Uhm... anyone on the inside who wanted to take pictures would sneak in a tiny digital camera in their pocket. They're not going to aim a PowerBook screen around the office.
I sorry melgross, I meant when the MacIntels show up with the all new VPC everyone is hoping for. I hope it is decently fast then and usable.
I actually run AutoCad '05 on my iBook (1.2 GHz) when I am in a pinch out of town. It is for emergencies when I travel. It is not something I would want to do for more than an hour but is good enough to get out a drawing if I have too.
But not TOO fast or there will be no reason for anyone to port a CAD program to the Mac ever again.
I would hate to think that Adobe and others will stop upgrading their Mac software figuring that we'll just buy the Windows versions.
No, no, no and no.
This is *not* a problem we face. Big companies will *never* do this. Apple's Macs will come with OS X...not Windows. Why would any sane company tell you to get Windows and risk not getting your business if you don't feel like buying Windows?
People won't be buying Macs to run Windows (well...some may but they represent a very tiny percentage)...as result, you simply cannot expect them to buy Windows because you want them to.
And I don't want to embark in your never-ending debates, melgross. You're wrong and/or haven't thought this through.
This is *not* a problem we face. Big companies will *never* do this. Apple's Macs will come with OS X...not Windows. Why would any sane company tell you to get Windows and risk not getting your business if you don't feel like buying Windows?
People won't be buying Macs to run Windows (well...some may but they represent a very tiny percentage)...as result, you simply cannot expect them to buy Windows because you want them to.
And I don't want to embark in your never-ending debates, melgross. You're wrong and/or haven't thought this through.
Kim, why don't you just go away?
Until you arrive, we have pretty good discussions. As soon as you get here, everything deteriorates.
You think I was the first, or only one to bring this up? Why don't you actually read the thread?
People won't be buying Macs to run Windows (well...some may but they represent a very tiny percentage)...as result, you simply cannot expect them to buy Windows because you want them to.
There are ways to run Windows apps within OS X right now, I expect that to get easier with an Intel system. I don't think any developer can expect a person to run Windows, but I would not be surprised if a lot of users happen to buy such a system and might just buy a Windows app if that's the better app. I don't think any developer will claim that it is OS X software, I would expect that developers would say that running their software under such an environment is unsupported.
As it is, it is cheaper to buy Virtual PC or whatever than it is to re-buy or replace the one major Windows program I need to use, and I have no qualms with going that route.
There are ways to run Windows apps within OS X right now, I expect that to get easier with an Intel system. I don't think any developer can expect a person to run Windows, but I would not be surprised if a lot of users happen to buy such a system and might just buy a Windows app if that's the better app.
As it is, it is cheaper to buy Virtual PC or whatever than it is to re-buy or replace the one major Windows program I need to use, and I have no qualms with going that route.
I'm sure most of us here don't have qualms with "going that route." But I doubt very much the 'average user' would want to go that route. Dual-booting, emulation, and virtualization are all very inelegant solutions that will get the 'average user' wondering why he ever bought a Mac at all. It's simply won't happen...as the number of Macs and Mac market share rises why would companies abandon making a Mac version or not consider it?
90% of users want to run apps natively...not futz around with emulation or dual-booting.
I can certainly understand their fears, but with cameras in everything already, any agency or company that is worried about the camera in the bezel is being stupid or lazy about security.
Most agencies have a very simple answer, they strip you of anything with a camera. When I've walked on to certain sites I've just handed in my phone and credit cards (giant magnetic field can wipe them). I don't think you appreciate just how massive a loss they could suffer by one photo in some of these instances. Being lazy is to say, oh well they're in everything now so we'll just allow it. It won't happen. If you're in a lab where they are working on something secret it is simple to turn a laptop around, or get access, and you can pass documents in front of a static camera. Anywhere that is seriously security conscious won't allow cameras inside certain zones.
1) Going to intel is nothing like going to a "all new processor". Intel processors are widly used and tested, and I'm sure that a macintel is much easier to build than a PPC Mac... And will be very reliable when they will be launched. Moreover, apple doesn't "need time" to build a powerbook intel, and prototypes are available for nothing on dell.com
2) Apple claims that OSX is running under intel since the beginning. So OSX must be pretty reliable under the present intel architecture, and it makes sence that apple wants to switch before intel introduce its new technology next year. The powerbook really need a power boost, so it may be introduced earlier than june. I expected that mac mini will move in january with a SC yonah, then the ibook and the powerbook with single and dual core yonah in march.
3) concerning the built in camera, i don't see any problem with that. if you really want to spy, you need a better lens, and something easier to move than a powerbook screen. If the built in microphone is not a problem, the built in isight will definitely not be one either. So please stop complaining about that, it's really stupid!
1) Going to intel is nothing like going to a "all new processor". Intel processors are widly used and tested, and I'm sure that a macintel is much easier to build than a PPC Mac... And will be very reliable when they will be launched. Moreover, apple doesn't "need time" to build a powerbook intel, and prototypes are available for nothing on dell.com
2) Apple claims that OSX is running under intel since the beginning. So OSX must be pretty reliable under the present intel architecture, and it makes sence that apple wants to switch before intel introduce its new technology next year. The powerbook really need a power boost, so it may be introduced earlier than june. I expected that mac mini will move in january with a SC yonah, then the ibook and the powerbook with single and dual core yonah in march.
3) concerning the built in camera, i don't see any problem with that. if you really want to spy, you need a better lens, and something easier to move than a powerbook screen. If the built in microphone is not a problem, the built in isight will definitely not be one either. So please stop complaining about that, it's really stupid!
I think that it was just meant that Apple was going to a new processor FOR THEM.
What we don't know is what level of compatibility Apple maintained. They had it running but it might not have been in a sellable state. They just brought it up to the PPC version. I'm told that this was a milestone.
It's the principal of having the camera. I agree with Telomar. Anything with a camera won't be allowed in at all. If you're going into court here in NYC, they look at everything you have before letting you in. Anything with a camera is taken. They don't check lawyers or court officers - yet. There is talk that they might start doing that.
A camera is possible. But if Apple wants an even thinner lid, it isn't.
You keep saying this, but that isn't necessarily true. The lids on Aluminum PBs aren't a uniform thickness right now. Not if you look at the hinge, which is nearly the full thickness of the laptop. How do you know Apple won't have a thickened housing for the camera that either fits into a matching recess in the lower section or overhangs the front edge of the lower section? That's assuming as you do that Apple can't possibly make the camera thin enough in the first place.
You keep saying this, but that isn't necessarily true. The lids on Aluminum PBs aren't a uniform thickness right now. Not if you look at the hinge, which is nearly the full thickness of the laptop. How do you know Apple won't have a thickened housing for the camera that either fits into a matching recess in the lower section or overhangs the front edge of the lower section? That's assuming as you do that Apple can't possibly make the camera thin enough in the first place.
Then they should have put the camera in the bottom of the iMac case. That would give a great chin view. It would make everyone look like that cartoon mountie Dudley Do-Right. There's a reason why they put it in the top.
I'm not saying it's impossible, just that to do this in a very thin lid would be very expensive, or not very good. That's a tough choice.
Also if you look at the Sony, you will see that the camera has a glass (I assume it's glass) cover over the lens. More thickness.
I'd like to know the size of chip Apple is using now. The quality is very good, with little noise.
Uhm... anyone on the inside who wanted to take pictures would sneak in a tiny digital camera in their pocket. They're not going to aim a PowerBook screen around the office.
There is absolutely *no* increased risk here.
I also agree with you 100%. Even if you managed to turn the PB without anyone noticing, there will probably be a status light, so people know when you're recording.
I think we all can agree it would be stupid to try and photo with a powerbook, but you have to understand businesses that think like this.
For a real life example in a city near me: Company A hands out cell phones to high ranking company officials. The cell phones have cameras. Company A officials cannot bring their company cell phones into the office past the lobby. This includes the president of the company. Nutz!
It is insane, because someone could just write down on paper or sketch drawings good enough to steal. However, companies are this freeked out about the tight competition and cut-throat attitudes.
I think we all can agree it would be stupid to try and photo with a powerbook, but you have to understand businesses that think like this.
For a real life example in a city near me: Company A hands out cell phones to high ranking company officials. The cell phones have cameras. Company A officials cannot bring their company cell phones into the office past the lobby. This includes the president of the company. Nutz!
It is insane, because someone could just write down on paper or sketch drawings good enough to steal. However, companies are this freeked out about the tight competition and cut-throat attitudes.
Exactly, why not just write it down, stuff it in your tighty-wighties and off you go??? Or do they inspect your notes AND your underwear at the end of the day/meeting when you walk out?
If they don't even allow company-issued cell phones in the company, then there is no way they will allow something not company-issued...hmmm
If someone really really wanted to steal/record some company data, they would do something like take a Dell and have someone install a camera in it... that's if they REALLY REALLY REALLY wanted to walk out with the info.
And someone mentioned that they don't let you take cameras into court rooms... I don't think a security guard would even know/assume/think that there is a camera in a computer (NOT DEFINING OCCUPATIONAL ROLES HERE). Even if he asked you to open up your mac and start it and notice the camera, I'm sure it can be disguised/covered up somehow...
But maybe the ones who think it's a big deal are correct... in that case, maybe Apple needs to offer a camera-less machine...perhaps named POWER BOOK FOR TOP SECRET AGENTS???
And someone mentioned that they don't let you take cameras into court rooms... I don't think a security guard would even know/assume/think that there is a camera in a computer (NOT DEFINING OCCUPATIONAL ROLES HERE). Even if he asked you to open up your mac and start it and notice the camera, I'm sure it can be disguised/covered up somehow...
They do tell them what to look for. And they really aren't that stupid.
come on, and what about the microphone??? recording a conversation is much easier than recording sth visual! what can you do with a camera that can only record your face, if you are closer than 3feet from your screen!!! Are they really checking computer to see if they have a built in camera? it's nothing like a camera-phone, and it's really no big deal.
man, 75% of the comments on this news are about this stupid thing, i think we really got the point of everyone and can move on some more interesting thoughts...
Comments
Originally posted by Gustav
Uhm... anyone on the inside who wanted to take pictures would sneak in a tiny digital camera in their pocket. They're not going to aim a PowerBook screen around the office.
There is absolutely *no* increased risk here.
X-actly!!
Originally posted by aplnub
I sorry melgross, I meant when the MacIntels show up with the all new VPC everyone is hoping for. I hope it is decently fast then and usable.
I actually run AutoCad '05 on my iBook (1.2 GHz) when I am in a pinch out of town. It is for emergencies when I travel. It is not something I would want to do for more than an hour but is good enough to get out a drawing if I have too.
But not TOO fast or there will be no reason for anyone to port a CAD program to the Mac ever again.
Originally posted by MacGregor
But not TOO fast or there will be no reason for anyone to port a CAD program to the Mac ever again.
That's the problem we face.
I would hate to think that Adobe and others will stop upgrading their Mac software figuring that we'll just buy the Windows versions.
Originally posted by melgross
That's the problem we face.
I would hate to think that Adobe and others will stop upgrading their Mac software figuring that we'll just buy the Windows versions.
No, no, no and no.
This is *not* a problem we face. Big companies will *never* do this. Apple's Macs will come with OS X...not Windows. Why would any sane company tell you to get Windows and risk not getting your business if you don't feel like buying Windows?
People won't be buying Macs to run Windows (well...some may but they represent a very tiny percentage)...as result, you simply cannot expect them to buy Windows because you want them to.
And I don't want to embark in your never-ending debates, melgross. You're wrong and/or haven't thought this through.
Originally posted by kim kap sol
No, no, no and no.
This is *not* a problem we face. Big companies will *never* do this. Apple's Macs will come with OS X...not Windows. Why would any sane company tell you to get Windows and risk not getting your business if you don't feel like buying Windows?
People won't be buying Macs to run Windows (well...some may but they represent a very tiny percentage)...as result, you simply cannot expect them to buy Windows because you want them to.
And I don't want to embark in your never-ending debates, melgross. You're wrong and/or haven't thought this through.
Kim, why don't you just go away?
Until you arrive, we have pretty good discussions. As soon as you get here, everything deteriorates.
You think I was the first, or only one to bring this up? Why don't you actually read the thread?
Originally posted by kim kap sol
People won't be buying Macs to run Windows (well...some may but they represent a very tiny percentage)...as result, you simply cannot expect them to buy Windows because you want them to.
There are ways to run Windows apps within OS X right now, I expect that to get easier with an Intel system. I don't think any developer can expect a person to run Windows, but I would not be surprised if a lot of users happen to buy such a system and might just buy a Windows app if that's the better app. I don't think any developer will claim that it is OS X software, I would expect that developers would say that running their software under such an environment is unsupported.
As it is, it is cheaper to buy Virtual PC or whatever than it is to re-buy or replace the one major Windows program I need to use, and I have no qualms with going that route.
Originally posted by melgross
Kim, why don't you just go away?
Until you arrive, we have pretty good discussions. As soon as you get here, everything deteriorates.
You think I was the first, or only one to bring this up? Why don't you actually read the thread?
I like picking on your because you're often wrong.
Originally posted by kim kap sol
I like picking on your because you're often wrong.
Very amusing I am sure.
But before you make statements, learn something. There has to be a first time.
Originally posted by JeffDM
There are ways to run Windows apps within OS X right now, I expect that to get easier with an Intel system. I don't think any developer can expect a person to run Windows, but I would not be surprised if a lot of users happen to buy such a system and might just buy a Windows app if that's the better app.
As it is, it is cheaper to buy Virtual PC or whatever than it is to re-buy or replace the one major Windows program I need to use, and I have no qualms with going that route.
I'm sure most of us here don't have qualms with "going that route." But I doubt very much the 'average user' would want to go that route. Dual-booting, emulation, and virtualization are all very inelegant solutions that will get the 'average user' wondering why he ever bought a Mac at all. It's simply won't happen...as the number of Macs and Mac market share rises why would companies abandon making a Mac version or not consider it?
90% of users want to run apps natively...not futz around with emulation or dual-booting.
Originally posted by ZO
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
I love my 12incher!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Its perfect size for travelling!!!!
Because, you know, they'll be taking it from you when the 13"ers are released.
Originally posted by MacGregor
I can certainly understand their fears, but with cameras in everything already, any agency or company that is worried about the camera in the bezel is being stupid or lazy about security.
Most agencies have a very simple answer, they strip you of anything with a camera. When I've walked on to certain sites I've just handed in my phone and credit cards (giant magnetic field can wipe them). I don't think you appreciate just how massive a loss they could suffer by one photo in some of these instances. Being lazy is to say, oh well they're in everything now so we'll just allow it. It won't happen. If you're in a lab where they are working on something secret it is simple to turn a laptop around, or get access, and you can pass documents in front of a static camera. Anywhere that is seriously security conscious won't allow cameras inside certain zones.
1) Going to intel is nothing like going to a "all new processor". Intel processors are widly used and tested, and I'm sure that a macintel is much easier to build than a PPC Mac... And will be very reliable when they will be launched. Moreover, apple doesn't "need time" to build a powerbook intel, and prototypes are available for nothing on dell.com
2) Apple claims that OSX is running under intel since the beginning. So OSX must be pretty reliable under the present intel architecture, and it makes sence that apple wants to switch before intel introduce its new technology next year. The powerbook really need a power boost, so it may be introduced earlier than june. I expected that mac mini will move in january with a SC yonah, then the ibook and the powerbook with single and dual core yonah in march.
3) concerning the built in camera, i don't see any problem with that. if you really want to spy, you need a better lens, and something easier to move than a powerbook screen. If the built in microphone is not a problem, the built in isight will definitely not be one either. So please stop complaining about that, it's really stupid!
Originally posted by belzebuth
Here is my point :
1) Going to intel is nothing like going to a "all new processor". Intel processors are widly used and tested, and I'm sure that a macintel is much easier to build than a PPC Mac... And will be very reliable when they will be launched. Moreover, apple doesn't "need time" to build a powerbook intel, and prototypes are available for nothing on dell.com
2) Apple claims that OSX is running under intel since the beginning. So OSX must be pretty reliable under the present intel architecture, and it makes sence that apple wants to switch before intel introduce its new technology next year. The powerbook really need a power boost, so it may be introduced earlier than june. I expected that mac mini will move in january with a SC yonah, then the ibook and the powerbook with single and dual core yonah in march.
3) concerning the built in camera, i don't see any problem with that. if you really want to spy, you need a better lens, and something easier to move than a powerbook screen. If the built in microphone is not a problem, the built in isight will definitely not be one either. So please stop complaining about that, it's really stupid!
I think that it was just meant that Apple was going to a new processor FOR THEM.
What we don't know is what level of compatibility Apple maintained. They had it running but it might not have been in a sellable state. They just brought it up to the PPC version. I'm told that this was a milestone.
It's the principal of having the camera. I agree with Telomar. Anything with a camera won't be allowed in at all. If you're going into court here in NYC, they look at everything you have before letting you in. Anything with a camera is taken. They don't check lawyers or court officers - yet. There is talk that they might start doing that.
A camera is possible. But if Apple wants an even thinner lid, it isn't.
You keep saying this, but that isn't necessarily true. The lids on Aluminum PBs aren't a uniform thickness right now. Not if you look at the hinge, which is nearly the full thickness of the laptop. How do you know Apple won't have a thickened housing for the camera that either fits into a matching recess in the lower section or overhangs the front edge of the lower section? That's assuming as you do that Apple can't possibly make the camera thin enough in the first place.
Originally posted by Kolchak
You keep saying this, but that isn't necessarily true. The lids on Aluminum PBs aren't a uniform thickness right now. Not if you look at the hinge, which is nearly the full thickness of the laptop. How do you know Apple won't have a thickened housing for the camera that either fits into a matching recess in the lower section or overhangs the front edge of the lower section? That's assuming as you do that Apple can't possibly make the camera thin enough in the first place.
Then they should have put the camera in the bottom of the iMac case. That would give a great chin view. It would make everyone look like that cartoon mountie Dudley Do-Right. There's a reason why they put it in the top.
I'm not saying it's impossible, just that to do this in a very thin lid would be very expensive, or not very good. That's a tough choice.
Also if you look at the Sony, you will see that the camera has a glass (I assume it's glass) cover over the lens. More thickness.
I'd like to know the size of chip Apple is using now. The quality is very good, with little noise.
Originally posted by Gustav
Uhm... anyone on the inside who wanted to take pictures would sneak in a tiny digital camera in their pocket. They're not going to aim a PowerBook screen around the office.
There is absolutely *no* increased risk here.
I also agree with you 100%. Even if you managed to turn the PB without anyone noticing, there will probably be a status light, so people know when you're recording.
For a real life example in a city near me: Company A hands out cell phones to high ranking company officials. The cell phones have cameras. Company A officials cannot bring their company cell phones into the office past the lobby. This includes the president of the company. Nutz!
It is insane, because someone could just write down on paper or sketch drawings good enough to steal. However, companies are this freeked out about the tight competition and cut-throat attitudes.
Originally posted by aplnub
I think we all can agree it would be stupid to try and photo with a powerbook, but you have to understand businesses that think like this.
For a real life example in a city near me: Company A hands out cell phones to high ranking company officials. The cell phones have cameras. Company A officials cannot bring their company cell phones into the office past the lobby. This includes the president of the company. Nutz!
It is insane, because someone could just write down on paper or sketch drawings good enough to steal. However, companies are this freeked out about the tight competition and cut-throat attitudes.
Exactly, why not just write it down, stuff it in your tighty-wighties and off you go??? Or do they inspect your notes AND your underwear at the end of the day/meeting when you walk out?
If they don't even allow company-issued cell phones in the company, then there is no way they will allow something not company-issued...hmmm
If someone really really wanted to steal/record some company data, they would do something like take a Dell and have someone install a camera in it... that's if they REALLY REALLY REALLY wanted to walk out with the info.
And someone mentioned that they don't let you take cameras into court rooms... I don't think a security guard would even know/assume/think that there is a camera in a computer (NOT DEFINING OCCUPATIONAL ROLES HERE). Even if he asked you to open up your mac and start it and notice the camera, I'm sure it can be disguised/covered up somehow...
But maybe the ones who think it's a big deal are correct... in that case, maybe Apple needs to offer a camera-less machine...perhaps named POWER BOOK FOR TOP SECRET AGENTS???
Originally posted by alexluft
And someone mentioned that they don't let you take cameras into court rooms... I don't think a security guard would even know/assume/think that there is a camera in a computer (NOT DEFINING OCCUPATIONAL ROLES HERE). Even if he asked you to open up your mac and start it and notice the camera, I'm sure it can be disguised/covered up somehow...
They do tell them what to look for. And they really aren't that stupid.
man, 75% of the comments on this news are about this stupid thing, i think we really got the point of everyone and can move on some more interesting thoughts...