Clive At Five
Sep 20, 07:06 PM
That makes no sense at all..
In order to even view and/or listen to any media from another computer it needs a front row interface.That interface must be on the component itself.So in order for front row to run it must have some kind of O/S built into it.
That's why I said this:
I find it higly unlikely that there's a physical Hard Drive in the box that amounts to anything more than the UI and/or chache/buffer.
Read more carefully.
-Clive
In order to even view and/or listen to any media from another computer it needs a front row interface.That interface must be on the component itself.So in order for front row to run it must have some kind of O/S built into it.
That's why I said this:
I find it higly unlikely that there's a physical Hard Drive in the box that amounts to anything more than the UI and/or chache/buffer.
Read more carefully.
-Clive
squibran
Sep 12, 04:18 PM
I am looking forward to the specs of this device
I bought a Mac Mini and found that it would not show up on my Acer 24" tv while running as a mac but would if I booted up as a PC - I checked resolution and refresh rate when working as a PC and replicated it when in Mac mode but to no effect.
Has anyone else had problems like this?
I tried using DVI and VGA and the same with both - worked as a PC but not as a Mac.
Also interested in the new device as to whether it will read my Iphoto libraries?
Any sound advice appreciated!!
I bought a Mac Mini and found that it would not show up on my Acer 24" tv while running as a mac but would if I booted up as a PC - I checked resolution and refresh rate when working as a PC and replicated it when in Mac mode but to no effect.
Has anyone else had problems like this?
I tried using DVI and VGA and the same with both - worked as a PC but not as a Mac.
Also interested in the new device as to whether it will read my Iphoto libraries?
Any sound advice appreciated!!
MACRUS
Apr 13, 01:43 AM
I think I'm supposed to feel insulted by your ignorance. but I don't. If you want to make a counter argument, you can start by being honest about what I was saying.
you made a mistake. you should have said. "I think I'm supposed to feel insulted by "MY" ignorance. and I would have said. yes you should because no one in their right mind would think to use an application's automatic feature and call the results suitable for delivery.
AHAHA you have me laughing... only an Idiota would think that there is an application with one-click color correction and use such feature in a professional environment. You should change your user name to something else. usually when geeks speak they know what they are talking about. you obviously do not. do not bother to answer I do not have time to read your childish, uneducated or uninformative posts.
you made a mistake. you should have said. "I think I'm supposed to feel insulted by "MY" ignorance. and I would have said. yes you should because no one in their right mind would think to use an application's automatic feature and call the results suitable for delivery.
AHAHA you have me laughing... only an Idiota would think that there is an application with one-click color correction and use such feature in a professional environment. You should change your user name to something else. usually when geeks speak they know what they are talking about. you obviously do not. do not bother to answer I do not have time to read your childish, uneducated or uninformative posts.
NathanMuir
Mar 25, 06:52 PM
I'll make it a point to better prioritize my time around your personal attacks; I'd hate for you to hurt yourself on that mouthful of faux-indignation.
Hey, I was just commenting on the irony of your statement and request.
As they say; 'People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.'
If that's indigent; oh well.
Hey, I was just commenting on the irony of your statement and request.
As they say; 'People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.'
If that's indigent; oh well.
HasanDaddy
Apr 13, 05:50 AM
Seriously - most you guys could walk into the Gates of Heaven, look at Jesus, and say "Is this all? This sucks."
I don't think I've read a comment here that even makes sense of the importance of this update - seriously - we have posters afraid that 10 year old kids will steal their jobs (get real people!)
The most important part of this update?
FCP is now 64 bit, using ALL parts of the processor, meaning that rendering is a thing of the past (depending on how souped up your system is) - that right there defeats Avid
This is a great update and one to be applauded - thank you APPLE for continually making video editing a cheap endeavor, that can remain professional - further pushing the forces at Avid to reduce the costs of their software
God Bless you Apple
(and last note - good editing happens because you're a GOOD EDITOR - not because you can 'afford' the right system)
I don't think I've read a comment here that even makes sense of the importance of this update - seriously - we have posters afraid that 10 year old kids will steal their jobs (get real people!)
The most important part of this update?
FCP is now 64 bit, using ALL parts of the processor, meaning that rendering is a thing of the past (depending on how souped up your system is) - that right there defeats Avid
This is a great update and one to be applauded - thank you APPLE for continually making video editing a cheap endeavor, that can remain professional - further pushing the forces at Avid to reduce the costs of their software
God Bless you Apple
(and last note - good editing happens because you're a GOOD EDITOR - not because you can 'afford' the right system)
dgree03
Apr 28, 02:38 PM
Huh? A 2008 MBP should have no problem running iTunes.
Flash for Mac sucks even on the most high-end Macs. Why do you think Mac users tend to dislike Flash? It's not the Mac - it's Adobe.
Flash on my Air runs wonderfully... :rolleyes:
Flash for Mac sucks even on the most high-end Macs. Why do you think Mac users tend to dislike Flash? It's not the Mac - it's Adobe.
Flash on my Air runs wonderfully... :rolleyes:
bedifferent
May 2, 04:45 PM
google…
"OS X more secure than Windows"
There, fixed it for ya (and the "'s too) ;)
OS X and Windows have their pro's and con's, no OS is 100% secure. OS X based systems are generally more secure than Windows systems. I could google "OS X safer than Windows" and find as many claims as you suggest, but that would be bias. Google " 'OS X versus Windows' security' ", you will most likely discover articles/studies with no bias/agenda. If OS X wasn't more secure than Windows OS systems, why aren't more users running anti-virus/malware utilities?
However (and read my posts), working in the field I can assure you 75%+ of my clients have security/virus/malware issues with everything from XP-W7. Executable's are the equivalent to barfing into your system; they get everywhere and are difficult to remove.
If Windows followed Apple and developed hardware to utilize their OS instead of coding an OS for a myriad of profiles (and ditching antiquated BIOS for EFI) it would allow for a better end user experience and for MS to focus on better security. Yet this would mean millions to billions for businesses to reinvest in new hardware as well as MS producing a good product (based on their industrial design team and product history, I wouldn't bet on it).
"OS X more secure than Windows"
There, fixed it for ya (and the "'s too) ;)
OS X and Windows have their pro's and con's, no OS is 100% secure. OS X based systems are generally more secure than Windows systems. I could google "OS X safer than Windows" and find as many claims as you suggest, but that would be bias. Google " 'OS X versus Windows' security' ", you will most likely discover articles/studies with no bias/agenda. If OS X wasn't more secure than Windows OS systems, why aren't more users running anti-virus/malware utilities?
However (and read my posts), working in the field I can assure you 75%+ of my clients have security/virus/malware issues with everything from XP-W7. Executable's are the equivalent to barfing into your system; they get everywhere and are difficult to remove.
If Windows followed Apple and developed hardware to utilize their OS instead of coding an OS for a myriad of profiles (and ditching antiquated BIOS for EFI) it would allow for a better end user experience and for MS to focus on better security. Yet this would mean millions to billions for businesses to reinvest in new hardware as well as MS producing a good product (based on their industrial design team and product history, I wouldn't bet on it).
bommai
Sep 20, 10:56 AM
Mac Mini vs iTV as a pure home theatre component
Mac Mini advantages:
1) DVD drive to play movies
2) ATSC/NTSC tuner capability through eyeTV Hybrid - DVR solution. Can pause live TV, schedule recording using remote in living room
3) Onboard storage / External HD support through USB/Firewire
4) Front Row alternatives such as Media Central - Google video, You Tube, IPTV support
5) Leopard update should bring Front Row feature parity with iTV (guess!). Front Row already supports Bonjour - so you can still have a media server from which you stream data from
6) Enough horsepower to play 1080P H.264 as well as MPEG2 TS.
7) Could hookup an iSight for video chat in the living room. Could enhance frontrow so it pauses media if somebody is calling with iChat.
Mac Mini Disadvantages
1) No component video output. I have a HDTV (5 year old) that has only component video input. No HDMI/DVI.
2) DVI output may not support HDCP and might prevent future HDTV files from not displaying properly in 1080P (guess!)
3) Might run into trouble connecting DVI output to DVI/HDMI input on TV in certain cases. Not all TV models work properly with respect to scan rate, etc.
4) Is still a computer and might need keyboard and mouse to make it work for things like software update, etc. Can you VNC or ARD from another compute.r
5) Price - more expensive than iTV. But the extra features could justify it.
iTV advantages
1) Meant for a home theatre/living room. No need for keyboard/mouse
2) Component/HDMI guarantees modern TV connectivity.
3) Price. Most people already have a DVD player, so why duplicate that?
4) Stability. Stripped down functionality means less clunky feel.
iTV disadvantages
1) No TV tuner support (eyeTV hybrid no go on iTV). eyeTV on another computer defeats the purpose of pausing live TV.
2) Not clear if you can buy media through iTV.
3) Other front row like programs such as Media Central won't be supported.
iTV suggestions.
I think Apple should make a home theatre edition of Mac Mini. Let it look just like the Mac Mini but make it have all the advantages of the iTV as well as the Mac Mini. Sell it for the same price as Mac Mini. The traditional Mac Mini can be used as a general purpose computer while the Mac Mini Home Theatre edition can have the following:
1) HDMI/Component output
2) Support for eyeTV Hybrid inside Front Row. Recorded shows can have a mini store - Apple can try to sell you TV episodes that you missed or episodes just like it.
3) Front Row equivalent to iTV
4) Stripped Down OS X - cannot use as general purpose computer
5) Enough HD space for internal eyeTV storage - expandable with external USB HD. Firewire could be left out if it saves money
6) iSight support built into Frontrow.
7) Bonjour support just like today.
8) YouTube, Google video and the likes.
A good media center on the PC side costs $1500 and up (a generic tower PC does not make a media centre). $600 is not bad for the Mac Mini Media Centre edition even though you might have to spend more money adding HD, eyeTV hybrid, etc.
Mac Mini advantages:
1) DVD drive to play movies
2) ATSC/NTSC tuner capability through eyeTV Hybrid - DVR solution. Can pause live TV, schedule recording using remote in living room
3) Onboard storage / External HD support through USB/Firewire
4) Front Row alternatives such as Media Central - Google video, You Tube, IPTV support
5) Leopard update should bring Front Row feature parity with iTV (guess!). Front Row already supports Bonjour - so you can still have a media server from which you stream data from
6) Enough horsepower to play 1080P H.264 as well as MPEG2 TS.
7) Could hookup an iSight for video chat in the living room. Could enhance frontrow so it pauses media if somebody is calling with iChat.
Mac Mini Disadvantages
1) No component video output. I have a HDTV (5 year old) that has only component video input. No HDMI/DVI.
2) DVI output may not support HDCP and might prevent future HDTV files from not displaying properly in 1080P (guess!)
3) Might run into trouble connecting DVI output to DVI/HDMI input on TV in certain cases. Not all TV models work properly with respect to scan rate, etc.
4) Is still a computer and might need keyboard and mouse to make it work for things like software update, etc. Can you VNC or ARD from another compute.r
5) Price - more expensive than iTV. But the extra features could justify it.
iTV advantages
1) Meant for a home theatre/living room. No need for keyboard/mouse
2) Component/HDMI guarantees modern TV connectivity.
3) Price. Most people already have a DVD player, so why duplicate that?
4) Stability. Stripped down functionality means less clunky feel.
iTV disadvantages
1) No TV tuner support (eyeTV hybrid no go on iTV). eyeTV on another computer defeats the purpose of pausing live TV.
2) Not clear if you can buy media through iTV.
3) Other front row like programs such as Media Central won't be supported.
iTV suggestions.
I think Apple should make a home theatre edition of Mac Mini. Let it look just like the Mac Mini but make it have all the advantages of the iTV as well as the Mac Mini. Sell it for the same price as Mac Mini. The traditional Mac Mini can be used as a general purpose computer while the Mac Mini Home Theatre edition can have the following:
1) HDMI/Component output
2) Support for eyeTV Hybrid inside Front Row. Recorded shows can have a mini store - Apple can try to sell you TV episodes that you missed or episodes just like it.
3) Front Row equivalent to iTV
4) Stripped Down OS X - cannot use as general purpose computer
5) Enough HD space for internal eyeTV storage - expandable with external USB HD. Firewire could be left out if it saves money
6) iSight support built into Frontrow.
7) Bonjour support just like today.
8) YouTube, Google video and the likes.
A good media center on the PC side costs $1500 and up (a generic tower PC does not make a media centre). $600 is not bad for the Mac Mini Media Centre edition even though you might have to spend more money adding HD, eyeTV hybrid, etc.
ct2k7
Apr 24, 03:04 PM
Dissection time!
A woman's witness is worth half of a man's: [6]
A desktop wallpaper for
Vista Wallpapers Wallpapers 7
Typography Wallpaper
Christmas Desktop Wallpaper
vista wallpaper 02 Free Vista
Page 2 - Vista Forums
It#39;s my new desktop wallpaper
Vista plants wallpapers
Vista Wallpaper Desktop
to your desktop wallpaper!
A woman's witness is worth half of a man's: [6]
JediZenMaster
Mar 18, 10:36 AM
ATT could use better price discrimination policies. There are many people who would like tethering, unrestricted 3G etc, who are more than willing to pay. Many would also give up unlimited data as long as ATT gave quality service at a decent price.
So have you seen what verizon charges for tethering? This forum is extremely slighted towards AT&T. Yet Verizon charges more for tethering and they seem to get a free pass.
So compared to the other carrier that offers the iPhone the tethering with AT&T is a "decent" price.
So have you seen what verizon charges for tethering? This forum is extremely slighted towards AT&T. Yet Verizon charges more for tethering and they seem to get a free pass.
So compared to the other carrier that offers the iPhone the tethering with AT&T is a "decent" price.
paulvee
Oct 30, 09:05 PM
This doesn't have anything to do with the new machines, but does anybody have in inkling of how to get extra drive sleds for a MacPro?
Apple sales has been more than useless when I ask them about it.
You would think a 3rd Party would come with some knockoff. I would buy 4 right off the bat. Sheesh, it's just metalwork. Somebody ought to make one.
Apple sales has been more than useless when I ask them about it.
You would think a 3rd Party would come with some knockoff. I would buy 4 right off the bat. Sheesh, it's just metalwork. Somebody ought to make one.
handsome pete
Apr 12, 11:05 PM
Obviously I know a lot more about it than you. Of course, there are multiple industries that use editing software... but that doesn't matter. You're just puffing out your chest and being snotty.
No, your ignorance of Adobe's stance in the professional broadcast industry comes off as snotty.
No, your ignorance of Adobe's stance in the professional broadcast industry comes off as snotty.
mac1984user
Apr 15, 09:55 AM
Focus should be on ending/surviving ALL bullying, not just victims choosing a hip counterculture.
Because being gay, or supporting those who suffer from abuse, is the same as joining a 'hip counterculture' movement. Get real, dude. That's ridiculous.
This video was great. I'm glad it made it to the 1st page.
Because being gay, or supporting those who suffer from abuse, is the same as joining a 'hip counterculture' movement. Get real, dude. That's ridiculous.
This video was great. I'm glad it made it to the 1st page.
ksz
Oct 12, 04:52 PM
Here ya go: http://forums.us.dell.com/supportforums/board/message?board.id=creativecontest&message.id=143&l=en&s=dhs
This is a really good deal. Ordered mine a few minutes ago for $1350+tax. Will use it with my home-built PC (nVidia 7800 GTX with dual-link DVI) until the next-gen Mac Pro is released.
This is a really good deal. Ordered mine a few minutes ago for $1350+tax. Will use it with my home-built PC (nVidia 7800 GTX with dual-link DVI) until the next-gen Mac Pro is released.
Peterkro
Mar 12, 07:08 PM
Number three reactor at the same plant has cooling and containment issues hopefully they can get it under control.
Sydde
Apr 25, 12:51 AM
At another website, other posters kept arguing that there were different kinds of theism and that agnosticism. My philosophy professors taught me that that atheism is the belief that there's no God, and that an agnostic would say, "I don't know whether there's a God. "
You can say that, although you don't believe that God exists, you're neither an atheist nor an agnostic. You can do that because you can suspend judgment judgment about theism.
Well, I am not 100% sure about the non-existence of any given deity, but when it comes to the cobbled-together fairy tale that Christians subscribe to, my certainty-of-BS level goes through the roof. (Jews and Muslims can readily be included as well.)
You can say that, although you don't believe that God exists, you're neither an atheist nor an agnostic. You can do that because you can suspend judgment judgment about theism.
Well, I am not 100% sure about the non-existence of any given deity, but when it comes to the cobbled-together fairy tale that Christians subscribe to, my certainty-of-BS level goes through the roof. (Jews and Muslims can readily be included as well.)
matticus008
Mar 19, 04:35 PM
Does iTunes really only sell you a license to the track? Is this in writing anywhere?
It's not just iTunes, but all copyright law. A CD is a license to use the track, not ownership of the song's music or lyrics. An AAC from iTunes is the same. Same with movies and software, etc. In any situation, you are buying a license to use the song, not to take ownership of the song (unless you're buying the *rights* to a song, then you really do own it).
It's not just iTunes, but all copyright law. A CD is a license to use the track, not ownership of the song's music or lyrics. An AAC from iTunes is the same. Same with movies and software, etc. In any situation, you are buying a license to use the song, not to take ownership of the song (unless you're buying the *rights* to a song, then you really do own it).
bokdol
Aug 29, 01:35 PM
i think alot of people care about the environment.. but alot of people dont care about greenpeace. in my eyes greenpeace has become a joke. i dont know mush about them but it does not seem like they do anything helpfull but to yell at the top of there lungs at people that can get them the most amount of publicity.
the way i see it is. apple is really popular in the public eye. so they become a natural target for anyone that wants their voice heard. well at least thats how i see it.
the last time i heard somethign from greenpeace was back in the 90's.
the way i see it is. apple is really popular in the public eye. so they become a natural target for anyone that wants their voice heard. well at least thats how i see it.
the last time i heard somethign from greenpeace was back in the 90's.
mac jones
Mar 12, 05:13 AM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/532.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0.5 Mobile/8B117 Safari/6531.22.7)
Not once have I said anything is safe. Not once have I said there is nothing to worry about; just the opposite--it's a serious situation and could get worse.
All I've said is we don't have enough information to make much of an assessment and to not panic.
With all due respect, somebody who doesn't even realize hydrogen is explosive isn't really in a position to tell someone holding two degrees in the field and speaking a good amount of the local language that he's de facto right and I'm de facto wrong.
Are they %100 up front, or are we going to have to wait for some potentially very bad news?
Certainly panic is not an option, ever. But I have little faith in government officials at the beginnings of crisis.
Not once have I said anything is safe. Not once have I said there is nothing to worry about; just the opposite--it's a serious situation and could get worse.
All I've said is we don't have enough information to make much of an assessment and to not panic.
With all due respect, somebody who doesn't even realize hydrogen is explosive isn't really in a position to tell someone holding two degrees in the field and speaking a good amount of the local language that he's de facto right and I'm de facto wrong.
Are they %100 up front, or are we going to have to wait for some potentially very bad news?
Certainly panic is not an option, ever. But I have little faith in government officials at the beginnings of crisis.
benixau
Oct 12, 10:41 AM
for crying out load, who cares if a pc can do its sums better than a mac. My brother does maths better than me but i kick him in english.
In other words if i am more productive on my mac then it doesnt matter that it might be a little 'slower' it is a faster machine because i can work faster. End of story. New Thread.
In other words if i am more productive on my mac then it doesnt matter that it might be a little 'slower' it is a faster machine because i can work faster. End of story. New Thread.
jettredmont
May 3, 03:44 PM
Of course, I don't know of any Linux distribution that doesn't require root to install system wide software either. Kind of negates your point there...
I wasn't specific enough there. I was talking about how "Unix security" has been applied to the overall OS X permissions system, not just "Unix security" in the abstract. I'll cede the point that this does mean that "Unix security" in the abstract is no better than NT security, as I can not refute the claim that Linux distributions share the same problem (the need to run as "root" to do day-to-day computer administration). I would point out, though, that unless things have changed significantly, most window managers for Linux et al refuse to run as root, so you can't end up with a full-fledged graphical environment running as root.
You could do the same as far back as Windows NT 3.1 in 1993. The fact that most software vendors wrote their applications for the non-secure DOS based versions of Windows is moot, that is not a problem of the OS's security model, it is a problem of the Application. This is not "Unix security" being better, it's "Software vendors for Windows" being dumber.
Yes and no. You are looking at "Unix security" as a set of controls. I'm looking at it as a pragmatic system. As a system, Apple's OS X model allowed users to run as standard users and non-root Administrators while XP's model made non-Administrator access incredibly cumbersome.
You can blame that on Windows developers just being dumber, or you can blame it on Microsoft not sufficiently cracking the whip, or you can blame it on Microsoft not making the "right way" easy enough. Wherever the blame goes, the practical effect is that Windows users tended to run as Administrator and locking them down to Standard user accounts was a slap in the face and serious drain on productivity.
Actually, the Administrator account (much less a standard user in the Administrators group) is not a root level account at all.
Notice how a root account on Unix can do everything, just by virtue of its 0 uid. It can write/delete/read files from filesystems it does not even have permissions on. It can kill any system process, no matter the owner.
Administrator on Windows NT is far more limited. Don't ever break your ACLs or don't try to kill processes owned by "System". SysInternals provided tools that let you do it, but Microsoft did not.
Interesting. I do remember being able to do some pretty damaging things with Administrator access in Windows XP such as replacing shared DLLs, formatting the hard drive, replacing any executable in c:\windows, etc, which OS X would not let me do without typing in a password (GUI) or sudo'ing to root (command line).
But, I stand corrected. NT "Administrator" is not equivalent to "root" on Unix. But it's a whole lot more "trusted" (and hence all apps it runs are a lot more trusted) than the equivalent OS X "Administrator" account.
UAC is simply a gui front-end to the runas command. Heck, shift-right-click already had the "Run As" option. It's a glorified sudo. It uses RDP (since Vista, user sessions are really local RDP sessions) to prevent being able to "fake it", by showing up on the "console" session while the user's display resides on a RDP session.
Again, the components are all there, but while the pragmatic effect was that a user needed to right-click, select "Run as Administrator", then type in their password to run something ... well, that wasn't going to happen. Hence, users tended to have Administrator access accounts.
There, you did it, you made me go on a defensive rant for Microsoft. I hate you now.
Sorry! I know; it burns!
...
Why bother, you're not "getting it". The only reason the user is aware of MACDefender is because it runs a GUI based installer. If the executable had had 0 GUI code and just run stuff in the background, you would have never known until you couldn't find your files or some chinese guy was buying goods with your CC info, fished right out of your "Bank stuff.xls" file.
Well, unless you have more information on this than I do, I'm assuming that the .zip file was unarchived (into a sub-folder of ~/Downloads), a .dmg file with an "Internet Enabled" flag was found inside, then the user was prompted by the OS if they wanted to run this installer they downloaded, then the installer came up (keeping in mind that "installer" is a package structure potentially with some scripts, not a free-form executable, and that the only reason it came up was that the 'installer' app the OS has opened it up and recognized it). I believe the Installer also asks the user permission before running any of the preflight scripts.
Unless there is a bug here exposing a security hole, this could not be done without multiple user interactions. The "installer" only ran because it was a set of instructions for the built-in installer. The disk image was only opened because it was in the form Safari recognizes as an auto-open disk image. The first time "arbitrary code" could be run would be in the preflight script of the installer.
I wasn't specific enough there. I was talking about how "Unix security" has been applied to the overall OS X permissions system, not just "Unix security" in the abstract. I'll cede the point that this does mean that "Unix security" in the abstract is no better than NT security, as I can not refute the claim that Linux distributions share the same problem (the need to run as "root" to do day-to-day computer administration). I would point out, though, that unless things have changed significantly, most window managers for Linux et al refuse to run as root, so you can't end up with a full-fledged graphical environment running as root.
You could do the same as far back as Windows NT 3.1 in 1993. The fact that most software vendors wrote their applications for the non-secure DOS based versions of Windows is moot, that is not a problem of the OS's security model, it is a problem of the Application. This is not "Unix security" being better, it's "Software vendors for Windows" being dumber.
Yes and no. You are looking at "Unix security" as a set of controls. I'm looking at it as a pragmatic system. As a system, Apple's OS X model allowed users to run as standard users and non-root Administrators while XP's model made non-Administrator access incredibly cumbersome.
You can blame that on Windows developers just being dumber, or you can blame it on Microsoft not sufficiently cracking the whip, or you can blame it on Microsoft not making the "right way" easy enough. Wherever the blame goes, the practical effect is that Windows users tended to run as Administrator and locking them down to Standard user accounts was a slap in the face and serious drain on productivity.
Actually, the Administrator account (much less a standard user in the Administrators group) is not a root level account at all.
Notice how a root account on Unix can do everything, just by virtue of its 0 uid. It can write/delete/read files from filesystems it does not even have permissions on. It can kill any system process, no matter the owner.
Administrator on Windows NT is far more limited. Don't ever break your ACLs or don't try to kill processes owned by "System". SysInternals provided tools that let you do it, but Microsoft did not.
Interesting. I do remember being able to do some pretty damaging things with Administrator access in Windows XP such as replacing shared DLLs, formatting the hard drive, replacing any executable in c:\windows, etc, which OS X would not let me do without typing in a password (GUI) or sudo'ing to root (command line).
But, I stand corrected. NT "Administrator" is not equivalent to "root" on Unix. But it's a whole lot more "trusted" (and hence all apps it runs are a lot more trusted) than the equivalent OS X "Administrator" account.
UAC is simply a gui front-end to the runas command. Heck, shift-right-click already had the "Run As" option. It's a glorified sudo. It uses RDP (since Vista, user sessions are really local RDP sessions) to prevent being able to "fake it", by showing up on the "console" session while the user's display resides on a RDP session.
Again, the components are all there, but while the pragmatic effect was that a user needed to right-click, select "Run as Administrator", then type in their password to run something ... well, that wasn't going to happen. Hence, users tended to have Administrator access accounts.
There, you did it, you made me go on a defensive rant for Microsoft. I hate you now.
Sorry! I know; it burns!
...
Why bother, you're not "getting it". The only reason the user is aware of MACDefender is because it runs a GUI based installer. If the executable had had 0 GUI code and just run stuff in the background, you would have never known until you couldn't find your files or some chinese guy was buying goods with your CC info, fished right out of your "Bank stuff.xls" file.
Well, unless you have more information on this than I do, I'm assuming that the .zip file was unarchived (into a sub-folder of ~/Downloads), a .dmg file with an "Internet Enabled" flag was found inside, then the user was prompted by the OS if they wanted to run this installer they downloaded, then the installer came up (keeping in mind that "installer" is a package structure potentially with some scripts, not a free-form executable, and that the only reason it came up was that the 'installer' app the OS has opened it up and recognized it). I believe the Installer also asks the user permission before running any of the preflight scripts.
Unless there is a bug here exposing a security hole, this could not be done without multiple user interactions. The "installer" only ran because it was a set of instructions for the built-in installer. The disk image was only opened because it was in the form Safari recognizes as an auto-open disk image. The first time "arbitrary code" could be run would be in the preflight script of the installer.
CIA
Apr 13, 01:12 AM
Currently I work as a producer for the NBA. If the face recognition works, that could be huge for what I do. We have to go through months and months of games pulling highlights of individual players. Currently we edit using Final Cut Pro systems. If the new system can accurately analyze faces and allow me to do a search for certain players, well, that would be friggin' awesome. I hope it works.
I was wracking my brain trying to figure out what the hell the face recognition feature would be used for. That makes sense, sports. Sadly we shoot a ton of skiing and snowboarding, so it probably won't work well for us since everyone is wearing hats/helmets and goggles.
I was wracking my brain trying to figure out what the hell the face recognition feature would be used for. That makes sense, sports. Sadly we shoot a ton of skiing and snowboarding, so it probably won't work well for us since everyone is wearing hats/helmets and goggles.
MacFly123
Oct 7, 01:12 PM
All I have to say is EAT IT MICROSOFT! Windows Mobile SUCKS lol :D :p
I love seeing the way things are going for Microsoft. It is like watching a giant passing out about to SLAM and hit the ground collapsed. Always too little too late! :rolleyes:
I love seeing the way things are going for Microsoft. It is like watching a giant passing out about to SLAM and hit the ground collapsed. Always too little too late! :rolleyes:
i_am_a_cow
Mar 20, 01:53 PM
Yes.
Probably not, but are you going to whip out a check to pay for it? Software delevelopment is not free.
What a silly thought. Of course it's not free. I'm saying that it is just as unethical for Apple to ignore Linux as it is for DVD Jon to try and play music on Linux. We are not talking about what is technically wrong here. After all, every country has a different set of laws. We are talking about what is the right thing to do. It would hardly be a burden for Apple to port iTunes and open up Airport drivers.
The main concern of mine is Apple's stubborn refusal to adapt to simple standards. They haven't kept up with GNU standards in GCC, they won't port Quicktime or iTunes to Linux, they won't make open drivers available for Airport cards. Apple is losing quite a few fans. I was a huge Apple fan for a long time (3/4 of my life). Now, I am losing respect for Apple's ridiculous money-making stubborness.
And don't try and argue that Mac OS X is just the same as linux. It isn't.
Probably not, but are you going to whip out a check to pay for it? Software delevelopment is not free.
What a silly thought. Of course it's not free. I'm saying that it is just as unethical for Apple to ignore Linux as it is for DVD Jon to try and play music on Linux. We are not talking about what is technically wrong here. After all, every country has a different set of laws. We are talking about what is the right thing to do. It would hardly be a burden for Apple to port iTunes and open up Airport drivers.
The main concern of mine is Apple's stubborn refusal to adapt to simple standards. They haven't kept up with GNU standards in GCC, they won't port Quicktime or iTunes to Linux, they won't make open drivers available for Airport cards. Apple is losing quite a few fans. I was a huge Apple fan for a long time (3/4 of my life). Now, I am losing respect for Apple's ridiculous money-making stubborness.
And don't try and argue that Mac OS X is just the same as linux. It isn't.
