jessica.
Apr 15, 09:56 AM
With that said, however, I'm not super excited by these campaigns that seem to be sprouting, left and right, that, more or less, encourage people to be gay/lesbian/whatever. At the end of the day that's basically the underlying message in all these videos: "Go ahead, by gay. It's perfectly fine."
I don't see how these videos "encourage" anyone to be gay. Do you really believe that 100 of these videos could possibly "encourage" anyone to just suddenly be gay?
Oh Apple has gay employees, they made a great video ... they sent a great message, I'm now going to be gay!
Sorry, I just don't see it. I think messages like this should be heard. Like it or leave it, gay people exist and they look like you and me.
I don't see how these videos "encourage" anyone to be gay. Do you really believe that 100 of these videos could possibly "encourage" anyone to just suddenly be gay?
Oh Apple has gay employees, they made a great video ... they sent a great message, I'm now going to be gay!
Sorry, I just don't see it. I think messages like this should be heard. Like it or leave it, gay people exist and they look like you and me.
Mord
Mar 13, 02:55 PM
Traditional light water fission? No, I'm generally against it.
Modern reactors that process spent fuel and thorium cycle reactors? Hell yes.
Writing off nuclear in all it's forms is like writing off the future of the human race, we just need to go for sensible safe reactor designs and hopefully develop fusion to the point of being a practical solution.
The vast majority of nuclear power plants are designed to produce weapons grade plutonium and uranium, these designs are neither particularly safe or efficient and there are far far better options.
Modern reactors that process spent fuel and thorium cycle reactors? Hell yes.
Writing off nuclear in all it's forms is like writing off the future of the human race, we just need to go for sensible safe reactor designs and hopefully develop fusion to the point of being a practical solution.
The vast majority of nuclear power plants are designed to produce weapons grade plutonium and uranium, these designs are neither particularly safe or efficient and there are far far better options.
Xibalba
Oct 8, 07:11 AM
The Snapdragon processor is an ARM design similar to the Cortex A9 (two-issue out-of-order) and starts at 1GHz, but uses less power as it includes the baseband processor. There are already handsets shipping using it, not Android ones yet.
With three Android handset makers in stores now (Samsung, HTC, Huawei) and three more in stores before Christmas (LG, Acer and Motorola), Android is moving fast.
this will be interesting to see but it still will be quite some time before we see some quality hardware devices for Android. time will tell.
With three Android handset makers in stores now (Samsung, HTC, Huawei) and three more in stores before Christmas (LG, Acer and Motorola), Android is moving fast.
this will be interesting to see but it still will be quite some time before we see some quality hardware devices for Android. time will tell.
PghLondon
Apr 28, 11:21 AM
Does this rule apply to non Apple computers and tablets?
I recall only a short time ago when non Apple companies where posting numbers, people on these forums were ripping the figures to shreds as they said they were not sold items but only shipped items.
Do we all agree the same rules for everyone :)
How are those tablets working out for those companies? I'd say it's pretty much adhering to the "rules" as set out above. If all of their products sold as "well" as their tablets did, those companies would be purged. Not a double standard.
I recall only a short time ago when non Apple companies where posting numbers, people on these forums were ripping the figures to shreds as they said they were not sold items but only shipped items.
Do we all agree the same rules for everyone :)
How are those tablets working out for those companies? I'd say it's pretty much adhering to the "rules" as set out above. If all of their products sold as "well" as their tablets did, those companies would be purged. Not a double standard.
neilp4453
Feb 21, 03:16 PM
It's a bit rich calling people delusional and then coming out with with wish list statements as if they're bound in volumes of 'The Future History of Smartphones vol ll'
The Android market has potential, but only for as long as lazy phone manufacturers, who have never learned how to do operating systems and software, are happy to grab a freebie. This situation is the same as you or me going to a fair and picking up a free dev copy of some new software... and then running a business off its capabilities. No license fee! That's the attraction.
The saved costs derived from having much lower in-house dev costs and shorter route to market make Android a gift. But not without major issues. CylonGlitch [above] makes this very valid point:
"... as many as 40 models of Android devices will ship, . . . "
"How the heck is a developer supposed to support that many different devices? Even if there were 5 different screen resolutions, it would be hard to optimize your app for each. Now different RAM configurations, different CPU's, different everything, OUCH."
It's a ludicrous state of affairs. A wet dream for the armchair geek maybe, but for the non geek buyer, the proposition is entirely different. It already gives me a headache just thinking about it.
With the iPhone, Apple have demonstrated one of the oldest marketing principles still holds true in the 21st Century. If you give people three models to choose from with two colour options, you make the proposition simpler.
But all other manufacturers are still depending on the old marketing model of offering a bewildering array of models to try and catch the entire market. Now, that model has failed already - because it doesn't work. The market is automatically diluted. So why are they still using it?
speedriff [also above] has decided Steve Jobs is a "douche" because he's being "hardheaded" over Flash, while "Other manufacturers are giving AMOLED screens and are getting better and better."
Apple make more profit from all their products than anyone else. One way they do this is by waiting until they can demand a very high proportion of a large enough production of a component [NAND flash memory, screens etc] at the most competitive price, or can manufacture in-house [CPUs]. That's not just good business, it's vital for long term survival.
Wait until June this year and we'll see the new iPhone with a longer [HD aspect ratio] OLED screen. And HTML5 is the future. in reality, Adobe are better candidates for the 'douche' epithet here. If Flash had fewer issues, maybe Apple would add it.
What you need to understand is that Apple is better at seeing, predicting and exploiting the WHOLE picture, than any other company in this game. And anyone who seriously thinks a disparate group of not for profit developers and a market full of lazy manufacturers with a 19th Century sales mentality are going to win this one, is simply not even looking at it properly.
You really think so? I don't think Apple has done anything exceptional. They built off of their popular iPod brand. Any company could do the same..unfortunately not every company has something as popular as iPod. Apple's entre into the smartphone market was guaranteed from the start.
In your post, all I see is you ranting about the superiority of Apple while downplaying potential competition by just overlooking what they have done thus far. In our case, competition is healthy because if it were up to people like you, we would have to accept an iPhone 4g with the same specs as an iPhone 3GS. Yes, I am greatly overexaggerating but I hope you see my point.
Apple will do very little unless they are pressured to do a lot. I guess you missed my point where I said Apple does this on a regular basis with all of their items. The last to implement anything new is not something they do because they are an epithet of marketing. They do it because they can.
The Android market has potential, but only for as long as lazy phone manufacturers, who have never learned how to do operating systems and software, are happy to grab a freebie. This situation is the same as you or me going to a fair and picking up a free dev copy of some new software... and then running a business off its capabilities. No license fee! That's the attraction.
The saved costs derived from having much lower in-house dev costs and shorter route to market make Android a gift. But not without major issues. CylonGlitch [above] makes this very valid point:
"... as many as 40 models of Android devices will ship, . . . "
"How the heck is a developer supposed to support that many different devices? Even if there were 5 different screen resolutions, it would be hard to optimize your app for each. Now different RAM configurations, different CPU's, different everything, OUCH."
It's a ludicrous state of affairs. A wet dream for the armchair geek maybe, but for the non geek buyer, the proposition is entirely different. It already gives me a headache just thinking about it.
With the iPhone, Apple have demonstrated one of the oldest marketing principles still holds true in the 21st Century. If you give people three models to choose from with two colour options, you make the proposition simpler.
But all other manufacturers are still depending on the old marketing model of offering a bewildering array of models to try and catch the entire market. Now, that model has failed already - because it doesn't work. The market is automatically diluted. So why are they still using it?
speedriff [also above] has decided Steve Jobs is a "douche" because he's being "hardheaded" over Flash, while "Other manufacturers are giving AMOLED screens and are getting better and better."
Apple make more profit from all their products than anyone else. One way they do this is by waiting until they can demand a very high proportion of a large enough production of a component [NAND flash memory, screens etc] at the most competitive price, or can manufacture in-house [CPUs]. That's not just good business, it's vital for long term survival.
Wait until June this year and we'll see the new iPhone with a longer [HD aspect ratio] OLED screen. And HTML5 is the future. in reality, Adobe are better candidates for the 'douche' epithet here. If Flash had fewer issues, maybe Apple would add it.
What you need to understand is that Apple is better at seeing, predicting and exploiting the WHOLE picture, than any other company in this game. And anyone who seriously thinks a disparate group of not for profit developers and a market full of lazy manufacturers with a 19th Century sales mentality are going to win this one, is simply not even looking at it properly.
You really think so? I don't think Apple has done anything exceptional. They built off of their popular iPod brand. Any company could do the same..unfortunately not every company has something as popular as iPod. Apple's entre into the smartphone market was guaranteed from the start.
In your post, all I see is you ranting about the superiority of Apple while downplaying potential competition by just overlooking what they have done thus far. In our case, competition is healthy because if it were up to people like you, we would have to accept an iPhone 4g with the same specs as an iPhone 3GS. Yes, I am greatly overexaggerating but I hope you see my point.
Apple will do very little unless they are pressured to do a lot. I guess you missed my point where I said Apple does this on a regular basis with all of their items. The last to implement anything new is not something they do because they are an epithet of marketing. They do it because they can.
Moyank24
Mar 25, 11:07 AM
As marriage is licensed by the state, it is in fact a privilege. The fact that it is near-universally granted doesn't make it any more a right.
I agree with you here. And that is the problem. It shouldn't be a privilege. Every consenting adult that wants to get married should be allowed to.
I agree with you here. And that is the problem. It shouldn't be a privilege. Every consenting adult that wants to get married should be allowed to.
nixd2001
Oct 12, 06:14 AM
Originally posted by javajedi
I gave you what you asked for, a fair and balanced benchmark, one even created by a Mac user. You guys have seen the code to the simple floating point and integer benchmarks
It would be interesting to see the code generated for the loops - it won't change the answers but it might give some of us a bit more understanding on the perfomance differences.
I gave you what you asked for, a fair and balanced benchmark, one even created by a Mac user. You guys have seen the code to the simple floating point and integer benchmarks
It would be interesting to see the code generated for the loops - it won't change the answers but it might give some of us a bit more understanding on the perfomance differences.
Abulia
Sep 26, 06:41 PM
I think beyond a certain level all these Cores are only going to be good for building up your ePeen, speaking of which where can I get one? :D
Nevermind they are only 1.66Ghz each, there are 8 of them!
It's not the speed of your cores that makes you a man, it's how many you have! :D
Nevermind they are only 1.66Ghz each, there are 8 of them!
It's not the speed of your cores that makes you a man, it's how many you have! :D
TimUSCA
Apr 28, 07:51 AM
The iPad is a companion device and not a true PC. I know people here will disagree with me since the numbers help Apple so much, but they just shouldn't be included with these numbers.
javajedi
Oct 8, 04:39 PM
I completely agree. As a software guy myself (maybe I'm a bit biased :)) I think the real magic is software. I think most would agree with me that Apple has a rather "unique" approach to software engineering, that sets it apart from the rest of the pack. Afterall, this is the biggest reason we use Macintosh. In my opinion, this is much more important than speed.
sjo
Aug 29, 12:48 PM
As a Norwegian I can say that Apple has way more credibility than Greenpeace over here. We have seen what they are all about. Greenpeace is a bunch of spoiled city kids that has no idea what nature is.
Yeah, cause you just HAVE to hunt whales and eat whalemeat in Norway in order to survive, such a poor country with poor people. How dare Greenpeace oppose your ancient way of life?
Yeah, cause you just HAVE to hunt whales and eat whalemeat in Norway in order to survive, such a poor country with poor people. How dare Greenpeace oppose your ancient way of life?
HiRez
Sep 26, 03:17 PM
Man are you out of touch with reality. I have a a 2GHz DC G5 PM and a 2.5GHz Quad PM and the DC PM is a DOG for even the simplest type of stuff. You obviously have ZERO experience with a Quad Mac or you would never have written such an absurd post.No kidding. Once you've gone Quad you will NEVER want to go back to less than 4 on the floor. :DYou're wrong: I use a quad at work every day, and I have a dual (G5) at home. Unless I'm actually rendering something, I cannot detect the difference in speed. I use Illustrator, Photoshop, InDesign, After Effects, Final Cut Pro, and Cinema4D extensively. You people who think that a quad is helping you fly through Illustrator are full of crap, sorry. Nice delusion to have, but it's all in your head.
EDIT: I should note that if you're doing heavy multitasking (like renders in the background), then yes, it could help. I've also played WoW while doing 3D renders in the background, and the quad is pretty nice for that (although the dual does a surprisingly good job with that situation as well -- WoW is still very playable).
EDIT: I should note that if you're doing heavy multitasking (like renders in the background), then yes, it could help. I've also played WoW while doing 3D renders in the background, and the quad is pretty nice for that (although the dual does a surprisingly good job with that situation as well -- WoW is still very playable).
stompy
Apr 14, 12:53 PM
As someone that has used Windows since before Windows (DOS) and has never used a Mac, what might I NOT like about it?
.
.
I'm sure you get what I'm asking here ;) so please share whatever info you can.
I've read almost the entire thread, and had a couple thoughts. Not sure the OP is still here, especially having read his reactions, but just in case.
Based on what I know about the OP (i.e. always used windows, just curious about Macs), I'm not really sure he could have come to a different conclusion based on this thread.
(side note: Now, don't everyone freak out, but here comes an analogy. I'm going to compare a non-computer object to Windows/Mac. I know there will be differences, you know there will be differences. Forget them.)
I start a thread on restaurantrumors.com
"I enjoy Restaurant Win, but sometimes, I see an ad for Restaurant Mac and several friends tell me how much they love Restaurant Mac. I'm starting to wonder if Restaurant Mac should be my new favorite. I've passed by and looked in the window, I've checked out the menu by the front door. It seems nice, there's usually a good crowd. I really don't have specific reason to change, but it could be better than Restaurant Win. Please tell me all the negatives about switching.
Later on in the thread, I comment: "Gee, you don't like the filet mignon at at Restaurant Mac? That stinks, I order that a lot at Restaurant Win; and no shrimp scampi on the menu? Lots of other comments that make this look like a bad change. Well, I was mostly curious, I'm good with Restaurant Win."
I honestly have no interest in convincing you to switch, you may be better off with windows, but the fact is, I set myself up for this outcome. Why?
I LOVE YOU AND MISS YOU
The charming poem on this
i love you mom poems.
love you mom poems. love you
funny mom poems
ecard i love you
Reacent Post
.
.
I'm sure you get what I'm asking here ;) so please share whatever info you can.
I've read almost the entire thread, and had a couple thoughts. Not sure the OP is still here, especially having read his reactions, but just in case.
Based on what I know about the OP (i.e. always used windows, just curious about Macs), I'm not really sure he could have come to a different conclusion based on this thread.
(side note: Now, don't everyone freak out, but here comes an analogy. I'm going to compare a non-computer object to Windows/Mac. I know there will be differences, you know there will be differences. Forget them.)
I start a thread on restaurantrumors.com
"I enjoy Restaurant Win, but sometimes, I see an ad for Restaurant Mac and several friends tell me how much they love Restaurant Mac. I'm starting to wonder if Restaurant Mac should be my new favorite. I've passed by and looked in the window, I've checked out the menu by the front door. It seems nice, there's usually a good crowd. I really don't have specific reason to change, but it could be better than Restaurant Win. Please tell me all the negatives about switching.
Later on in the thread, I comment: "Gee, you don't like the filet mignon at at Restaurant Mac? That stinks, I order that a lot at Restaurant Win; and no shrimp scampi on the menu? Lots of other comments that make this look like a bad change. Well, I was mostly curious, I'm good with Restaurant Win."
I honestly have no interest in convincing you to switch, you may be better off with windows, but the fact is, I set myself up for this outcome. Why?
hcho3
Nov 12, 12:35 AM
Jesus christ...
I cannot wait for iphone to go to verizon, so you all whiners can get off the AT&T network. My signal with AT&T is not perfect, but it is good enough to meet my standards. I get 2-3 drop calls out of 50 calls I make. So, it it not OMFG.
Verizon service is better in my area, but it is not that much better. Verizon pissed me off enough with their poor customer service in the past. It will take me more than good signals to go back to VZ.
People seem to think like Verizon will save all of us from AT&T signal issues. Yea... sure....
We will see. We will see.
I cannot wait for iphone to go to verizon, so you all whiners can get off the AT&T network. My signal with AT&T is not perfect, but it is good enough to meet my standards. I get 2-3 drop calls out of 50 calls I make. So, it it not OMFG.
Verizon service is better in my area, but it is not that much better. Verizon pissed me off enough with their poor customer service in the past. It will take me more than good signals to go back to VZ.
People seem to think like Verizon will save all of us from AT&T signal issues. Yea... sure....
We will see. We will see.
KnightWRX
May 2, 03:24 PM
It decompressed the zip file and executes code to launch an installer. This is considered a safe action because the user still has to continue to run the installer.
Installation of MacDefender via the installer requires password authentication by the user.
So Safari auto-downloads, unarchives and auto-executes something, but you think it is safe because it's an installer ? :confused:
I'm sorry, but I'm still curious about the "auto-execute" part. Why would it run the installer automatically after decompressing it. That sounds quite "unsafe" to me. Even without administrator privilege, that means code can still run that can affect the current user's account.
like there's no such thing as a virus for Mac...
Link to Mac OS X virus please. Anything, a name, a description of what it does, something.
Viruses and malware are not the same thing.
I'll just leave this right here...http://www.clamxav.com/
What's your point with ClamAV ? It's the defacto Unix anti-virus scanner that's used to scan for Windows viruses in e-mail servers usually.
Installation of MacDefender via the installer requires password authentication by the user.
So Safari auto-downloads, unarchives and auto-executes something, but you think it is safe because it's an installer ? :confused:
I'm sorry, but I'm still curious about the "auto-execute" part. Why would it run the installer automatically after decompressing it. That sounds quite "unsafe" to me. Even without administrator privilege, that means code can still run that can affect the current user's account.
like there's no such thing as a virus for Mac...
Link to Mac OS X virus please. Anything, a name, a description of what it does, something.
Viruses and malware are not the same thing.
I'll just leave this right here...http://www.clamxav.com/
What's your point with ClamAV ? It's the defacto Unix anti-virus scanner that's used to scan for Windows viruses in e-mail servers usually.
SandynJosh
Apr 9, 04:19 AM
Gaming on idevices is for nubes. Live on PS3, Xbox and the future NGP.
Let me watch you play those on the subway. This is all about portable gaming.
Let me watch you play those on the subway. This is all about portable gaming.
AJ Muni
Jul 11, 10:00 PM
WOW if this is indeed true...and appleinsider has been pretty reliable lately..
jettredmont
May 3, 03:44 PM
Of course, I don't know of any Linux distribution that doesn't require root to install system wide software either. Kind of negates your point there...
I wasn't specific enough there. I was talking about how "Unix security" has been applied to the overall OS X permissions system, not just "Unix security" in the abstract. I'll cede the point that this does mean that "Unix security" in the abstract is no better than NT security, as I can not refute the claim that Linux distributions share the same problem (the need to run as "root" to do day-to-day computer administration). I would point out, though, that unless things have changed significantly, most window managers for Linux et al refuse to run as root, so you can't end up with a full-fledged graphical environment running as root.
You could do the same as far back as Windows NT 3.1 in 1993. The fact that most software vendors wrote their applications for the non-secure DOS based versions of Windows is moot, that is not a problem of the OS's security model, it is a problem of the Application. This is not "Unix security" being better, it's "Software vendors for Windows" being dumber.
Yes and no. You are looking at "Unix security" as a set of controls. I'm looking at it as a pragmatic system. As a system, Apple's OS X model allowed users to run as standard users and non-root Administrators while XP's model made non-Administrator access incredibly cumbersome.
You can blame that on Windows developers just being dumber, or you can blame it on Microsoft not sufficiently cracking the whip, or you can blame it on Microsoft not making the "right way" easy enough. Wherever the blame goes, the practical effect is that Windows users tended to run as Administrator and locking them down to Standard user accounts was a slap in the face and serious drain on productivity.
Actually, the Administrator account (much less a standard user in the Administrators group) is not a root level account at all.
Notice how a root account on Unix can do everything, just by virtue of its 0 uid. It can write/delete/read files from filesystems it does not even have permissions on. It can kill any system process, no matter the owner.
Administrator on Windows NT is far more limited. Don't ever break your ACLs or don't try to kill processes owned by "System". SysInternals provided tools that let you do it, but Microsoft did not.
Interesting. I do remember being able to do some pretty damaging things with Administrator access in Windows XP such as replacing shared DLLs, formatting the hard drive, replacing any executable in c:\windows, etc, which OS X would not let me do without typing in a password (GUI) or sudo'ing to root (command line).
But, I stand corrected. NT "Administrator" is not equivalent to "root" on Unix. But it's a whole lot more "trusted" (and hence all apps it runs are a lot more trusted) than the equivalent OS X "Administrator" account.
UAC is simply a gui front-end to the runas command. Heck, shift-right-click already had the "Run As" option. It's a glorified sudo. It uses RDP (since Vista, user sessions are really local RDP sessions) to prevent being able to "fake it", by showing up on the "console" session while the user's display resides on a RDP session.
Again, the components are all there, but while the pragmatic effect was that a user needed to right-click, select "Run as Administrator", then type in their password to run something ... well, that wasn't going to happen. Hence, users tended to have Administrator access accounts.
There, you did it, you made me go on a defensive rant for Microsoft. I hate you now.
Sorry! I know; it burns!
...
Why bother, you're not "getting it". The only reason the user is aware of MACDefender is because it runs a GUI based installer. If the executable had had 0 GUI code and just run stuff in the background, you would have never known until you couldn't find your files or some chinese guy was buying goods with your CC info, fished right out of your "Bank stuff.xls" file.
Well, unless you have more information on this than I do, I'm assuming that the .zip file was unarchived (into a sub-folder of ~/Downloads), a .dmg file with an "Internet Enabled" flag was found inside, then the user was prompted by the OS if they wanted to run this installer they downloaded, then the installer came up (keeping in mind that "installer" is a package structure potentially with some scripts, not a free-form executable, and that the only reason it came up was that the 'installer' app the OS has opened it up and recognized it). I believe the Installer also asks the user permission before running any of the preflight scripts.
Unless there is a bug here exposing a security hole, this could not be done without multiple user interactions. The "installer" only ran because it was a set of instructions for the built-in installer. The disk image was only opened because it was in the form Safari recognizes as an auto-open disk image. The first time "arbitrary code" could be run would be in the preflight script of the installer.
I wasn't specific enough there. I was talking about how "Unix security" has been applied to the overall OS X permissions system, not just "Unix security" in the abstract. I'll cede the point that this does mean that "Unix security" in the abstract is no better than NT security, as I can not refute the claim that Linux distributions share the same problem (the need to run as "root" to do day-to-day computer administration). I would point out, though, that unless things have changed significantly, most window managers for Linux et al refuse to run as root, so you can't end up with a full-fledged graphical environment running as root.
You could do the same as far back as Windows NT 3.1 in 1993. The fact that most software vendors wrote their applications for the non-secure DOS based versions of Windows is moot, that is not a problem of the OS's security model, it is a problem of the Application. This is not "Unix security" being better, it's "Software vendors for Windows" being dumber.
Yes and no. You are looking at "Unix security" as a set of controls. I'm looking at it as a pragmatic system. As a system, Apple's OS X model allowed users to run as standard users and non-root Administrators while XP's model made non-Administrator access incredibly cumbersome.
You can blame that on Windows developers just being dumber, or you can blame it on Microsoft not sufficiently cracking the whip, or you can blame it on Microsoft not making the "right way" easy enough. Wherever the blame goes, the practical effect is that Windows users tended to run as Administrator and locking them down to Standard user accounts was a slap in the face and serious drain on productivity.
Actually, the Administrator account (much less a standard user in the Administrators group) is not a root level account at all.
Notice how a root account on Unix can do everything, just by virtue of its 0 uid. It can write/delete/read files from filesystems it does not even have permissions on. It can kill any system process, no matter the owner.
Administrator on Windows NT is far more limited. Don't ever break your ACLs or don't try to kill processes owned by "System". SysInternals provided tools that let you do it, but Microsoft did not.
Interesting. I do remember being able to do some pretty damaging things with Administrator access in Windows XP such as replacing shared DLLs, formatting the hard drive, replacing any executable in c:\windows, etc, which OS X would not let me do without typing in a password (GUI) or sudo'ing to root (command line).
But, I stand corrected. NT "Administrator" is not equivalent to "root" on Unix. But it's a whole lot more "trusted" (and hence all apps it runs are a lot more trusted) than the equivalent OS X "Administrator" account.
UAC is simply a gui front-end to the runas command. Heck, shift-right-click already had the "Run As" option. It's a glorified sudo. It uses RDP (since Vista, user sessions are really local RDP sessions) to prevent being able to "fake it", by showing up on the "console" session while the user's display resides on a RDP session.
Again, the components are all there, but while the pragmatic effect was that a user needed to right-click, select "Run as Administrator", then type in their password to run something ... well, that wasn't going to happen. Hence, users tended to have Administrator access accounts.
There, you did it, you made me go on a defensive rant for Microsoft. I hate you now.
Sorry! I know; it burns!
...
Why bother, you're not "getting it". The only reason the user is aware of MACDefender is because it runs a GUI based installer. If the executable had had 0 GUI code and just run stuff in the background, you would have never known until you couldn't find your files or some chinese guy was buying goods with your CC info, fished right out of your "Bank stuff.xls" file.
Well, unless you have more information on this than I do, I'm assuming that the .zip file was unarchived (into a sub-folder of ~/Downloads), a .dmg file with an "Internet Enabled" flag was found inside, then the user was prompted by the OS if they wanted to run this installer they downloaded, then the installer came up (keeping in mind that "installer" is a package structure potentially with some scripts, not a free-form executable, and that the only reason it came up was that the 'installer' app the OS has opened it up and recognized it). I believe the Installer also asks the user permission before running any of the preflight scripts.
Unless there is a bug here exposing a security hole, this could not be done without multiple user interactions. The "installer" only ran because it was a set of instructions for the built-in installer. The disk image was only opened because it was in the form Safari recognizes as an auto-open disk image. The first time "arbitrary code" could be run would be in the preflight script of the installer.
JustAGuy
Oct 12, 05:05 PM
Hi all, just thought that I'd compile and run the tests on my G4/450 and PIII/733 for comparison. VERY interesting results. I had to change the i value from 20,000 down to 5,000 to save time...
In any event, the results are 15s for the G4/450 and, get this, 55s for the PIII/733.
Further compounding these results was the fact that the G4 was running setiathome with OSX's lousy priority scheduling (nice 20 usually takes up no less than 15% CPU) and the PIII was devoting 100% of it's processor resources to the task.
The best part about one-off, anecdotal evidense is that it is just that ;)
(gcc 2.95 - cygwin - on the PC, gcc 3.1 on OSX) I'll get the java version and give it a whirl...
In any event, the results are 15s for the G4/450 and, get this, 55s for the PIII/733.
Further compounding these results was the fact that the G4 was running setiathome with OSX's lousy priority scheduling (nice 20 usually takes up no less than 15% CPU) and the PIII was devoting 100% of it's processor resources to the task.
The best part about one-off, anecdotal evidense is that it is just that ;)
(gcc 2.95 - cygwin - on the PC, gcc 3.1 on OSX) I'll get the java version and give it a whirl...
twochoicestom
Apr 13, 09:14 AM
aside from all of this..
HELVETICA is blatently coming to Lion. Looking good in FCP!
HELVETICA is blatently coming to Lion. Looking good in FCP!
ct2k7
Apr 24, 05:39 PM
I think it's a bit late to worry about that :D
haha. One thing we agree on :):apple:
haha. One thing we agree on :):apple:
Bill McEnaney
Mar 27, 07:20 PM
Homosexuals have a right to live the same lifestyle as anybody else, under the Constitution and under the UN Declaration.
Maybe with better furnishings, though...
So skunk is talking about legal rights.
Maybe with better furnishings, though...
So skunk is talking about legal rights.
Chupa Chupa
Apr 13, 05:53 AM
Unfortunately, its already the case. When the DTP kicked in Apple was all pro and nothing else. Apple was for media creators and scientists. Now its the opposite.
That is a bit of a retelling of history.
When DTP kicked in in the late 80s, early 90s's, Jobs was already out of Apple and Apple started it's slow, painful downslide. The publishing and scientific markets were the only ones Apple had, not because that was Apple's stated mission, but because it was its lifeline, and mostly because Pagemaker, then Photoshop & Quark, on the Mac was superior to the Windows version. (Quark was Mac only for a couple years)
Apple badly botched the consumer market in the '90s by making 1001 Performa desktops confusing just about everyone, plus Macs were 2x more expensive than PCs with 1/2 of the popular s/w titles. Apple wanted this market, it just didn't know how to capture it and make a profit.
Every long time Apple follower knows that Jobs original mission for Apple, and especially the Mac, was to produce a computer for "the rest of us." Jobs has always been about making computing simpler and more refined. He did not set out to serve the pro community.
Lets dismiss these myths, and brush off the snobbery, contending that Apple was originally built to cater to the pro community and it sold out. That has never been its mission. It makes products that pros like, but it is a consumer electronics company, just like Sony or Panasonic, or Canon or Nikon, etc., etc.
That is a bit of a retelling of history.
When DTP kicked in in the late 80s, early 90s's, Jobs was already out of Apple and Apple started it's slow, painful downslide. The publishing and scientific markets were the only ones Apple had, not because that was Apple's stated mission, but because it was its lifeline, and mostly because Pagemaker, then Photoshop & Quark, on the Mac was superior to the Windows version. (Quark was Mac only for a couple years)
Apple badly botched the consumer market in the '90s by making 1001 Performa desktops confusing just about everyone, plus Macs were 2x more expensive than PCs with 1/2 of the popular s/w titles. Apple wanted this market, it just didn't know how to capture it and make a profit.
Every long time Apple follower knows that Jobs original mission for Apple, and especially the Mac, was to produce a computer for "the rest of us." Jobs has always been about making computing simpler and more refined. He did not set out to serve the pro community.
Lets dismiss these myths, and brush off the snobbery, contending that Apple was originally built to cater to the pro community and it sold out. That has never been its mission. It makes products that pros like, but it is a consumer electronics company, just like Sony or Panasonic, or Canon or Nikon, etc., etc.
beatle888
Mar 20, 08:24 PM
I think it's a great convenience. I'm just saying that the inevitable wrath-of-God response from Apple is somewhat unwarranted.
somewhat unwarranted? so apple should be passive, lay like a female dog and just take it in submissive glory? i think steves more of a man.
somewhat unwarranted? so apple should be passive, lay like a female dog and just take it in submissive glory? i think steves more of a man.
0 comments:
Post a Comment