gorgeousninja
Apr 13, 10:42 AM
So we have the usual posts from those who follow the old
iPod.. sucks
iPhone.. sucks
iMac/book/pro.. sucks
iTunes ... sucks
iOS/OSX.. sucks
iLife/work..sucks
iPad.. sucks
and now FCPX.. sucks
which has gone on since we can all remember, and all from people so convinced of their own self importance they actually think other people care..
but quite interestingly they have also changed track from
'My Dell/HP/Asus can do almost as much as a mac and it only cost half the price!!'
Which has become harder to say as Apple's market share has grown, and then became completely redundant since the launch of the iPad made competitors weep, so their only line now is.
'Apple's selling it really cheap cos they're just dumbing it down....and I'm such a 'pro'.......".
So yes it sucks, and yes it's really dumb!
and the rational and intelligent people will buy it because it will be a quality product that has the Apple 'just works' magic...
iPod.. sucks
iPhone.. sucks
iMac/book/pro.. sucks
iTunes ... sucks
iOS/OSX.. sucks
iLife/work..sucks
iPad.. sucks
and now FCPX.. sucks
which has gone on since we can all remember, and all from people so convinced of their own self importance they actually think other people care..
but quite interestingly they have also changed track from
'My Dell/HP/Asus can do almost as much as a mac and it only cost half the price!!'
Which has become harder to say as Apple's market share has grown, and then became completely redundant since the launch of the iPad made competitors weep, so their only line now is.
'Apple's selling it really cheap cos they're just dumbing it down....and I'm such a 'pro'.......".
So yes it sucks, and yes it's really dumb!
and the rational and intelligent people will buy it because it will be a quality product that has the Apple 'just works' magic...
NebulaClash
Apr 28, 08:33 AM
Do you still see masses of people with White or Black iPods?
Yes. A very common sight even in 2011.
Yes. A very common sight even in 2011.
econgeek
Apr 12, 11:01 PM
Yes, that was exactly my point. The people who know how to use the software are (sometimes) assistant editors, although I find the vast majority know how to do a few simple things, but do them well.. The original poster was implying you needed to be a hollywood film editor to judge technical capabilities, and I was saying they were the worst choice for just that reason.
The people who know the most about editing systems are the Sr. editors who work on heavy, effects based sequences that work in broadcast production environments (I'm not talking about me here). *They* are the ones who push systems to the limits and *they* are the ones who go to NAB. (They're still only 10% of that room)
I think that most of them will find that Apple has, at present abandoned them. That's not to say the industry won't shift, and there won't be enough 3rd party solutions out there, but they are throwing Avid a HUGE bone here.
FCP was making big inroads into broadcast, and they're throwing it away-- for today certainly.
Filmwise, could go either way, depending on the production. If it's got great RED/4k performance, "film" support isn't so important..
But for the indie crowd, they're really screwing them over, if they are abandoning Color. *THAT* is what shocked me. I'm also surprised that effects weren't more advanced. I couldn't see anything on a titling tool, but that's pretty imporant for Broadcast as well.. and *no* existing solution is good for that... They really had (have?) a chance to make that right, and it seems they don't care.
So, when I say "iMovie Pro" that isn't necessarily pejorative. This product is WAY, WAY, WAY more iMovie than FCP. That doesn't mean you can't cut "a real movie" on it. But for Broadcast TV, it's a real step down in a lot of ways-- at the very least not a step up.. The interface is very iMovie. They should have called it iMovie PRO, especially if they're getting rid of the rest of the FCS apps..
Now if it turns out this is just the tip of the iceberg-- then we really could be in for a treat.
You're assuming that if you didn't see a demo of it, it doesn't exist. iMovie has titling built in. They didn't demo titling this evening. Therefore, you're presuming this app has less titling than iMovie!
That seems pretty silly.
The people who know the most about editing systems are the Sr. editors who work on heavy, effects based sequences that work in broadcast production environments (I'm not talking about me here). *They* are the ones who push systems to the limits and *they* are the ones who go to NAB. (They're still only 10% of that room)
I think that most of them will find that Apple has, at present abandoned them. That's not to say the industry won't shift, and there won't be enough 3rd party solutions out there, but they are throwing Avid a HUGE bone here.
FCP was making big inroads into broadcast, and they're throwing it away-- for today certainly.
Filmwise, could go either way, depending on the production. If it's got great RED/4k performance, "film" support isn't so important..
But for the indie crowd, they're really screwing them over, if they are abandoning Color. *THAT* is what shocked me. I'm also surprised that effects weren't more advanced. I couldn't see anything on a titling tool, but that's pretty imporant for Broadcast as well.. and *no* existing solution is good for that... They really had (have?) a chance to make that right, and it seems they don't care.
So, when I say "iMovie Pro" that isn't necessarily pejorative. This product is WAY, WAY, WAY more iMovie than FCP. That doesn't mean you can't cut "a real movie" on it. But for Broadcast TV, it's a real step down in a lot of ways-- at the very least not a step up.. The interface is very iMovie. They should have called it iMovie PRO, especially if they're getting rid of the rest of the FCS apps..
Now if it turns out this is just the tip of the iceberg-- then we really could be in for a treat.
You're assuming that if you didn't see a demo of it, it doesn't exist. iMovie has titling built in. They didn't demo titling this evening. Therefore, you're presuming this app has less titling than iMovie!
That seems pretty silly.
Sounds Good
Apr 10, 11:06 AM
If you are happy with windows stick with it. if you don't "have" to switch because you need a specifitc application, just don't do it. It's not "THAT MUCH" better as everyone wants to make you believe.
Ya know what? This is good advice. After doing a LOT of thinking about this, I realize that I'm probably best off sticking with Windows.
When it comes right down to it, I'm really just "curious" about trying a Mac. I don't actually have a particular reason, and I don't have any problems with Windows (believe it or not).
It looks like both operating systems have a few advantages and both operating systems have their share of annoyances. Truth is, I'm having a hard time finding a real advantage to switching.
If I were starting out today I'd most likely go with a Mac. But I'm an old dude, not a kid. I'm very comfortable with Windows and I really LIKE certain things about it. In fact, the first thing I'd do on a Mac is try to set it up so the Dock works just like the Start button in Windows. A rational person would have realized long ago that this is crazy. If I want a Mac to work like Windows I should just use Windows. Duh. But my curiosity along with the attractive cosmetic looks of the Mac got the best of me.
I won't lie, I'll forever be curious about "the other side"... but in my case I think I'd just be asking for a lot of headaches figuring out how to do all of these things differently than I'm used to.
Anyway...
Thanks to everyone that helped by adding your thoughts, I really appreciate it. And since I can't be the only one out there with similar feelings maybe this thread will help them too. Some will choose to switch to Mac, some will choose to stick with Windows.
And that's the way it goes. :)
Ya know what? This is good advice. After doing a LOT of thinking about this, I realize that I'm probably best off sticking with Windows.
When it comes right down to it, I'm really just "curious" about trying a Mac. I don't actually have a particular reason, and I don't have any problems with Windows (believe it or not).
It looks like both operating systems have a few advantages and both operating systems have their share of annoyances. Truth is, I'm having a hard time finding a real advantage to switching.
If I were starting out today I'd most likely go with a Mac. But I'm an old dude, not a kid. I'm very comfortable with Windows and I really LIKE certain things about it. In fact, the first thing I'd do on a Mac is try to set it up so the Dock works just like the Start button in Windows. A rational person would have realized long ago that this is crazy. If I want a Mac to work like Windows I should just use Windows. Duh. But my curiosity along with the attractive cosmetic looks of the Mac got the best of me.
I won't lie, I'll forever be curious about "the other side"... but in my case I think I'd just be asking for a lot of headaches figuring out how to do all of these things differently than I'm used to.
Anyway...
Thanks to everyone that helped by adding your thoughts, I really appreciate it. And since I can't be the only one out there with similar feelings maybe this thread will help them too. Some will choose to switch to Mac, some will choose to stick with Windows.
And that's the way it goes. :)
Sounds Good
Apr 10, 09:24 PM
Not that this really matters much, but just for the record:
I was one of the first to own the original iPhone and have an iPhone 4 now. I bought an iPhone 4 for my wife and an iPod Touch for my son. I got my mom an iPad and I'm about to buy one for myself. So I'm certainly not anti-Apple. I'm just not sure I see a clear advantage FOR ME to get a Mac computer over a Windows machine.
But, who knows... maybe some day.
I was one of the first to own the original iPhone and have an iPhone 4 now. I bought an iPhone 4 for my wife and an iPod Touch for my son. I got my mom an iPad and I'm about to buy one for myself. So I'm certainly not anti-Apple. I'm just not sure I see a clear advantage FOR ME to get a Mac computer over a Windows machine.
But, who knows... maybe some day.
KPOM
Mar 11, 08:59 PM
I pray that this will not turn into another Chernobyl situation.
Building standards in Japan are far higher than they were in the old USSR. If anything, it would be more like a 3 Mile Island than a Chernobyl. I just saw a nuclear power expert on the news who said that the odds of a Chernobyl, while certainly not 0%, are low. He's more worried about disposal of nuclear waste if the plant needs to be decommissioned.
That said, it is an old plant (from the 1960s) where they are most concerned about a possible meltdown. It doesn't have a modern containment dome.
Building standards in Japan are far higher than they were in the old USSR. If anything, it would be more like a 3 Mile Island than a Chernobyl. I just saw a nuclear power expert on the news who said that the odds of a Chernobyl, while certainly not 0%, are low. He's more worried about disposal of nuclear waste if the plant needs to be decommissioned.
That said, it is an old plant (from the 1960s) where they are most concerned about a possible meltdown. It doesn't have a modern containment dome.
JFreak
Jul 12, 05:39 AM
Well, the Mini got more expensive, but it's capabilities went WAY up. Optical audio in and out, twice the USB-ports (fixing the two biggest complaints about the old Mini)
Way, costs about $1 for Apple to fix it. Great!
... built-in wireless, about twice as fast CPU and Core Image compliant video.
You cannot put a price tag for components such as CPU and GPU that get updated with every single hardware revision. Yes, in time they become more capable with every revision, but the relative price of such components does not change that much. The built-in wireless on the other hand is something of extra value; however, Apple cuts its own costs of eliminating an option, so it should not cost the customer that much extra.
Comparing price and capabilities, The Mini just got a whole lot cheaper :). The low-end Mini costs the same as the old hi-end Mini, but the new low-end Mini is a lot better than the old hi-end Mini.
You should compare dollars to dollars when you say one is cheaper than another. You buy items with dollars and that's it. You look at the numbers and say that smaller value is cheaper. Didn't your mother teach you that?
your all looking at the server specs which have no need for more than 8x pci-e, if that.
At what point servers began to demand less than workstations or regular desktops? Server-grade hardware (SCSI cards for example) are 8x pcie, so I expect nothing less from Apple server hardware. Anything less would be a joke.
Way, costs about $1 for Apple to fix it. Great!
... built-in wireless, about twice as fast CPU and Core Image compliant video.
You cannot put a price tag for components such as CPU and GPU that get updated with every single hardware revision. Yes, in time they become more capable with every revision, but the relative price of such components does not change that much. The built-in wireless on the other hand is something of extra value; however, Apple cuts its own costs of eliminating an option, so it should not cost the customer that much extra.
Comparing price and capabilities, The Mini just got a whole lot cheaper :). The low-end Mini costs the same as the old hi-end Mini, but the new low-end Mini is a lot better than the old hi-end Mini.
You should compare dollars to dollars when you say one is cheaper than another. You buy items with dollars and that's it. You look at the numbers and say that smaller value is cheaper. Didn't your mother teach you that?
your all looking at the server specs which have no need for more than 8x pci-e, if that.
At what point servers began to demand less than workstations or regular desktops? Server-grade hardware (SCSI cards for example) are 8x pcie, so I expect nothing less from Apple server hardware. Anything less would be a joke.
Max(IT)
Apr 21, 05:33 AM
Except for the inferior interface, battery life, apps and usability you mean.. Otherwise they are exactly the same!
Lol ...
Exactly :D
So wait, you don't own a Mac or an iDevice but you post here constantly?
Eheheh, he's not the only one.
There is a specific term to define people like him on a forum ;)
Lol ...
Exactly :D
So wait, you don't own a Mac or an iDevice but you post here constantly?
Eheheh, he's not the only one.
There is a specific term to define people like him on a forum ;)
Huntn
Mar 13, 06:18 PM
The biggest wind farm in the world provides around 2MW/km^2. Your 100milesX100miles plant would only provide around 52 000MW (52GW) of power with same ratio. USA's power consumption in 2005 was 29PWh. I don't know how exactly this things can be converted but Fukushima I has installed power of 4.7GW and provides 25.8GWh each year while the biggest wind farm has installed capacity of 781MW. The plant you described would be around 10 times more powerful than the Fukushima but even then, it could provide around 250GWh which is a fraction of 29PWh.
Solar plants are better (80MW/km^2) but 10PWh is still far from 29PWh.
If someone knows how to convert these things properly or has more info on this, please educate me/us.
Maybe I can find a link. I've read (I think it was Popular Science) that a 10 square mile solar farm in the American West could provide enough to power the entire U.S. Now, due to distances, that power could not be transmitted to the East Coast, but it illustrates there are other much safer methods of obtaining power than dealing with the atomic genie.
Solar plants are better (80MW/km^2) but 10PWh is still far from 29PWh.
If someone knows how to convert these things properly or has more info on this, please educate me/us.
Maybe I can find a link. I've read (I think it was Popular Science) that a 10 square mile solar farm in the American West could provide enough to power the entire U.S. Now, due to distances, that power could not be transmitted to the East Coast, but it illustrates there are other much safer methods of obtaining power than dealing with the atomic genie.
dnedved
Sep 12, 05:04 PM
As an IT consultant, I recommend for anyone who's thinking of using an Airport Express for audio or a Mac Mini for a living room computer (or now this new iTV that will come out next year) to just spend the money on getting a wired connection. Ultimately, wireless will not be at the quality it needs to be to handle this throughput CONSISTENTLY. I still get skips on my Airpot Express when streaming from iTunes.
As an IT consultant you should know about caching. The bandwidth is there, a little bit of caching and the inconsistency caused by an occasional glitch in the throughput won't even be noticed. OS X doesn't do extensive read-ahead caching over network file systems. It's arguable whether a general-purpose OS even should (You and I probably both want it to but how often do you hear other users asking for it?) But with the workload that this device will be doing it's a no-brainer that doing 64-128MB of read-ahead would be a good idea. You can bet that Apple is smart enough to think of that. Hell, if they get the downloads working over the internet connection, the delivery around the LAN is much easier -- wired or wireless. 802.11g is a MUCH fatter pipe than anybody here's internet connection I'm willing to bet.
I agree with you about the current situation. It's just a simple tweak on the client though. Right now I even have occasional glitches streaming video off my NAS over GigE but it's just the lack of caching, it's certainly not a bandwidth issue with GigE!!!
As an IT consultant you should know about caching. The bandwidth is there, a little bit of caching and the inconsistency caused by an occasional glitch in the throughput won't even be noticed. OS X doesn't do extensive read-ahead caching over network file systems. It's arguable whether a general-purpose OS even should (You and I probably both want it to but how often do you hear other users asking for it?) But with the workload that this device will be doing it's a no-brainer that doing 64-128MB of read-ahead would be a good idea. You can bet that Apple is smart enough to think of that. Hell, if they get the downloads working over the internet connection, the delivery around the LAN is much easier -- wired or wireless. 802.11g is a MUCH fatter pipe than anybody here's internet connection I'm willing to bet.
I agree with you about the current situation. It's just a simple tweak on the client though. Right now I even have occasional glitches streaming video off my NAS over GigE but it's just the lack of caching, it's certainly not a bandwidth issue with GigE!!!
flopticalcube
Apr 25, 10:47 AM
Sense tells me that the truth value of God's existence is unknowable. However, in my opinion, it's not just unknowable but also totally irrelevant for how we should live. In other words, it is not important to know if there is a God or not. Is that closer to agnosticism or to atheism (if we separate these two notions completely)?
Absolutely correct. It is irrelevant because it is unknowable so let's not pretend or imagine or try to know the unknowable. Let's live our lives in peace.
Floptical cube's post sounds like an excellent description of agnosticism. But every atheist I've ever met has believed that there's God.
I think it's important to remember that, although people can feel emotions about beliefs, beliefs aren't emotions. I don't feel that there's a God. I believe that there is one. I feel happiness, sadness, loneliness, hurt, and so forth. I believe that those feelings exist, but I don't believe that happiness, say, is either a truth or a falsehood. I don't believe that it's a conformity between my intellect and reality. My belief that there's a pine tree in my front yard is true because there is a pine tree there that causes my belief to be true. The tree will still be there 10 minutes from now, even if someone or something fools me into believing that it's gone. The truth or falsehood of my belief depends on the way things are in the world. I can't cause that tree to exist by merely believing that it does exist. I can't make it stop existing by simply believing that it doesn't exist, can I?
I certainly feel that most atheists are what I would call agnostic atheists. They lack belief in a god but leave the question of such a being existing either open and yet to be proved or unknowable and, therefore, pointless to contemplate. Only a so-called gnostic atheist would say they have seen sufficient evidence to convince them there is no god and I have not seen to many of them in my travels. It's more likely that they have yet to see sufficient evidence so, while they do not specifically believe in his existence, they cannot categorically deny it either. The blurry line between atheism and agnosticism is fairly crowded, I think.
Absolutely correct. It is irrelevant because it is unknowable so let's not pretend or imagine or try to know the unknowable. Let's live our lives in peace.
Floptical cube's post sounds like an excellent description of agnosticism. But every atheist I've ever met has believed that there's God.
I think it's important to remember that, although people can feel emotions about beliefs, beliefs aren't emotions. I don't feel that there's a God. I believe that there is one. I feel happiness, sadness, loneliness, hurt, and so forth. I believe that those feelings exist, but I don't believe that happiness, say, is either a truth or a falsehood. I don't believe that it's a conformity between my intellect and reality. My belief that there's a pine tree in my front yard is true because there is a pine tree there that causes my belief to be true. The tree will still be there 10 minutes from now, even if someone or something fools me into believing that it's gone. The truth or falsehood of my belief depends on the way things are in the world. I can't cause that tree to exist by merely believing that it does exist. I can't make it stop existing by simply believing that it doesn't exist, can I?
I certainly feel that most atheists are what I would call agnostic atheists. They lack belief in a god but leave the question of such a being existing either open and yet to be proved or unknowable and, therefore, pointless to contemplate. Only a so-called gnostic atheist would say they have seen sufficient evidence to convince them there is no god and I have not seen to many of them in my travels. It's more likely that they have yet to see sufficient evidence so, while they do not specifically believe in his existence, they cannot categorically deny it either. The blurry line between atheism and agnosticism is fairly crowded, I think.
Gurutech
Jul 12, 01:12 PM
Pentium D has horrid heat output. :)
Yonah is a laptop chip yet it is in Apple's desktop iMac. :)
Anyway...
The Merom (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Intel_Core_2_microprocessors#endnote_MeromSpeculation) has a TDP (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_Design_Point) of 35 W and the Conroe (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Intel_Core_2_microprocessors#endnote_ConroeSpeculation) has a TDP of 65 W (or 80 W for the X6xxx) ...and that isn't counting the difference in heat produced by the chipset (Apple is using a laptop chipset in the Intel iMac).
So the question is can Apple use a chip and chipset that will have a peak thermal load that is likely more then double (if they used Conroe) what is in the current Intel iMac (the Yonah has a TDP around 27 W). Also in theory the Conroe should come out a little cheaper then a Merom based system because of volume and binning.
Likely they can (given the iMac contained a G5 at one point, granted low clock rate) but it will come at the cost of more constant use of fans.
Apple could go either way on this...
Sure can.
I believe the max TDP of G5 processor is something like 80 W.
more like +- 60 W
If they can put that BURNING G5 into iMac, why not the Conroe?
Putting 65 W hot processor in iMac enclosure isn't that difficult.
Yonah is a laptop chip yet it is in Apple's desktop iMac. :)
Anyway...
The Merom (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Intel_Core_2_microprocessors#endnote_MeromSpeculation) has a TDP (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_Design_Point) of 35 W and the Conroe (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Intel_Core_2_microprocessors#endnote_ConroeSpeculation) has a TDP of 65 W (or 80 W for the X6xxx) ...and that isn't counting the difference in heat produced by the chipset (Apple is using a laptop chipset in the Intel iMac).
So the question is can Apple use a chip and chipset that will have a peak thermal load that is likely more then double (if they used Conroe) what is in the current Intel iMac (the Yonah has a TDP around 27 W). Also in theory the Conroe should come out a little cheaper then a Merom based system because of volume and binning.
Likely they can (given the iMac contained a G5 at one point, granted low clock rate) but it will come at the cost of more constant use of fans.
Apple could go either way on this...
Sure can.
I believe the max TDP of G5 processor is something like 80 W.
more like +- 60 W
If they can put that BURNING G5 into iMac, why not the Conroe?
Putting 65 W hot processor in iMac enclosure isn't that difficult.
jettredmont
May 2, 11:50 AM
I haven't seen this malware first hand, but a zip file can be made with absolute paths, making "unzipping" the file put everything where it needs to be to start up automatically on next log in/reboot.
Who's the brainiac who made zip files "safe" ?
I don't believe the default .zip file handler will expand these zip files correctly. It will only unzip inside its own folder. At least, that used to be the case. Perhaps there is an exploitable bug there which has cropped up more recently.
I suspect they are taking advantage of one of the other security holes in OS X to get items added to login items, etc. Presumably this is at the user level only so I'm not sure even a "standard" user will be less at risk (there are minor differences between admin and standard users, such as needing permission to add something to /Applications, but if the malware here (it isn't a virus as it doesn't self-propagate; it isn't a trojan as it isn't disguised on entry) relies on that permission it was just poorly written. Each user has an Applications folder that even standard users can write to.
Who's the brainiac who made zip files "safe" ?
I don't believe the default .zip file handler will expand these zip files correctly. It will only unzip inside its own folder. At least, that used to be the case. Perhaps there is an exploitable bug there which has cropped up more recently.
I suspect they are taking advantage of one of the other security holes in OS X to get items added to login items, etc. Presumably this is at the user level only so I'm not sure even a "standard" user will be less at risk (there are minor differences between admin and standard users, such as needing permission to add something to /Applications, but if the malware here (it isn't a virus as it doesn't self-propagate; it isn't a trojan as it isn't disguised on entry) relies on that permission it was just poorly written. Each user has an Applications folder that even standard users can write to.
caity13cait
Sep 22, 03:46 PM
Hi maybe this topic has been covered in the last 4 pages, but if the itv has video out won't that mean that you can record off of it, like hook it to a dvd burner or even a vhs? Maybe I am missing something here.
IgnatiusTheKing
Jul 7, 09:13 AM
I'm still on the iPhone 3G. I was seriously considering ditching AT&T and the iPhone 4 for Sprint/EVO 4G or Verizon/Droid X because I was dropping call every single call in my house (no joke, every single call) and multiple calls per day around town a few weeks ago, BUT...
I haven't dropped a call for a couple of weeks now and have had great reception in my house recently, as well. Really odd, but encouraging as I decide what you do about replacing this phone.
I haven't dropped a call for a couple of weeks now and have had great reception in my house recently, as well. Really odd, but encouraging as I decide what you do about replacing this phone.
Gravity
May 6, 09:25 AM
I am in the chicagoland area and I have a high percentage of phone calls that AT&T drops!!! Seems like every other phone call... I probably have about 40% of all my calls dropped by AT&T. What good are full bars on my phone if the connection isn't reliable? If that's the case, WHY do I spend so much for phone service???
appleguy123
Apr 22, 09:39 PM
OP, to back up your hypothesis we would need real percentages of atheists in the MacRumors community and the community at large.
Perhaps the anonymity afforded one on the internets affects how one answers (just like the 16 year old hottie is actually a 45 year old cop).
Perhaps education/enlightenment, long considered the anathema of religion, is at play.
Perhaps a younger demographic here is a factor.
But first, is there a higher percentage of atheists here?
According to the poll which I linked earlier (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1055916&highlight=), about 65% of us are atheist or agnostic.
Perhaps the anonymity afforded one on the internets affects how one answers (just like the 16 year old hottie is actually a 45 year old cop).
Perhaps education/enlightenment, long considered the anathema of religion, is at play.
Perhaps a younger demographic here is a factor.
But first, is there a higher percentage of atheists here?
According to the poll which I linked earlier (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1055916&highlight=), about 65% of us are atheist or agnostic.
LagunaSol
Apr 28, 08:45 AM
Will you mind if those cheap laptop sales are included in the tablet sales figures?
Laptops are not tablets. However, tablets are PCs.
Laptops are not tablets. However, tablets are PCs.
springscansing
Oct 13, 04:46 AM
This is actually my first post. Yay! Been a machead forever (using a IIgs when I was 4).
ANYWAY, regarding various posts about PCs encoding mp3s faster than macs. I am an audio engineer, and I must say the encoding algorithm is MUCH better sounding in iTunes than in Winamp, and I assume most of you are using iTunes in your comparisons. Different programs encode at vastly different rates. For example, I don't know if you recall an application called Soundjam and another called Audiocatalyst. Soundjam encoded 2.4x faster, but sounded like total junk.
Now.. I'm not part of the "MACS IS FASTR" group, because sadly, they aren't... I just wanted to point out the mp3 encoding tests weren't fair.
- Springs
ANYWAY, regarding various posts about PCs encoding mp3s faster than macs. I am an audio engineer, and I must say the encoding algorithm is MUCH better sounding in iTunes than in Winamp, and I assume most of you are using iTunes in your comparisons. Different programs encode at vastly different rates. For example, I don't know if you recall an application called Soundjam and another called Audiocatalyst. Soundjam encoded 2.4x faster, but sounded like total junk.
Now.. I'm not part of the "MACS IS FASTR" group, because sadly, they aren't... I just wanted to point out the mp3 encoding tests weren't fair.
- Springs
FX120
Mar 13, 02:38 PM
When a nuclear disaster happens hundreds of thousands of people can die
No. You need to do some research.
No. You need to do some research.
portishead
Apr 12, 10:48 PM
So this is basically a jazzed up Final Cut Express and the pros have been shown the door. Why am I not shocked about this. :mad:
Someday I'll tell my kids that Apple was the company for pros to which they will laugh in disbelief; kind of how I do now when old people tell me that American cars were once high quality.
Seriously, just stop talking and go somewhere else.
Someday I'll tell my kids that Apple was the company for pros to which they will laugh in disbelief; kind of how I do now when old people tell me that American cars were once high quality.
Seriously, just stop talking and go somewhere else.
Tulse
Mar 19, 01:09 PM
I find it rather surprising how blindly people here defend Apple, even after seeing how they remove your rights little by little. How many times can you burn your iTunes-songs to CD? It used to be ten times. But Apple reduced it to seven.
As I recall, the limit is on how many times you can burn a specific playlist. You can burn a song an unlimited number of times. This is a big difference.
manu chao said:If you go to a concert, theatre play, any kind of performance or into any of fee-charging class or course and smuggle yourself in through some kind of backdoor without paying for the ticket or the course, did you steal anything?
This is an excellent analogy, manu chao. Everybody knows that it is wrong to sneak into a movie theatre, but for some reason people think it is OK to copy music illegally. It is just bizarre.
It seems to me that the issue is pretty darned simple -- as a potential user of iTMS you know what the rules are. If you don't want to abide by the rules, don't use the service. Any talk of "it's actually helping Apple" or "it's my music to do with as I want" is just self-justifying bull. If you don't like the rules, don't play. It's really that simple.
As I recall, the limit is on how many times you can burn a specific playlist. You can burn a song an unlimited number of times. This is a big difference.
manu chao said:If you go to a concert, theatre play, any kind of performance or into any of fee-charging class or course and smuggle yourself in through some kind of backdoor without paying for the ticket or the course, did you steal anything?
This is an excellent analogy, manu chao. Everybody knows that it is wrong to sneak into a movie theatre, but for some reason people think it is OK to copy music illegally. It is just bizarre.
It seems to me that the issue is pretty darned simple -- as a potential user of iTMS you know what the rules are. If you don't want to abide by the rules, don't use the service. Any talk of "it's actually helping Apple" or "it's my music to do with as I want" is just self-justifying bull. If you don't like the rules, don't play. It's really that simple.
snebes
Apr 20, 08:43 PM
Too bad Apple products are few and far between. Want LTE phone? Sorry. Want phone with bigger screen? Sorry. Want computer with USB 3.0 or BluRay? Sorry. I guess you trained yourself not to want anything Steve Jobs does not like. You talk about Apple profits so much, it's likely the more Apple charges you the happier you are.
USB3.0 - Truly an Intel problem. This will be fixed with Ivy Bridge. And it isn't as popular as you may think.
BluRay - Has it really caught on? I know you want to think it has, but in reality? Not much. http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2011/04/19/feeling-blue-blu-ray/ Sure, as the article said, consumers will replace their broken dvd players with bluray, but with backward compatibility, itunes/netflix (and others), and no reason to replace old dvd with newer blurays (of the same flick), it is still an uphill battle. Also, is there even any software/game that comes on bluray media yet?
LTE - Seriously? Just checked PhoneScoop, 1 phone has this on any major network. 1 PHONE! (and how many weeks was it delayed and how many problems does it have, battery-wise)
Screen Size - GSMArena can filter by this, but it includes tablets too. Lets just say around 100 phones have a 4" or larger screen. There are plenty to choose from, but the resolution is still probably 480x800 or 480x854. Just the pixels are bigger.
-----
Apple may not offer what you think you need. Go Andriod. Go WP7. I don't care, but take one thing from your "spec" argument. Bigger is not always better.
USB3.0 - Truly an Intel problem. This will be fixed with Ivy Bridge. And it isn't as popular as you may think.
BluRay - Has it really caught on? I know you want to think it has, but in reality? Not much. http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2011/04/19/feeling-blue-blu-ray/ Sure, as the article said, consumers will replace their broken dvd players with bluray, but with backward compatibility, itunes/netflix (and others), and no reason to replace old dvd with newer blurays (of the same flick), it is still an uphill battle. Also, is there even any software/game that comes on bluray media yet?
LTE - Seriously? Just checked PhoneScoop, 1 phone has this on any major network. 1 PHONE! (and how many weeks was it delayed and how many problems does it have, battery-wise)
Screen Size - GSMArena can filter by this, but it includes tablets too. Lets just say around 100 phones have a 4" or larger screen. There are plenty to choose from, but the resolution is still probably 480x800 or 480x854. Just the pixels are bigger.
-----
Apple may not offer what you think you need. Go Andriod. Go WP7. I don't care, but take one thing from your "spec" argument. Bigger is not always better.
Howdr
Mar 18, 11:23 AM
People who complain that your service provider is going to make you follow the ru:eek:les unnerve me with their uncanny ability to disregard all that stands to reason with the sustainability of your "toys." They are like little sissies on the playground crying after a Barbie Doll has been taken from them. Those people should man up and start paying for the footprint they leave on the network.
WOW in plain English......... If you use a lot you should pay for it.
OK I agree
but AT&T are the ones who advertise Unlimited Data
Should they not "Man UP"? and stop this hiding behind definitions of nonsense in a contract.
Essentially the point many and I make is
we pay for Data that is contracted as unlimited,
At&t then has a contract that says its unlimited Data with us and then says they can decide when its abused.
OK using 5gb or less is not considered abuse by them, OK
But tethering 100mb of that 5gb is abuse even though it does not go over the usage and it makes no network difference to At&t
the problem is the contract itself is contradictory in how it is written and the enforcement of this issue is in huge suspect, At&t truly may not have one kb of proof that you tethered.
I see many problems with this.
Lawsuits? Class action maybe not individuals.
and it would have to be those paying for tethering and or charged a fine for doing so or forced into a tethering contract.
Not I, I have no emails nothing, = No harm.
WOW in plain English......... If you use a lot you should pay for it.
OK I agree
but AT&T are the ones who advertise Unlimited Data
Should they not "Man UP"? and stop this hiding behind definitions of nonsense in a contract.
Essentially the point many and I make is
we pay for Data that is contracted as unlimited,
At&t then has a contract that says its unlimited Data with us and then says they can decide when its abused.
OK using 5gb or less is not considered abuse by them, OK
But tethering 100mb of that 5gb is abuse even though it does not go over the usage and it makes no network difference to At&t
the problem is the contract itself is contradictory in how it is written and the enforcement of this issue is in huge suspect, At&t truly may not have one kb of proof that you tethered.
I see many problems with this.
Lawsuits? Class action maybe not individuals.
and it would have to be those paying for tethering and or charged a fine for doing so or forced into a tethering contract.
Not I, I have no emails nothing, = No harm.
