Category: News

I’ve had a frustrating experience with the face recognition feature in the Photos app on my iMac compared to what I see on my iPhone 16P. The iPhone does a remarkable job of linking faces to names, but the iMac’s performance leaves much to be desired.

Despite my efforts to rebuild and repair the Photos library, the situation hasn’t improved. For instance, my wife is associated with over 4,500 photos on my iPhone, yet when I open the Photos app on my iMac, I can only find two images of her.

In an attempt to assist the app in recognizing her more accurately, I tagged a few more photos yesterday, but after a full day of syncing, the issue persists. When I click on her name in the People and Pets section, it only displays the few images I have tagged manually.

Even when I try to review more photos, the app merely shows me the single image I initially started with and informs me that “there don’t appear to be any additional photos of Stacy.” This discrepancy is perplexing and frustrating, especially considering how well the iPhone works.

What am I missing here? Why is the face recognition capability so much less effective on my iMac?

I am hoping to find a solution that will allow my iMac to recognize and associate all those memories just like my phone does. Any insights or suggestions would be greatly appreciated.

I recently discovered that a few random folders on my NAS are displaying QuickTime MP4 icons instead of the usual folder icons. This has piqued my curiosity, and I’m trying to understand what may be causing this peculiarity. After examining these folders closely, I found nothing particularly distinguishing them from the other folders on the NAS. They appear to be structurally and functionally similar to the rest.

When I checked the “More Info” section through the Inspector window, it indicated a standard file icon in the “Preview” area, which only deepened my confusion about the icon display. Given that there are no apparent differences between these folders and the others, I am left wondering if there is an underlying issue or a specific setting that could explain this icon anomaly. It’s also worth considering whether it could be a quirk related to the NAS system itself. If anyone has experienced something similar or has insights into why certain folders might show incorrect icons, I would greatly appreciate your thoughts.

Understanding the functionality behind this might help in diagnosing if there’s a deeper problem at play or if it’s merely a superficial glitch that can be easily resolved.

I have a couple of 2019 Mac Pros, and I’ve been experimenting with 2400T 32GB memory modules. Interestingly, I’ve encountered mixed results; some Mac Pros accept the modules while others do not. To ensure compatibility, I made certain that the modules were identical and avoided mixing LRDIMMs with RDIMMs.

This inconsistency raises questions about possible variations in motherboard revisions. I’ve observed that Mac Pros featuring an Apple serial number printed on the motherboard tend to accept the memory modules, whereas those without the serial number do not. This leads me to wonder if there are specific revisions or changes in the motherboard design that influence whether the memory modules will work.

It’s frustrating when hardware doesn’t behave as expected, especially when the components appear to be suitable. I’m eager to understand if there are underlying factors that could be causing this disparity in compatibility among the Mac Pros. Given that the models are from the same year, it seems peculiar that there are such differences.

Could it be something as simple as a manufacturing batch variation, or is it linked to firmware updates that might affect memory compatibility? I would appreciate any insight or information on this issue, as it would greatly assist in optimizing my setup with the appropriate memory modules. Understanding the compatibility landscape for these specifications could help avoid future mishaps and streamline the customization of my Macs.

I miss the simpler times when technology seemed more reliable, and I had a better grasp on fixing issues. Currently, I’m working with my 2017 iMac, which has only 8GB of memory, along with Carbon Copy Cloner (7.0.4), connected via USB 3 to a WD Elements drive. I’m experiencing frustratingly slow transfer speeds, around 3 MB/s, while cloning my internal hard drive.

The files I’m transferring are mostly small, including images and BBEdit files. Unfortunately, the situation doesn’t improve when I attempt to clone files from one WD Elements drive to another, even though these files range in size from 150 MB to 1 GB. I understand that transfer speeds can fluctuate due to various factors, and I’m uncertain about what speeds I’ve typically achieved in the past.

My awareness of this issue peaked after one of my WD Elements drives started malfunctioning, which forced me to use Disk Utility for an erase. I now find myself in a predicament where I need to clone 5TB of files from one drive to another, with the estimated transfer time stretching into several days. Any assistance or advice would be greatly appreciated.

Thank you in advance for any help you can provide!

It seems the link you attempted to access is not valid. This may be due to an error in the URL, such as a misspelling in a parameter or an unintended addition of extra characters. If you are the publisher of the link, consider checking for any mistakes in the URL.

Ensure that all parts are spelled correctly and match what was intended. If everything appears accurate and the link is still not functioning, you might want to try clearing your browser cache. Additionally, using a different browser or device may resolve the issue.

After you’ve made these checks, attempt to test the link once more. If it continues to fail, you can reach out for assistance. We invite you to contact us via email, and we’ll do our best to help you resolve the problem.

We apologize, but the link you tried to access is not valid. It appears that there may be an error in the URL you followed. If you are the publisher, take a moment to check the link for any misspellings or incorrect parameters.

Common issues often arise from extra characters added at the end or mistakes in the parameter names. Review the URL closely to ensure it is accurate. If the link appears to be correct, yet you are still experiencing difficulties, consider clearing your browser’s cache or switching to a different browser or device.

This can sometimes resolve issues related to link accessibility. Please attempt to test the link again. If you continue to face problems, don’t hesitate to reach out to us for assistance.

You can contact our support team via email for further help with this issue.

It looks like the link you tried to access is invalid. This could be due to an error in the URL, such as a misspelling or additional characters at the end. If you are the publisher of this link, double-check it for any mistakes in the parameters or formatting. Sometimes, a simple typo can lead to a broken link.

If everything appears to be correct but the link still isn’t functioning, it might help to clear your browser cache. Additionally, trying a different browser or device could resolve the issue. Before giving up, please test the link again to see if it works now. If the problem persists after these steps, feel free to reach out to us for assistance.

You can contact our support team by sending an email with details about the issue. We’ll be happy to help!

It seems that the link you attempted to access is not valid. It could be incorrect or possibly misspelled, which is a common issue. If you are the publisher of the link, it’s worth checking for any errors. Often, links fail due to simple misspellings in parameter names or because of additional characters that may have been unintentionally included at the end of the URL.

Before giving up, ensure that the link appears correct on your end. If it does, but you are still experiencing issues, consider clearing your browser’s cache. Additionally, you might want to try using a different browser or device to see if that resolves the problem. Testing the link one more time could also be beneficial.

If none of these options work, please reach out to our support team for further assistance. You can do this by sending an email to [email protected] with the subject line “Bad Link.” We’re here to help you sort out the issue as quickly as possible. Thank you for your understanding, and we apologize for any inconvenience caused.

It seems that the link you attempted to access is not a valid geni.us link. This may be due to an error in typing or incorrect formatting.

If you are the publisher of this link, please double-check it for any typographical errors, such as misspelling in the parameter name or additional characters that may have been mistakenly included at the end of the URL. An accurate link is essential for proper functionality.

If the link appears correct on your end but you are still experiencing difficulties, it might be worth trying to clear your browser’s cache. Additionally, testing the link on a different browser or device could help resolve the issue.

Before giving up, test the link once more. If it is still not working after these efforts, you can reach out for assistance.

Please send us an email at [email protected] with the subject line “Bad Link,” and we will do our best to assist you. Thank you for your patience as we work to resolve this issue.

Today, the smartphone manufacturer Nothing unveiled its first set of over-ear headphones, the Headphone (1). These new audio accessories were developed in collaboration with the premium speaker brand KEF. True to the brand’s ethos, the Headphone (1) showcases a transparent design, allowing users to see the internal components. While this design may not be as striking as the one seen on their smartphones, it certainly attracts attention.

The earpieces of the Headphone (1) are rectangular and feature PU-covered memory foam ear cups, complemented by an adjustable headband. Constructed from a blend of plastic and aluminum, these headphones maintain a sleek aesthetic. Unlike previous Nothing products, the Headphone (1) lacks the company’s signature glyph lights. However, the ear cups are slightly smaller compared to other over-ear models, which may result in some discomfort over longer periods of use due to the pressure they apply on the ears.

The weight is primarily concentrated in the ear cups, causing a tight fit that can become noticeable after a few hours, similar to the experience with AirPods Max. In terms of audio performance, the Headphone (1) delivers quality sound that is competitive within its $299 price range, standing up well against offerings from brands like Sony, Bose, and Apple. Initially, the bass response is prominent, but users can adjust the equalizer settings through the Nothing X app for a more balanced listening experience. The headphones also support features akin to those found in Apple products, such as spatial audio and dynamic head tracking, although lacking iCloud functionalities like automatic pairing.

With active noise cancellation and tight fit to reduce sound leakage, the Headphone (1) ensures a solid dampening experience, scanning external noise every 600 milliseconds for real-time adjustments. Physical controls, including customizable buttons and a volume roller, offer convenience, while the inclusion of a 3.5mm audio jack, LDAC, and USB-C audio provide various connectivity options. Battery life stands out as well, with the headphones lasting 35 hours with active noise cancellation and up to 80 hours without it. What are your thoughts on the Headphone (1)?

Share your opinions in the comments.