bugfaceuk
Apr 10, 07:00 AM
Brilliant! then a family of five can all play scrabble or monopoly for the low low cost of $1,495*
*listed price includes iDevices only. Apple tv required to play. Apple tv, monopoly and scrabble sold separately.
Anyone who buys iOS devices to play Scrabble is an idiot. People who uses their existing iOS devices to play together have a lot of fun.
*listed price includes iDevices only. Apple tv required to play. Apple tv, monopoly and scrabble sold separately.
Anyone who buys iOS devices to play Scrabble is an idiot. People who uses their existing iOS devices to play together have a lot of fun.
InsanelyApple
Mar 18, 09:53 AM
Hey mates! I live in the UK and according to what I've read, what american mobile companies are charging you is a rip-off! I pay �35 per month (tax included, about $55 USD) and I get: 2000 any network-any time minutes, 5000 same network minutes, 5000 any network messages, UNLIMITED internet, that's right, no capping, no "fair usage policies", UNLIMITED! AAAAND I can tether with up to 5 devices, (macbook and iPad in my case and even my mates iPod touch from time to time when we are out). No extra fees, no hidden tricks. And my iPhone is unlocked, so I can sell it when my contract finishes and any person can use in any country or any network. COMPLAIN PEOPLE!:apple:
We do but the government is run by corporations. Nobody cares about the lower 98% of the people in this nation. The government only cares about the top 2% of money earners. America isn't great, and I wish I lived in Europe. Heck, I bet even China is better than this place.:rolleyes:
We do but the government is run by corporations. Nobody cares about the lower 98% of the people in this nation. The government only cares about the top 2% of money earners. America isn't great, and I wish I lived in Europe. Heck, I bet even China is better than this place.:rolleyes:
Mattie Num Nums
Apr 13, 01:56 PM
Does it matter where a carpenter buys his hammer?
Usually no but with the AppStore no corporation can buy anything. All licenses belong to the attached AppleID that makes the purchase. Its a huge flaw in the AppStore Model.
Usually no but with the AppStore no corporation can buy anything. All licenses belong to the attached AppleID that makes the purchase. Its a huge flaw in the AppStore Model.
shervieux
Apr 28, 08:59 AM
The top 3 also have much cheaper models than Apple.. which can contribute to their higher sale spots. Not many people are willing to sell out $1k for a computer, especially internationally. In Brazil, a MBP costs about $3k. DOLLARS. Not many people can afford that..
That's the problem. I see Dell, Hp, etc PC's at walmart with lower specs selling for $400-$500. You get what you pay for. Same for PC's at Bestbuy. The higher spec ones are in the $900 to $1000 range. I think if Apple was to move the price of the current white macbook to $500 more people would buy apple. Then cut the price of all other machines buy $100-$200.
I think also why you are not seeing much macs in the enterprise still:
1. Microsoft exchange and outlook. outlook combines your address book, calendar, mail, and tasks/todos without having 2 or more apps open.
2. Microsoft SQL Server. This has better ODBC connections than other databases when connecting to access, excel, etc. Plus, while I have not verified; other than a source who programs databases in Filemaker and SQL server... Filemaker is elegant, but cannot handle 1000's of transactions per minute like SQL server can. Thus not good for banking or healthcare.
3. iWork still a light application and Office is still the standard.
4. While I have not tried it, I heard Citrix is atrocious on non-windows platforms
5. MS keeps copying Apple features, so fewer people feel the urge to switch.
6. Also, you would be surprised that more and more big corporations are actually using Linux on their servers. Recently in the news, highlighting top North Carolina companies who have not been effected buy the recession; Redhat was focussed upon. They have grown tremendously and now only sell their OS plus applications to enterprise corporations. What makes them strong? RedHat gives 10 years of support for any version for free.
7. Mac pro is rediculous in terms of pricing. However, now that it is rebranded as a server, makes the price ok.
8. While Mac OS X is unix based (Free BSD); running Linux or unix applications on it is 25-50% successful at best. That stinks for open source only users.
As for the iPad, let's just say thanks to the app store - I use mine more than just a net book, toy, entertainment, etc. But I also still rely on my 2008 macbook for some heavy weight applications.
That's the problem. I see Dell, Hp, etc PC's at walmart with lower specs selling for $400-$500. You get what you pay for. Same for PC's at Bestbuy. The higher spec ones are in the $900 to $1000 range. I think if Apple was to move the price of the current white macbook to $500 more people would buy apple. Then cut the price of all other machines buy $100-$200.
I think also why you are not seeing much macs in the enterprise still:
1. Microsoft exchange and outlook. outlook combines your address book, calendar, mail, and tasks/todos without having 2 or more apps open.
2. Microsoft SQL Server. This has better ODBC connections than other databases when connecting to access, excel, etc. Plus, while I have not verified; other than a source who programs databases in Filemaker and SQL server... Filemaker is elegant, but cannot handle 1000's of transactions per minute like SQL server can. Thus not good for banking or healthcare.
3. iWork still a light application and Office is still the standard.
4. While I have not tried it, I heard Citrix is atrocious on non-windows platforms
5. MS keeps copying Apple features, so fewer people feel the urge to switch.
6. Also, you would be surprised that more and more big corporations are actually using Linux on their servers. Recently in the news, highlighting top North Carolina companies who have not been effected buy the recession; Redhat was focussed upon. They have grown tremendously and now only sell their OS plus applications to enterprise corporations. What makes them strong? RedHat gives 10 years of support for any version for free.
7. Mac pro is rediculous in terms of pricing. However, now that it is rebranded as a server, makes the price ok.
8. While Mac OS X is unix based (Free BSD); running Linux or unix applications on it is 25-50% successful at best. That stinks for open source only users.
As for the iPad, let's just say thanks to the app store - I use mine more than just a net book, toy, entertainment, etc. But I also still rely on my 2008 macbook for some heavy weight applications.
mgworek
Sep 12, 04:27 PM
wireless is useless for watching movies. I use my mac now to get videos from NAS servers and wireless doesn't cut it. I need to be going 100 or else it gets choppy. Unless they release a new wireless access point.
Mac'nCheese
Apr 23, 09:21 PM
Maybe because the majority of atheists tend to have an attitude of more "religion sucks, I'm atheist" whereas religious people do not have an "atheism sucks, I'm theistic" attitude for the most part.
.
Wow. I see it completely the other way. The religious people look at the atheists as lost souls, sinners, who need to be saved. They want their beliefs to be the basis for our laws. They need to have god thrown in our faces, on our money, in our pledges, in our courtrooms, etc. etc. And this is in the land of the free where separation of church and state is supposed to be one our most basic rights!
Don't believe me, check any poll about who people in the United States trust or who they would vote for. Atheists are always at the bottom of both lists!
.
Wow. I see it completely the other way. The religious people look at the atheists as lost souls, sinners, who need to be saved. They want their beliefs to be the basis for our laws. They need to have god thrown in our faces, on our money, in our pledges, in our courtrooms, etc. etc. And this is in the land of the free where separation of church and state is supposed to be one our most basic rights!
Don't believe me, check any poll about who people in the United States trust or who they would vote for. Atheists are always at the bottom of both lists!
FX120
Mar 13, 06:22 PM
Maybe I can find a link. I've read (I think it was Popular Science) that a 10 square mile solar farm in the American West could provide enough to power the entire U.S. Now, due to distances, that power could not be transmitted to the East Coast, but it illustrates there are other much safer methods of obtaining power than dealing with the atomic genie.
I think the theory is the amount of solar energy falling on a 10sq mile area could be enough to satisfy our domestic energy needs.
That's different than building a solar power plant and actually harvesting that energy, as solar plants are very inefficient.
I think the theory is the amount of solar energy falling on a 10sq mile area could be enough to satisfy our domestic energy needs.
That's different than building a solar power plant and actually harvesting that energy, as solar plants are very inefficient.
RickyB
Apr 16, 11:30 AM
Also, if you enable "show path bar" in Finder, you can see the entire path you're in, and easily jump around.
And you can also go up a level in the directory structure by pressing [Command] + [Up arrow].
There's a load of shortcut keys here:
http://support.apple.com/kb/ht1343
And you can also go up a level in the directory structure by pressing [Command] + [Up arrow].
There's a load of shortcut keys here:
http://support.apple.com/kb/ht1343
matticus008
Mar 21, 02:45 AM
Where are you seeing a difference between digital copyrights and any other kind of copyright in U.S. law? There is no such difference, and current law and current case law says that purchases of copyrighted works are in fact purchases. They are not licenses.
They are purchases of usage rights, not of ownership of the intellectual property contained therein. Review the cases more carefully. If you don't want to call it a license, fine. But it's not ownership of the song. It's ownership of your limited-use copy of that song.
No, you've got it in reverse. The Supreme Court of the United States specifically said that anything not disallowed is allowed. That was (among other places) the betamax case that I referenced.
You seem to be conflating the DMCA with copyright. The DMCA is not about copyright. It's about breaking digital restrictions. The DMCA did not turn purchases into licenses. Things that were purchases before the DMCA are still purchases today.
Yes, the Supreme Court said that, but in reference to all laws, not just copyright laws. Anything not forbidden by law is permissable. What this does is break other laws, as well as the distribution component of the copyright law. The DMCA is about digital copyright law, whether it has other purposes or not. It governs your rights with regard to copyrighted digital works. Your purchase of the CD did not and still does not give you ownership of the digital content of that CD, only ownership of the physical disc itself.
This is a poor analogy. The real analogy would be that you have purchased the car, but now law requires that you not open the door without permission from the manufacturer.
When you rent a car, the rental agency can at any time require that you return the car and stop using it. The iTunes music store has no right to do this. CD manufacturers have no right to do this.
Not true. If you misuse your copy of any copyrighted work, you can be required to surrender your copy of the work and desist immediately. The law does not require you to do anything special with material you OWN. But you don't own the music. The analogy stands.
Music purchases were purchases before the DMCA and they are purchases after the DMCA. There are more restrictions after the DMCA, but the restrictions are placed on the locks, not on what is behind the locks. The music that you bought is still yours; but you aren't allowed to open the locks.
Exactly right about the restrictions placed on the locks, but exactly wrong about the content behind them. You did not own it before the DMCA, and you do not own it now.
Your analogy with "so that anyone can use it" also misrepresents the DMCA: the better analogy is that you can't even open the locks so that *you* can use it.
No, not at all. The DMCA has issues that need to be addressed, but it does not prohibit your fair use of material.
In the sense that you have described it above, books are digital. Books can be copied with no loss and then the original sold. Books are, according to the Supreme Court, purchases, not licenses. Book manufacturers are not even allowed to place EULAs on their books and pretend that it is a license. There is no different law about music. It's all copyright.
Again, read the court cases more carefully. You have rights to do as you please with the physical book. You do not have rights to the content of the books. You never did, and the Supreme Court has never granted you this permission. With your digital file, there is nothing physical that you own and control, only the intellectual property which is owned SOLELY by the copyright holder. Books are purchases of a physical, bound paper product containing the intellectual property of another individual. The Supreme Court has supported this since the implementation of IP law in the 19th century.
Are you claiming that playing my CDs on my iPod is illegal? The file has been modified in ways that it was not originally intended: they were uncompressed digital audio files meant for playback on a CD player. Now they're compressed digital audio played back on an iPod.
It's not illegal by copyright law to put your unprotected music on an iPod. You are not modifying the intellectual property of the owner. You are taking it from what you own (the physical disc) and putting it on something else you own (the iPod hard disk).
That is completely outside of what the manufacturer intended that I use that CD for. I don't believe that's illegal; the U.S. courts don't believe that it's illegal. Apple certainly doesn't believe that it's illegal. The RIAA would like it to be illegal but isn't arguing that any more. Do you believe that it is illegal?
One more time. The copyright law governs the material, your purchase covers the disc. You can do whatever you want with the disc, but you don't have the same freedom with the data on that disc. No one is stopping you from breaking the CD or selling it or doing whatever you want. You are not allowed to take control of the intellectual property that is not yours (the songs). Show ME a case that demonstrates otherwise from the past 50 years. Older cases are not applicable, and I'm being generous with the 50 year window as well given the wealth of more recent cases, all of which support IP rights and consumer ownership of the media but not the content.
They are purchases of usage rights, not of ownership of the intellectual property contained therein. Review the cases more carefully. If you don't want to call it a license, fine. But it's not ownership of the song. It's ownership of your limited-use copy of that song.
No, you've got it in reverse. The Supreme Court of the United States specifically said that anything not disallowed is allowed. That was (among other places) the betamax case that I referenced.
You seem to be conflating the DMCA with copyright. The DMCA is not about copyright. It's about breaking digital restrictions. The DMCA did not turn purchases into licenses. Things that were purchases before the DMCA are still purchases today.
Yes, the Supreme Court said that, but in reference to all laws, not just copyright laws. Anything not forbidden by law is permissable. What this does is break other laws, as well as the distribution component of the copyright law. The DMCA is about digital copyright law, whether it has other purposes or not. It governs your rights with regard to copyrighted digital works. Your purchase of the CD did not and still does not give you ownership of the digital content of that CD, only ownership of the physical disc itself.
This is a poor analogy. The real analogy would be that you have purchased the car, but now law requires that you not open the door without permission from the manufacturer.
When you rent a car, the rental agency can at any time require that you return the car and stop using it. The iTunes music store has no right to do this. CD manufacturers have no right to do this.
Not true. If you misuse your copy of any copyrighted work, you can be required to surrender your copy of the work and desist immediately. The law does not require you to do anything special with material you OWN. But you don't own the music. The analogy stands.
Music purchases were purchases before the DMCA and they are purchases after the DMCA. There are more restrictions after the DMCA, but the restrictions are placed on the locks, not on what is behind the locks. The music that you bought is still yours; but you aren't allowed to open the locks.
Exactly right about the restrictions placed on the locks, but exactly wrong about the content behind them. You did not own it before the DMCA, and you do not own it now.
Your analogy with "so that anyone can use it" also misrepresents the DMCA: the better analogy is that you can't even open the locks so that *you* can use it.
No, not at all. The DMCA has issues that need to be addressed, but it does not prohibit your fair use of material.
In the sense that you have described it above, books are digital. Books can be copied with no loss and then the original sold. Books are, according to the Supreme Court, purchases, not licenses. Book manufacturers are not even allowed to place EULAs on their books and pretend that it is a license. There is no different law about music. It's all copyright.
Again, read the court cases more carefully. You have rights to do as you please with the physical book. You do not have rights to the content of the books. You never did, and the Supreme Court has never granted you this permission. With your digital file, there is nothing physical that you own and control, only the intellectual property which is owned SOLELY by the copyright holder. Books are purchases of a physical, bound paper product containing the intellectual property of another individual. The Supreme Court has supported this since the implementation of IP law in the 19th century.
Are you claiming that playing my CDs on my iPod is illegal? The file has been modified in ways that it was not originally intended: they were uncompressed digital audio files meant for playback on a CD player. Now they're compressed digital audio played back on an iPod.
It's not illegal by copyright law to put your unprotected music on an iPod. You are not modifying the intellectual property of the owner. You are taking it from what you own (the physical disc) and putting it on something else you own (the iPod hard disk).
That is completely outside of what the manufacturer intended that I use that CD for. I don't believe that's illegal; the U.S. courts don't believe that it's illegal. Apple certainly doesn't believe that it's illegal. The RIAA would like it to be illegal but isn't arguing that any more. Do you believe that it is illegal?
One more time. The copyright law governs the material, your purchase covers the disc. You can do whatever you want with the disc, but you don't have the same freedom with the data on that disc. No one is stopping you from breaking the CD or selling it or doing whatever you want. You are not allowed to take control of the intellectual property that is not yours (the songs). Show ME a case that demonstrates otherwise from the past 50 years. Older cases are not applicable, and I'm being generous with the 50 year window as well given the wealth of more recent cases, all of which support IP rights and consumer ownership of the media but not the content.
snoopy07
May 5, 02:22 PM
The perfect solution would be for apple to give all US carriers the Iphone. Then we can go and pick the network that works best. People that like At&t stay with At&t, if you want Verizon or t-mobile then go, that way we all live happy. It�s your call Apple :apple: we customers deserve to choose our carrier for our iphone.
Silentwave
Jul 12, 07:44 PM
Yes they are. I agree with you. But when I wrote that earlier in this thread, someone wrote that economies of scale dictated that Woody goes in everything Pro rather than only in the Quad. Makes no sense to me either. I think all non-quads should be Conroe.
Why?
it means:
different LB (not such a big deal, but still there- and wouldn't it be nice if they could (i dont know if its possible) use a dual socket LB even with single processor versions, and you could add a second one later for more performance? farfetched for sure but hey a guy can dream ;) )
Different CPUs
Different RAM
slower FSB
Why do that when you could buy larger amounts of the same RAM and same processors, just use different numbers? I think we all know that XServe will use Woodcrest, but the more computers that use the same processors the better.
Same goes for the RAM. FB-DIMM memory is expensive. the more Apple can get, the easier it is on us.
hair styles for women over 40.
Here are some hairstyles that
Why?
it means:
different LB (not such a big deal, but still there- and wouldn't it be nice if they could (i dont know if its possible) use a dual socket LB even with single processor versions, and you could add a second one later for more performance? farfetched for sure but hey a guy can dream ;) )
Different CPUs
Different RAM
slower FSB
Why do that when you could buy larger amounts of the same RAM and same processors, just use different numbers? I think we all know that XServe will use Woodcrest, but the more computers that use the same processors the better.
Same goes for the RAM. FB-DIMM memory is expensive. the more Apple can get, the easier it is on us.
Dr.Gargoyle
Sep 20, 09:47 AM
Since iTV most likely wont be a DVR device, I coughed up $700 today for a Sony DVR instead.
I am sure Apple has a brilliant plan for the iTV, but I fail to see it.
I am sure Apple has a brilliant plan for the iTV, but I fail to see it.
javajedi
Oct 11, 12:50 PM
http://members.ij.net/javajedi
You're more than welcome to download the Java version, or the Mac OS X native one. When I said C, I really should clarify. It's actually a Cocoa version so the source is a .m objective c file, however the math function itself is from the C library. It's really cool how in objective c you can use regular C :)
For integer testing:
int x1,x2,x3;
for (x1=1; x1<=20000; x1++) {
short hair cuts for women over
long haircuts for women over
.jpg "short hair styles for women")
short hair styles for women
hair styles for women over 40.
short hair styles for women
Short Hairstyles For Women In
You're more than welcome to download the Java version, or the Mac OS X native one. When I said C, I really should clarify. It's actually a Cocoa version so the source is a .m objective c file, however the math function itself is from the C library. It's really cool how in objective c you can use regular C :)
For integer testing:
int x1,x2,x3;
for (x1=1; x1<=20000; x1++) {
benpatient
May 2, 09:18 AM
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?
malware doesn't execute without user permission.
it relies on tricking the user into giving it permission to run, striking at what is typically the weakest link in any computer's security: the user.
any argument that XX isn't a threat, because it requires users to take an action in order to be truly dangerous, is a flawed argument, because in general, users are stupid, or at the very least, careless.
malware doesn't execute without user permission.
it relies on tricking the user into giving it permission to run, striking at what is typically the weakest link in any computer's security: the user.
any argument that XX isn't a threat, because it requires users to take an action in order to be truly dangerous, is a flawed argument, because in general, users are stupid, or at the very least, careless.
samdweck
Oct 7, 04:08 PM
Originally posted by gopher
http://www.barefeats.com/pentium4.html
As I've always said, it is in the software!
yeah w/e.. winblows!! forever live apple!
http://www.barefeats.com/pentium4.html
As I've always said, it is in the software!
yeah w/e.. winblows!! forever live apple!
caspersoong
Apr 21, 03:48 AM
Everything I hear Android, I think of piracy. And customizing for hours or days.
Apple OC
Apr 22, 09:03 PM
Because it's harder to imagine that an intelligent designer had a hand in it than it is to imagine that everything happened by chance?.
Intelligent Designer? ...
try to imagine how things could evolve and change over 4.5 Billion years ... that's right Billion.
to think that the earth is only several thousand years old ... IMO is not intelligent or rational thinking.
Intelligent Designer? ...
try to imagine how things could evolve and change over 4.5 Billion years ... that's right Billion.
to think that the earth is only several thousand years old ... IMO is not intelligent or rational thinking.
AidenShaw
Jul 13, 07:07 AM
it depends whether you are looking at it from software-perspective or hardware-perspective.
Actually, it looks the same from both perspectives.
Yonah, Conroe and Merom have full hardware SMP support on the package (or on the chip itself).
The cache coherency and inter-processor (in this case meaning inter-core) communications features are present, and must be present in order to avoid corrupting memory data and to support an SMP operating system.
The difference with Woodcrest is that Yonah/Conroe/Merom do not support SMP features *between* sockets - the cache coherency and IPC mechanisms are not brought out to the pins on the package.
Woodcrest brings those signals out to the pins, and the Woodcrest's 5000x chipset connects those signals between sockets.
Actually, it looks the same from both perspectives.
Yonah, Conroe and Merom have full hardware SMP support on the package (or on the chip itself).
The cache coherency and inter-processor (in this case meaning inter-core) communications features are present, and must be present in order to avoid corrupting memory data and to support an SMP operating system.
The difference with Woodcrest is that Yonah/Conroe/Merom do not support SMP features *between* sockets - the cache coherency and IPC mechanisms are not brought out to the pins on the package.
Woodcrest brings those signals out to the pins, and the Woodcrest's 5000x chipset connects those signals between sockets.
AidenShaw
Sep 21, 11:30 AM
Just the file (which will be cached if the network can't cope).
My point is that it's possible that the "network can't cope", exactly.
My point is that it's possible that the "network can't cope", exactly.
TennisandMusic
May 2, 11:43 AM
I'm well aware of UAC. UAC also just happens to be "that annoying popup thing" that has become extremely popular for users to disable entirely since the debut of Vista.
Uh huh. And OSX doesn't ask you to manually enter a password every time you install or change something? Windows only asks you to authorize...which is technically more "annoying"?
I actually don't know anyone who has ever disabled UAC.
Huge difference in my experience. The Windows UAC will pop up for seemingly mundane things like opening some files or opening applications for the first time, where as the OS X popup only happens during install of an app - in OS X, there is an actual logical reason apparent to the user. It is still up to the user to ensure the software they are installing is from a trusted source, but the reason for the password is readily apparent.
I've never seen the UAC when "opening some files" and of course you get it when opening some apps for the first time, since those times are often akin to installing...you know, like when you install an OSX app and it requests your password?
So now the argument is that the OSX's password requests are logical and thereby the UAC is illogical? Yeesh. :rolleyes:
These are just computers people. Not magic. They are here to help us get work done. Quit trying to prove your platform of choice is superior to someone else's platform of choice, it's really not worth it. ;)
Uh huh. And OSX doesn't ask you to manually enter a password every time you install or change something? Windows only asks you to authorize...which is technically more "annoying"?
I actually don't know anyone who has ever disabled UAC.
Huge difference in my experience. The Windows UAC will pop up for seemingly mundane things like opening some files or opening applications for the first time, where as the OS X popup only happens during install of an app - in OS X, there is an actual logical reason apparent to the user. It is still up to the user to ensure the software they are installing is from a trusted source, but the reason for the password is readily apparent.
I've never seen the UAC when "opening some files" and of course you get it when opening some apps for the first time, since those times are often akin to installing...you know, like when you install an OSX app and it requests your password?
So now the argument is that the OSX's password requests are logical and thereby the UAC is illogical? Yeesh. :rolleyes:
These are just computers people. Not magic. They are here to help us get work done. Quit trying to prove your platform of choice is superior to someone else's platform of choice, it's really not worth it. ;)
Multimedia
Nov 3, 11:19 AM
I archive HD broadcast recordings on my Rev A mini Core Duo, both OTA ones via the Hybrid and ones via the FireWire connection on my cable box.
FWIW, it works just fine. I'd assume the main reason the average customer isn't doing this is a lack of an HD cable box or the lack of realization that a FW cable turns their Mac into a DVR.
There are numerous uses for 4,8,16,etc. cores... but HD recording doesn't even begin to stress the two in the mini.Of course the HD doesn't stress any Mac as weak as a 500MHz G4. It's the compression process that does all the stressing. Toast can easily use both cores of the mini and may use up to 4 cores in a Mac Pro. And Handbrake will also use both cores of the mini and over 2 on the MP. The archiving is what eats cores - not the recording.
Are you converting the 4.4GB 42 minute after editing out the commercials "hour" to a maxiumum quality 2.6GB DVD image so Handbrake can crush that down to a 350MB mp4 file on your mini? Try that and report how long it takes. Takes about 2-3 hours on a Quad. Direct exports from EyeTV2 look like c**p. I am striving for quality in my archives, not stuff that I can't watch due to poor quality results any other way.
Please tell us more about what comes out of your cable box's FW port and how you are able to record that to begin with.
FWIW, it works just fine. I'd assume the main reason the average customer isn't doing this is a lack of an HD cable box or the lack of realization that a FW cable turns their Mac into a DVR.
There are numerous uses for 4,8,16,etc. cores... but HD recording doesn't even begin to stress the two in the mini.Of course the HD doesn't stress any Mac as weak as a 500MHz G4. It's the compression process that does all the stressing. Toast can easily use both cores of the mini and may use up to 4 cores in a Mac Pro. And Handbrake will also use both cores of the mini and over 2 on the MP. The archiving is what eats cores - not the recording.
Are you converting the 4.4GB 42 minute after editing out the commercials "hour" to a maxiumum quality 2.6GB DVD image so Handbrake can crush that down to a 350MB mp4 file on your mini? Try that and report how long it takes. Takes about 2-3 hours on a Quad. Direct exports from EyeTV2 look like c**p. I am striving for quality in my archives, not stuff that I can't watch due to poor quality results any other way.
Please tell us more about what comes out of your cable box's FW port and how you are able to record that to begin with.
miles01110
May 2, 09:34 AM
Mac OS X fanboys really need to stop clinging to the mentality that "viruses" don't exist for OS X and that "malware" is a Windows-only problem. Who cares if viruses don't exist for OS X? News flash: viruses aren't all that common on Windows anymore. They just aren't. Phishing, Spear Phishing, trojans, and social engineering are much more cost- and time-effective ways to breach a computer's security.
So no matter what you call "MACDefender," it's a problem. One that's not likely to be caught by a user who has been fed the Koolaid that malware is a Windows problem and that they don't need to be aware.
So no matter what you call "MACDefender," it's a problem. One that's not likely to be caught by a user who has been fed the Koolaid that malware is a Windows problem and that they don't need to be aware.
dante@sisna.com
Sep 12, 06:58 PM
Your clients represent the extreme minority of advertising content today. While that is changing, I concede, most advertisers are still in the old paradigm.
Not the guys with the Money.
The mom and pops perhaps, but all the players know what is coming and are preparing for it via cooperative partnerships, sponsorships, viral, geurilla, etc.
Not the guys with the Money.
The mom and pops perhaps, but all the players know what is coming and are preparing for it via cooperative partnerships, sponsorships, viral, geurilla, etc.
coal
Sep 20, 12:42 AM
So this can play any video file in iTunes then? Great, that's what I was waiting to hear. For some reason I convinved myself that Apple would only permit videos tagged as originating from their store. I know it sounds ridiculous, but as media companies keep pushing for control over content, it seemed inevitable that such restrictions would be enforced (particularly since Tivo Series 3 is such a closed system).
Also, hard drive? Wow.
Also, hard drive? Wow.