kevin.rivers
Jul 14, 12:44 PM
Yeah, considering we get so many posts about "Will this RAM work?". It seems like the populous is clueless about DDR/DDR2 and FSB.
Exactly. Which is why the Ghz myth will stay for a long time. You can't market Memory or FSB or SATA or PCI-X/PCI-E, you won't get anywhere.
Ghz, GB, "X times faster", and you can play games that look very pretty. Those will be what computer marketing will be all about for many years to come.
Exactly. Which is why the Ghz myth will stay for a long time. You can't market Memory or FSB or SATA or PCI-X/PCI-E, you won't get anywhere.
Ghz, GB, "X times faster", and you can play games that look very pretty. Those will be what computer marketing will be all about for many years to come.
munkery
Mar 22, 08:35 PM
Kernel
A privilege checking issue existed in the i386_set_ldt system call's handling of call gates. A local user may be able to execute arbitrary code with system privileges. This issue is addressed by disallowing creation of call gate entries via i386_set_ldt().
Generating a successful malware from that list of vulnerabilities has two requirements:
1) A remote arbitrary code execution vulnerability has to be linked to a local privilege escalation vulnerability.
2) Those vulnerabilities that can be linked together must both be exploitable. Not all vulnerabilities are exploitable.
The only local privilege escalation vulnerability in that update is shown above. To be linked to a remote vulnerability to create a successful malware requires the following:
1) The call function must be used by a process that also has an remote vulnerability so that the vulns can be linked together to install a payload, such as rootkit. It is likely that not all processes will use that call function. Also, that call function is for 32-bit processes and most client side software in Mac OS X that may contain a remote exploit are 64-bit processes.
2) The two vulnerabilities have to be reliably exploitable once linked together as well as being reliably exploitable independently so that they can actually be linked together. Again, not all vulnerabilities are exploitable.
Linking together remote and local exploits is more difficult in Mac OS X than Windows. This is because Windows has far more local privilege escalation exploits than Mac OS X. Another factor is that the different levels of Windows are less insulated from each other than the different levels of Mac OS X. A common method to achieve privilege escalation in Windows is by manipulating registry values.
http://www.exploit-db.com/bypassing-uac-with-user-privilege-under-windows-vista7-mirror/ -> outlines how to exploit win32k.sys vulnerabilities by manipulating registry values.
http://cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvekey.cgi?keyword=win32k -> list of win32k.sys vulnerabilities.
A privilege checking issue existed in the i386_set_ldt system call's handling of call gates. A local user may be able to execute arbitrary code with system privileges. This issue is addressed by disallowing creation of call gate entries via i386_set_ldt().
Generating a successful malware from that list of vulnerabilities has two requirements:
1) A remote arbitrary code execution vulnerability has to be linked to a local privilege escalation vulnerability.
2) Those vulnerabilities that can be linked together must both be exploitable. Not all vulnerabilities are exploitable.
The only local privilege escalation vulnerability in that update is shown above. To be linked to a remote vulnerability to create a successful malware requires the following:
1) The call function must be used by a process that also has an remote vulnerability so that the vulns can be linked together to install a payload, such as rootkit. It is likely that not all processes will use that call function. Also, that call function is for 32-bit processes and most client side software in Mac OS X that may contain a remote exploit are 64-bit processes.
2) The two vulnerabilities have to be reliably exploitable once linked together as well as being reliably exploitable independently so that they can actually be linked together. Again, not all vulnerabilities are exploitable.
Linking together remote and local exploits is more difficult in Mac OS X than Windows. This is because Windows has far more local privilege escalation exploits than Mac OS X. Another factor is that the different levels of Windows are less insulated from each other than the different levels of Mac OS X. A common method to achieve privilege escalation in Windows is by manipulating registry values.
http://www.exploit-db.com/bypassing-uac-with-user-privilege-under-windows-vista7-mirror/ -> outlines how to exploit win32k.sys vulnerabilities by manipulating registry values.
http://cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvekey.cgi?keyword=win32k -> list of win32k.sys vulnerabilities.
Peace
Sep 5, 06:04 PM
I'll think about it. I think it's covered by "video to tv via dvi>hdmi cable for hdtv or analogue connection for sdtv". Which you obviously missed?
Try looking at the pic again. And read the stuff. All of it.
Read my previous post :)
Try looking at the pic again. And read the stuff. All of it.
Read my previous post :)
Number 41
Mar 23, 05:06 PM
Stupidity on MacRumors and in the federal government, as usual.
The only reason OVI / DUI / DWI checkpoints are legal under the US Constitution and your local state Constitution is because the locations are made public in advance. Your local newspaper (or some other paper of general circulation) will publish the locations a day or so in advance of the police operating the checkpoint. This is what allows the police to pull your car over and detain you despite lacking any probable cause to believe you are drunk. Without that notice (where you are considered to have consented to the stop by driving through the checkpoint), any stopping of your vehicle without probable cause is unlawful and renders any evidence located (such as your breath test or SFSTs) inadmissible in court.
Removing this app is tantamount to the federal government telling private citizens they don't have a right to know where checkpoints are located -- and that knowledge is the only reason checkpoints are legal.
The Senators are stepping in it on this one, and probably not a one of them has anyone on their staff who has ever spent time in a municipal court dealing with a drunk driving case.
The only reason OVI / DUI / DWI checkpoints are legal under the US Constitution and your local state Constitution is because the locations are made public in advance. Your local newspaper (or some other paper of general circulation) will publish the locations a day or so in advance of the police operating the checkpoint. This is what allows the police to pull your car over and detain you despite lacking any probable cause to believe you are drunk. Without that notice (where you are considered to have consented to the stop by driving through the checkpoint), any stopping of your vehicle without probable cause is unlawful and renders any evidence located (such as your breath test or SFSTs) inadmissible in court.
Removing this app is tantamount to the federal government telling private citizens they don't have a right to know where checkpoints are located -- and that knowledge is the only reason checkpoints are legal.
The Senators are stepping in it on this one, and probably not a one of them has anyone on their staff who has ever spent time in a municipal court dealing with a drunk driving case.
iStudentUK
Mar 29, 11:53 AM
Since 1984:
Cmd-X = Cut
Cmd-C = Copy
Cmd-V = Paste
Grab will snap a picture of a window, the entire screen etc. There is also print to PDF.
I'm pretty sure he was referring to cut and paste in finder and "windows snap" is where you can snap two windows side by side easily- it is a great feature in W7 and I hope Apple incorporate it in some way.
Cmd-X = Cut
Cmd-C = Copy
Cmd-V = Paste
Grab will snap a picture of a window, the entire screen etc. There is also print to PDF.
I'm pretty sure he was referring to cut and paste in finder and "windows snap" is where you can snap two windows side by side easily- it is a great feature in W7 and I hope Apple incorporate it in some way.
Rocketman
Sep 1, 02:55 PM
While it sounds good, I don't see this happen soon at all. Also, Verizon disagrees with you, because they are pulling fiber to the homes in several (large) cities and more to come. The investment for 4G (802.16e I assume you're talking about)will be much too high while not providing enough guarantees it will be financial feasible in short and mid term to make shareholders feel confortable. But if it will, Apple will get my money :) But are there enough gadget geeks like me in the world? That will make or break the project.....
It boils down to suburban, rural, and rural-suburban access.
Currently Satellite will do it at high cost. (hughesnet.com)
2G will do it with crippled bandwidth and high cost.
POTS will do it with crippled speed and uncrippled cost.
Big cities are never the biggest nut to crack.
Rocketman
It boils down to suburban, rural, and rural-suburban access.
Currently Satellite will do it at high cost. (hughesnet.com)
2G will do it with crippled bandwidth and high cost.
POTS will do it with crippled speed and uncrippled cost.
Big cities are never the biggest nut to crack.
Rocketman
Synapple
Aug 31, 04:56 PM
Sept. 12th is a Tuesday in Cupertino.
lol... September 12th is a Tuesday worldwide :p
lol... September 12th is a Tuesday worldwide :p
flopticalcube
Sep 9, 12:25 PM
Looks like MacCentral forgot to mention the fact that no matter how few cores an application can use - even if it's only ONE, the fact that more can be run at full speed SIMULTANEOUSLY is the whole reason for wanting-having-needing more cores - not wiether or not what you normally run can use 2, 3 or even all 4 cores at this time. OS X automatically delegates work to however many cores are vacant or underused so the user gets immediate benefit from 4 cores they will never get from 2. And I am 100% certain that tthe benefit is radically more than 20-30%.
It's an old think I always do only one thing at a time mentality that overlooks this otherwise obvious reason - a new way of working and a new way of thinking about how to do work - for going with more cores if you can afford it.
Maybe they should have run all their benchmarks at the same time!
It's an old think I always do only one thing at a time mentality that overlooks this otherwise obvious reason - a new way of working and a new way of thinking about how to do work - for going with more cores if you can afford it.
Maybe they should have run all their benchmarks at the same time!
cvaldes
Mar 22, 02:13 PM
I'm hoping we don't see Apple adopting the HD Intel Graphics, cuz they are going to suck as far as gaming goes..
The current iMacs use discrete ATI Radeon GPUs.
Since the newly released MacBook Pros also include ATI Radeons, it is likely that Apple would continue this trend with the next batch of iMacs.
You needn't worry.
The current iMacs use discrete ATI Radeon GPUs.
Since the newly released MacBook Pros also include ATI Radeons, it is likely that Apple would continue this trend with the next batch of iMacs.
You needn't worry.
wizard
Sep 9, 12:03 PM
I'm a little skeptical about Napa64 as well. I did read the previous links and articles on it. Why make Merom backwards compatible with Yonah?
What is to be skeptical about? Seriously Intel continuously improves its hardware, they have to or end up getting trounced on by the competition. In fact recent history with respect to AMD demonstrates what happens when they don't take a serious look at their hardware.
The issue with Merom and this iterations backward computability is that it gets INTEL 64 bit hardware to market fast as frankly they weren't even competing in that realm. For Intel 64 bit is serious issue as they are behind the eight ball or this one. It is an example of Intel being asleep at the wheel as they focused on who needs 64 bit instructions when a good part of the market demand was for addressable ram.
Nice information there. I wanted a little heads up on Kentsfield. Still, isn't it dual Conroe's with separate cache and then over the front side bus?
Frankly I haven't followed Kentsfield that much, more of an AMD man, but what is interesting to me with respect to this thread, is that MEROM the platform has a long way to go yet. That is the iMac just released is more or less a first generation implementation of Merom. I'm left with the impression that Apple just slapped the new processor in the old socket and gave us all a surprise this week. But that is what backward computability is all about. Mind you I know nothing about the current logic boards but I'm sure that information will float across the web soon.
Dave
What is to be skeptical about? Seriously Intel continuously improves its hardware, they have to or end up getting trounced on by the competition. In fact recent history with respect to AMD demonstrates what happens when they don't take a serious look at their hardware.
The issue with Merom and this iterations backward computability is that it gets INTEL 64 bit hardware to market fast as frankly they weren't even competing in that realm. For Intel 64 bit is serious issue as they are behind the eight ball or this one. It is an example of Intel being asleep at the wheel as they focused on who needs 64 bit instructions when a good part of the market demand was for addressable ram.
Nice information there. I wanted a little heads up on Kentsfield. Still, isn't it dual Conroe's with separate cache and then over the front side bus?
Frankly I haven't followed Kentsfield that much, more of an AMD man, but what is interesting to me with respect to this thread, is that MEROM the platform has a long way to go yet. That is the iMac just released is more or less a first generation implementation of Merom. I'm left with the impression that Apple just slapped the new processor in the old socket and gave us all a surprise this week. But that is what backward computability is all about. Mind you I know nothing about the current logic boards but I'm sure that information will float across the web soon.
Dave
kdarling
Apr 20, 10:30 AM
I thought this was an FCC mandate (to track GPS information for cellphones) after 9/11.
Not the date 9/11. Location is mandated for E911, the emergency call number.
However, in ATT's case, that location is determined on the carrier side alone, not by way of the phone itself as is done on say, Verizon.
Agree to that, but why is it being collected without permission?
If it's not sent anywhere, then it's almost certainly a simple programmer screwup, leaving in test code.
The data is actually collected by cell tower triangulation, not GPS.
To use the cell method (and I doubt it's triangulation - but that's a different topic), the cell id must be sent to Apple's location server, which then returns the computed general center of that cell, which is in an area about 1/3 of the tower's coverage.
The claim is that no data is going back and forth while the location is being collected, which makes no sense unless every iPhone has a huge cell database stored or cached internally. (Possible.)
Not the date 9/11. Location is mandated for E911, the emergency call number.
However, in ATT's case, that location is determined on the carrier side alone, not by way of the phone itself as is done on say, Verizon.
Agree to that, but why is it being collected without permission?
If it's not sent anywhere, then it's almost certainly a simple programmer screwup, leaving in test code.
The data is actually collected by cell tower triangulation, not GPS.
To use the cell method (and I doubt it's triangulation - but that's a different topic), the cell id must be sent to Apple's location server, which then returns the computed general center of that cell, which is in an area about 1/3 of the tower's coverage.
The claim is that no data is going back and forth while the location is being collected, which makes no sense unless every iPhone has a huge cell database stored or cached internally. (Possible.)
rtkane
Apr 4, 12:23 PM
This is a silly debate here. Having known trained officers and military people and being related to some I can tell you one thing: they are taught to neutralize the threat. They certainly don't want to but if you hesitate you die. Chest shots are preferable because it's easier to target but head shots sometimes happen. People should be thinking about the guard who will undoubtedly need time to work through this ordeal.
As a former police officer, I can verify what you're saying--police are trained to "shoot to stop" not shoot to kill and always shoot for center-mass--the largest part of the body (the torso) which provides you the greatest likelihood of hitting your target and stopping the threat. I can almost guarantee that this guy did not fire off a purposeful headshot and everyone playing Monday morning quarterback judging this guy's actions has NEVER been in a situation like it. You don't understand it until you're in it and unfortunately the milliseconds you have to make your decision affect you for the rest of your life.
As a former police officer, I can verify what you're saying--police are trained to "shoot to stop" not shoot to kill and always shoot for center-mass--the largest part of the body (the torso) which provides you the greatest likelihood of hitting your target and stopping the threat. I can almost guarantee that this guy did not fire off a purposeful headshot and everyone playing Monday morning quarterback judging this guy's actions has NEVER been in a situation like it. You don't understand it until you're in it and unfortunately the milliseconds you have to make your decision affect you for the rest of your life.
cadillac1234
Apr 22, 11:46 AM
Every time I get ready to pull the trigger on the 11' something holds me back :D
I don't really need one but I sure want one
I don't really need one but I sure want one
munkery
Jan 14, 01:11 PM
Maybe theoretically you should do that, but I don't know anyone that actually does on Windows or OS X. In both cases you aren't actually running with your full powers all the time, and get prompted to escalate if something needs admin access.
The default account created in Mac OS X has password authentication. Your password is the unique identifier. Most people use the default account created by the OS for day to day computing.
Commercial software shouldn't be installing malware...I mean tons of it now has all kinds of DRM that is arguably malware, but...
While I'd rather run something without giving it full access to the system, ultimately you're trusting the publisher either way.
When the software is running with superuser privilege and connects to servers that can be controlled by anybody such as in many online games for Windows, the content downloaded from the server can be written anywhere in your system. This allows keyloggers, backdoors, and malware rootkits to be installed.
Why?
Why! (http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=11720477&postcount=182).
I really doubt they double count things like that, given they're counted separately. I suppose there might be some validity to it if they did.
They count the number of items in each vendors security releases. Mac OS X includes Flash, Java, & etc by default so vulnerabilities in those are counted for Mac OS X because included in Apple security releases. Often these items constitute the majority of vulnerabilities in the security release. It is only valid if Windows users don't install Flash, Java, various ActiveX components, codecs, etc, etc, etc...
I'm not seeing why you're saying there's any difference. I don't use IE or Safari as my primary browser, though there may be some validity to including one or the other in the list of OS issues, but at any rate neither yet sandboxes plug-ins to my knowledge.
There's a flag that can be set for that, but I'm not sure where you're getting it from that article. Regardless 'some' is better than 'none'.
Except for Chrome which is sandboxed, all browser are susceptible to the security problems of the underlying OS but these issues arise in more than just the browser. An example of how they are different is Java has no security mitigations (DER or ASLR) in Windows (as shown in article) but Java has hardware based DEP and partial ASLR in Mac OS X as Java is 64 bit in OS X. Also, Mac OS X randomizes memory space into 4 byte chunks making it more difficult to defeat ASLR while Windows uses 64 byte chunks. Like you said, some is better than none.
Security mitigations, such as DEP and ASLR, can be optionally set in Windows OSes for various reasons such as support for legacy software. A lot of software for Windows comes with weak security by default and will break if the user tries to modify its settings. In Mac OS X, apps have a standard level of security mitigations dependent on the type of process (32 or 64 bit) that are set at that standard level when the app is compiled and not modifiable as in Windows (Opt-in, Opt-out, etc).
Which is different from Windows how?
Because Windows has a history of malware that achieves privilege escalation and Mac OS X does not? Check out these from late November 2010:
Security hole in Windows kernel allows UAC bypass (http://www.zdnet.com/blog/security/security-hole-in-windows-kernel-allows-uac-bypass/7752)
Nightmare kernel bug lets attackers evade Windows UAC security (http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9198158/_Nightmare_kernel_bug_lets_attackers_evade_Windows_UAC_security)
UAC bypass exploit for Metasploit (http://www.exploit-db.com/bypassing-uac-with-user-privilege-under-windows-vista7-mirror/)
On Montage Mtn Road above
Montage Mountain Cinema.
Fight Montage
1000 Montage Mountain Road
Light by The Knock Shoppe
The default account created in Mac OS X has password authentication. Your password is the unique identifier. Most people use the default account created by the OS for day to day computing.
Commercial software shouldn't be installing malware...I mean tons of it now has all kinds of DRM that is arguably malware, but...
While I'd rather run something without giving it full access to the system, ultimately you're trusting the publisher either way.
When the software is running with superuser privilege and connects to servers that can be controlled by anybody such as in many online games for Windows, the content downloaded from the server can be written anywhere in your system. This allows keyloggers, backdoors, and malware rootkits to be installed.
Why?
Why! (http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=11720477&postcount=182).
I really doubt they double count things like that, given they're counted separately. I suppose there might be some validity to it if they did.
They count the number of items in each vendors security releases. Mac OS X includes Flash, Java, & etc by default so vulnerabilities in those are counted for Mac OS X because included in Apple security releases. Often these items constitute the majority of vulnerabilities in the security release. It is only valid if Windows users don't install Flash, Java, various ActiveX components, codecs, etc, etc, etc...
I'm not seeing why you're saying there's any difference. I don't use IE or Safari as my primary browser, though there may be some validity to including one or the other in the list of OS issues, but at any rate neither yet sandboxes plug-ins to my knowledge.
There's a flag that can be set for that, but I'm not sure where you're getting it from that article. Regardless 'some' is better than 'none'.
Except for Chrome which is sandboxed, all browser are susceptible to the security problems of the underlying OS but these issues arise in more than just the browser. An example of how they are different is Java has no security mitigations (DER or ASLR) in Windows (as shown in article) but Java has hardware based DEP and partial ASLR in Mac OS X as Java is 64 bit in OS X. Also, Mac OS X randomizes memory space into 4 byte chunks making it more difficult to defeat ASLR while Windows uses 64 byte chunks. Like you said, some is better than none.
Security mitigations, such as DEP and ASLR, can be optionally set in Windows OSes for various reasons such as support for legacy software. A lot of software for Windows comes with weak security by default and will break if the user tries to modify its settings. In Mac OS X, apps have a standard level of security mitigations dependent on the type of process (32 or 64 bit) that are set at that standard level when the app is compiled and not modifiable as in Windows (Opt-in, Opt-out, etc).
Which is different from Windows how?
Because Windows has a history of malware that achieves privilege escalation and Mac OS X does not? Check out these from late November 2010:
Security hole in Windows kernel allows UAC bypass (http://www.zdnet.com/blog/security/security-hole-in-windows-kernel-allows-uac-bypass/7752)
Nightmare kernel bug lets attackers evade Windows UAC security (http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9198158/_Nightmare_kernel_bug_lets_attackers_evade_Windows_UAC_security)
UAC bypass exploit for Metasploit (http://www.exploit-db.com/bypassing-uac-with-user-privilege-under-windows-vista7-mirror/)
rmwebs
Apr 25, 02:38 PM
I'd like to see something along the lines of carbon fiber. I'm fed up of being shocked by my unearthed mac book pro, and very fed up of the razor sharp edges they seem to like so much. It makes me look like I've tried slitting my wrists :p
The obvious downside with using a non-metal is the heat. They have relied on the aluminium to act as a giant heatsink, and I fear not using aluminium again would result in a thicker, hotter model!
The obvious downside with using a non-metal is the heat. They have relied on the aluminium to act as a giant heatsink, and I fear not using aluminium again would result in a thicker, hotter model!
Saladin
Sep 14, 09:59 PM
2. Apple's announcement a few days ago about the new iTunes store: (to quote Page 1) "TV shows will now be sold at 640x480 px h264. While the updated 5G iPods announced today will be able to play the new format, there has not been any indication from Apple of yet that the new shows will be playable on older 5G iPods. Apple's official knowledge-base article still states that h264-encoded movies must be 320 x 240 at 30 fps."
That's false information. I already downloaded Sacred Planet (640*480 h.264) from the iTunes Movie Store and loaded it onto my newly updated 5G iPod. The movie works perfectly. Since that would have been the strongest point in your argument for a multiple use device, I would now say your conclusion lacks weight. I'm not saying that they won't release one soon, just use better proofs to support your conclusion next time.
That's false information. I already downloaded Sacred Planet (640*480 h.264) from the iTunes Movie Store and loaded it onto my newly updated 5G iPod. The movie works perfectly. Since that would have been the strongest point in your argument for a multiple use device, I would now say your conclusion lacks weight. I'm not saying that they won't release one soon, just use better proofs to support your conclusion next time.
Cinch
Sep 5, 01:06 PM
But with every attempt, the chance of success increases significantly. Lets keep our fingers crossed. :)
I think a simpler explanation is that certain things are never meant to be together.
Video on demand are NetFlix currently fill the niche, if there is a niche. Whatever Apple do, it has to be simple and easy i.e. it doesn't require lots of thinking..a lazy person can operate. This is the living room not the office where I don't care to navigate my computer to search for movies to watch.
Cinch
I think a simpler explanation is that certain things are never meant to be together.
Video on demand are NetFlix currently fill the niche, if there is a niche. Whatever Apple do, it has to be simple and easy i.e. it doesn't require lots of thinking..a lazy person can operate. This is the living room not the office where I don't care to navigate my computer to search for movies to watch.
Cinch
Willis
Sep 9, 05:00 AM
64-bit likes rosetta it seems. Good speed gain for CS2. 27/36 seconds quicker aint bad. Im guessing the larger L2 cache has some play in that too.
I love that 24". Its a BEAST!
I love that 24". Its a BEAST!
SPUY767
Sep 11, 09:57 AM
I'm hoping for iMacs because I could care less about downloading Movies. Hell the only TV I download are the free eps. Unless you can get me 5.1 surround, DVD quality for a monthly fee that is less than Netflix... well, Netflix is still king to me. :)
Especially since DVDs ar easier to copy than these files would ever be. Not that i copy DVD's or anything.
I predict the following:
iTunes Movie Store with... 1080 HD movie downloads.
Updated Cinema Displays.
New Airport Extreme with 802.11n (for streaming the said Movies wirelessly)
iPod updates, either slightly modified nano(new cases+more compacity) and/or updated video iPods with higher compacity for said HD movies.
;)
I really do think theywill be available in 1080, and that will be a very big deal.
blueray? hd dvd? who cares i can just get them on itunes.
Well, an 8 meg connection is adequate to stream the HD trailers in 720p. I honestly don't think that Apple would bother offering the movies in any higher quality, as the codec scales nicely, and most HD sets are 720p or just that ED crap. When a set says 1080i on the side it usually means that it can decode a 1080i signal, not that it can display it. If you have a 1080i capable TV, you'll know it cause your ass will hurt much more than the guy who buys the 720p set.
Especially since DVDs ar easier to copy than these files would ever be. Not that i copy DVD's or anything.
I predict the following:
iTunes Movie Store with... 1080 HD movie downloads.
Updated Cinema Displays.
New Airport Extreme with 802.11n (for streaming the said Movies wirelessly)
iPod updates, either slightly modified nano(new cases+more compacity) and/or updated video iPods with higher compacity for said HD movies.
;)
I really do think theywill be available in 1080, and that will be a very big deal.
blueray? hd dvd? who cares i can just get them on itunes.
Well, an 8 meg connection is adequate to stream the HD trailers in 720p. I honestly don't think that Apple would bother offering the movies in any higher quality, as the codec scales nicely, and most HD sets are 720p or just that ED crap. When a set says 1080i on the side it usually means that it can decode a 1080i signal, not that it can display it. If you have a 1080i capable TV, you'll know it cause your ass will hurt much more than the guy who buys the 720p set.
talkingfuture
Apr 19, 07:02 AM
I think this may be one of those stories where the media make it sound much bigger than it is. A load of lawyers will make a ton of money and the two companies will come to some sort of licensing agreement or Apple will get a discount on some of the parts they buy.
lifeinhd
Mar 23, 06:59 PM
Just downloaded both mentioned in the article, thanks for the heads-up MR.
Typical, guilty until proven innocent, isn't that always the way.
Typical, guilty until proven innocent, isn't that always the way.
iflipper
Sep 14, 08:34 AM
:eek: I just literally finished ordering a new battery and 1gb memory upgrade so my ibook would last a little longer. If they release a tablet (which is what I'm holding on for) I'll cry!
baxterbrittle
Sep 10, 05:36 AM
It is likely that Apple will drop conroes into the iMac when kentsfield is released. It makes sense to put merom into the iMac now as an intermediate update as they do not have to redesign the whole logic board. Maybe around MWSF we will see a new iMac based around conroe with pin compatible kentsfield in the high end models (24"). I still think it is unlikely that Apple will bring out a mid level tower any time soon, but i've been wrong before. Still would be nice to be able to pick up a quad core 24" iMac in 6 mounths time.
spriter
Sep 9, 02:08 AM
I am moving up from an eMac 1 gigahertz G4. So I'm sure it will seem very fast to me. Probably more than I need.
You're in for a treat. I went from a 1.2GHz G4 to MacBook (2HGz Yonah) and it's streets ahead in terms of performance. 4 times faster encoding a DVD with Handbrake is a godsend.
The Merom iMac's are a great spec for the price.
You're in for a treat. I went from a 1.2GHz G4 to MacBook (2HGz Yonah) and it's streets ahead in terms of performance. 4 times faster encoding a DVD with Handbrake is a godsend.
The Merom iMac's are a great spec for the price.