petri

About

Username
petri
Joined
Visits
57
Last Active
Roles
member
Points
361
Badges
1
Posts
118

Reactions

146Like23Informative

  • All the new FaceTime features in iOS 15

    petripetri
    All of these new features could be summed up with “FaceTime can now work like Teams”.
    williamlondonkkqd1337

  • Unsurprisingly, a 2020 iPad Pro will bend if you try to break it

    petripetri
    I’m not sure if this site was always AppleApologist and I just didn’t notice so much to start with, or what.  I don’t even need to see the video (and I haven’t) to know that iPad Pros are weaker than they used to be, and weaker than they should be, to function as the go-anywhere, Chuck-in-a-backpack tablet they were originally intended as.  It’s not just a question of materials either, the current design is just fundamentally less strong and far more prone to flex.  

    Apple should be called out on that.  They should be called out on a bad design which functions less well than it’s predecessors and will be an expensive disappointment for some of its customers.  And when they launch another new iPad generation with the same design flaw and the same weakness, they deserve to be called out on it again, and for more YouTubers to make these same videos pointing it out.  

    Apple should do better.  So should AppleInsider.

    makaveli-313lkruppchemengin1larryaAllProductsNoShipThe_Angry_Lagdroid

  • Developers talk about being 'Sherlocked' as Apple uses them 'for market research'

    petripetri
    asdasd said:
    Sherlock wasn't even Sherlocked.

    I was thinking the same - all of these third party apps, including “Watson”, are just doing really obvious things that should and would have been in Apple’s roadmap anyway.  They got in first and made some money, good for them, but the idea that should give them perpetual rights to the concept of putting a calculator on an IOS device, or building internet search into a desktop OS, is ludicrous.  Apple have every right to do those things, and yes it’s only natural that they’re able to do them better too.

    normmwatto_cobra

  • Apple's first HomePod ads urge customers to 'order now'

    petripetri
    DOA.
    williamlondonxzu

  • All Mac & iOS CPUs affected by 'Meltdown' and 'Spectre' chip flaws, some fixes already in ...

    petripetri
    Mike Wuerthele said:
    petri said:
    petri said:
    petri said:
    petri said:

    nouser said:
    This flaw has been in the chips since the mid 90's.  These recent Apple patches are only applicable to fairly recent devices.  What about those of us who still have lots of older hardware in daily use?  I have a lot of very usable hardware that is unable to run the latest Mac OS / IOS.  I'm confident I'm not the only one.  Not pleased with this solution since I cannot use it on all my hardware. 
    Have your old devices been exploited since the mid 90’s?
    That’s missing the point, the exploit existed since the nineties but hasn’t been known about till now.  Now that it’s documented and “out there”, there will be people trying to exploit it (some of them just for the hell of it).  Exploit code will become a common and tradeable
    commodity and unpatched older machines will be at risk.
    Here are older Macs that can install MacOS High Sierra. If you still refuse to install the latest operating system on these machines then this is your call:


    macOS High Sierra can be installed on:

    • macOS Sierra
    • OS X El Capitan
    • OS X Yosemite
    • OS X Mavericks
    • OS X Mountain Lion

    If the machines are in the obsolete category Apple legally is not obligated to support them, officially vintage and obsolete products are listed in https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT201624. Those machines can install a system version that includes Gatekeeper. Gatekeeper is available since OS X Mountain Lion. With Gatekeeper one can block applications from unidentified developers and the machines remain not exploited.
    Well done for needlessly posting a list.  Unfortunately it excludes a huge number of machines that are still perfectly useable and in use.  I actually fully expect Apple to patch many of them, not because they’re legally obliged but because it’s the right thing to do, for every customer.
    El Capitan can be installed on machines back to 2007. And El Capitan is patched in December. Apple computers back to 10 years old are patched. So...?

    Withdrawn until further update.
    Wise to withdraw.  Apple aren’t being very clear about the status of pre-Sierra macOS right now, which is a shame.

    A proper update for El Capitan is a must, a lot of very serviceable machines were left behind by Sierra.  But going further - my mother in law has a 2007 iMac which to this day runs perfectly and does everything she needs it to do; for her purposes there’s not a thing wrong with it.  It’s stuck on Snow Leopard, since it’s a first gen core duo processor.  It now turns out there was a serious manufacturing defect in that processor - it’s effectively been broken since the day she bought it.  Are Apple really going to leave that machine to be either binned or (more likely) left in service but wide open to hackers?

    Thinking more widely than the interests of my particular mother in law, is it good news for anyone else to leave numerous older machines like hers as unpatched conduits for botnets, or exploitable weaknesses in other networks etc?  The wider community have a stake in this too.
    A Lion machine on the internet has far more pressing security problems than anything related to this.
    So where is the page on Apple’s website explaining that, or giving any kind of information on what support is or isn’t available for Lion, just out of interest?
    I'm not sure there's a "what isn't covered" for Lion page, but rather, everything that the last Lion security update doesn't cover is going to be a problem. In essence, everything after Sept 29. 2014. Every security problem for the last three years, in essence.

    That’s not what that page says.  There is no statement from Apple on whether Lion is supported, or considered to be secure right now, or insecure.  The fact that it hasn’t been updated recently doesn’t necessarily mean it’s not reasonably secure; not all the bugs patched for later macOS versions will have affected Lion in the first place (take High Sierra’s recent password snafu for example).  

    The fact is, in the absence of any confirmation from Apple that Lion won’t receive any required security patches, or is already insecure in its current state, there’s no obvious reason for users with older, working machines to stop using it, especially if they have no upgrade path from Apple.
    williamlondon