or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by PB

I started reading the first lines and then, when I saw this: - If you’re just surfing around the web and clicking on links, that information does not go to google.com I stopped. Maybe this statement is true but I don't believe it because of the following. I was once logged into my gmail account from my office machine and I did some web browsing with Firefox passing from Google. I clicked some links. The same evening I looked up the same keywords from home using Safari and...
That was so funny!
 I have never used anything similar, so I don't know exactly how this stuff works.
It certainly does many things in the background and who knows what exactly. If you don't have a utility like LS for traffic surveillance, it will send to Google information that collects from your computer without informing you, and this many times a day. I have not seen so far other software doing this. From what I remember, not letting GE to contact its home did not affect its ability to run correctly, for my use at least. In the meantime I trashed both GE and Chrome.
Yes but isn't that the browser letting you to access the deep web? I would be extra careful with such software.
I don't know if they are "dangerous" but having Little Snitch in my system, I saw two or three (i don't remember exactly) Google binaries trying to call home. I have no idea what information they transmit. I let them alone for some time and they tried to contact the mother ship very often (like many times a day). Then I decided to block them altogether. In fact I don't use any Google standalone application anymore. Even I switched to duckduckgo for the web search. From...
 Facebook is such a disgusting memory hog, that I would not have it run on anything less than a fully charged high-end iMac or a Mac Pro. My daughter is using it on a MBP with 8 GB of memory and I see frequently swapfiles (in /var/vm) between 6 and 10 GB total! It is mad. This happens of course after loading tons of pictures in pages updating their content dynamically, and it takes some time, but it does happen. At that times the machine becomes fairly unresponsive for...
 Personal experience may be quite variable. I have a black Macbook, a late 2007 model with a 2.2 GHz Core 2 Duo CPU. It has 4 GB of RAM on board, the maximum I could buy at that time. I still run a VM with Windows 2000 on it without any problem. Recently I installed also a Linux VM, taking 1 GB of RAM to run. I saw in activity monitor that this amount of RAM goes into wired status, so the system is left with only 3 GB of memory to function. There is definitely a slowdown,...
 I think that only a small percentage of users would buy this machine for home and private use. This is not a home computer, although you could see some exceptions. It looks to me that it is addressed more to schools, administration and businesses where one buys a closed appliance that just works without caring about internals and upgrade. In such settings the computers are often being bought in significant volume, therefore a difference of $100 or $200 can quickly become...
I know very well what I wrote. With a 5400 rpm HDD AND 1.4 GHz CPU it is really crippled today. Apple could at least put in a slow 128 GB SSD, like they do even in the lowest end MBA. Even a 7200 rpm HDD would help. This iMac is literally the desktop version of the entry level MBA for 200 euros more. It is glaringly obvious that Apple targets some more than healthy margins here. If they succeed and people buy it, so be it. If not, they have nothing to lose.
New Posts  All Forums: