chilipie
Sep 12, 02:47 PM
Dear Apple,
YOU SUCK!
Love,
Nathan
PS- I will still buy your stuff.
Exactly how I felt...
..until I realised that I too could play Pacman! ;)
YOU SUCK!
Love,
Nathan
PS- I will still buy your stuff.
Exactly how I felt...
..until I realised that I too could play Pacman! ;)
dondark
Sep 13, 11:46 PM
EDIT:
9) Quit asking about live iChat video chat, it AIN'T GONNA HAPPEN. A possible related item would be iChat texting (similar to current AOL, Yahoo, ICQ).[/QUOTE]
Its just some kind of 3G and Skype technology, It s not hard to do it. But I think Apple isnt rich enuf to do that in the market.
9) Quit asking about live iChat video chat, it AIN'T GONNA HAPPEN. A possible related item would be iChat texting (similar to current AOL, Yahoo, ICQ).[/QUOTE]
Its just some kind of 3G and Skype technology, It s not hard to do it. But I think Apple isnt rich enuf to do that in the market.
vd0t
Sep 9, 11:19 AM
Is one of the 512MB RAM on the iMac soldered on?? :confused:
GGJstudios
Mar 19, 04:26 PM
Maybe you should re-read page 1 of this thread and MisterMe's responses to the thread. It was his posts I was originally replying to and that you chose to then jump on.
Let's re-read them together, shall we?
It makes sense. iProducts are increasingly becoming ubiquitous, therefore they will become more profitable for malware developers to attack. It's not a McAfee sales pitch so much as it's stating the obvious. Same with Android.
No, it is the same nonsense that Microsoft and its apologists have been saying for the past decade. It isn't any truer today than it was a decade ago.
It makes sense. iProducts are increasingly becoming ubiquitous, therefore they will become more profitable for malware developers to attack. It's not a McAfee sales pitch so much as it's stating the obvious. Same with Android.
Sad, but true :(Sad, but false.
Wishing will not make it so.
So please point out in those posts (the only ones made by MisterMe in this thread) where he said anything about Macs being invulnerable or immune to malware, or that threats don't exist? If you really read and understand the posts, you'll see that MisterMe was refuting the false idea that market share is the reason for the lack of malware on Macs. This myth has been debunked many times. He in no way suggested that Macs were immune or that malware threats don't exist.
Trojans are particularly a problem since a lot of programs ask for root password permission to be installed (including Apple software). If the real software has been replaced with a trojan version and the site hijacked, you probably wouldn't suspect a thing.
Again, this problem only exists in pirated software or software from less-than reputable sources. As has been said many times, you can avoid trojans by being careful where you get software and what software you install. No antivirus is necessary to protect against trojans; only some common sense and prudent thinking on the part of the user.
Let's re-read them together, shall we?
It makes sense. iProducts are increasingly becoming ubiquitous, therefore they will become more profitable for malware developers to attack. It's not a McAfee sales pitch so much as it's stating the obvious. Same with Android.
No, it is the same nonsense that Microsoft and its apologists have been saying for the past decade. It isn't any truer today than it was a decade ago.
It makes sense. iProducts are increasingly becoming ubiquitous, therefore they will become more profitable for malware developers to attack. It's not a McAfee sales pitch so much as it's stating the obvious. Same with Android.
Sad, but true :(Sad, but false.
Wishing will not make it so.
So please point out in those posts (the only ones made by MisterMe in this thread) where he said anything about Macs being invulnerable or immune to malware, or that threats don't exist? If you really read and understand the posts, you'll see that MisterMe was refuting the false idea that market share is the reason for the lack of malware on Macs. This myth has been debunked many times. He in no way suggested that Macs were immune or that malware threats don't exist.
Trojans are particularly a problem since a lot of programs ask for root password permission to be installed (including Apple software). If the real software has been replaced with a trojan version and the site hijacked, you probably wouldn't suspect a thing.
Again, this problem only exists in pirated software or software from less-than reputable sources. As has been said many times, you can avoid trojans by being careful where you get software and what software you install. No antivirus is necessary to protect against trojans; only some common sense and prudent thinking on the part of the user.
patseguin
Sep 12, 02:16 PM
Are these enhancements in software, so my existing 5G iPod video will reap the benefits of games, gapless, movies, etc.?
pengu
Sep 17, 08:25 PM
WRONG GSM does NOT work in Japan. You can't go to any country and use it. Japan doesn't have GSM.
ok. see, if you actually READ my post, you would know that I said
I can take my phone to any country with a GSM network
ok. see, if you actually READ my post, you would know that I said
I can take my phone to any country with a GSM network
EagerDragon
Sep 10, 10:54 AM
Erhm..so the new realeased merom iMac will last for how long:confused: :confused:
worth it to buy now???
thinkiNG of getting one...cant bear with my 3 yrs old of centrinO noteBook...:mad:
If you need it get it now. If you can wait 6 months then wait. What is out is better than what you have, just be ready than in 6 months there will be something better. This is always the case even if you stay in the Win Camp.
worth it to buy now???
thinkiNG of getting one...cant bear with my 3 yrs old of centrinO noteBook...:mad:
If you need it get it now. If you can wait 6 months then wait. What is out is better than what you have, just be ready than in 6 months there will be something better. This is always the case even if you stay in the Win Camp.
bruinsrme
Apr 10, 07:55 PM
This is the end product of capitalism and/or neoliberal policies. Look into "the race to the bottom" in terms of international relations.
All by design. All well understood, but rarely spoken about to the public.
People have been but are written off as being "out there"
All by design. All well understood, but rarely spoken about to the public.
People have been but are written off as being "out there"
Vegasman
Mar 30, 01:09 PM
The real question is why MS is so bothered about Apple using 'App Store'. Historically MS (almost) never used the word App, instead using the word Programs. Surely MS can come up with many alternatives that describe their own store equally well, if not better. Why fight with Apple over this? I can only conclude that it is to spite Apple, or to ride Apple's coat tails yet again.
Even if MS is right, logically, linguistically, I find their attitude over this rather puerile. PR-wise it says to me "Apple, if we can't imitate you, we'll sue you"
MS sinks lower in my opinion by the day.
They are bothered because they want to be able to describe their app store. They want to be able to say:
"We have this thing called Marketplace. What is it? Well, it's a place where you can by apps. Think of it as a grocery store for apps. You know, an app store."
Even if MS is right, logically, linguistically, I find their attitude over this rather puerile. PR-wise it says to me "Apple, if we can't imitate you, we'll sue you"
MS sinks lower in my opinion by the day.
They are bothered because they want to be able to describe their app store. They want to be able to say:
"We have this thing called Marketplace. What is it? Well, it's a place where you can by apps. Think of it as a grocery store for apps. You know, an app store."
KarlOlsson
Apr 4, 12:19 PM
I'm as pro gun rights as anyone, but this sounds like a problem for the security guard. Unless that guard's life was in danger, there was no reason to shoot anyone, especially in the head. The placement of that shot was no accident.
That being said, I'm sure there are a lot of facts we don't know. Innocent until proven guilty, of course.
According to SD news , camera shows the guard took over 10 rounds directed towards him before returning fire, over 40 shots fired by by all 4 present 1guard 3suspects, so I would think deadly force was indeed needed, and FYI he was not a "Mall Cop" he was working for a privet security firm that ear all licensed to carry guns....
That being said, I'm sure there are a lot of facts we don't know. Innocent until proven guilty, of course.
According to SD news , camera shows the guard took over 10 rounds directed towards him before returning fire, over 40 shots fired by by all 4 present 1guard 3suspects, so I would think deadly force was indeed needed, and FYI he was not a "Mall Cop" he was working for a privet security firm that ear all licensed to carry guns....
FinderUser213
Mar 29, 03:08 PM
UHM... iOS is far more open-source than windows is. Nice try... Android might be more open-source though, I'm not sure.
You are 100% right; OS X/iOS are much more opensource than windows. I wasn't talking about Windows though.
And android is FULLY opensource :)
You are 100% right; OS X/iOS are much more opensource than windows. I wasn't talking about Windows though.
And android is FULLY opensource :)
monaarts
Apr 4, 11:58 AM
Seems unfair to kill someone for robbery. Yes they're breaking the law, but only deserve a prison sentence. Do you really really think someone should be shot and killed for attempting to steal a few laptops and smash a few windows? If you do then man you have issues.
I don't think the "deserve" to be shot but if they get shot and killed while doing it, they should have known better. What if someone broke into your house and mentally harmed your family? They only deserve to be locked up for a couple of months, right?
- Joe
I don't think the "deserve" to be shot but if they get shot and killed while doing it, they should have known better. What if someone broke into your house and mentally harmed your family? They only deserve to be locked up for a couple of months, right?
- Joe
clintob
Oct 13, 12:25 AM
I really can't believe some of the posts that have been made here.
To suggest that the people of Africa deserve to be wiped out by aids as they haven't evolved or kept up with the rest of the world is beyond contempt. I want to say something else but I'm just totally lost for words by your comments.
Yet another person who apparently either does not know how to read, or chooses to only read a portion of a discussion...
Nobody in their right mind would ever say that anyone deserves to be wiped out by a disease because their lifestyle and culture are different. That's a completely asinine and foolish line of reasoning. If you read closely, you'd see that the discussion was over (1) whether it is our place to impose our will, our culture, and our system of education on a society that has opposed that very idea all along, and (2) whether that imposition, if it were even possible, would solve the problem, or if the problem is instead more deeply rooted in that culture as a whole and is beyond repair by education and contraception.
It's a perfectly valid, intelligent, and reasonable discussion. It has nothing to do with approving of genocide or allowing the spread of disease. It's far more important than that.
I notice no one has commented on the Pope and the Catholic Church forbidding the use of condoms and the effect that has on spreading infection even further.
Oh boy... the Catholic Church is WAY too easy of a target. We should probably leave that one alone.
To suggest that the people of Africa deserve to be wiped out by aids as they haven't evolved or kept up with the rest of the world is beyond contempt. I want to say something else but I'm just totally lost for words by your comments.
Yet another person who apparently either does not know how to read, or chooses to only read a portion of a discussion...
Nobody in their right mind would ever say that anyone deserves to be wiped out by a disease because their lifestyle and culture are different. That's a completely asinine and foolish line of reasoning. If you read closely, you'd see that the discussion was over (1) whether it is our place to impose our will, our culture, and our system of education on a society that has opposed that very idea all along, and (2) whether that imposition, if it were even possible, would solve the problem, or if the problem is instead more deeply rooted in that culture as a whole and is beyond repair by education and contraception.
It's a perfectly valid, intelligent, and reasonable discussion. It has nothing to do with approving of genocide or allowing the spread of disease. It's far more important than that.
I notice no one has commented on the Pope and the Catholic Church forbidding the use of condoms and the effect that has on spreading infection even further.
Oh boy... the Catholic Church is WAY too easy of a target. We should probably leave that one alone.
KnightWRX
Apr 24, 04:07 AM
Why does anyone doubt that the new Air will be outstanding? My money is on Apple doing a nice job on the Air as they did with the MBP.
The MBP 13" is not quite the bang up job. It got a GPU downgrade and the benchmarks show it. The MBA won't be any different. There's no doubt about it, if you're looking for a GPU upgrade, go look elsewhere.
It's just the reality Intel forced onto us, why does anyone want to live in denial ?
The MBP 13" is not quite the bang up job. It got a GPU downgrade and the benchmarks show it. The MBA won't be any different. There's no doubt about it, if you're looking for a GPU upgrade, go look elsewhere.
It's just the reality Intel forced onto us, why does anyone want to live in denial ?
peharri
Sep 18, 07:52 AM
I'm sure I late getting into the argument, and that fanboyism depending on what network youre own will not change, but I really think GSM does have better voice quality than any other network.
(Before I begin, quick terminology comment: I'm going to avoid "CDMA" and use the term "IS-95" instead - I try to avoid using terms like "CDMA" and "TDMA" because it generally confuses people. Many think the next version of GSM, UMTS, is actually IS95, because it incorporates a CDMA air interface called W-CDMA, for instance. Others think GSM is the same thing as the D-AMPS/IS-136 system used by (the various phone companies that became) Cingular until they started moving to GSM because both have a "TDMA" air interface and IS-136 is usually called "TDMA".) In practice, UMTS and IS95 have almost nothing in common, UMTS is a revision of GSM, and GSM has almost nothing in common with IS-136. )
There's no way to compare the two. Both IS-95 and GSM implement a variety of different codecs that are provided differently by different operators. In the area I live, Cingular (GSM) tries to force many phones to use something called AMR-HR, which has "acceptable" voice quality when you have good reception, and drops to barely incomprehensable with any deterioration in signal strength. T-Mobile (GSM) clearly doesn't, and I can talk and listen to someone with both of us sounding like we're on a landline with one bar of signal. On the same phone.
Likewise, Verizon (IS-95) uses some awful bitrate codec for its network where I live (I believe they're heavily oversubscribed here) where pretty much everyone sounds like they're dying from some serious lung problem, and Sprint PCS (IS-95 too) doesn't and generally the call quality, at medium to good reception, seems pretty much ok. Sub-landline, but not seriously so.
With the variety of voice codecs the operators use, you can't really make a fair judgement merely on the basis of network technology. Either the operator's cheap, or it isn't. IS-95 was chosen by many networks on the basis that it's spectrum efficient (ie it's cheap), but on the other hand Sprint PCS was always content with call drops when I used it to handle network overloading rather than seriously compromising on call quality. Cingular's move to GSM has caused problems in that it's using a significantly less spectrum efficient technology than the technology it replaced, so Cingular's had to, in many places, hopefully temporarily, use the crappy half-rate codecs to boost capacity until it can get more towers online.
I wouldn't use voice quality as a way to judge the technologies.
(Before I begin, quick terminology comment: I'm going to avoid "CDMA" and use the term "IS-95" instead - I try to avoid using terms like "CDMA" and "TDMA" because it generally confuses people. Many think the next version of GSM, UMTS, is actually IS95, because it incorporates a CDMA air interface called W-CDMA, for instance. Others think GSM is the same thing as the D-AMPS/IS-136 system used by (the various phone companies that became) Cingular until they started moving to GSM because both have a "TDMA" air interface and IS-136 is usually called "TDMA".) In practice, UMTS and IS95 have almost nothing in common, UMTS is a revision of GSM, and GSM has almost nothing in common with IS-136. )
There's no way to compare the two. Both IS-95 and GSM implement a variety of different codecs that are provided differently by different operators. In the area I live, Cingular (GSM) tries to force many phones to use something called AMR-HR, which has "acceptable" voice quality when you have good reception, and drops to barely incomprehensable with any deterioration in signal strength. T-Mobile (GSM) clearly doesn't, and I can talk and listen to someone with both of us sounding like we're on a landline with one bar of signal. On the same phone.
Likewise, Verizon (IS-95) uses some awful bitrate codec for its network where I live (I believe they're heavily oversubscribed here) where pretty much everyone sounds like they're dying from some serious lung problem, and Sprint PCS (IS-95 too) doesn't and generally the call quality, at medium to good reception, seems pretty much ok. Sub-landline, but not seriously so.
With the variety of voice codecs the operators use, you can't really make a fair judgement merely on the basis of network technology. Either the operator's cheap, or it isn't. IS-95 was chosen by many networks on the basis that it's spectrum efficient (ie it's cheap), but on the other hand Sprint PCS was always content with call drops when I used it to handle network overloading rather than seriously compromising on call quality. Cingular's move to GSM has caused problems in that it's using a significantly less spectrum efficient technology than the technology it replaced, so Cingular's had to, in many places, hopefully temporarily, use the crappy half-rate codecs to boost capacity until it can get more towers online.
I wouldn't use voice quality as a way to judge the technologies.
hobo.hopkins
Apr 20, 10:48 AM
so the program can not find the file. Does that mean my iPhone isnt tracking me?
I was just about to post the same thing; the application says that it couldn't find the consolidated.db file. I even tried syncing my iPhone once more and it still didn't help. An interesting note though - I own a Verizon iPhone. I wonder if that has anything to do with it.
I was just about to post the same thing; the application says that it couldn't find the consolidated.db file. I even tried syncing my iPhone once more and it still didn't help. An interesting note though - I own a Verizon iPhone. I wonder if that has anything to do with it.
OS X Dude
May 3, 10:49 AM
The whole point of Thunderbolt is you can daisy-chain devices (up to 6 I think), so one port goes a long way.
Besides the three-monitor doohickery on the 27", I struggle to see why 95% of people would need two ports often. But still, nice to have :)
Besides the three-monitor doohickery on the 27", I struggle to see why 95% of people would need two ports often. But still, nice to have :)
Lord Blackadder
Mar 23, 04:49 PM
This is setting a very dangerous precedent for app removals if it goes through.
I think Apple's app-approval process is pretty arbitrary, so how much do they care about precedent in the first place? Apple giveth, and Apple taketh away. There is much bile spilled over it, but Apple's sales continue to soar.
I personally think passing around checkpoint info is protected under free speech. But, to repeat myself, anyone who is over the legal limit and uses an app to avoid a DUI is a selfish, irresponsible *******.
I think Apple's app-approval process is pretty arbitrary, so how much do they care about precedent in the first place? Apple giveth, and Apple taketh away. There is much bile spilled over it, but Apple's sales continue to soar.
I personally think passing around checkpoint info is protected under free speech. But, to repeat myself, anyone who is over the legal limit and uses an app to avoid a DUI is a selfish, irresponsible *******.
daneoni
Sep 12, 04:30 PM
Educated guess would be "big" iPod sales will slump whilst the Nanos & Shuffles will skyrocket.
steadysignal
Apr 20, 12:04 PM
Not good. I need an explanation. time to do research?
if you are not doing anything wrong, what is there to worry about?
if you are not doing anything wrong, what is there to worry about?
Durendal
Sep 26, 11:24 AM
I hate to say this folks, but even an iPhone wouldn't be worth having to deal with Cingular's godawful service. Reception is poor in areas where it's supposed to be good and even when you have good reception, you get dropped calls due to network error/rejected/dropped. I've had Cingular for a while now, and I am preparing to drop it with eagerness, even if that means a $200 contract termination fee. I want to slug that twat who says Cingular has the least dropped calls, because it's a ********* LIE.
dpMacsmith
Jul 19, 03:14 PM
Ok, here are my predictions.
MacPro - woodcrest (available immediately, all dual duals, 3 levels starting at 2.0 GHz)
XServe - woodcrest (Available soon)
iMac - Conrow (It is the oldest Intel computer and has received 0 upgrades in 6 months. E6400 in the 17" and E6600 in the 20", we may see a small price decrease)
MacBook Pro - Merom (in 1 Month, Paris intro?)
MacBook - Yonah for now (Merom in about 4 months)
MacMini - Yonah (use existing 1.66 and 1.83 parts)
I would love to see the MacMini get Conroe parts.. it should reduce the cost. Heat may be an issue. The E6300 might work.
I would love to see a small tower, Video Card would be replaceable. Maybe room for a second 3.5" drive. Does SATA have the capability of driving 2 HDs from one controller. It would be similar size to the cube. Pricing about $100 more than the Mini. No expansion slots.
I've got to admit though, I really like my 1.66 GHz Mini. Small, quiet, and fast enough.
MacPro - woodcrest (available immediately, all dual duals, 3 levels starting at 2.0 GHz)
XServe - woodcrest (Available soon)
iMac - Conrow (It is the oldest Intel computer and has received 0 upgrades in 6 months. E6400 in the 17" and E6600 in the 20", we may see a small price decrease)
MacBook Pro - Merom (in 1 Month, Paris intro?)
MacBook - Yonah for now (Merom in about 4 months)
MacMini - Yonah (use existing 1.66 and 1.83 parts)
I would love to see the MacMini get Conroe parts.. it should reduce the cost. Heat may be an issue. The E6300 might work.
I would love to see a small tower, Video Card would be replaceable. Maybe room for a second 3.5" drive. Does SATA have the capability of driving 2 HDs from one controller. It would be similar size to the cube. Pricing about $100 more than the Mini. No expansion slots.
I've got to admit though, I really like my 1.66 GHz Mini. Small, quiet, and fast enough.
munkery
Mar 23, 04:20 PM
http://www.macforensicslab.com/ProductsAndServices/index.php?main_page=document_general_info&products_id=174
Much of the information in the PDF (http://www.macforensicslab.com/Malware_on_Mac_OS_X.pdf) associated with this article (http://www.macforensicslab.com/ProductsAndServices/index.php?main_page=document_general_info&products_id=174) is incorrect. For example:
Page 26
It refers to the bundle architecture as insecure. The argument presented would be true if security sensitive apps were not owned by system. Given that they are owned by system, malware cannot modify the bundle of an app owned by system without authentication when the app is run with user privileges in an admin or standard account.
For example, show package contents of iTunes, Safari, or Mail and try to create a folder in the bundle. In relation to the example in the article, try renaming iTunes. The argument in the article relies on actions that can not be completed in an OS X admin account; these type of changes are even more restricted in a standard account.
Apps not owned by system are vulnerable but without privilege escalation can not install rootkits or keyloggers. Even apps owned by system run with user privileges and require privilege escalation to install dangerous payloads.
Mac OS X does not prompt for authentication if you install apps in the proper location for that user account type. When installed in the proper location, apps are sandboxed from the system level of Mac OS X by the Unix DAC model used within Mac OS X.
Windows is less secure because most apps (Chrome only exception I can recall) install their associated files in levels of the system that require authentication regardless of user account type (unless Admin in Windows XP because running as superuser - no authentication required to install with elevated privileges - very dangerous). It is easier to trick Windows users to install a trojan with elevated privileges given that almost all apps ask for authentication to install and the user can not distinguish the intent of that authentication.
Page 30
The claim that the Application folder is unprotected is false. Security sensitive apps within the Application folder are owned by system.
Also, security sensitive system binaries are still stored in /bin and /sbin in Mac OS X.
Page 31
The ability to read the contacts stored in Address Book could be used by a worm to propagate. But, malware that uses this to spread is not likely to appear in the wild if the malware is not profitable. It is unlikely that malware will be profitable without being able to hook (this is a specific function) into apps owned by system.
Page 33
Starts off talking about trojans, trojans are easily avoided with user knowledge in Mac OS X because most apps do not require authentication to install if installed in the appropriate location where the Unix DAC model protects the system.
Viruses using the model shown in the article will not be successful without privilege escalation. This is the reason why Mac OS X malware is not successful in the wild.
By default, very few server side services are exposed in Mac OS X and those that are exposed are sandboxed. Vectors for worm propagation are limited to client side. Client side worms require authentication to install and spread if do not include privilege escalation via exploitation because of the Unix DAC model used in Mac OS X. Trojans used to trick users to authenticate are less likely to be successful in Mac OS X as stated above.
Much of the information in the PDF (http://www.macforensicslab.com/Malware_on_Mac_OS_X.pdf) associated with this article (http://www.macforensicslab.com/ProductsAndServices/index.php?main_page=document_general_info&products_id=174) is incorrect. For example:
Page 26
It refers to the bundle architecture as insecure. The argument presented would be true if security sensitive apps were not owned by system. Given that they are owned by system, malware cannot modify the bundle of an app owned by system without authentication when the app is run with user privileges in an admin or standard account.
For example, show package contents of iTunes, Safari, or Mail and try to create a folder in the bundle. In relation to the example in the article, try renaming iTunes. The argument in the article relies on actions that can not be completed in an OS X admin account; these type of changes are even more restricted in a standard account.
Apps not owned by system are vulnerable but without privilege escalation can not install rootkits or keyloggers. Even apps owned by system run with user privileges and require privilege escalation to install dangerous payloads.
Mac OS X does not prompt for authentication if you install apps in the proper location for that user account type. When installed in the proper location, apps are sandboxed from the system level of Mac OS X by the Unix DAC model used within Mac OS X.
Windows is less secure because most apps (Chrome only exception I can recall) install their associated files in levels of the system that require authentication regardless of user account type (unless Admin in Windows XP because running as superuser - no authentication required to install with elevated privileges - very dangerous). It is easier to trick Windows users to install a trojan with elevated privileges given that almost all apps ask for authentication to install and the user can not distinguish the intent of that authentication.
Page 30
The claim that the Application folder is unprotected is false. Security sensitive apps within the Application folder are owned by system.
Also, security sensitive system binaries are still stored in /bin and /sbin in Mac OS X.
Page 31
The ability to read the contacts stored in Address Book could be used by a worm to propagate. But, malware that uses this to spread is not likely to appear in the wild if the malware is not profitable. It is unlikely that malware will be profitable without being able to hook (this is a specific function) into apps owned by system.
Page 33
Starts off talking about trojans, trojans are easily avoided with user knowledge in Mac OS X because most apps do not require authentication to install if installed in the appropriate location where the Unix DAC model protects the system.
Viruses using the model shown in the article will not be successful without privilege escalation. This is the reason why Mac OS X malware is not successful in the wild.
By default, very few server side services are exposed in Mac OS X and those that are exposed are sandboxed. Vectors for worm propagation are limited to client side. Client side worms require authentication to install and spread if do not include privilege escalation via exploitation because of the Unix DAC model used in Mac OS X. Trojans used to trick users to authenticate are less likely to be successful in Mac OS X as stated above.
Fraaaa
May 3, 01:37 PM
I think there is an error on the iMac performance page.
It shows:
For i5
283912
Then for i7
283913
Shouldn't it show faster performance for the i7?:confused:
I sent an email to someone who works on their website asking them to double check that.:D
I thught was strange as well at first, but I believe that the comparison is between i5 1st gen vs 2nd gen and i7 1st gen vs 2nd gen.
It shows:
For i5
283912
Then for i7
283913
Shouldn't it show faster performance for the i7?:confused:
I sent an email to someone who works on their website asking them to double check that.:D
I thught was strange as well at first, but I believe that the comparison is between i5 1st gen vs 2nd gen and i7 1st gen vs 2nd gen.