sumergo

tjwolf said:

sumergo said:

My problem with FaceID is that it further degrades our individual privacy and makes us more vulnerable to both over-officious government and predatory marketing.

TouchID is my physical finger on this phone.  FaceID is my face on a potentially global database.  Coming from the UK, one of the most surveilled societies in the western world, I find this worrying.

I'm not interested in being reduced to a target for near-field / face-recognition ads or constant surveilance.

An old fart?  For sure - I actually like being an individual.

You’re not ann old fart - just an ignorant one.  There is no “database” for Face ID, much less a global one.  Just like Touch ID, a mathematical representation of your face is kept on the secure enclave on the phone.  That’s it.  Stop spreading ignorant FUD.  Or are you a politician?  In that case, you’re just acting as expected (this was a reference to an equally ignorant senator asking Apple similar questions, making it clear that neither he - nor you - have bothered to watch/read about it first)

I'm happy to be called ignorant when I am.

My point was that TouchID is local, here, with my finger, secure enclave - but do you believe that nothing is sent to the iCloud in this interaction?  If my TouchID is sent to the iCloud then someone has to get my finger before they do harm.  If anything is sent to iCloud regarding my face, then all bets are off - it's a prudent policy to think that anything you send over the net (phone, text, email . . .) will be intercepted and catalogued.

Like I said, I'm happy to be called ignorant, so just try to enlighten me rather than getting into all the ad hominem wanking (FUD. politician, blah, blah) nonsence.

Talk to me.

tryd said:

sumergo said:

macxpress said:

lmac said:

I have an 8 core 2.8 Ghz Xeon processor Mac Pro with 32 GB RAM, but Apple says I can't run 10.12, so I can't run any of the current versions of iWork apps.

Apple has to draw a line in the sand somewhere...sorry! I'll be in the same boat soon I bet. I have a last gen tower Mid-2012 Mac Pro. 

Sorry guys, but I must have missed something - you can't run Sierra on that hardware?

I'm running 10.12.4 (and Pages/Numbers/Keynote) on a mid-2010 17 inch MacBook Pro with a two-core 2.66 i7 & 8 GB - I just loaded it up and it worked.

;-(

Of course he can run Sierra on that hardware. He says "I'll be in the same boat soon I bet". Which means, to my maybe limited understanding of English, that in a couple of years his hardware will not be able to run the latest system. He'll be fine until 10.14 and maybe 10.15, but at some point his hardware will not be supported. My 2008 MacPro does not run Sierra. His 2012 Mac Pro will probably not be able to run 10.15 (or 10.16 or...)

Thanks for the English Lesson.

I was addressing LMAC's original point (I have an 8 core 2.8 Ghz Xeon processor Mac Pro with 32 GB RAM, but Apple says I can't run 10.12, so I can't run any of the current versions of iWork apps) while alluding to the fact that macxpress felt that their time would run out soon on a 2012 model.  All this in the context of my geriatric 2010 MBP which runs the latest OS and apps without missing a beat.

The conundrum we are discussing here is why can some hardware configs can run the latest MacOS & apps while others cannot.

MacPro said:

sumergo said:

macxpress said:

lmac said:

I have an 8 core 2.8 Ghz Xeon processor Mac Pro with 32 GB RAM, but Apple says I can't run 10.12, so I can't run any of the current versions of iWork apps.

Apple has to draw a line in the sand somewhere...sorry! I'll be in the same boat soon I bet. I have a last gen tower Mid-2012 Mac Pro. 

Sorry guys, but I must have missed something - you can't run Sierra on that hardware?

I'm running 10.12.4 (and Pages/Numbers/Keynote) on a mid-2010 17 inch MacBook Pro with a two-core 2.66 i7 & 8 GB - I just loaded it up and it worked.

;-(

I agree with you, I have a mid 2010 MBP i7 15" I use occasionally and it runs the latest macOS, in fact even the developer betas, no problem.  Maybe the i7 has something to do with this? 

I don't know enough about hardware to know if the i7 is the answer, but I confess I was happily surprised to be able to run the latest MacOS (and it's apps) on a trusted seven-year old machine - and run them effectively too.

macxpress said:

lmac said:

I have an 8 core 2.8 Ghz Xeon processor Mac Pro with 32 GB RAM, but Apple says I can't run 10.12, so I can't run any of the current versions of iWork apps.

Apple has to draw a line in the sand somewhere...sorry! I'll be in the same boat soon I bet. I have a last gen tower Mid-2012 Mac Pro. 

Sorry guys, but I must have missed something - you can't run Sierra on that hardware?

I'm running 10.12.4 (and Pages/Numbers/Keynote) on a mid-2010 17 inch MacBook Pro with a two-core 2.66 i7 & 8 GB - I just loaded it up and it worked.

;-(

Cue hisses and boos.

I am running a mid 2010 17 inch MBP with 8GB and an SSD.  Runs MacOS Sierra a treat.  Doesn't choke on MS-Project or Visio in a Windows 7 VM under Parallels.
Works good, looks good, feels good.  Here's to the crazy ones.

And here's to Apple for making fine, usable, robust hardware and software.