PJWilkinson
Sep 12, 04:25 PM
I've just got back from the live streamed event in London and summarised the key highlights of the show here:
http://blog.crowdstorm.com
I wish I'd had my camera now. I did have a chance to play with all the products (except iTV) and must say the ipods look a lot smaller and the iTunes interface is very slick. iTV was basically a flat apple mini with lots of connectors out the back for the TV - no one could convince us that the 640x480 would be enough for HDTV or which wireless protocol it would use.
http://blog.crowdstorm.com
I wish I'd had my camera now. I did have a chance to play with all the products (except iTV) and must say the ipods look a lot smaller and the iTunes interface is very slick. iTV was basically a flat apple mini with lots of connectors out the back for the TV - no one could convince us that the 640x480 would be enough for HDTV or which wireless protocol it would use.
Th3Crow
Apr 28, 11:43 PM
Do you think the people you know represent a fair sample group? You don't know anyone who needs Windows for work?
A reasonable question, AppleScruff. Indeed, my sample group includes staff, faculty, and students from different disciplines (including business/commerce, and engineering) at a university who use their Macs for research, graduate work, or lecture preparation; a prominent cardiologist at a large hospital; a financial advisor; professional musicians; and many others.
I am myself using a Mac in a business school seamlessly among my PC-using peers. There is nothing that they can do that I cannot - and many things I can do that they would have a difficult time doing in Windows. In fact, my colleagues have been so impressed that one has already made the switch recently, and another is preparing to switch as well. Those days of "needing to run Windows" for work are behind us.
A reasonable question, AppleScruff. Indeed, my sample group includes staff, faculty, and students from different disciplines (including business/commerce, and engineering) at a university who use their Macs for research, graduate work, or lecture preparation; a prominent cardiologist at a large hospital; a financial advisor; professional musicians; and many others.
I am myself using a Mac in a business school seamlessly among my PC-using peers. There is nothing that they can do that I cannot - and many things I can do that they would have a difficult time doing in Windows. In fact, my colleagues have been so impressed that one has already made the switch recently, and another is preparing to switch as well. Those days of "needing to run Windows" for work are behind us.
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.
AoWolf
Aug 29, 03:25 PM
To be honest I really don't care what green peace thinks. I wonder if you took all advancements that have benefited humanity made on macs versus all the work greenpeace has ever done who would come out on top. We definitely need to watch out for the environment but we need to do it logically not emotionally. Greenpeace is nothing but a group of eco-terriests in my opinion.
tbrinkma
Apr 28, 08:27 AM
Right, but how is that not a fad? By definition, it doesn't matter how said fad ends, it simply means that it's overall existence is temporary.
I agree that it it was replaced by newer technology that does more, but it still was a fad in the end.
By that definition, the internal combustion engine is nothing but a fad. I think maybe you're just not familiar with what the word "fad" actually means Check it out: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/fad
I agree that it it was replaced by newer technology that does more, but it still was a fad in the end.
By that definition, the internal combustion engine is nothing but a fad. I think maybe you're just not familiar with what the word "fad" actually means Check it out: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/fad
asdf542
Apr 13, 05:03 AM
Full keynote has been uploaded to YouTube -
Part 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8VLwsfBa71U
2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HfgnyRSRyzg
3: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M3OI3RGdhrM
4: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M16Hb4_3oOY
Part 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8VLwsfBa71U
2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HfgnyRSRyzg
3: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M3OI3RGdhrM
4: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M16Hb4_3oOY
joepunk
Mar 11, 08:13 PM
0143: Tokyo Electric Power releases more radioactive vapour from a second sticken reactor, AFP reports.
JoEw
Jan 20, 11:22 PM
i really divided on the matter i think android has a possibility of surpassing iphone market share only because android platform is on more then just 1 smart phone. However iphone is simplistic and has the app store which has way more developer backing then android does at the moment. Mainly because there is money to made from the app store where android simply does not have enough popularity for developers to make money from its store. I think the biggest thing hurting the iphone is the fact that it is locked on ATT. I think it needs to be on all major US cell networks or at least on verizon.
ddtlm
Oct 12, 03:30 PM
Wow I missed a lot by spending all of Friday away from this board. I am way behind in posts here, and I'm sure I'll miss a lot of things worth comment. But anyway, the code fragment:
int x1,x2,x3;
for (x1=1; x1<=20000; x1++) {
for(x2=1; x2<=20000; x2++) {
x3 = x1*x2;
}
}
Is a very poor benchmark. Compilers may be able to really dig into that and make the resulting executable perform the calculate radically different. In fact, I can tell you the answer outright: x1=20000, x2=20000, x3 = 400000000. It took me 2 seconds or so. Does this mean that I am a better computer than a G4 and a P4? No, it means I realized that the loop can be reduced to simple data assignments. I have a better compiler, thats it.
Anyway, lets pretend that for whatever reason compilers did not simplify that loop AT ALL. Note that this would be a stupid stupid compiler. At each stage, x1 is something, we ++x2, and we set x3 = x1 * x2. Now notice that we cannot set x3 until the result of X2++ is known. On a pipelined processor that cannot execute instructions out of order, this means that I have a big "bubble" in the pipeline as I wait for the new x2 before I can multiply. However, after the x3 is started into the pipe, the next instruction is just another x2++ which does not depend on x3, so I can do it immediately. On a 7-stage in-order chip like a G4, this means that I fill two stages of the pipe and then have to wait for the results on the other end before I can continue. You see that this is very inefficient (28% or so). However, the G3 is a 4-stage design and so 2/4 of the stages can stay busy, resulting in a 50% efficientcy (so a 700mhz G3 is "the same as" a 350mhz G3 at 100% and a 800mhz G4 is "the same as" a 210mhz G4 at 100%). These are of course simplified cases, the actual result may very a bit for some obscure reason.
Actually the above stuff is inaccurate. The G3 sports 2 integer units AFAIK, so it can do x3 = x1*x2 at the same time as it is doing x2++ (for the next loop of course, not this one). This means that both pipes start one bit of work, then wait for it to get out the other end, then do one bit of work again. So this is 25% efficientcy. A hypothetical single-pipe G3 would do x3 = x1*x3 and then do x2++, however it could not do x3 = x1 * x2 again until the x2++ was out the other end, which takes 4 cycles and started one after the previos x3 = x1*x2, which should mean 3 "bubble" stages and an efficientcy of 20%.
Actually, it may be worse than that. Remember that this is in a loop. The loop means a compare instruction (are we done yet?) followed by a jump depending on the results of the compare. We therefore have 4 instructions in PPC I think per loop, and we can't compare x2 to 20000 until x2++ has gone through all the pipe stages. (Oh no!) And we can't jump until we know r]the result of the compare (oh no!). Seeing the pattern? Wanna guess what the efficientcy is for a really stupid compiled version of this "benchmark"? A: really freaking low.
I'll see about adding more thoughts later.
int x1,x2,x3;
for (x1=1; x1<=20000; x1++) {
for(x2=1; x2<=20000; x2++) {
x3 = x1*x2;
}
}
Is a very poor benchmark. Compilers may be able to really dig into that and make the resulting executable perform the calculate radically different. In fact, I can tell you the answer outright: x1=20000, x2=20000, x3 = 400000000. It took me 2 seconds or so. Does this mean that I am a better computer than a G4 and a P4? No, it means I realized that the loop can be reduced to simple data assignments. I have a better compiler, thats it.
Anyway, lets pretend that for whatever reason compilers did not simplify that loop AT ALL. Note that this would be a stupid stupid compiler. At each stage, x1 is something, we ++x2, and we set x3 = x1 * x2. Now notice that we cannot set x3 until the result of X2++ is known. On a pipelined processor that cannot execute instructions out of order, this means that I have a big "bubble" in the pipeline as I wait for the new x2 before I can multiply. However, after the x3 is started into the pipe, the next instruction is just another x2++ which does not depend on x3, so I can do it immediately. On a 7-stage in-order chip like a G4, this means that I fill two stages of the pipe and then have to wait for the results on the other end before I can continue. You see that this is very inefficient (28% or so). However, the G3 is a 4-stage design and so 2/4 of the stages can stay busy, resulting in a 50% efficientcy (so a 700mhz G3 is "the same as" a 350mhz G3 at 100% and a 800mhz G4 is "the same as" a 210mhz G4 at 100%). These are of course simplified cases, the actual result may very a bit for some obscure reason.
Actually the above stuff is inaccurate. The G3 sports 2 integer units AFAIK, so it can do x3 = x1*x2 at the same time as it is doing x2++ (for the next loop of course, not this one). This means that both pipes start one bit of work, then wait for it to get out the other end, then do one bit of work again. So this is 25% efficientcy. A hypothetical single-pipe G3 would do x3 = x1*x3 and then do x2++, however it could not do x3 = x1 * x2 again until the x2++ was out the other end, which takes 4 cycles and started one after the previos x3 = x1*x2, which should mean 3 "bubble" stages and an efficientcy of 20%.
Actually, it may be worse than that. Remember that this is in a loop. The loop means a compare instruction (are we done yet?) followed by a jump depending on the results of the compare. We therefore have 4 instructions in PPC I think per loop, and we can't compare x2 to 20000 until x2++ has gone through all the pipe stages. (Oh no!) And we can't jump until we know r]the result of the compare (oh no!). Seeing the pattern? Wanna guess what the efficientcy is for a really stupid compiled version of this "benchmark"? A: really freaking low.
I'll see about adding more thoughts later.
Th3Crow
Apr 28, 10:13 AM
I just think Apple is making a mistake by not making some low end machines.
...They may walk past the small Apple table, see the near �1000 price tag, and think, yeah, right, like we're going to get one of those. I could get two good spec'd windows Laptops for that price.
...As the only REAL difference between a PC and a Mac these days is the OS it's running, there is no reason Apple could not make a laptop directly at the price point of a medium to low end Windows laptop and then, people may buy them, and perhaps get used to OS X and in years to come go for an iMac.
You're completely wrong, Piggie. Anyone who uses Mac hardware knows that. A Macbook Pro is a completely different animal than a piece of crap made by Dell that sells for half the price. Apple doesn't make junk, and never will. I'm glad. I don't care that Joe Cheapo wants the lowest priced garbage he can find, and doesn't care that its hard drive will fail in a year, that its motherboard will fry, it's underpowered, or that his experience will suck and he won't know the difference. Those of us who buy Macs and choose to spend more for a better made machine appreciate the difference. You get what you pay for - remember that.
And people ARE buying them. In droves.
...They may walk past the small Apple table, see the near �1000 price tag, and think, yeah, right, like we're going to get one of those. I could get two good spec'd windows Laptops for that price.
...As the only REAL difference between a PC and a Mac these days is the OS it's running, there is no reason Apple could not make a laptop directly at the price point of a medium to low end Windows laptop and then, people may buy them, and perhaps get used to OS X and in years to come go for an iMac.
You're completely wrong, Piggie. Anyone who uses Mac hardware knows that. A Macbook Pro is a completely different animal than a piece of crap made by Dell that sells for half the price. Apple doesn't make junk, and never will. I'm glad. I don't care that Joe Cheapo wants the lowest priced garbage he can find, and doesn't care that its hard drive will fail in a year, that its motherboard will fry, it's underpowered, or that his experience will suck and he won't know the difference. Those of us who buy Macs and choose to spend more for a better made machine appreciate the difference. You get what you pay for - remember that.
And people ARE buying them. In droves.
deconai
Aug 29, 04:04 PM
Greenpeace are terrorists. I have seen them endanger human life for the sake of an environment that does a pretty good job of taking care of itself. I laugh at their hitlists. Hahahahaha. :|
Capitalism thrives on being able to recycle resources, but it must be profitable in the first place to become feasible. You can't expect companies to take large hits on their bottom line to appease the Greenpeace crowd (not that they couldn't afford it, that would just go against the policy of capitalism). You can, however, expect them to do whatever is in their power to make business as efficient and clean as possible, mostly because it's cheaper in the long run. That's what Apple does. We really can't ask for anything more, unless we're willing to see them pack up and move to India.
Capitalism thrives on being able to recycle resources, but it must be profitable in the first place to become feasible. You can't expect companies to take large hits on their bottom line to appease the Greenpeace crowd (not that they couldn't afford it, that would just go against the policy of capitalism). You can, however, expect them to do whatever is in their power to make business as efficient and clean as possible, mostly because it's cheaper in the long run. That's what Apple does. We really can't ask for anything more, unless we're willing to see them pack up and move to India.
ElCidRo
May 2, 09:05 AM
so much for the no malware on macs myth :D
funny how the apple fanboys are getting all defensive :rolleyes:
funny how the apple fanboys are getting all defensive :rolleyes:
Pgohlke
Apr 5, 05:25 PM
One thing that got me was that you cannot make apps fill the screen without dragging and resizing. You can only resize from the bottom right corner. No real other annoyances for me that I can think of.
inkswamp
May 2, 01:32 PM
As I understand it, Safari will open the zip file since it's a "safe" download. But that doesn't mean it'll execute the code within that zip file, so how is this malware executing without user permission?
That's what I'd like to know. I can't even open HTML pages downloaded from my own website without OS X warning me before opening it, and yet this story makes it sound as if the file contained in the zip is somehow launching on its own without any user notification. Sounds like BS to me. What is the source for this?
Edit: I see. It starts an installer that the user has to go along with willingly, and therefore it's nothing even remotely similar to the stealth install crapware on Windows. Next.
That's what I'd like to know. I can't even open HTML pages downloaded from my own website without OS X warning me before opening it, and yet this story makes it sound as if the file contained in the zip is somehow launching on its own without any user notification. Sounds like BS to me. What is the source for this?
Edit: I see. It starts an installer that the user has to go along with willingly, and therefore it's nothing even remotely similar to the stealth install crapware on Windows. Next.
citizenzen
Apr 24, 01:36 PM
Currently the biggest threat to freedom and democracy is Islam.
Freedom comes under threat when we use force and aggression as a socio-political tool.
No matter who is on the receiving end of it, the chances are they will respond in a like manner.
And so the cycle of violence turns.
Who will have the wisdom, compassion and courage to see through this and bring it to an end?
Freedom comes under threat when we use force and aggression as a socio-political tool.
No matter who is on the receiving end of it, the chances are they will respond in a like manner.
And so the cycle of violence turns.
Who will have the wisdom, compassion and courage to see through this and bring it to an end?
BenRoethig
Oct 26, 07:19 AM
If the pricing is any indication, the (low end) Quad Core 2.33GHz Clovertown is the same price as the (high end) 3.0GHz Dual-core Xeon...
so unless the bottom of the line Mac Pro is expected to start at $3298, the current Dual-Core Xeon Mac Pros will stick around.
arn
Then again, the way Apple's pro segment machines have been going up in both power and price...
so unless the bottom of the line Mac Pro is expected to start at $3298, the current Dual-Core Xeon Mac Pros will stick around.
arn
Then again, the way Apple's pro segment machines have been going up in both power and price...
GGJstudios
May 2, 03:41 PM
What if next time it's a malicious piece of code ? Why did it auto-execute, under what conditions and could these conditions be used to execute something other than an installer ?
It can't achieve privilege escalation without the user entering their admin password. That means it can't damage your Mac OS X installation.
ie, not viruses. ClamAV's original intent was Linux e-mail servers and while it may have morphed into more, it's existence is not the proof of Mac viruses.
I only mentioned that because some are under the mistaken impression that ClamXav only detects Windows malware.
It can't achieve privilege escalation without the user entering their admin password. That means it can't damage your Mac OS X installation.
ie, not viruses. ClamAV's original intent was Linux e-mail servers and while it may have morphed into more, it's existence is not the proof of Mac viruses.
I only mentioned that because some are under the mistaken impression that ClamXav only detects Windows malware.
Wilbah
May 5, 12:09 PM
iphone user since day 1.. I was verizon prior.. I live in central NJ, commute into NYC.. my service is so awful that I no longer talk on the phone.. seriously, my communication habits have changed.
At home, I drop literally half of my calls inside and out, on the road, a little less but still a joke by any standard. If you check the map, I live in a high coverage, full 3G zone, it's not like I live in the sticks....
When I first upgraded to the 3GS from my 2G, I noticed a marked improvement so I thought maybe it was the original 2G phone, but now, over the last few weeks the service has gotten so bad that I am ready to dump it and move on. I really just need a phone that works and doesn't give me high blood pressure every time I pick it up to get on a call.
The problem is that the iPhone and some of the apps I utilize have become integral parts of my workflow, so it won't be an easy change.
Yesterday I called AT&T for the first time in months and just yelled at everyone I could until I was good and satisfied. I've already gotten them to give me refunds (several time) it's not about the money anymore.
I just really wish they'd invest some of the loads of cash they're taking to upgrade their network, especially in the busiest metro areas that are the hardest hit. Or perhaps maybe even invent a new method relieve pressure on their network (something along the lines of the micro-cell but more widespread)?
They should also RUSH the micro cell to all markets immediately, and GIVE it to people! Seriously.. for the money we pay, they should GIVE the microcell away to anyone on AT&T who will take it. It will relieve pressure on their network and possibly save them from additional towers.
The device is cheap comparatively .. and we are the ones who are paying for the internet connection that it utilizes! For the nearly $6,000 I've given AT&T over the last 3 years (we have 3 iPhones on a plan) I think it's only fair they give us a service that at the very least they are trying to improve.
At home, I drop literally half of my calls inside and out, on the road, a little less but still a joke by any standard. If you check the map, I live in a high coverage, full 3G zone, it's not like I live in the sticks....
When I first upgraded to the 3GS from my 2G, I noticed a marked improvement so I thought maybe it was the original 2G phone, but now, over the last few weeks the service has gotten so bad that I am ready to dump it and move on. I really just need a phone that works and doesn't give me high blood pressure every time I pick it up to get on a call.
The problem is that the iPhone and some of the apps I utilize have become integral parts of my workflow, so it won't be an easy change.
Yesterday I called AT&T for the first time in months and just yelled at everyone I could until I was good and satisfied. I've already gotten them to give me refunds (several time) it's not about the money anymore.
I just really wish they'd invest some of the loads of cash they're taking to upgrade their network, especially in the busiest metro areas that are the hardest hit. Or perhaps maybe even invent a new method relieve pressure on their network (something along the lines of the micro-cell but more widespread)?
They should also RUSH the micro cell to all markets immediately, and GIVE it to people! Seriously.. for the money we pay, they should GIVE the microcell away to anyone on AT&T who will take it. It will relieve pressure on their network and possibly save them from additional towers.
The device is cheap comparatively .. and we are the ones who are paying for the internet connection that it utilizes! For the nearly $6,000 I've given AT&T over the last 3 years (we have 3 iPhones on a plan) I think it's only fair they give us a service that at the very least they are trying to improve.
Clive At Five
Aug 29, 12:40 PM
no no no no no.
The things that are bad for the environment are also used intensively in the PRODUCTION of materials used in computers, the Mo-Boards, the Processors, anything solid state. Sure the things contain trace amounts of Lead and other crap but they aren't nearly as harmful to the environment as, say MAKING a microprocessor. Thus, I have no idea why on Earth Intel isn't #1 based solely on the sheer volume of byproduct they produce.
And if Greenpeace is going after PC makers, Dell, again just by their VOLUME, dwarfs Apple in toxins used in their products. Apple, however, makes a noticable effort (i.e. free disposal w/a new Mac, iPod) to ensure that people don't just toss their computers in a way that will hurt the environment. Dell has a service as well, but it isn't free.
I think Greenpeace just spun the roulette wheel and it landed in Apple's disfavor.
I care about the environment, but Greenpeace is out of hand. It's the little things like free disposal that make the difference. It might be what keeps some people from slipping pieces of old computers in their trash can week-by-week.
... oh come on, like you've never done that...
-Clive
The things that are bad for the environment are also used intensively in the PRODUCTION of materials used in computers, the Mo-Boards, the Processors, anything solid state. Sure the things contain trace amounts of Lead and other crap but they aren't nearly as harmful to the environment as, say MAKING a microprocessor. Thus, I have no idea why on Earth Intel isn't #1 based solely on the sheer volume of byproduct they produce.
And if Greenpeace is going after PC makers, Dell, again just by their VOLUME, dwarfs Apple in toxins used in their products. Apple, however, makes a noticable effort (i.e. free disposal w/a new Mac, iPod) to ensure that people don't just toss their computers in a way that will hurt the environment. Dell has a service as well, but it isn't free.
I think Greenpeace just spun the roulette wheel and it landed in Apple's disfavor.
I care about the environment, but Greenpeace is out of hand. It's the little things like free disposal that make the difference. It might be what keeps some people from slipping pieces of old computers in their trash can week-by-week.
... oh come on, like you've never done that...
-Clive
Groovey
Aug 30, 11:32 AM
Something just dawned on me. Like when Macrumors (or someone) posted that Rush Limbaugh was selling his broadcasts for MP3 players, people here were divided. And it's the same thing with Greenpeace. We're fighting over idealistic opinions.
Maybe we should focus our attention on fighting for the Apple and all its greatness (and some not-so-great things), instead of against each other.
Totally agreed. I think one part of the problem is that idealism quite often seems to drive people to have extreme opinions, or else it feels like they wouldn't be standing behind their own point of view. Everyone should at least try to realize the other side of the game no matter whether you're "huggin' trees with a joint" for GP or "shooting crappy hippypeople" for the government.
Peace out!
Maybe we should focus our attention on fighting for the Apple and all its greatness (and some not-so-great things), instead of against each other.
Totally agreed. I think one part of the problem is that idealism quite often seems to drive people to have extreme opinions, or else it feels like they wouldn't be standing behind their own point of view. Everyone should at least try to realize the other side of the game no matter whether you're "huggin' trees with a joint" for GP or "shooting crappy hippypeople" for the government.
Peace out!
Dr.Gargoyle
Aug 29, 02:45 PM
Notice the words "indirectly" and "thousands" in my post, not "directly" and "millions." You are correct that GM foods will not save Africa, and also correct that African goverments are as corrupt as they come.
But you're wrong to think that genetically-altered foods won't help, especially if administed by multi-national organizations, and NOT African governemtns.
It might help starving Africans, but we could also screw up our genetical inheritance royally. Cross breeding is a problem we know too little about.
But you're wrong to think that genetically-altered foods won't help, especially if administed by multi-national organizations, and NOT African governemtns.
It might help starving Africans, but we could also screw up our genetical inheritance royally. Cross breeding is a problem we know too little about.
Blackcat
Sep 20, 11:09 AM
eyeHome does not support HD and it never will. I got this in an email directly from Elgato. That is the biggest difference. Also, the general consensus is that eyeHome is not in the same league of robustness/intuitiveness as other elgato products or Apple products. eyeHome cannot even play back eyeTV 500 , eyeTV Hybrid recordings.
But nobody will be downloading HD for iTV, so that's a moot point. From what I've seen so far it actually does less than other media streamers.
But nobody will be downloading HD for iTV, so that's a moot point. From what I've seen so far it actually does less than other media streamers.
btrav13
Jun 7, 08:37 PM
So, serious question: Why do people put up with ATT?
I hear all the arguments that go back and forth: they suck, it would have happened to anyone, my service is terrible, my service is great, break exclusivity, keep exclusivity.
I own an iPod, iPad and MBP, but no iPhone. I know a lot of us LOVE our Apple products, but seriously, why don't more people talk to ATT with their dollars? If every ATT hater who owned an iPhone did not buy the next one, would that do the trick? Would that send a better message to Apple than an email to Jobs or a post on MacRumors.com? I know there have been efforts at crashing the data network and such, but wouldn't just NOT purchasing the product and NOT putting up with something you don't like be a bigger statement at the end of the day?
I hear all the arguments that go back and forth: they suck, it would have happened to anyone, my service is terrible, my service is great, break exclusivity, keep exclusivity.
I own an iPod, iPad and MBP, but no iPhone. I know a lot of us LOVE our Apple products, but seriously, why don't more people talk to ATT with their dollars? If every ATT hater who owned an iPhone did not buy the next one, would that do the trick? Would that send a better message to Apple than an email to Jobs or a post on MacRumors.com? I know there have been efforts at crashing the data network and such, but wouldn't just NOT purchasing the product and NOT putting up with something you don't like be a bigger statement at the end of the day?
MacinDoc
Oct 26, 12:22 AM
Well, it would be easy enough for Apple to replace the dual 2.66 GHz Woodcrest option with a single Clovertown at the same clock speed, while also boosting speed a bit (like when it moved from dual processor G5s to dual core G5s) and reducing power consumption, heat production and fan noise a bit, and dropping the price at the same time. There's no direct equivalent of the 2.0 and 3.0 GHz dual Woodcrests, however, so replacing them could be a bit more complicated.
No comments:
Post a Comment