) actually takes longer to access main memory than the Core Duo processor in the MacBook Pro. This is much worse than it sounds once you take into account the fact that the MacBook Pro features a 667MHz FSB compared to the 1333MHz FSB (per chip) used in the Mac Pro.
What can we take from this? Because of the use of FB-DIMMs, the Mac Pro's effective FSB is that of ~640MHz DDR2 system.
And how does it fare in memory latency?
It's not Apple's fault, but FB-DIMMs absolutely kill memory latency; even running in quad channel mode, the FB-DIMM equipped Mac Pro takes 45% more time to access memory than our DDR2 equipped test bed at the same memory frequency.
As for bandwidth, although the Mac Pro has a load of theoretical bandwidth, the efficiency is an abysmal 20%. In real use a DDR2 system has 72% more usable bandwidth. (source here (http://www.anandtech.com/mac/showdoc.aspx?i=2816&p=11))
I don't know bout you, but if I were a heavy user of memory intensive apps such as Photoshop, I'd be worried. Worried in the sense that a Conroe would be noticeably faster.
Memory issues aside, Woodcrests are faster than Conroes, 2.4% on average (source here (http://www.anandtech.com/showdoc.aspx?i=2795&p=6))
Sirmausalot
Apr 6, 08:11 AM
"Come to see a surprise sneak peek at something very special - you really do not want to miss this one!"
Does this mean it's not going to ship yet?
Does this mean it's not going to ship yet?
NJRonbo
Jun 14, 11:40 AM
BTW...
Quick question...
How does Radio Shack know what your upgrade
price will be?
I mean, I know already I am not eligible for a
discount and will have to pay $399 or $499.
Does Radio Shack have access to your AT&T
account to determine your upgrade price?
Quick question...
How does Radio Shack know what your upgrade
price will be?
I mean, I know already I am not eligible for a
discount and will have to pay $399 or $499.
Does Radio Shack have access to your AT&T
account to determine your upgrade price?
ergle2
Sep 19, 12:14 PM
so... after reading here for a while i got a question, its kinda stupid, i'm good at that,
first off, i was doubting between the 24" and the macpro so i disided that for my needs i should realy go with a macpro, but know that i'm hearing things about this 8 core macpro, i'm realy doubting about ordering my quad macpro this month,
has anybody got an idea of how long it would be before apple launches " a macpro octo " :confused:
thx for your time :)
It's Apple. No-one has any idea when they'll do anything. :)
It could be as soon as January, could be a lot later -- but I seriously doubt it'd be at the same price as a quad is now. I'd figure on a fairly major premium. It wouldn't surprise me if the OEM price of processors was in the $1200-1500 range alone (current 3.0GHz 5160's are around $900) for a lower clock-speed version.
Which is fastest will very much depend upon how well your specific applications scale -- fewer, faster cores can often bear more slower cores, and scaling isn't linear -- traditional thought on SMP was that the first extra core you add adds 80-90% to the speed (for fully-threaded apps, obv.), the second adds about 60-70%, the third about 40%, and so-on... diminishing returns. This will be more so because each chip has a finite amount of bandwidth that is shared between all the cores -- more cores = more contention for the available bandwidth.
Of course, the Mac Pro CPUs are socketed, so you can always go Octo at a later date if you so choose...
first off, i was doubting between the 24" and the macpro so i disided that for my needs i should realy go with a macpro, but know that i'm hearing things about this 8 core macpro, i'm realy doubting about ordering my quad macpro this month,
has anybody got an idea of how long it would be before apple launches " a macpro octo " :confused:
thx for your time :)
It's Apple. No-one has any idea when they'll do anything. :)
It could be as soon as January, could be a lot later -- but I seriously doubt it'd be at the same price as a quad is now. I'd figure on a fairly major premium. It wouldn't surprise me if the OEM price of processors was in the $1200-1500 range alone (current 3.0GHz 5160's are around $900) for a lower clock-speed version.
Which is fastest will very much depend upon how well your specific applications scale -- fewer, faster cores can often bear more slower cores, and scaling isn't linear -- traditional thought on SMP was that the first extra core you add adds 80-90% to the speed (for fully-threaded apps, obv.), the second adds about 60-70%, the third about 40%, and so-on... diminishing returns. This will be more so because each chip has a finite amount of bandwidth that is shared between all the cores -- more cores = more contention for the available bandwidth.
Of course, the Mac Pro CPUs are socketed, so you can always go Octo at a later date if you so choose...
portishead
Apr 12, 12:20 AM
- native video support (years behind in this)
I use ProRes for almost everything, so this doesn't bother me.
- viewing upsized or downsized video without degradation
Not applicable to any workflow I've used.
- proper render management
What do you mean?
- removal of "insufficient content" and "cannot split a transition" errors
Never had problems with this.
The major thing, though, is they HAVE to start utilizing multiple cores. It's not and as video gets larger, rendering gets more taxing.
I agree with this 100%, but it doesn't mean FCP doesn't work. Obviously people have different needs with different workflows, so what I need/want is going to be different from what you need/want, and someone else etc.
I use ProRes for almost everything, so this doesn't bother me.
- viewing upsized or downsized video without degradation
Not applicable to any workflow I've used.
- proper render management
What do you mean?
- removal of "insufficient content" and "cannot split a transition" errors
Never had problems with this.
The major thing, though, is they HAVE to start utilizing multiple cores. It's not and as video gets larger, rendering gets more taxing.
I agree with this 100%, but it doesn't mean FCP doesn't work. Obviously people have different needs with different workflows, so what I need/want is going to be different from what you need/want, and someone else etc.
Super Dave
Aug 8, 12:50 AM
Also a very good point, so I need a bigger main HD for my MacBookPro (the new Seagate 160GB becomes interesting) for Time Machine, but i still need to back the hole thing up to an external HD in case of a HD crash (I had 2 in the last 8 months!). So Tine Machine doesn't make Backups obsolete, I didn't even think of that up to now. Hmmm..
Time Machine is backup, it's not for on the same drive (or nothing implied it was).
David :cool:
Time Machine is backup, it's not for on the same drive (or nothing implied it was).
David :cool:
lyzardking
Apr 7, 04:13 PM
I run Handbrake and Photoshop among other things when I need to (in a pinch (and zoom)).
Not on an iPad... (which was my point)
:)
Not on an iPad... (which was my point)
:)
dscuber9000
Mar 19, 09:31 PM
Military operations in Iraq have ended, and Obama campaigned on agreeing the Afghanistan War... so I don't know what you're talking about, honestly.
And I think it is pretty rich for a conservative to bring up his failing to close Guantanamo Bay when it is the conservatives who are trying so hard to keep it open. :rolleyes:
And yes, I completely disagree with what we're doing in Libya. But I don't think putting someone in office who would cut pretty much everything the government does is the right answer. :rolleyes:
And I think it is pretty rich for a conservative to bring up his failing to close Guantanamo Bay when it is the conservatives who are trying so hard to keep it open. :rolleyes:
And yes, I completely disagree with what we're doing in Libya. But I don't think putting someone in office who would cut pretty much everything the government does is the right answer. :rolleyes:
doctor-don
Apr 27, 10:45 AM
I thought looking at my location histories was interesting. I, too, have no delusions that I cannot be tracked (cell phone, credit card purchases, etc.) I wonder if all the paranoids realize that any GPS camera encodes that information in the image. Share that photo online and anyone can get the metadata with location of photograph.
You wanna be connected, you can't be truly anonymous.
You wanna be anonymous, sell you computer, smart phone, cut up credit cards, and move to an undocumented shack in the middle of nowhere with no utilities.
Images taken with my camera do not contain GPS data if I have turned off that feature.
You wanna be connected, you can't be truly anonymous.
You wanna be anonymous, sell you computer, smart phone, cut up credit cards, and move to an undocumented shack in the middle of nowhere with no utilities.
Images taken with my camera do not contain GPS data if I have turned off that feature.
No comments:
Post a Comment