Chris here
Sep 29, 07:23 AM
No.
Oh. Great. Cool answer.
Oh. Great. Cool answer.
balamw
Apr 10, 03:15 PM
It looks like both operating systems have a few advantages and both operating systems have their share of annoyances. Truth is, I'm having a hard time finding a real advantage to switching.
That's why true "switchers" are rare. Those who have a need for Windows will continue to run Windows, in a VM, via Boot Camp or on a separate Windows machine.
However many of us who live in both OSes prefer Mac OS X on a Mac where it is appropriate.
The only "advantage" is being able to use OS X for the things it is good at.
I agree with you, in general principle. When I switched to Mac, I decided to learn the "Mac way" of doing things, rather than trying to make Mac work like Windows.
That's what I mean. Making Mac OS X work like Windows is a sure fire recipe for frustration. It's not Windows. Just like Windows 7 and Vista can still confuse hardcore XP users. It's just different.
For me, I have a huge music library and letting iTunes manage it for me is a huge load off of me. I ripped all of my ~1000 CDs to FLAC with EAC as the source of my iTunes AAC library, and am in the process of converting that all to ALAC so it can live in iTunes.
B
That's why true "switchers" are rare. Those who have a need for Windows will continue to run Windows, in a VM, via Boot Camp or on a separate Windows machine.
However many of us who live in both OSes prefer Mac OS X on a Mac where it is appropriate.
The only "advantage" is being able to use OS X for the things it is good at.
I agree with you, in general principle. When I switched to Mac, I decided to learn the "Mac way" of doing things, rather than trying to make Mac work like Windows.
That's what I mean. Making Mac OS X work like Windows is a sure fire recipe for frustration. It's not Windows. Just like Windows 7 and Vista can still confuse hardcore XP users. It's just different.
For me, I have a huge music library and letting iTunes manage it for me is a huge load off of me. I ripped all of my ~1000 CDs to FLAC with EAC as the source of my iTunes AAC library, and am in the process of converting that all to ALAC so it can live in iTunes.
B
moderately
Apr 28, 10:12 AM
I am one of the many people carrying them, but, sales numbers of those versus the iPod Touch, and iPhone are telling us that the fad is over. ;)
I don't want them to stop selling classic iPods, however I am not blind to the fact that I am a member of a dying breed of classic iPod users. :(
Uhm, I still use an iPod. It carries all my music, usable contacts and calendar now and some games. And a touch interface. You are saying that my iPod Touch is not an Ipod. Guess we need to call it iTouch after all.
I think it is stretching it to call the iPod a fad. One of the defining aspects of a fad is its temporary nature. 8-10 years temporary? Everything is temporary.
I don't want them to stop selling classic iPods, however I am not blind to the fact that I am a member of a dying breed of classic iPod users. :(
Uhm, I still use an iPod. It carries all my music, usable contacts and calendar now and some games. And a touch interface. You are saying that my iPod Touch is not an Ipod. Guess we need to call it iTouch after all.
I think it is stretching it to call the iPod a fad. One of the defining aspects of a fad is its temporary nature. 8-10 years temporary? Everything is temporary.
Alpinism
Oct 26, 09:07 AM
I am waiting for a quad core MP and a copy of FCS. I hope they make it before Xmas. THen, it would indeed be a glorious Xmas.
The move to intel shifts Apple paradigm for good. Expect your Apple computers and gadgets to be absolete much2 sooner
The move to intel shifts Apple paradigm for good. Expect your Apple computers and gadgets to be absolete much2 sooner
greenstork
Sep 20, 05:49 PM
Just thought I'd add some tidbits to the DVR discussion. As a few others have pointed out, El Gato and others don't do digital cable content. Digital cable is encoded and the only way to decode it currently is with a cable company set-top box or a CableCARD.
Any device that is capable of accepting a CableCARD must be certified by CableLabs, which is setup and run by all of the cable companies.
CableLabs certified CableCARD devices go through a rigorous certification process. There are a handful of televisions certified and only one DVR, the TiVo Series 3. Windows Media Centers have been waiting for CableCARDs for years but CableLabs won't certify Media Center PCs until Vista comes out, with it's much stronger DRM. Because OS X's/Quicktime's DRM just isn't that difficult to hack, it's going to be a long time before we see a CableCARD capable device working in or alongside a Mac. In other words, Macs won't be recording a digital TV stream for a couple of years at least.
Sure, you could hook up a set-top box to your Mac but then the signal has been converted from digital to analog, back to digital again. Also, you have no control over the channel unless you implement some IR blaster device or something. And that solution is far from easy to use, I'll stick with my TiVo for high definition dual channel recording.
Any device that is capable of accepting a CableCARD must be certified by CableLabs, which is setup and run by all of the cable companies.
CableLabs certified CableCARD devices go through a rigorous certification process. There are a handful of televisions certified and only one DVR, the TiVo Series 3. Windows Media Centers have been waiting for CableCARDs for years but CableLabs won't certify Media Center PCs until Vista comes out, with it's much stronger DRM. Because OS X's/Quicktime's DRM just isn't that difficult to hack, it's going to be a long time before we see a CableCARD capable device working in or alongside a Mac. In other words, Macs won't be recording a digital TV stream for a couple of years at least.
Sure, you could hook up a set-top box to your Mac but then the signal has been converted from digital to analog, back to digital again. Also, you have no control over the channel unless you implement some IR blaster device or something. And that solution is far from easy to use, I'll stick with my TiVo for high definition dual channel recording.
matticus008
Mar 20, 06:41 PM
Except there have been threads where people did this and when they sent it to friends to view, their computer had to be authorised to do so.
This can't happen on finished and exported projects of a video track and an audio track (say, an MPEG or QuickTime MOV) or on a DVD to my knowledge. Those are the forms in which work should be transmitted and shared, not the iMovie projects themselves. If the DRM does somehow kick in in these instances, then there's a flaw in it and it needs to be addressed. Thanks for raising the issue, though. I hadn't heard of this, and if it happens, it's pretty ridiculous.
This can't happen on finished and exported projects of a video track and an audio track (say, an MPEG or QuickTime MOV) or on a DVD to my knowledge. Those are the forms in which work should be transmitted and shared, not the iMovie projects themselves. If the DRM does somehow kick in in these instances, then there's a flaw in it and it needs to be addressed. Thanks for raising the issue, though. I hadn't heard of this, and if it happens, it's pretty ridiculous.
pika2000
Mar 18, 03:00 AM
This is why I bought the Nexus One.
Although I'm afraid I might be forced to let go my grand-fathered unlimited data plan in the near future. Does anybody know if adding a line and converting both it and my line into a family plan will kick me out of the grand-fathered unlimited data plan?
Although I'm afraid I might be forced to let go my grand-fathered unlimited data plan in the near future. Does anybody know if adding a line and converting both it and my line into a family plan will kick me out of the grand-fathered unlimited data plan?
Full of Win
Apr 20, 11:02 PM
Apple didn't want to release the iPhone 3G until the 3G network was well diverse around America, and the world. There are a lot of major countries internationally who don't even have LTE networks ready, so i think any expectations of an LTE should be from a 2012 iPhone.
They did not release it with the 1st generation model because the 3G chipset at the time took too much power. At least this was the reason given at the time.
They did not release it with the 1st generation model because the 3G chipset at the time took too much power. At least this was the reason given at the time.
malexandria
Apr 15, 11:34 AM
seriously, stop spreading crap like this. You make it plainly obvious that you have never actually used a mac. Or, that you're a 20-something kid who values your precious soul-sucking video games above all else.
I'm sorry if YOU can't see any value in a mac - you aren't looking very hard. Try loading OSX on your pc. Go ahead. I'll wait. Oh, make sure it is full functionality too. I want gestures, I want full printing and network support, everything. You say you have it? Prove it. Give me screen shots, video with audio, etc.
I'm sorry, but I loathe posts like yours. If you are so anti-mac, then good for you. Enjoy your world, but stay the hell out of ours.
As a Mac user, I loathe dumb posts like yours. Telling someone to try and run Mac OsX on a PC is a silly retort. Almost every (current) mainstream PC in the world is capable of running OSX perfectly fine. It's not a PC Makers fault that Apple are controlling Aholes and won't let people do it. The only thing that makes Macs worthwhile (from my view point) is it's ability to run both Windows and OSX on one machine.
Why is this? Because Microsoft ALLOWS it, also many Mac people refuse to admit that it's because of this and bootcamp a few years ago that led to Apple's incredible growth in the last few years. People are now more comfortable with switching because they Can run Windows and still be compatible with their jobs as well.
Again, as a Mac user, I'd absolutely love to be able to run OSX on a PC that I can build, customize anyway I want at a more reasonable price than my recent $1,800 13 Inch Macbook - that I still had to add my own HD to...
I'm sorry if YOU can't see any value in a mac - you aren't looking very hard. Try loading OSX on your pc. Go ahead. I'll wait. Oh, make sure it is full functionality too. I want gestures, I want full printing and network support, everything. You say you have it? Prove it. Give me screen shots, video with audio, etc.
I'm sorry, but I loathe posts like yours. If you are so anti-mac, then good for you. Enjoy your world, but stay the hell out of ours.
As a Mac user, I loathe dumb posts like yours. Telling someone to try and run Mac OsX on a PC is a silly retort. Almost every (current) mainstream PC in the world is capable of running OSX perfectly fine. It's not a PC Makers fault that Apple are controlling Aholes and won't let people do it. The only thing that makes Macs worthwhile (from my view point) is it's ability to run both Windows and OSX on one machine.
Why is this? Because Microsoft ALLOWS it, also many Mac people refuse to admit that it's because of this and bootcamp a few years ago that led to Apple's incredible growth in the last few years. People are now more comfortable with switching because they Can run Windows and still be compatible with their jobs as well.
Again, as a Mac user, I'd absolutely love to be able to run OSX on a PC that I can build, customize anyway I want at a more reasonable price than my recent $1,800 13 Inch Macbook - that I still had to add my own HD to...
deconai
Aug 29, 04:06 PM
And Apple IS eco-friendly, or so I thought--Al Gore is on the board. I got the impression he was sort of into the environmental movement...
Actually, he's on the Al Gore movement. ;)
Actually, he's on the Al Gore movement. ;)
blubyu
Apr 20, 05:28 PM
As much as Apple cares about marketshare, the experience is more important to them then the product itself. That's really something.
It is this quote right here that separates the fan from the fanboi.
It is this quote right here that separates the fan from the fanboi.
Ugg
Apr 15, 10:50 AM
I have a couple problems with this approach. There's so much attention brought to this issue of specifically gay bullying that it's hard to see this outside of the framework of identity politics.
Where's the videos and support for fat kids being bullied?
Bullying is a universal problem that affects just about anyone with some kind of difference others choose to pick on. It seems like everyone is just ignoring all that for this hip, trendy cause.
It's absolutely appalling that you're hijacking this thread to promote your own agenda. The project was started because a boy named Trevor committed suicide because he was bullied for being gay.
Are there fat kids who commit suicide for being bullied? Probably, but since this is a voluntary, grass roots effort on the part of gay adults who were bullied when they were young....
Maybe the rest of society needs to do pick up the banner for their own cause instead of lashing out at what is, once again, a voluntary effort.
First and foremost, I myself am a gay male in his 20's. I know all about discrimination and bullying. I've lived it first-hand, but perhaps nowhere near to the extent that it appears to be common these days, where teenagers are basically pushed to suicide in some cases. It is sad and I can barely begin to imagine their pain.
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."
Personally, I think that is a decision that one has to arrive to after much soul-searching. It's a very private journey and I'm not so sure that the media should be offering this type of "GO FOR IT!" message. One should come to accept who he/she is and embrace the inevitable consequences of the lifestyle. Let's face it, it's not easy at all for the vast majority of people who live this lifestyle, no matter how picture-perfect they want to brag about how their life is. That's 100% BULL. I have a very open-minded family (who even welcomes my other half like a son of their own) and I live in Orlando (one VERY gay city), but this alternate route is nowhere near easy or rose-colored.
So, I'm very in between. I'm all for ensuring we don't get mistreated or discriminated but I also think all these teens (the target audience of these campaigns) shouldn't be exposed to this type of encouragement either. I'm very disgusted with the GLBT community as of late, with all the bigotry and one-sided attitude. It's funny how we all want to be heard, accepted, and given a chance to express ourselves and fight for what we believe in, but the minute any group, church, or organization stands behind their beliefs, they're immediately labeled as hateful, homophobes with no hearts. Seriously, WTF? Aren't THEY entitled to fight for what THEY believe in as well? I think respect is a two-way street. We sure cry and moan and whine if we don't get any of it, but I see a lot of my own community acting quick to bad-mouth anyone that doesn't support our agenda. Maybe that's why I'm so "eh" about this whole thing.
What does your rant have to do with the Trevor Project? Kids have the right to grow up in a healthy supporting environment. Encouraging religious hate in schools sort of defeats the point of education, doesn't it?
Gay kids have the highest rate of self-harm, substance abuse, homelessness, and yes, suicide. Why should a special effort not be made to help them? Why shouldn't we encourage kids to feel good about who they are?
You don't choose to be gay, you do choose to hate.
You could make the argument that a certain amount of bullying is actually a good thing because it forces kids to develop a thick skin and learn how to deal with aggressive and negative people. Life isn't a nice place -- and it's not like you can rat to a teacher or your parents if your boss is a d-bag who makes your life miserable every day because he is charge.
So as I mentioned above, gay kids have the highest rate of self-harm, substance abuse, homelessness, and yes, suicide. Is it wrong to tell the kids to hang in there? That things will truly get better? I don't think so and once again I'm appalled that anyone could view the Trevor Project as a BAD thing. This is a matter of adults who were bullied and now work for one of the most creative and successful companies in the world.
They overcame their problems, in part by sticking it out, by not committing suicide, by sharing their secret.
This isn't about everyone wins at T-ball, this is about surviving.
I'm not against the message of encouraging people to reach out for help in a time of need, or helping those under the stress of bullying to realize that it gets better. Though, I am curious why a commercial company is attaching itself to a particular community? If Apple participated in a video that supported a community of people believing that marriage should be between only a man and a woman, the LGBT community would be outraged. Why alienate customers that may have strong opinions on the subject, no matter which side they're on?
So, it's ok for corporations to make political contributions, but it's wrong for employees to band together and make social statements? Apple has always been a company that "Thinks Different" and they've also been at the forefront of offering benefits to same sex partners. It shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone that they support gay causes.
Why you would think that this video, done voluntarily by a handful of employees is a bad thing is beyond me.
I'm gay, in my late 40s and was bullied some in school. I can only imagine what a video like this could have done for me. I'm not as politically strident as LeeKohler, but the Trevor Project has struck a deep chord in me and I totally fail to understand how anyone can be against this project. It's real people, telling their own stories, why is that wrong?
Where's the videos and support for fat kids being bullied?
Bullying is a universal problem that affects just about anyone with some kind of difference others choose to pick on. It seems like everyone is just ignoring all that for this hip, trendy cause.
It's absolutely appalling that you're hijacking this thread to promote your own agenda. The project was started because a boy named Trevor committed suicide because he was bullied for being gay.
Are there fat kids who commit suicide for being bullied? Probably, but since this is a voluntary, grass roots effort on the part of gay adults who were bullied when they were young....
Maybe the rest of society needs to do pick up the banner for their own cause instead of lashing out at what is, once again, a voluntary effort.
First and foremost, I myself am a gay male in his 20's. I know all about discrimination and bullying. I've lived it first-hand, but perhaps nowhere near to the extent that it appears to be common these days, where teenagers are basically pushed to suicide in some cases. It is sad and I can barely begin to imagine their pain.
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."
Personally, I think that is a decision that one has to arrive to after much soul-searching. It's a very private journey and I'm not so sure that the media should be offering this type of "GO FOR IT!" message. One should come to accept who he/she is and embrace the inevitable consequences of the lifestyle. Let's face it, it's not easy at all for the vast majority of people who live this lifestyle, no matter how picture-perfect they want to brag about how their life is. That's 100% BULL. I have a very open-minded family (who even welcomes my other half like a son of their own) and I live in Orlando (one VERY gay city), but this alternate route is nowhere near easy or rose-colored.
So, I'm very in between. I'm all for ensuring we don't get mistreated or discriminated but I also think all these teens (the target audience of these campaigns) shouldn't be exposed to this type of encouragement either. I'm very disgusted with the GLBT community as of late, with all the bigotry and one-sided attitude. It's funny how we all want to be heard, accepted, and given a chance to express ourselves and fight for what we believe in, but the minute any group, church, or organization stands behind their beliefs, they're immediately labeled as hateful, homophobes with no hearts. Seriously, WTF? Aren't THEY entitled to fight for what THEY believe in as well? I think respect is a two-way street. We sure cry and moan and whine if we don't get any of it, but I see a lot of my own community acting quick to bad-mouth anyone that doesn't support our agenda. Maybe that's why I'm so "eh" about this whole thing.
What does your rant have to do with the Trevor Project? Kids have the right to grow up in a healthy supporting environment. Encouraging religious hate in schools sort of defeats the point of education, doesn't it?
Gay kids have the highest rate of self-harm, substance abuse, homelessness, and yes, suicide. Why should a special effort not be made to help them? Why shouldn't we encourage kids to feel good about who they are?
You don't choose to be gay, you do choose to hate.
You could make the argument that a certain amount of bullying is actually a good thing because it forces kids to develop a thick skin and learn how to deal with aggressive and negative people. Life isn't a nice place -- and it's not like you can rat to a teacher or your parents if your boss is a d-bag who makes your life miserable every day because he is charge.
So as I mentioned above, gay kids have the highest rate of self-harm, substance abuse, homelessness, and yes, suicide. Is it wrong to tell the kids to hang in there? That things will truly get better? I don't think so and once again I'm appalled that anyone could view the Trevor Project as a BAD thing. This is a matter of adults who were bullied and now work for one of the most creative and successful companies in the world.
They overcame their problems, in part by sticking it out, by not committing suicide, by sharing their secret.
This isn't about everyone wins at T-ball, this is about surviving.
I'm not against the message of encouraging people to reach out for help in a time of need, or helping those under the stress of bullying to realize that it gets better. Though, I am curious why a commercial company is attaching itself to a particular community? If Apple participated in a video that supported a community of people believing that marriage should be between only a man and a woman, the LGBT community would be outraged. Why alienate customers that may have strong opinions on the subject, no matter which side they're on?
So, it's ok for corporations to make political contributions, but it's wrong for employees to band together and make social statements? Apple has always been a company that "Thinks Different" and they've also been at the forefront of offering benefits to same sex partners. It shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone that they support gay causes.
Why you would think that this video, done voluntarily by a handful of employees is a bad thing is beyond me.
I'm gay, in my late 40s and was bullied some in school. I can only imagine what a video like this could have done for me. I'm not as politically strident as LeeKohler, but the Trevor Project has struck a deep chord in me and I totally fail to understand how anyone can be against this project. It's real people, telling their own stories, why is that wrong?
sbarton
Jul 13, 09:03 AM
930 is a netburst-CPU (P4) and those are absoluitely dirt-cheap these days, dual-core or not. Intel is basically donating them to OEM's these days. Not so with Conroe.
So Dell has a system with dirt-cheap CPU and that vaunted Dell-"designed" case for under $1000. And you are now expecting to get an Apple-system with kick-ass case and considerably more expensive CPU with just $200 extra?
That said, I would like to see a Apple minitower-system that uses the Conroe. It wont be as cheap as Dell, since whereas Dell might cut corners everywhere, Apple simply does not. Even their cheapest system (Mini for example) are very refined. Could you imagine an Apple-system that is made from cheap plastic (like this HP-system standing next to me)? I sure as hell can't.
Fine what would you pay? Whats fair? Seems like Apple's product line says 'take it or leave it with the imac' or 'cough up a lung for the Pro line'. There's nothing in the middle.
Yes, I appreciate the Apple design considerations. I'm willing to pay a premium for it. The question is - How much?
So Dell has a system with dirt-cheap CPU and that vaunted Dell-"designed" case for under $1000. And you are now expecting to get an Apple-system with kick-ass case and considerably more expensive CPU with just $200 extra?
That said, I would like to see a Apple minitower-system that uses the Conroe. It wont be as cheap as Dell, since whereas Dell might cut corners everywhere, Apple simply does not. Even their cheapest system (Mini for example) are very refined. Could you imagine an Apple-system that is made from cheap plastic (like this HP-system standing next to me)? I sure as hell can't.
Fine what would you pay? Whats fair? Seems like Apple's product line says 'take it or leave it with the imac' or 'cough up a lung for the Pro line'. There's nothing in the middle.
Yes, I appreciate the Apple design considerations. I'm willing to pay a premium for it. The question is - How much?
leekohler
Apr 15, 09:13 AM
If they alienate customers who think bullying people into suicidal depression is a good thing, then great.
Yep. I see no reason to worry about people like that.
Yep. I see no reason to worry about people like that.
Multimedia
Oct 23, 09:54 PM
And now for the update... Dell re-shipped via UPS next-day. Still took until yesterday apparently to actually ship from Dell. But it's here. I just plugged it in and everything looks just fine. No dead/stuck pixels I can see. But then again, that's the way my first one was I bought nearly a year ago. After about 3 months, *POP!* one blue stuck pixel. Hehe, these two screens look maaaavolous together. :D Would it be gloating too much if I posted a pic? Heheheh... Maybe I'll bust out the camera after I clean off my desk. ;)Holy Molly now 30" Dells are only $1279.20 (http://accessories.us.dell.com/sna/productlisting.aspx?c=us&category_id=6198&cs=19&l=en&s=dhs). They just lowered the list to $1599.
Any chance we can get a price adjustment?
We paid $1349 last week. That's another $75.60 less including tax. Man I could of had an iPod Shuffle for that. :(
10.24.06 - New C2D MacBookPro's announced.
AV-I phoned Dell this morning and got a $70 credit toward my 30". Wouldn't give me the $5.60 sales tax but got $70 instead of the usual $50 they said. Me so happy. That means I got the Dell 30" including sales tax for $1398.32. :D :p :)
Any chance we can get a price adjustment?
We paid $1349 last week. That's another $75.60 less including tax. Man I could of had an iPod Shuffle for that. :(
10.24.06 - New C2D MacBookPro's announced.
AV-I phoned Dell this morning and got a $70 credit toward my 30". Wouldn't give me the $5.60 sales tax but got $70 instead of the usual $50 they said. Me so happy. That means I got the Dell 30" including sales tax for $1398.32. :D :p :)
CTYankee
Oct 26, 03:02 AM
That is ridiculous. More proof, if any more was needed, that Apple made a big mistake in changing over to Intel.
No more proof is needed. The stock is up, sales are great, performance is continually climbing...what were they thinking....
No more proof is needed. The stock is up, sales are great, performance is continually climbing...what were they thinking....
edifyingGerbil
Apr 22, 08:26 PM
There is no reason to imagine that god does exist, one doesn't need to provide a reason for not believing in god.
Can you provide me an argument for why you don't believe in witches or Santa?
Yes, because witches and santa exist in space and time, God does not so rules which apply to people who live in space and time do not apply to God. It's physically impossible for santa to exist. Witches do exist, the Romanian parliament recently passed a law which said witches must pay taxes.
That's why God knows what's going to happen in the future but we still have free-will, because if you exist outside of time you can see everything that's going to happen or has happened because it's already happened.
Can you provide me an argument for why you don't believe in witches or Santa?
Yes, because witches and santa exist in space and time, God does not so rules which apply to people who live in space and time do not apply to God. It's physically impossible for santa to exist. Witches do exist, the Romanian parliament recently passed a law which said witches must pay taxes.
That's why God knows what's going to happen in the future but we still have free-will, because if you exist outside of time you can see everything that's going to happen or has happened because it's already happened.
Doctor Q
Mar 18, 05:57 PM
Like, where's my credit for providing Macrumors with the link/story, about 8 hours ago???
Guess that 'DRM' has been stripped....hmmm...the ironyWhat kind of credit do you think you were denied? Most submissions are anonymous and if you submitted this story 8 hours before the time of your post that was still hours after somebody else had submitted the same story.
MacRumors normally gives credit to a member who first provides a story when the member has been identified, but that wasn't the case here.
Guess that 'DRM' has been stripped....hmmm...the ironyWhat kind of credit do you think you were denied? Most submissions are anonymous and if you submitted this story 8 hours before the time of your post that was still hours after somebody else had submitted the same story.
MacRumors normally gives credit to a member who first provides a story when the member has been identified, but that wasn't the case here.
javajedi
Oct 11, 06:30 PM
Originally posted by javajedi
What you are saying makes a lot of sense. Now that I think about, I too recall reading this somewhere.
Now that we know the real truth about the "better standard FPU", I thought it was time to shed some light on non vectorized G4 integer processing.
It still does 200,000,000 calculations, but this time I'm multiplying ints.
Motorola 7455 G4@800Mhz: 9 seconds (Native)
IBM 750FX G3@700Mhz: 7 seconds (Native)
Intel P4@2600Mhz 2 seconds (Java)
PowerPC 7455 integer processing is consierabley better than floating point (obviously less work doing ints), but still less per cycle than the Pentium 4.
Very intresting the G4 looses both floating point and integer to the IBM chip, at a 100MHz clock disadvantage.
I'm still waiting to see that "better standard FPU" in the G4. It seems the G4 is absolutely useless unless you are fortunate to have vectorized (AltiVec) code.
Alex, yeah, the native version was compiled under 3.1. It really is interesting to note that despite the 750FX's 100MHz clock disadvantage, it is able to outperform it by 22%. Since there is a 13% difference in clock speed, and if clocks were equal, the 750FX is technically 25% more efficient in scalar integer. I should also re-emphasize that I never bothered compiling the test natively for x86, I left it java, so it's not out of the question the P4 could do this in 1 second - and that is *NOT* using any vector libraries, just plain old integer math.
I've found some documentation on the Altivec C programming interface, and this weekend I'm going to make a first attempt at vectorizing it. The integer test should be no problem, but my FPMathTest app that did square roots will be more difficult. With Altivec, there is not recognized double precision floating point, so this complicates doing square roots. If you want more accurate, precision square roots, you have to do Newton Raphson refinement. In other words more ************ you have to go through. I believe in SSE2 you have double precision floating point ops, and if you were to vectorize it, you wouldn't have to compensate for this.
Another theory as to why the P4 is scoring so good is because if I'm not mistaking (and I'm not), the P4's ALU runs at double its clock. So in my case, 5.6GHz. I'm sure this relates to the issue.
I don't know how true this is, but I wouldn't be suprised if there is some truth to it, surely some food for thought:
http://www.osopinion.com/perl/story/17368.html
The G4 was just a hacked-up G3 with AltiVec and an FPU (floating point unit) borrowed from the outdated 604
If this is the case, then no wonder why we are getting these abysmal scores, and no wonder why a 400mhz Celeron can nearly equal it, and no wonder why the 750FX can outperform it (different company, different fpu)
What you are saying makes a lot of sense. Now that I think about, I too recall reading this somewhere.
Now that we know the real truth about the "better standard FPU", I thought it was time to shed some light on non vectorized G4 integer processing.
It still does 200,000,000 calculations, but this time I'm multiplying ints.
Motorola 7455 G4@800Mhz: 9 seconds (Native)
IBM 750FX G3@700Mhz: 7 seconds (Native)
Intel P4@2600Mhz 2 seconds (Java)
PowerPC 7455 integer processing is consierabley better than floating point (obviously less work doing ints), but still less per cycle than the Pentium 4.
Very intresting the G4 looses both floating point and integer to the IBM chip, at a 100MHz clock disadvantage.
I'm still waiting to see that "better standard FPU" in the G4. It seems the G4 is absolutely useless unless you are fortunate to have vectorized (AltiVec) code.
Alex, yeah, the native version was compiled under 3.1. It really is interesting to note that despite the 750FX's 100MHz clock disadvantage, it is able to outperform it by 22%. Since there is a 13% difference in clock speed, and if clocks were equal, the 750FX is technically 25% more efficient in scalar integer. I should also re-emphasize that I never bothered compiling the test natively for x86, I left it java, so it's not out of the question the P4 could do this in 1 second - and that is *NOT* using any vector libraries, just plain old integer math.
I've found some documentation on the Altivec C programming interface, and this weekend I'm going to make a first attempt at vectorizing it. The integer test should be no problem, but my FPMathTest app that did square roots will be more difficult. With Altivec, there is not recognized double precision floating point, so this complicates doing square roots. If you want more accurate, precision square roots, you have to do Newton Raphson refinement. In other words more ************ you have to go through. I believe in SSE2 you have double precision floating point ops, and if you were to vectorize it, you wouldn't have to compensate for this.
Another theory as to why the P4 is scoring so good is because if I'm not mistaking (and I'm not), the P4's ALU runs at double its clock. So in my case, 5.6GHz. I'm sure this relates to the issue.
I don't know how true this is, but I wouldn't be suprised if there is some truth to it, surely some food for thought:
http://www.osopinion.com/perl/story/17368.html
The G4 was just a hacked-up G3 with AltiVec and an FPU (floating point unit) borrowed from the outdated 604
If this is the case, then no wonder why we are getting these abysmal scores, and no wonder why a 400mhz Celeron can nearly equal it, and no wonder why the 750FX can outperform it (different company, different fpu)
Clive At Five
Sep 20, 07:06 PM
That makes no sense at all..
In order to even view and/or listen to any media from another computer it needs a front row interface.That interface must be on the component itself.So in order for front row to run it must have some kind of O/S built into it.
That's why I said this:
I find it higly unlikely that there's a physical Hard Drive in the box that amounts to anything more than the UI and/or chache/buffer.
Read more carefully.
-Clive
In order to even view and/or listen to any media from another computer it needs a front row interface.That interface must be on the component itself.So in order for front row to run it must have some kind of O/S built into it.
That's why I said this:
I find it higly unlikely that there's a physical Hard Drive in the box that amounts to anything more than the UI and/or chache/buffer.
Read more carefully.
-Clive
mmmcheese
Jul 12, 09:54 AM
I expect they will be Xeon based....but here's a crazy thought. Maybe, since Intel is supposed to be designing the motherboard, they will be putting 2 dual core Conroe in each machcine. I know what you're saying...impossible. Yeah, Intel said that about the early Celeron too...no SMP, but it was possible, and popular with enthusiasts because it was affordable. If anyone would know the tricks and backdoors to unlocking the processors, it would be Intel.
Of course I'm sure Intel would prefer to sell Xeon processors to Apple, even if they sold them at the same price as Conroe. Since Apple is Intel's new show pony, they want to have their entire processor line represented. Budget/Yonah...Mobile/Merom...Mainstream Desktop/Conroe....Workstation and Server/Xeon.
Of course I'm sure Intel would prefer to sell Xeon processors to Apple, even if they sold them at the same price as Conroe. Since Apple is Intel's new show pony, they want to have their entire processor line represented. Budget/Yonah...Mobile/Merom...Mainstream Desktop/Conroe....Workstation and Server/Xeon.
MacCoaster
Oct 10, 02:21 AM
Originally posted by javajedi
Someone inquired about the benchmark Java console program I created:
It's located at http://members.ij.net/javajedi
I've also included the source (FPMathTest.java) for the curious.
<snip>
Kevin
That was me. :)
Thanks. See above post for my results. I even ported your Java code to C# (so similar, it scared me!) and got slightly lower numbers.
8152, 8151, 8162, 8142, 8172, 8142, 8161, 8152... all for a final average of 8154.25.
[edit: whoa, recently got 7891... running it more to average]
[edit #2: 7891, 7892, 7902, 7891, 7882, 7892, 7882, 7881... all for a final average of 7889.125]
You may have the source code/binary to test on your Windows computer (or Linux, with Mono; or BSD, with Microsoft's ROTOR)--just give me a hoot.
Someone inquired about the benchmark Java console program I created:
It's located at http://members.ij.net/javajedi
I've also included the source (FPMathTest.java) for the curious.
<snip>
Kevin
That was me. :)
Thanks. See above post for my results. I even ported your Java code to C# (so similar, it scared me!) and got slightly lower numbers.
8152, 8151, 8162, 8142, 8172, 8142, 8161, 8152... all for a final average of 8154.25.
[edit: whoa, recently got 7891... running it more to average]
[edit #2: 7891, 7892, 7902, 7891, 7882, 7892, 7882, 7881... all for a final average of 7889.125]
You may have the source code/binary to test on your Windows computer (or Linux, with Mono; or BSD, with Microsoft's ROTOR)--just give me a hoot.
lifeinhd
Apr 12, 10:25 PM
http://www.tuaw.com/2010/10/22/timeline-tweak-returns-imovie-11-to-old-school/
...oh. Of course I have '09 :rolleyes:
...oh. Of course I have '09 :rolleyes:
KnightWRX
May 2, 05:51 PM
Until Vista and Win 7, it was effectively impossible to run a Windows NT system as anything but Administrator. To the point that other than locked-down corporate sites where an IT Professional was required to install the Corporate Approved version of any software you need to do your job, I never knew anyone running XP (or 2k, or for that matter NT 3.x) who in a day-to-day fashion used a Standard user account.
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...
In contrast, an "Administrator" account on OS X was in reality a limited user account, just with some system-level privileges like being able to install apps that other people could run. A "Standard" user account was far more usable on OS X than the equivalent on Windows, because "Standard" users could install software into their user sandbox, etc. Still, most people I know run OS X as Administrator.
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.
It's no different than if instead of writing my preferences to $HOME/.myapp/ I'd write a software that required writing everything to /usr/share/myapp/username/. That would require root in any decent Unix installation, or it would require me to set permissions on that folder to 775 and make all users of myapp part of the owning group. Or I could just go the lazy route, make the binary 4755 and set mount opts to suid on the filesystem where this binary resides... (ugh...).
This is no different on Windows NT based architectures. If you were so inclined, with tools like Filemon and Regmon, you could granularly set permissions in a way to install these misbehaving software so that they would work for regular users.
I know I did many times in a past life (back when I was sort of forced to do Windows systems administration... ugh... Windows NT 4.0 Terminal Server edition... what a wreck...).
Let's face it, Windows NT and Unix systems have very similar security models (in fact, Windows NT has superior ACL support out of the box, akin to Novell's close to perfect ACLs, Unix is far more limited with it's read/write/execute permission scheme, even with Posix ACLs in place). It's the hoops that software vendors outside the control of Microsoft made you go through that forced lazy users to run as Administrator all the time and gave Microsoft such headaches.
As far back as I remember (when I did some Windows systems programming), Microsoft was already advising to use the user's home folder/the user's registry hive for preferences and to never write to system locations.
The real differenc, though, is that an NT Administrator was really equivalent to the Unix root account. An OS X Administrator was a Unix non-root user with 'admin' group access. You could not start up the UI as the 'root' user (and the 'root' account was disabled by default).
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.
All that having been said, UAC has really evened the bar for Windows Vista and 7 (moreso in 7 after the usability tweaks Microsoft put in to stop people from disabling it). I see no functional security difference between the OS X authorization scheme and the Windows UAC scheme.
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.
There, you did it, you made me go on a defensive rant for Microsoft. I hate you now.
My response, why bother worrying about this when the attacker can do the same thing via shellcode generated in the background by exploiting a running process so the the user is unaware that code is being executed on the system
Because this required no particular exploit or vulnerability. A simple Javascript auto-download and Safari auto-opening an archive and running code.
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.
That's the thing, infecting a computer at the system level is fine if you want to build a DoS botnet or something (and even then, you don't really need privilege escalation for that, just set login items for the current user, and run off a non-privilege port, root privileges are not required for ICMP access, only raw sockets).
These days, malware authors and users are much more interested in your data than your system. That's where the money is. Identity theft, phishing, they mean big bucks.
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...
In contrast, an "Administrator" account on OS X was in reality a limited user account, just with some system-level privileges like being able to install apps that other people could run. A "Standard" user account was far more usable on OS X than the equivalent on Windows, because "Standard" users could install software into their user sandbox, etc. Still, most people I know run OS X as Administrator.
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.
It's no different than if instead of writing my preferences to $HOME/.myapp/ I'd write a software that required writing everything to /usr/share/myapp/username/. That would require root in any decent Unix installation, or it would require me to set permissions on that folder to 775 and make all users of myapp part of the owning group. Or I could just go the lazy route, make the binary 4755 and set mount opts to suid on the filesystem where this binary resides... (ugh...).
This is no different on Windows NT based architectures. If you were so inclined, with tools like Filemon and Regmon, you could granularly set permissions in a way to install these misbehaving software so that they would work for regular users.
I know I did many times in a past life (back when I was sort of forced to do Windows systems administration... ugh... Windows NT 4.0 Terminal Server edition... what a wreck...).
Let's face it, Windows NT and Unix systems have very similar security models (in fact, Windows NT has superior ACL support out of the box, akin to Novell's close to perfect ACLs, Unix is far more limited with it's read/write/execute permission scheme, even with Posix ACLs in place). It's the hoops that software vendors outside the control of Microsoft made you go through that forced lazy users to run as Administrator all the time and gave Microsoft such headaches.
As far back as I remember (when I did some Windows systems programming), Microsoft was already advising to use the user's home folder/the user's registry hive for preferences and to never write to system locations.
The real differenc, though, is that an NT Administrator was really equivalent to the Unix root account. An OS X Administrator was a Unix non-root user with 'admin' group access. You could not start up the UI as the 'root' user (and the 'root' account was disabled by default).
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.
All that having been said, UAC has really evened the bar for Windows Vista and 7 (moreso in 7 after the usability tweaks Microsoft put in to stop people from disabling it). I see no functional security difference between the OS X authorization scheme and the Windows UAC scheme.
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.
There, you did it, you made me go on a defensive rant for Microsoft. I hate you now.
My response, why bother worrying about this when the attacker can do the same thing via shellcode generated in the background by exploiting a running process so the the user is unaware that code is being executed on the system
Because this required no particular exploit or vulnerability. A simple Javascript auto-download and Safari auto-opening an archive and running code.
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.
That's the thing, infecting a computer at the system level is fine if you want to build a DoS botnet or something (and even then, you don't really need privilege escalation for that, just set login items for the current user, and run off a non-privilege port, root privileges are not required for ICMP access, only raw sockets).
These days, malware authors and users are much more interested in your data than your system. That's where the money is. Identity theft, phishing, they mean big bucks.
No comments:
Post a Comment