alex_ant
Oct 7, 04:26 PM
Originally posted by barkmonster
I can just see the look of disappointment on everyone's faces when the dual 1.25Ghz mac is slapped silly by both windows systems at practically everything.
Won't happen. To a Mac zealot, if the G4 is slower than anything, either 1) the benchmark was rigged, or 2) "pcheese" and "Windblowz" suck anyway.
The Pentium 5 could come along and deliver 15,000 in SPECfp and all the Mac zealots would be whining about how SPEC isn't a real-world benchmark and how Macs deliver such better real-world performance etc., even when they have nothing to substantiate their claims but the biased and selective evidence from themselves and their Mac-using friends.
I love Macs, but I harbor no illusions about them not generally being just about the slowest thing on the block at the moment.
Alex
I can just see the look of disappointment on everyone's faces when the dual 1.25Ghz mac is slapped silly by both windows systems at practically everything.
Won't happen. To a Mac zealot, if the G4 is slower than anything, either 1) the benchmark was rigged, or 2) "pcheese" and "Windblowz" suck anyway.
The Pentium 5 could come along and deliver 15,000 in SPECfp and all the Mac zealots would be whining about how SPEC isn't a real-world benchmark and how Macs deliver such better real-world performance etc., even when they have nothing to substantiate their claims but the biased and selective evidence from themselves and their Mac-using friends.
I love Macs, but I harbor no illusions about them not generally being just about the slowest thing on the block at the moment.
Alex
hanpa
Oct 7, 10:39 AM
Probably, unless Apple recognizes the competition and responds by:
- Removal of 3g cellular restrictions not technically motivated at least outside of the US
- Allowing at least music apps like Spotify to run in the background
- Improving the app approval process to become more like the Android process
- Flash support in Safari (with an option to disable this)
- SDK that can execute on other platforms like Windows or Linux and that uses a more user-friendly and intuitive language than Objective-C
- Removal of 3g cellular restrictions not technically motivated at least outside of the US
- Allowing at least music apps like Spotify to run in the background
- Improving the app approval process to become more like the Android process
- Flash support in Safari (with an option to disable this)
- SDK that can execute on other platforms like Windows or Linux and that uses a more user-friendly and intuitive language than Objective-C
Multimedia
Oct 13, 07:24 AM
I have the nVidia 7800GT card in both my G5 quads. It and the Quadro FX4000 were Apple's first offerings with 2xdual-link ports that I'm aware of. They went to the ATI X1900XT with the Mac Pro and replaced the the FX4000 with the FX4500 sometime last spring. Anyway, I think all the G5 quads are PCI-E x16 capable so you should be able to drop in any Mac EFI compliant PCI-E video card that has the dual-link connectors, but I'm not positive on this. The x1900xt sops up an adjacent card slot, which isn't an issue on the Mac Pro, but could cause problems on a G5 depending on what you may have installed. But I'm willing to bet that the current 7300GT card for $149 (1x dual-link, 1x single-link) will work just fine. I'm sure someone knows for sure.
And yeah, I will buy the Mac pro with the x1900xt unless something better comes along before I click the buy button.According to Apple none of the Mac Pro cards work in the Quad G5s and vice versa. Read rumor ATI is developing a 2xDual Link PCIe retail card that will work in Quads but haven't seen anything to reveal when it will finally ship. I guess that's a topic for discussion with ATI at MacWorld Expo.
And yeah, I will buy the Mac pro with the x1900xt unless something better comes along before I click the buy button.According to Apple none of the Mac Pro cards work in the Quad G5s and vice versa. Read rumor ATI is developing a 2xDual Link PCIe retail card that will work in Quads but haven't seen anything to reveal when it will finally ship. I guess that's a topic for discussion with ATI at MacWorld Expo.
Sydde
Mar 15, 06:25 AM
I've largely given up on these threads and arguing about my field with people outside my field, but my god awmazz you need to just stop posting altogether...you haven't once had a clue what you are talking about. Sorry, but it's the truth.
All the fission stopped almost 72 hours ago.
Curious. You are suggesting that the control rods are fully seated (we would hope), absorbing the entire natural neutron flux, thus completely dampening the fission process (apart from the normal spontaneous fission of the 235 in the fuel pellets). Yet, the cores are still producing significant heat, sea water is being pumped over them to cool them, a real danger appears to exist. Where is that heat coming from, why, if the fission process has been choked off, are they not simply losing heat (cooling down like a big hunk of metal)? What are we missing?
All the fission stopped almost 72 hours ago.
Curious. You are suggesting that the control rods are fully seated (we would hope), absorbing the entire natural neutron flux, thus completely dampening the fission process (apart from the normal spontaneous fission of the 235 in the fuel pellets). Yet, the cores are still producing significant heat, sea water is being pumped over them to cool them, a real danger appears to exist. Where is that heat coming from, why, if the fission process has been choked off, are they not simply losing heat (cooling down like a big hunk of metal)? What are we missing?
inkswamp
Feb 22, 06:29 PM
What are we on now, like, the 3rd rev. of the iPhone hardware? Think back to the 3rd rev. of the iPod (I don't even think that version had a color screen yet.) How about the third rev. of OS X? Third rev. of the iMac?
I think one thing speculation like should should take into account is that Apple is incredibly aggressive about updating their products and what lies ahead can often, drastically change the playing field.
Remember the end of 2006 when the Zune was announced and everyone was running around spazzing out about how dead Apple was and all the usual Microsoft cheerleaders in the tech press were practically wetting themselves in excitement? And a mere month later, what happened? The iPhone was unveiled and all but nullified the Zune.
I think anyone engaging in this kind of speculation should keep that in mind.
I think one thing speculation like should should take into account is that Apple is incredibly aggressive about updating their products and what lies ahead can often, drastically change the playing field.
Remember the end of 2006 when the Zune was announced and everyone was running around spazzing out about how dead Apple was and all the usual Microsoft cheerleaders in the tech press were practically wetting themselves in excitement? And a mere month later, what happened? The iPhone was unveiled and all but nullified the Zune.
I think anyone engaging in this kind of speculation should keep that in mind.
Peace
Sep 12, 06:19 PM
Hi All, Hi Al!
I'm feeling a bit thick maybe on this but how does iTV differ from EyeHome?
http://www.elgato.com/index.php?file=products_eyehome:confused:
The Eye Home does not have Component and HDMI inputs.
Wireless isn't built in.
It's not an Apple product that will work better with Front Row than Eye Home will.
I'm feeling a bit thick maybe on this but how does iTV differ from EyeHome?
http://www.elgato.com/index.php?file=products_eyehome:confused:
The Eye Home does not have Component and HDMI inputs.
Wireless isn't built in.
It's not an Apple product that will work better with Front Row than Eye Home will.
bigmc6000
Aug 29, 01:15 PM
Greenpeace is not exactly 'agenda-less'. But that seems sort of paranoid to say that they're clearly trying to kill technology, capitalism and innovation. If they wanted to target Apple, or get a lot of publicity, they surely could have done something more dramatic than put them fourth from the bottom of a list.
And honestly, what do we know about Apple's environmental standards (materials used, manufacturing processes, disposal methods, etc.)? I really doubt that most of you (myself included) are industrial engineers, environmental standards auditors or something. Like some previous replies said - some people can't stand the idea that Apple is not great at something, and will lash out at those who criticize it. I mean, I like Apple's stuff, but it's just a company. Keep an open mind...
I happen to have taken way too many IE classes (that's industrial engineering not MS's IE - yuck) and I'd have to tell you the things that Greenpeace is complaining about are dwarfed in comparison to the large issue of CRT's and the contents within. Ever look at the default Dell system? They ALL have CRT's. Most of the time you can get a free upgrade to flat panel or some cheap upgrade or something but they still come with CRT's. In my opinion the stuff greenpeace is complaining about "withholds its full list of regulated substances and provides no timelines for eliminating toxic polyvinyl chloride (PVC) and no commitment to phasing out all uses of brominated flame retardants (BFRs)." are much lower on the list than the absurd volume of lead being shipped by Dell CRT's. Something else to note - the most likely reason greenpeace is pissed of is becaue of this "withholds its full list of regulated substances." Does that really have anything to do with how environmentally friendly they really are? No - does that make greenpeace mad that they aren't being "respected" by Apple? Yes. Enough to make them 4th worst? Absolutely...
And honestly, what do we know about Apple's environmental standards (materials used, manufacturing processes, disposal methods, etc.)? I really doubt that most of you (myself included) are industrial engineers, environmental standards auditors or something. Like some previous replies said - some people can't stand the idea that Apple is not great at something, and will lash out at those who criticize it. I mean, I like Apple's stuff, but it's just a company. Keep an open mind...
I happen to have taken way too many IE classes (that's industrial engineering not MS's IE - yuck) and I'd have to tell you the things that Greenpeace is complaining about are dwarfed in comparison to the large issue of CRT's and the contents within. Ever look at the default Dell system? They ALL have CRT's. Most of the time you can get a free upgrade to flat panel or some cheap upgrade or something but they still come with CRT's. In my opinion the stuff greenpeace is complaining about "withholds its full list of regulated substances and provides no timelines for eliminating toxic polyvinyl chloride (PVC) and no commitment to phasing out all uses of brominated flame retardants (BFRs)." are much lower on the list than the absurd volume of lead being shipped by Dell CRT's. Something else to note - the most likely reason greenpeace is pissed of is becaue of this "withholds its full list of regulated substances." Does that really have anything to do with how environmentally friendly they really are? No - does that make greenpeace mad that they aren't being "respected" by Apple? Yes. Enough to make them 4th worst? Absolutely...
eric_n_dfw
Mar 20, 07:19 PM
But what if I got hold of that wedding video and decided to, I dunno, turn it into a music video for my own music... and that music video got onto MTV? No one is losing out on any money. No one is being hurt. I'm not stealing. I'm -merely- infringing copyright.
The videographer is being hurt, you and/or MTV have stolen the royalties they are due. (Asuming you are saying that it is someone else's video, not one that you shot and/or editted together.)
If it was produced by a videographer, they were probably smart enough to mark it with a copyright (you don't have to file anything to do so) and then they can sue you for that infringement because you are profitting off of his/her work. (Or, more likely, they'd sue Viacom for broadcast of their video without permission since they have the deeper pockets. But Viacom probably is imune because you signed a paper saying you owned said production - THEN they'd sue you.)
The theft in this is the result of the infringement. By admitting it's infringement, you are admitting that it's illegal. The only reason to copyright something is to protect your interests from those who would, well, infringe on them. :rolleyes:
The videographer is being hurt, you and/or MTV have stolen the royalties they are due. (Asuming you are saying that it is someone else's video, not one that you shot and/or editted together.)
If it was produced by a videographer, they were probably smart enough to mark it with a copyright (you don't have to file anything to do so) and then they can sue you for that infringement because you are profitting off of his/her work. (Or, more likely, they'd sue Viacom for broadcast of their video without permission since they have the deeper pockets. But Viacom probably is imune because you signed a paper saying you owned said production - THEN they'd sue you.)
The theft in this is the result of the infringement. By admitting it's infringement, you are admitting that it's illegal. The only reason to copyright something is to protect your interests from those who would, well, infringe on them. :rolleyes:
matticus008
Mar 21, 02:45 AM
Where are you seeing a difference between digital copyrights and any other kind of copyright in U.S. law? There is no such difference, and current law and current case law says that purchases of copyrighted works are in fact purchases. They are not licenses.
They are purchases of usage rights, not of ownership of the intellectual property contained therein. Review the cases more carefully. If you don't want to call it a license, fine. But it's not ownership of the song. It's ownership of your limited-use copy of that song.
No, you've got it in reverse. The Supreme Court of the United States specifically said that anything not disallowed is allowed. That was (among other places) the betamax case that I referenced.
You seem to be conflating the DMCA with copyright. The DMCA is not about copyright. It's about breaking digital restrictions. The DMCA did not turn purchases into licenses. Things that were purchases before the DMCA are still purchases today.
Yes, the Supreme Court said that, but in reference to all laws, not just copyright laws. Anything not forbidden by law is permissable. What this does is break other laws, as well as the distribution component of the copyright law. The DMCA is about digital copyright law, whether it has other purposes or not. It governs your rights with regard to copyrighted digital works. Your purchase of the CD did not and still does not give you ownership of the digital content of that CD, only ownership of the physical disc itself.
This is a poor analogy. The real analogy would be that you have purchased the car, but now law requires that you not open the door without permission from the manufacturer.
When you rent a car, the rental agency can at any time require that you return the car and stop using it. The iTunes music store has no right to do this. CD manufacturers have no right to do this.
Not true. If you misuse your copy of any copyrighted work, you can be required to surrender your copy of the work and desist immediately. The law does not require you to do anything special with material you OWN. But you don't own the music. The analogy stands.
Music purchases were purchases before the DMCA and they are purchases after the DMCA. There are more restrictions after the DMCA, but the restrictions are placed on the locks, not on what is behind the locks. The music that you bought is still yours; but you aren't allowed to open the locks.
Exactly right about the restrictions placed on the locks, but exactly wrong about the content behind them. You did not own it before the DMCA, and you do not own it now.
Your analogy with "so that anyone can use it" also misrepresents the DMCA: the better analogy is that you can't even open the locks so that *you* can use it.
No, not at all. The DMCA has issues that need to be addressed, but it does not prohibit your fair use of material.
In the sense that you have described it above, books are digital. Books can be copied with no loss and then the original sold. Books are, according to the Supreme Court, purchases, not licenses. Book manufacturers are not even allowed to place EULAs on their books and pretend that it is a license. There is no different law about music. It's all copyright.
Again, read the court cases more carefully. You have rights to do as you please with the physical book. You do not have rights to the content of the books. You never did, and the Supreme Court has never granted you this permission. With your digital file, there is nothing physical that you own and control, only the intellectual property which is owned SOLELY by the copyright holder. Books are purchases of a physical, bound paper product containing the intellectual property of another individual. The Supreme Court has supported this since the implementation of IP law in the 19th century.
Are you claiming that playing my CDs on my iPod is illegal? The file has been modified in ways that it was not originally intended: they were uncompressed digital audio files meant for playback on a CD player. Now they're compressed digital audio played back on an iPod.
It's not illegal by copyright law to put your unprotected music on an iPod. You are not modifying the intellectual property of the owner. You are taking it from what you own (the physical disc) and putting it on something else you own (the iPod hard disk).
That is completely outside of what the manufacturer intended that I use that CD for. I don't believe that's illegal; the U.S. courts don't believe that it's illegal. Apple certainly doesn't believe that it's illegal. The RIAA would like it to be illegal but isn't arguing that any more. Do you believe that it is illegal?
One more time. The copyright law governs the material, your purchase covers the disc. You can do whatever you want with the disc, but you don't have the same freedom with the data on that disc. No one is stopping you from breaking the CD or selling it or doing whatever you want. You are not allowed to take control of the intellectual property that is not yours (the songs). Show ME a case that demonstrates otherwise from the past 50 years. Older cases are not applicable, and I'm being generous with the 50 year window as well given the wealth of more recent cases, all of which support IP rights and consumer ownership of the media but not the content.
They are purchases of usage rights, not of ownership of the intellectual property contained therein. Review the cases more carefully. If you don't want to call it a license, fine. But it's not ownership of the song. It's ownership of your limited-use copy of that song.
No, you've got it in reverse. The Supreme Court of the United States specifically said that anything not disallowed is allowed. That was (among other places) the betamax case that I referenced.
You seem to be conflating the DMCA with copyright. The DMCA is not about copyright. It's about breaking digital restrictions. The DMCA did not turn purchases into licenses. Things that were purchases before the DMCA are still purchases today.
Yes, the Supreme Court said that, but in reference to all laws, not just copyright laws. Anything not forbidden by law is permissable. What this does is break other laws, as well as the distribution component of the copyright law. The DMCA is about digital copyright law, whether it has other purposes or not. It governs your rights with regard to copyrighted digital works. Your purchase of the CD did not and still does not give you ownership of the digital content of that CD, only ownership of the physical disc itself.
This is a poor analogy. The real analogy would be that you have purchased the car, but now law requires that you not open the door without permission from the manufacturer.
When you rent a car, the rental agency can at any time require that you return the car and stop using it. The iTunes music store has no right to do this. CD manufacturers have no right to do this.
Not true. If you misuse your copy of any copyrighted work, you can be required to surrender your copy of the work and desist immediately. The law does not require you to do anything special with material you OWN. But you don't own the music. The analogy stands.
Music purchases were purchases before the DMCA and they are purchases after the DMCA. There are more restrictions after the DMCA, but the restrictions are placed on the locks, not on what is behind the locks. The music that you bought is still yours; but you aren't allowed to open the locks.
Exactly right about the restrictions placed on the locks, but exactly wrong about the content behind them. You did not own it before the DMCA, and you do not own it now.
Your analogy with "so that anyone can use it" also misrepresents the DMCA: the better analogy is that you can't even open the locks so that *you* can use it.
No, not at all. The DMCA has issues that need to be addressed, but it does not prohibit your fair use of material.
In the sense that you have described it above, books are digital. Books can be copied with no loss and then the original sold. Books are, according to the Supreme Court, purchases, not licenses. Book manufacturers are not even allowed to place EULAs on their books and pretend that it is a license. There is no different law about music. It's all copyright.
Again, read the court cases more carefully. You have rights to do as you please with the physical book. You do not have rights to the content of the books. You never did, and the Supreme Court has never granted you this permission. With your digital file, there is nothing physical that you own and control, only the intellectual property which is owned SOLELY by the copyright holder. Books are purchases of a physical, bound paper product containing the intellectual property of another individual. The Supreme Court has supported this since the implementation of IP law in the 19th century.
Are you claiming that playing my CDs on my iPod is illegal? The file has been modified in ways that it was not originally intended: they were uncompressed digital audio files meant for playback on a CD player. Now they're compressed digital audio played back on an iPod.
It's not illegal by copyright law to put your unprotected music on an iPod. You are not modifying the intellectual property of the owner. You are taking it from what you own (the physical disc) and putting it on something else you own (the iPod hard disk).
That is completely outside of what the manufacturer intended that I use that CD for. I don't believe that's illegal; the U.S. courts don't believe that it's illegal. Apple certainly doesn't believe that it's illegal. The RIAA would like it to be illegal but isn't arguing that any more. Do you believe that it is illegal?
One more time. The copyright law governs the material, your purchase covers the disc. You can do whatever you want with the disc, but you don't have the same freedom with the data on that disc. No one is stopping you from breaking the CD or selling it or doing whatever you want. You are not allowed to take control of the intellectual property that is not yours (the songs). Show ME a case that demonstrates otherwise from the past 50 years. Older cases are not applicable, and I'm being generous with the 50 year window as well given the wealth of more recent cases, all of which support IP rights and consumer ownership of the media but not the content.
PeterQVenkman
Apr 12, 11:28 AM
There are only minor annoyances and differences. Chances are you don't sit down and use the OS for 8 hours, you use other programs. While those are active, your OS will disappear.
I never like the functionality of the green button at the top of mac windows. It's almost useless and inconsistent and best.
In adobe products, I tended to lose palettes off the edge of the screen more often on the mac with no way to reach them (have to reset a workspace to get it back). That's probably due to adobe being idiotic, though.
I never like the functionality of the green button at the top of mac windows. It's almost useless and inconsistent and best.
In adobe products, I tended to lose palettes off the edge of the screen more often on the mac with no way to reach them (have to reset a workspace to get it back). That's probably due to adobe being idiotic, though.
hunkaburningluv
Apr 9, 06:04 AM
Apple will buy Nintendo eventually.
It's over for Nintendo.
Get ready for the iwii
I doubt it - ninty are make some serious money on every console/handheld unit sold, they are set for the foreseeable future. IMO, while the iOS is great for short bursts of gaming, it will never replace a dedicated gaming machine
Doesn't matter. Apple took in two head gaming executives. Whether they called them up or were called up, they now have major gaming players in their family. It's a pretty clear sign that they will be getting into gaming in some way.
when they get Miyamoto or Iwata, then I'll be interested
These people are fleeing the "yellow light of death” on PS3 or "red ring of death' on 360. The consoles are so poorly made that broken PS3's seldomly fetch $50 on eBay.
Apple has a real opportunity to make a name in gaming as gamers know quality and appreciate being taken seriously.
that's well, ********, to be honest, RROD has pretty much been eliminated and YLOD wasn't particularly widespread....
It's over for Nintendo.
Get ready for the iwii
I doubt it - ninty are make some serious money on every console/handheld unit sold, they are set for the foreseeable future. IMO, while the iOS is great for short bursts of gaming, it will never replace a dedicated gaming machine
Doesn't matter. Apple took in two head gaming executives. Whether they called them up or were called up, they now have major gaming players in their family. It's a pretty clear sign that they will be getting into gaming in some way.
when they get Miyamoto or Iwata, then I'll be interested
These people are fleeing the "yellow light of death” on PS3 or "red ring of death' on 360. The consoles are so poorly made that broken PS3's seldomly fetch $50 on eBay.
Apple has a real opportunity to make a name in gaming as gamers know quality and appreciate being taken seriously.
that's well, ********, to be honest, RROD has pretty much been eliminated and YLOD wasn't particularly widespread....
rikers_mailbox
Sep 20, 03:03 AM
If Iger is correct and iTV has a hard drive.. then I beleive iTV could serve as an external iTunes Library server/device. Authorized computers can access and manage it using iTunes (running as a client). iTS downloads, podcasts, imported physical CDs, etc would all be stored on iTV.
Look at your hard drive usage, Music takes up a significant amount of it. Why does it need to be kept on your local machine if iTV provides a network?
Look at your hard drive usage, Music takes up a significant amount of it. Why does it need to be kept on your local machine if iTV provides a network?
Howdr
Mar 18, 09:33 AM
LOL and you believe that would hold up in court against the significance of the word "Unlimited"?
You are Flat Out Wrong. AT&T would hold up their fine print. The prosecution would wave it away, and so would the judge. It happens every day, and only most uninformed of legal amateurs are unaware of this.
Yet Apple showed the Fine print to the US Gov and they got slapped in the face. Jailbreaking is OK and legal!
As I said : A contract does not make it legal, its just an untested agreement that may or may not stand up to court ruling.
With Jailbreaking there were those using the same arguments before.
I need to go good conversation
I think extra charge for tethering is not ok and think at&t is wrong. no matter the contract.
GL everyone
You are Flat Out Wrong. AT&T would hold up their fine print. The prosecution would wave it away, and so would the judge. It happens every day, and only most uninformed of legal amateurs are unaware of this.
Yet Apple showed the Fine print to the US Gov and they got slapped in the face. Jailbreaking is OK and legal!
As I said : A contract does not make it legal, its just an untested agreement that may or may not stand up to court ruling.
With Jailbreaking there were those using the same arguments before.
I need to go good conversation
I think extra charge for tethering is not ok and think at&t is wrong. no matter the contract.
GL everyone
ariza910
Sep 12, 04:39 PM
Wasnt Steve Jobs demo of the Incredibles movie through iTV in HD?
Since the iTV has HDMI and Component it leads me to belive that it will handle HD as well as SD content.
Since the iTV has HDMI and Component it leads me to belive that it will handle HD as well as SD content.
Hankster
May 6, 07:03 PM
I have the iPhone 3GS, it's not ATT. It's the iPhone. Plus, I rarely get voice drops, but I do lose data connection A LOT. Sometimes I have to reboot my iPhone 2-4 times a day just to get messages/email/etc.
But, people need to understand it's not ATT it's the iPhone that doesn't have good quality connection. Most of my friends have ATT and BlackBerrys and they ALWAYS have service and data even when my iPhone is dead in the water.
But, people need to understand it's not ATT it's the iPhone that doesn't have good quality connection. Most of my friends have ATT and BlackBerrys and they ALWAYS have service and data even when my iPhone is dead in the water.
KnightWRX
May 2, 09:38 AM
Mac OS X fanboys really need to stop clinging to the mentality that "viruses" don't exist for OS X
Why, do you have proof of a virus for OS X ? Because if you do, let's see it.
The fact is, the days of viruses are long gone. It's not the easiest nor most effective sort of malware you can make. Like you state yourself, even windows these days is mostly virus free. Currently, spyware is all the rage, trojans have always been a good vector and the occasional worm when a remote execution/privilege escalation bug pops up can create some havoc.
But good old viruses ? Almost no one plays with those black arts anymore...
Why, do you have proof of a virus for OS X ? Because if you do, let's see it.
The fact is, the days of viruses are long gone. It's not the easiest nor most effective sort of malware you can make. Like you state yourself, even windows these days is mostly virus free. Currently, spyware is all the rage, trojans have always been a good vector and the occasional worm when a remote execution/privilege escalation bug pops up can create some havoc.
But good old viruses ? Almost no one plays with those black arts anymore...
Warbrain
Oct 8, 10:13 AM
Flash is what will bring the iPhone down.
I can see the ads:
iPhone: I have touch.
Android: Bleh, I have touch too.
iPhone: I am sleek and I have a 3.5" screen.
Android: Bleh, nowadays I am sleek too, and I have a 4" screen.
Android: Oh, and I can surf ALL of the web, including Flash sites and Hulu.
iPhone (nervously picking a pimple): Bleh, who needs Flash, I hate Flash!!! I hate Flash even more than I hated Copy/Paste. Just wait for HTML5, it'd be here in only 5 years....
Voiceover: Yes you can! But only with Android.
Flash on a mobile device will be a horrid experience no matter how fast phones get.
I can see the ads:
iPhone: I have touch.
Android: Bleh, I have touch too.
iPhone: I am sleek and I have a 3.5" screen.
Android: Bleh, nowadays I am sleek too, and I have a 4" screen.
Android: Oh, and I can surf ALL of the web, including Flash sites and Hulu.
iPhone (nervously picking a pimple): Bleh, who needs Flash, I hate Flash!!! I hate Flash even more than I hated Copy/Paste. Just wait for HTML5, it'd be here in only 5 years....
Voiceover: Yes you can! But only with Android.
Flash on a mobile device will be a horrid experience no matter how fast phones get.
warmseth
Apr 12, 11:28 PM
Ugh... you guys speak as if you are all full-time film editors...
The new features are amazing! The hall that they presented at, well they were pretty much all "pros" in the industry. They were all pretty much PSYCHED about these features..
For what it's worth, I'm a film production major...
I AM a full time film editor and I'm very disappointed by the imovie-esque move. There were a slew of features that REAL editors have been asking for for YEARS (better media management, better multi-user shared projects, and (FOR GOD'S SAKE) better trimming ability. Apple said "nah, f that" and just made iMovie with many of FCP's pro features.
The new features are amazing! The hall that they presented at, well they were pretty much all "pros" in the industry. They were all pretty much PSYCHED about these features..
For what it's worth, I'm a film production major...
I AM a full time film editor and I'm very disappointed by the imovie-esque move. There were a slew of features that REAL editors have been asking for for YEARS (better media management, better multi-user shared projects, and (FOR GOD'S SAKE) better trimming ability. Apple said "nah, f that" and just made iMovie with many of FCP's pro features.
bingo1234
Sep 21, 03:26 AM
airport express and airtunes allowed streaming content to a stereo. this just adds video function. that's it. if there is a hd it's for buffer and basic OS/ navigation.
still a very cool solution to sending content
still a very cool solution to sending content
econgeek
Apr 12, 11:09 PM
No, your ignorance of Adobe's stance in the professional broadcast industry comes off as snotty.
It is impossible for me to display any ignorance of a topic of which I have not addressed. I challenge you to find a post from me where I use the phrase "professional broadcast industry".
If you cannot do it, then you are constructing a lie out of whole cloth in order to attack me, because, apparently, you cannot construct a counter argument to any of the points I have made.
I think your need to attack me proves my case beyond any need of myself to defend my point or myself.
It is impossible for me to display any ignorance of a topic of which I have not addressed. I challenge you to find a post from me where I use the phrase "professional broadcast industry".
If you cannot do it, then you are constructing a lie out of whole cloth in order to attack me, because, apparently, you cannot construct a counter argument to any of the points I have made.
I think your need to attack me proves my case beyond any need of myself to defend my point or myself.
itickings
Apr 15, 07:09 AM
I still miss the ability to easily control the computer with only a keyboard without reaching for the mouse/trackpad all the time.
Sure, there are many shortcuts, but no real equivalent to the underlined entries in menus, and the obvious keyboard navigation in dialogs. But then again, I'd been primed to that since Windows 3.0 through XP and other systems.
I'm sure some people will want to correct me now by pointing out the keyboard control possibility available in the accessibility settings, but that'll only end with uncontrollable laughter...
Sure, there are many shortcuts, but no real equivalent to the underlined entries in menus, and the obvious keyboard navigation in dialogs. But then again, I'd been primed to that since Windows 3.0 through XP and other systems.
I'm sure some people will want to correct me now by pointing out the keyboard control possibility available in the accessibility settings, but that'll only end with uncontrollable laughter...
Caliber26
Apr 15, 10:17 AM
Theres ways to express your opinion (even if its pretty unpopular) without stooping to this. Not Cool
Agreed. But you know what, some people deserve not one ounce of respect. The minute one crosses that line with me, and takes the liberty to label me as a self-hater, guess what, you've successfully lit a fire under my *** and I'm gonna talk back at you in a fitting way. Point blank.
You can go ahead and read thru all my posts in MacRumors and you'll see that I'm not a negative whiner, or one quick to disrespect others. But I have zero tolerance for people that are quick to label or judge me for my views.
Agreed. But you know what, some people deserve not one ounce of respect. The minute one crosses that line with me, and takes the liberty to label me as a self-hater, guess what, you've successfully lit a fire under my *** and I'm gonna talk back at you in a fitting way. Point blank.
You can go ahead and read thru all my posts in MacRumors and you'll see that I'm not a negative whiner, or one quick to disrespect others. But I have zero tolerance for people that are quick to label or judge me for my views.
Mord
Jul 12, 04:12 PM
we are not saying conroe is crap it just is not suitable for a mac pro.
portishead
Apr 12, 10:45 PM
ROTFL!! Sorry, I couldn't help but laugh! Start burnin' them bridges early, son!!
Looks cool, but I'm on the fence about it all. It's chump change and probably a fun tool to play with. I don't see it replacing some of the larger suites. It's 'pro' editing for the masses but I'm sure many will keep their Adobe and AVID tools around for more orgranized productions.
Cheers!
It's probably not going to cause massive amounts of people to switch I agree. It's hard to say a lot after this presentation. It's definitely got some awesome features. We'll have to wait and see if it's ready for a full workflow from ingest to export.
Looks cool, but I'm on the fence about it all. It's chump change and probably a fun tool to play with. I don't see it replacing some of the larger suites. It's 'pro' editing for the masses but I'm sure many will keep their Adobe and AVID tools around for more orgranized productions.
Cheers!
It's probably not going to cause massive amounts of people to switch I agree. It's hard to say a lot after this presentation. It's definitely got some awesome features. We'll have to wait and see if it's ready for a full workflow from ingest to export.