combatcolin
Oct 28, 10:57 AM
Bugger only 8 Cores.
Not swiping my Visa card till they get to 1024 Cores....
Not swiping my Visa card till they get to 1024 Cores....
Multimedia
Oct 26, 03:39 PM
You won't see a Clovertown Mac Pro until after Adobe announces the ship date for CS3. The reasons are simple -- a) most would-be Mac Pro purchasers are holding off until the native version of Creative Suite; I know you may find this hard to believe, but the entire multimedia industry does not revolve around the Adobe Suite of graphics applications. Plus the industry is already rolling with G5 Quads for that work. There are plenty of other products that are way UB multi-core ready and/or would like to be run simultaneously in a fully blown multi-application multi-threaded workload.and b) marketing-wise changing from a dual dual 3 GHz high end to a dual quad 2.66 GHz high end would be seen as a downgrade.Yeah. Professional Mac Pro users can't do the math. :rolleyes:
4 x 3=12GHz
or
8 x 2.66= 21.28GHz
I wonder which one will get my Multi-Threaded Workload done faster? :confused: :eek:Apple will wait for CS3, and by then there will be a 3+ GHz Clovertown available which will provide for an upgrade that would be much easier to market and sell.I believe you are mistaken. A ton of dual 2.66GHz Clovertowns from various vendors will ship next month. Apple can't be seen as the only major Intel vendor to not ship dual Clovertowns in November and put it off until April or May. They would in effect be passing on an entire selling cycle. That would be business suicide. It would also be impossible.
Yes there I said it. What you suggest as will be the future is IMPOSSIBLE.
Oh and welcome to MacRumors. ;) :p :D
4 x 3=12GHz
or
8 x 2.66= 21.28GHz
I wonder which one will get my Multi-Threaded Workload done faster? :confused: :eek:Apple will wait for CS3, and by then there will be a 3+ GHz Clovertown available which will provide for an upgrade that would be much easier to market and sell.I believe you are mistaken. A ton of dual 2.66GHz Clovertowns from various vendors will ship next month. Apple can't be seen as the only major Intel vendor to not ship dual Clovertowns in November and put it off until April or May. They would in effect be passing on an entire selling cycle. That would be business suicide. It would also be impossible.
Yes there I said it. What you suggest as will be the future is IMPOSSIBLE.
Oh and welcome to MacRumors. ;) :p :D
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.
diamond.g
Apr 21, 07:34 AM
I have the job that I do because I know MUCH more about Windows than you do obviously. If you think what I posted above is a bunch of fud then you really don't know anything about Windows OS or manual malware removal. There is all kinds of ways malware can hide and on Windows many times the only way you know its on the system is by finding altered registry keys, but removing the key doesn't remove the malware so you have to manually dig for files. Most of the time you can find them by looking but some malware uses the feature to hide folders completely even if you tell the system to show all files. If you want a prime example of a virus that does this look up and infect your system with Oboma (yes its spelled incorrectly). It went around our workplace all the time and most of the time it used the file hiding technique mentioned above. Another is WD32Silly (or something close to that). Thats another one that always did it. With over 6,000 users to support I see this stuff all the time.
EDIT: This is why tools that access files outside the OS are popular, like BartPE and various other packages. You can see these files if Windows is not booted up and your not plugging the drive into another machine.
Actually....we use Symantec which is the the first scanner we use which doesn't find anything ;) Or, to its credit it will find something, but not remove it (hence how we find out the names half of the time). Honestly though you really want multi-layered scanning. If the program on the computer doesn't catch anything it goes to IT and we scan it with other tools, as a last resort we will manually remove it but if it doesn't work or ends up being to "messy" the machine gets re-imaged.Um, not to sound mean, but if your users still have rights to install software/malware then you are doing it wrong.
No worries gwangung - anyone who admits to listening to Lil Wayne isn't worth your time lol
What is wrong with Lil Wayne?
EDIT: This is why tools that access files outside the OS are popular, like BartPE and various other packages. You can see these files if Windows is not booted up and your not plugging the drive into another machine.
Actually....we use Symantec which is the the first scanner we use which doesn't find anything ;) Or, to its credit it will find something, but not remove it (hence how we find out the names half of the time). Honestly though you really want multi-layered scanning. If the program on the computer doesn't catch anything it goes to IT and we scan it with other tools, as a last resort we will manually remove it but if it doesn't work or ends up being to "messy" the machine gets re-imaged.Um, not to sound mean, but if your users still have rights to install software/malware then you are doing it wrong.
No worries gwangung - anyone who admits to listening to Lil Wayne isn't worth your time lol
What is wrong with Lil Wayne?
takao
Apr 24, 11:58 AM
And the Catholic church had Galileo jailed for his work on heliocentrism (just one of a countless litany of anti-scientific acts).
that Galileo has became a poster child of "what the church has done wrong" and science etc. though is nothing short of ironic .. considering that he got into the whole argument by dismissing the pope's model for the solar system without using arguments or science or even reading it (rather unscientific and blunt ;))
the very same pope who has been his sponsor and patron for years before even becoming pope and made him an employee of the vatican after becoming it, since he was an avid hobby astronomist
much of the story was more of a personal vendetta
that Galileo has became a poster child of "what the church has done wrong" and science etc. though is nothing short of ironic .. considering that he got into the whole argument by dismissing the pope's model for the solar system without using arguments or science or even reading it (rather unscientific and blunt ;))
the very same pope who has been his sponsor and patron for years before even becoming pope and made him an employee of the vatican after becoming it, since he was an avid hobby astronomist
much of the story was more of a personal vendetta
leekohler
Apr 15, 12:00 PM
No but hold on a second. I don't know what scientific evidence has to say about something like morality. It may certainly be that sexuality is immutable. But if you're referring to my quote from the Catechism (and I lost track)... that doesn't say homosexuals are required to change their sexuality.
Yeah, but it sure says that we won't get far if we act like what we are.
Again, completely irrelevant, since this is not catholic theocracy, and your book has no bearing on my life. If that's how you choose to believe, fine- but leave me out of it, and stop trying to force us to live by your rules through law. And guess what? We'll get along just fine.
Yeah, but it sure says that we won't get far if we act like what we are.
Again, completely irrelevant, since this is not catholic theocracy, and your book has no bearing on my life. If that's how you choose to believe, fine- but leave me out of it, and stop trying to force us to live by your rules through law. And guess what? We'll get along just fine.
Man4allsea
Feb 17, 12:17 AM
I can believe this, but only since the Android OS is open source. This means companies are making phones with their OS, not because its better. The iPhone is the superior phone, but Google is doing a great job at making the Android available to the masses.
What is it with open source fanatics? I mean let's talk about the great open source achievements of the past 15 years. There are many, but they never really seem to turn into market leading commerce, it's like profitable communes, mutually exclusive/oxymoronic. Google is not the king of open source. They protect their algorithms with all the secrecy that Apple does it's product releases. No one seems to notice this.
Google rips people off right and left and has a monopoly with adwords, but no one says a thing. The whole android platform is about making sure that they can sell as many ads as possible for the highest price possible. Steve Jobs was right when he called them evil. Apple doesn't pretend to be your benevolent friend, google sucks, and I hope the android platform is the beginining of the end!
What is it with open source fanatics? I mean let's talk about the great open source achievements of the past 15 years. There are many, but they never really seem to turn into market leading commerce, it's like profitable communes, mutually exclusive/oxymoronic. Google is not the king of open source. They protect their algorithms with all the secrecy that Apple does it's product releases. No one seems to notice this.
Google rips people off right and left and has a monopoly with adwords, but no one says a thing. The whole android platform is about making sure that they can sell as many ads as possible for the highest price possible. Steve Jobs was right when he called them evil. Apple doesn't pretend to be your benevolent friend, google sucks, and I hope the android platform is the beginining of the end!
Evangelion
Mar 19, 08:43 AM
It's theft, pure and simple.
No it is not. It's not theft in any defnition of the word! Seriously: if I walk in to a store and take CD from the shelf, and not pay it, I'm stealing. If I make an identical copy of the CD and leave the original on the shelf, I'm not stealing, I'm committing a copyright-infringment. But I'm not stealing.
Same logic: if I take someone else's car, and drive away with it, I'm stealing it. But if I create an identical copy of the car (using a replicator I got from Star Trek) for myself, have I stolen anything? From whom have I stolen?
I find it rather surprising how blindly people here defend Apple, even after seeing how they remove your rights little by little. How many times can you burn your iTunes-songs to CD? It used to be ten times. But Apple reduced it to seven. Then they removed the ability to share/stream your songs from itunes to others. Little by little, you feel the DRM-noose tightening around your necks. It seems like a major PR-coup to me, when you have Apple reducing your rights little by little, and you guys are screaming "Yes! Reduce our rights even more!"
No it is not. It's not theft in any defnition of the word! Seriously: if I walk in to a store and take CD from the shelf, and not pay it, I'm stealing. If I make an identical copy of the CD and leave the original on the shelf, I'm not stealing, I'm committing a copyright-infringment. But I'm not stealing.
Same logic: if I take someone else's car, and drive away with it, I'm stealing it. But if I create an identical copy of the car (using a replicator I got from Star Trek) for myself, have I stolen anything? From whom have I stolen?
I find it rather surprising how blindly people here defend Apple, even after seeing how they remove your rights little by little. How many times can you burn your iTunes-songs to CD? It used to be ten times. But Apple reduced it to seven. Then they removed the ability to share/stream your songs from itunes to others. Little by little, you feel the DRM-noose tightening around your necks. It seems like a major PR-coup to me, when you have Apple reducing your rights little by little, and you guys are screaming "Yes! Reduce our rights even more!"
robbieduncan
Mar 13, 10:05 AM
I'm pretty happy with nuclear power. Those reactors have stood up to more than they were realistically ever expected to have to. Contrast that with the sort of thing that happens when oil platforms go wrong.
It's a bit like those who dislike or are afraid of air travel asking what do I think of it after that engine explosion on the A380. I say it makes me more sure of the safety, not less, as in that case just like this the safety features prevented catastrophic failure even when pushed beyond the expected.
It's a bit like those who dislike or are afraid of air travel asking what do I think of it after that engine explosion on the A380. I say it makes me more sure of the safety, not less, as in that case just like this the safety features prevented catastrophic failure even when pushed beyond the expected.
Liquorpuki
Mar 13, 06:41 PM
I love when people don't read threads....
this was already posted, way to go...
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=how-to-use-solar-energy-at-night
Did you even read the article you posted? The stored solar energy is drained after 8 hours. Which means if you have a day where the sun is obstructed, your city will black out.
this was already posted, way to go...
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=how-to-use-solar-energy-at-night
Did you even read the article you posted? The stored solar energy is drained after 8 hours. Which means if you have a day where the sun is obstructed, your city will black out.
AJsAWiz
Jun 13, 06:06 PM
I blame the iphone. Its a hog and kills atts network. If it was a diff phone this wount be happening. Apple needs to make it work with the network better.
Not sure what's going on with AT&T. I've carried another (not an iPhone) phone around with me for 2 days. My 3GS iPhone consistently has either no bars or fluctuating low bars while the other AT&T phone gets strong signals in the same area. The other phone does not access the 3G network though. AT&T has been no help.. Apple suggested that I replace my sim card so I'll see if that helps with signal strength and dropped calls.
Not sure what's going on with AT&T. I've carried another (not an iPhone) phone around with me for 2 days. My 3GS iPhone consistently has either no bars or fluctuating low bars while the other AT&T phone gets strong signals in the same area. The other phone does not access the 3G network though. AT&T has been no help.. Apple suggested that I replace my sim card so I'll see if that helps with signal strength and dropped calls.
blackcrayon
May 2, 10:57 AM
Meh... if you're stupid enough to have open safe files checked.
Are you sure that is the end of it, just having safe files checked and this thing installs itself? I'm trying to figure out where this is happening (i tested it myself and all it did was unzip the .zip file, it didn't automatically launch the package installer and then click the Install button for me).
Are you sure that is the end of it, just having safe files checked and this thing installs itself? I'm trying to figure out where this is happening (i tested it myself and all it did was unzip the .zip file, it didn't automatically launch the package installer and then click the Install button for me).
Marx55
Sep 20, 04:12 AM
What iTV needs is the option to boot Mac OS X to be used as a wireless computerless presentation remote tool. Just plug the flash disk with the Keynote or PowerPoint presentation made on a Mac or PC-Windows and use the remote control to give the presentation. Great for corporations, education and domestic markets. With a huge halo effect. Apple will sell millions.
Xeperu
Apr 26, 01:15 PM
The deal with religious people is to ignore them if you disagree.
I'm a devout (pun intended) atheist and find the entire notion of a "higher being" absolutely ridiculous.
HOWEVER! I do let religious people practice their religion in peace. An anecdote I tell people goes like this.
I had a friend whose mother was dying of cancer. She prayed to her god and that gave her hope and comfort. SHe believed that her prayers helped her mom and even I didn't try to defy her. It gave her strength and no matter how ridiculous it was, I was happy that it helped her cope.
tl;dr - Practice religion, but don't bother me with it.
I'm a devout (pun intended) atheist and find the entire notion of a "higher being" absolutely ridiculous.
HOWEVER! I do let religious people practice their religion in peace. An anecdote I tell people goes like this.
I had a friend whose mother was dying of cancer. She prayed to her god and that gave her hope and comfort. SHe believed that her prayers helped her mom and even I didn't try to defy her. It gave her strength and no matter how ridiculous it was, I was happy that it helped her cope.
tl;dr - Practice religion, but don't bother me with it.
stoid
Mar 18, 10:04 AM
I'm just saying that the inevitable wrath-of-God response from Apple is somewhat unwarranted.
More like the wrath-of-Jobs! :rolleyes:
Anyway, I've never been one to agree with the Windows people that argue the security-by-obscurity for why Mac OS X is not hacked to bits like Windows, but it would seem that this adds aome serious fire to their arguement. Here in music where Apple is the most popular and widely used, they are getting hacked (semi-successfully) more often than their WMA counterpart.
More like the wrath-of-Jobs! :rolleyes:
Anyway, I've never been one to agree with the Windows people that argue the security-by-obscurity for why Mac OS X is not hacked to bits like Windows, but it would seem that this adds aome serious fire to their arguement. Here in music where Apple is the most popular and widely used, they are getting hacked (semi-successfully) more often than their WMA counterpart.
flopticalcube
Apr 15, 01:06 PM
True Christians know that they are no longer subject to the laws associated with the Davidic covenant. Jesus Christ instituted a new covenant, which does not condone death for any person for any crime. So to directly answer your question, a true Cristian wouldn't support that. A true Christian doesn't hate a gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgendered person. They would respect and love their neighbor regardless of their sexual preference. A Christian doesn't have to agree with their lifestyle choices, but they are in no way permitted to judge or hate someone for those choices.
Sorry but I find this patently laughable. True Christian? Does that mean anyone who doesn't believe in the same interpretation of the bible as you do? I bet there are millions who would point the finger at you and say you are not a true Christian. You both, of course, are wrong as there cannot be any truth in a system based on faith.
Sorry but I find this patently laughable. True Christian? Does that mean anyone who doesn't believe in the same interpretation of the bible as you do? I bet there are millions who would point the finger at you and say you are not a true Christian. You both, of course, are wrong as there cannot be any truth in a system based on faith.
carmenodie
Apr 9, 09:28 AM
Ummm.... everyone that's into gaming HATES Activision.
So does that means you didn't like Jungle Hunt?
So does that means you didn't like Jungle Hunt?
vincenz
Apr 15, 11:05 AM
Personally, I think it's great. However, they should be careful. Moves like this have the potential to alienate customers. That said, props to the employees.
Alienate? How so?
I like the name of the project. It's very optimistic.
Alienate? How so?
I like the name of the project. It's very optimistic.
supmango
Mar 18, 12:02 PM
You realize there's a difference between those that "man" the CSR phones and the people responsible for the IT infrastructure, billing, etc, right?
Of course there is a difference. But only in the individuals I am dealing with. My personal experience with AT&T (~2 years ago) is that they have difficulty communicating very basic information internally. This is things like upgrade eligibility, data plan pricing (between corporate and personal); you know, the stuff you can get pretty easily on the website. Now why would this be for a "telecom" company? This piece of evidence points to a pattern of incompetence that likely goes pretty deep. And, if in fact people are getting these threats from AT&T, and they call to discuss it with them, good luck getting any good information from the rep on the other end of the phone as to how they know this is happening.
As other's have pointed out, it seems like there are a few legal loopholes in what AT&T is trying to do. If they send you a message and you don't call, it's on you and they can do that (in the contract). If they change your terms of service, they have to notify you within 30 days, and you can cancel the rest of your contract. If, however, you call and they can't provide sufficient evidence of what they are accusing you of doing, and they are changing your terms no matter what, you have the right to terminate service. My guess is that they won't want you to do that, unless they have evidence that you are overloading their network. In which case, I think they can change your terms and not let you out of the contract (if someone wants to look that up, great, I don't really care enough to do it).
Someone who has received one of these messages needs to call and see what they say, and then post back. I am really curious about what kind of evidence they give you. It might be something as simple as targeting high-volume users and accusing them of tethering (as others have already mentioned).
Just because the person that answers your call doesn't know what is going on behind the scenes doesn't mean ATT isn't FULLY aware of who is and who is not tethering or what websites you are viewing, etc.
Perhaps, but it took them long enough to figure it out, or at least to take any action on it.
It's one thing to have that information, its another thing to access it and get a report on usage patterns that reliably determines that it us tethering usage. Internet usage can vary widely depending on the user. So it almost requires a human eye to look at it and make that determination. Even then, it can be a hard call.
If people aren't being careful about what they are doing online while tethered (for example, they are doing things their iPhones cannot do natively), it's pretty simple for AT&T to see that kind of activity. But someone who is smart about it can probably get by indefinitely.
I think AT&T is starting to panicking about the people who are leaving to go to Verizon. They need to make sure they are milking every dime they can get out of the iPhone users they still have.
Of course there is a difference. But only in the individuals I am dealing with. My personal experience with AT&T (~2 years ago) is that they have difficulty communicating very basic information internally. This is things like upgrade eligibility, data plan pricing (between corporate and personal); you know, the stuff you can get pretty easily on the website. Now why would this be for a "telecom" company? This piece of evidence points to a pattern of incompetence that likely goes pretty deep. And, if in fact people are getting these threats from AT&T, and they call to discuss it with them, good luck getting any good information from the rep on the other end of the phone as to how they know this is happening.
As other's have pointed out, it seems like there are a few legal loopholes in what AT&T is trying to do. If they send you a message and you don't call, it's on you and they can do that (in the contract). If they change your terms of service, they have to notify you within 30 days, and you can cancel the rest of your contract. If, however, you call and they can't provide sufficient evidence of what they are accusing you of doing, and they are changing your terms no matter what, you have the right to terminate service. My guess is that they won't want you to do that, unless they have evidence that you are overloading their network. In which case, I think they can change your terms and not let you out of the contract (if someone wants to look that up, great, I don't really care enough to do it).
Someone who has received one of these messages needs to call and see what they say, and then post back. I am really curious about what kind of evidence they give you. It might be something as simple as targeting high-volume users and accusing them of tethering (as others have already mentioned).
Just because the person that answers your call doesn't know what is going on behind the scenes doesn't mean ATT isn't FULLY aware of who is and who is not tethering or what websites you are viewing, etc.
Perhaps, but it took them long enough to figure it out, or at least to take any action on it.
It's one thing to have that information, its another thing to access it and get a report on usage patterns that reliably determines that it us tethering usage. Internet usage can vary widely depending on the user. So it almost requires a human eye to look at it and make that determination. Even then, it can be a hard call.
If people aren't being careful about what they are doing online while tethered (for example, they are doing things their iPhones cannot do natively), it's pretty simple for AT&T to see that kind of activity. But someone who is smart about it can probably get by indefinitely.
I think AT&T is starting to panicking about the people who are leaving to go to Verizon. They need to make sure they are milking every dime they can get out of the iPhone users they still have.
ddtlm
Oct 12, 03:50 PM
OK, lets look at this code again. I'll write some x86 assembly to do it. Not the best in the world, but we'll get an idea whats going on. Also I need to do this to help my memory. :)
int x1,x2,x3;
for (x1=1; x1<=20000; x1++) {
for(x2=1; x2<=20000; x2++) {
x3 = x1*x2;
}
}
Ok, lets do it the stupidest way possible in x86 NASM:
OK:
segment .data
segment .bss
segment .text
int x1,x2,x3;
for (x1=1; x1<=20000; x1++) {
for(x2=1; x2<=20000; x2++) {
x3 = x1*x2;
}
}
Ok, lets do it the stupidest way possible in x86 NASM:
OK:
segment .data
segment .bss
segment .text
Vulpinemac
Apr 28, 09:47 AM
Almost all of that is due to the iPad. They had around 4% of the global market for computers last year.
Do some research. Globally Apple passed 7% last year.
Do some research. Globally Apple passed 7% last year.
citizenzen
Apr 22, 09:38 PM
... if the person has an epiphany, and then reflects on what just occurred logically, it could still be called proof.
Proof sufficient for their own self, or for those they can convince of it.
Insufficient for those who require some form of evidence.
This same argument has been going on for thousands of years. No one has been able to provide tangible, testable proof that God exists.
No one.
Proof sufficient for their own self, or for those they can convince of it.
Insufficient for those who require some form of evidence.
This same argument has been going on for thousands of years. No one has been able to provide tangible, testable proof that God exists.
No one.
milo
Jul 13, 09:51 AM
because the price difference is not that much and it saves apple more on design/engineering/testing/support ect. it makes great financial sense to consolidate your product line into one platform.
Based on the numbers I've seen the difference IS very substantial. Not only is the CPU more expensive, the mobo and memory are both quite a bit more.
In this case, design/engineering/testing/support costs relatively little, since they could even use a slightly modified stock intel mobo if they want, no reason to do anything custom (at least on the low end).
Doesn't make business sense to hold out the Macbook with just Yonah when all the other companies will be filling their 13.3/14 laptops with 64bit Meroms as soon as possible.
Will they? Isn't the yonah cheaper? And since they'll want to have some budget machines won't they continue to use it on the low end?
As for Conroes being too hot for an iMac, that strikes me as ridiculous. From what I've read, conroes use 40% less power than Pentium D's and are very efficient in terms of power to performance.
That comparison tells us nothing. How does conroe's power and heat compare to yonah? We'll only see it in the iMac if it's not much hotter.
How much hotter would a MacBook Pro be with a single Woodcrest?
Likely insanely hotter. And battery life would be about a half hour. Not to mention the price. No freaking way.
Second, you still not mentioned what apps would substitute the Adobe trio mentioned above.
Sounds like YOU don't get it. The point isn't that graphics guys have a substitute for photoshop. The point is that there are tons of mac users who aren't graphics guys. For guys running Logic, FCS or any of the other universal apps, the intel towers will be great. Not every mac user runs photoshop.
Thank You my Good Man. This is the Biggest Leap since 486 to P6 or 6800 to PowerPC and the Mac Snobs are not even appreciative about it , while the Intelligent folk at the tech forums who actually understand hardware are elated.
Don't be an ass. There are some mac folk who just don't get it and think that conroe is inferior to woodcrest. But there are plenty of us who do get it and would love to see conroe in the cheapest mac pro. I agree with your assessment of the chips, but your petty name calling borders on trolling. Lay off already.
we are not saying conroe is crap it just is not suitable for a mac pro.
Why not?? Right now we have dual and quad core configs of G5, why would a similar lineup on intel be "not suitable"? Other than the multi chip configs, woodcrest doesn't have much of an advantage over conroe. I'd love to see conroe in the base tower (or mini tower), the alternative is a dual core woodcrest config that is matched or beaten by a dual core conroe PC that's VASTLY cheaper.
Based on the numbers I've seen the difference IS very substantial. Not only is the CPU more expensive, the mobo and memory are both quite a bit more.
In this case, design/engineering/testing/support costs relatively little, since they could even use a slightly modified stock intel mobo if they want, no reason to do anything custom (at least on the low end).
Doesn't make business sense to hold out the Macbook with just Yonah when all the other companies will be filling their 13.3/14 laptops with 64bit Meroms as soon as possible.
Will they? Isn't the yonah cheaper? And since they'll want to have some budget machines won't they continue to use it on the low end?
As for Conroes being too hot for an iMac, that strikes me as ridiculous. From what I've read, conroes use 40% less power than Pentium D's and are very efficient in terms of power to performance.
That comparison tells us nothing. How does conroe's power and heat compare to yonah? We'll only see it in the iMac if it's not much hotter.
How much hotter would a MacBook Pro be with a single Woodcrest?
Likely insanely hotter. And battery life would be about a half hour. Not to mention the price. No freaking way.
Second, you still not mentioned what apps would substitute the Adobe trio mentioned above.
Sounds like YOU don't get it. The point isn't that graphics guys have a substitute for photoshop. The point is that there are tons of mac users who aren't graphics guys. For guys running Logic, FCS or any of the other universal apps, the intel towers will be great. Not every mac user runs photoshop.
Thank You my Good Man. This is the Biggest Leap since 486 to P6 or 6800 to PowerPC and the Mac Snobs are not even appreciative about it , while the Intelligent folk at the tech forums who actually understand hardware are elated.
Don't be an ass. There are some mac folk who just don't get it and think that conroe is inferior to woodcrest. But there are plenty of us who do get it and would love to see conroe in the cheapest mac pro. I agree with your assessment of the chips, but your petty name calling borders on trolling. Lay off already.
we are not saying conroe is crap it just is not suitable for a mac pro.
Why not?? Right now we have dual and quad core configs of G5, why would a similar lineup on intel be "not suitable"? Other than the multi chip configs, woodcrest doesn't have much of an advantage over conroe. I'd love to see conroe in the base tower (or mini tower), the alternative is a dual core woodcrest config that is matched or beaten by a dual core conroe PC that's VASTLY cheaper.
Manic Mouse
Jul 12, 07:58 AM
No, I believe Apple will pop the Core 2 Duo Merom into the iMac. It's supposedly a drop-in replacement for the current Core Duo processor the iMac currently uses.
This will not be an option for Apple. They no longer live in the PPC world, now people can directly compare the specs on any Mac to the specs DELL or other PC vendors are offering.
The iMac is Apple's desktop computer, and currently the only one they offer. As such they will have to spec it as a desktop computer as much as humanly possible, and having a slower CORE 2 Duo than their competitors (when iMacs cost more) will not do them any favours.
Also bear in mind that Conroes are cheaper for apple to buy than Meroms, as well as offering faster clock speeds and more performance. So it wouldn't cost Apple much more, per machine, to put a 2.4Ghz conroe in rather than a 2.0Ghz merom.
The heat issue is also a non-starter. I have a laptop with a 3.2Ghz Pentium 4 in it, which runs a hell of a lot hotter than the Conroes will. Sure it isn't the smallest laptop ever, but it's comparable in size to an iMac, if anything it's slightly thinner. Many laptop venders have said they're putting conroes in their top laptops because of the extra performance, and if they can there's no reason Apple can't fit one into the iMac.
Apple can either put Meroms in the iMac and thus make an over-priced under-performing desktop or redesign the motherboard for Conroe and have a competitive desktop. If they want to continue their recent success with the switch to Intel they cannot afford to be lazy and simply drop a merom into the iMac.
Personally I'm also hoping for the option of a BTO X1800 graphics card. At the least I expect the VRAM on the X1600 to be bumped to 256Mb on all iMacs and for the screens to get a resolution bump. The 17" will get the same screen as the 17' Macbook Pro (1650x1050) and the 20" will get a resolution bump to something closer to True HD (like the cinema displays) which is what professionals will want to work with.
First post, woo!
EDIT: My dream iMac config would be:
17" 1650x1050
2.4Ghz conroe
2Gb RAM (BTO)
750Gb HDD (BTO)
x1800 512Mb (BTO)
And I would be willing to pay quite a bit for it. Fingers crossed apple offers it...
This will not be an option for Apple. They no longer live in the PPC world, now people can directly compare the specs on any Mac to the specs DELL or other PC vendors are offering.
The iMac is Apple's desktop computer, and currently the only one they offer. As such they will have to spec it as a desktop computer as much as humanly possible, and having a slower CORE 2 Duo than their competitors (when iMacs cost more) will not do them any favours.
Also bear in mind that Conroes are cheaper for apple to buy than Meroms, as well as offering faster clock speeds and more performance. So it wouldn't cost Apple much more, per machine, to put a 2.4Ghz conroe in rather than a 2.0Ghz merom.
The heat issue is also a non-starter. I have a laptop with a 3.2Ghz Pentium 4 in it, which runs a hell of a lot hotter than the Conroes will. Sure it isn't the smallest laptop ever, but it's comparable in size to an iMac, if anything it's slightly thinner. Many laptop venders have said they're putting conroes in their top laptops because of the extra performance, and if they can there's no reason Apple can't fit one into the iMac.
Apple can either put Meroms in the iMac and thus make an over-priced under-performing desktop or redesign the motherboard for Conroe and have a competitive desktop. If they want to continue their recent success with the switch to Intel they cannot afford to be lazy and simply drop a merom into the iMac.
Personally I'm also hoping for the option of a BTO X1800 graphics card. At the least I expect the VRAM on the X1600 to be bumped to 256Mb on all iMacs and for the screens to get a resolution bump. The 17" will get the same screen as the 17' Macbook Pro (1650x1050) and the 20" will get a resolution bump to something closer to True HD (like the cinema displays) which is what professionals will want to work with.
First post, woo!
EDIT: My dream iMac config would be:
17" 1650x1050
2.4Ghz conroe
2Gb RAM (BTO)
750Gb HDD (BTO)
x1800 512Mb (BTO)
And I would be willing to pay quite a bit for it. Fingers crossed apple offers it...
