Multimedia
Sep 9, 01:56 PM
Yeah it is interesting but in the context of a desktop machine you are not getting a lot for the wait. A new front side bus and a Merom to go with it. AND 64 Bit support which can be very important for some.
I guess what I'[m saying is that if you are willing to wait for this upgrade then you really don't need a new computer even with this rather significant update to the iMac. Maybe that is where our paths diverge as I see this as a significant upgrade. Sure it is a stop gap measure for 64 bit support but it does offer significant performance advantages and should adapt well to Apples move to 64 bit.
I do know that with Core 2 Intel has the potential for significant upside on clock rates. It looks like we could see both a core race and a clock rate race again.
What I'm wondering is where the optimal number of cores is for the average desktop user. I know that dual has some pretty amazing results on the desktop so how far do we go for core wise. 4, 8, 12 or more? Especially on i86, it is to bad the PPC guys never got their acts together.
DaveWell I am 100% certian four is not enough. But I have read there may be diminishing returns beyond 16 perhaps even beyond 8 - I have no idea. But Clovertown can't come soon enough for me. Would be great if the speed will rise rapidly as well next year. Hope you're right. With both up a lot, what I am doing could be done in a few minutes insead of hours. That's my dream.
I guess what I'[m saying is that if you are willing to wait for this upgrade then you really don't need a new computer even with this rather significant update to the iMac. Maybe that is where our paths diverge as I see this as a significant upgrade. Sure it is a stop gap measure for 64 bit support but it does offer significant performance advantages and should adapt well to Apples move to 64 bit.
I do know that with Core 2 Intel has the potential for significant upside on clock rates. It looks like we could see both a core race and a clock rate race again.
What I'm wondering is where the optimal number of cores is for the average desktop user. I know that dual has some pretty amazing results on the desktop so how far do we go for core wise. 4, 8, 12 or more? Especially on i86, it is to bad the PPC guys never got their acts together.
DaveWell I am 100% certian four is not enough. But I have read there may be diminishing returns beyond 16 perhaps even beyond 8 - I have no idea. But Clovertown can't come soon enough for me. Would be great if the speed will rise rapidly as well next year. Hope you're right. With both up a lot, what I am doing could be done in a few minutes insead of hours. That's my dream.
milo
Sep 6, 08:03 AM
Either way, what are you going to do with a HD version of the movie on your computer?
HD is not going to happen, at least not next tuesday.
Worth revisiting.
The raw uncompressed bitrate for 720p = 1280*720*24bpp*30fps/(1024*1024) = 633 Mbps for 1080i it's ~711 Mbps 320x240 it's more like 53 Mbps.
720p compressed in H.264 with 5.1 sound seems to work out to about 1100 MB for your typical 45 minute drama show (i.e. compressed down to ~3 Mbps). This compares to 200 MB for the same show from iTMS in 320x240 H.264 (700 kbps). Not bad when you consider that 720p has 12X as many pixels (1280/320=4, 720/240=3)
Basically your typical movie would be about 2GB.
B
So what would be the size for a decent encoding of 480 (p or i)? Basically about DVD quality, but with a more efficient codec, which is the most likely format for release next week.
HD is not going to happen, at least not next tuesday.
Worth revisiting.
The raw uncompressed bitrate for 720p = 1280*720*24bpp*30fps/(1024*1024) = 633 Mbps for 1080i it's ~711 Mbps 320x240 it's more like 53 Mbps.
720p compressed in H.264 with 5.1 sound seems to work out to about 1100 MB for your typical 45 minute drama show (i.e. compressed down to ~3 Mbps). This compares to 200 MB for the same show from iTMS in 320x240 H.264 (700 kbps). Not bad when you consider that 720p has 12X as many pixels (1280/320=4, 720/240=3)
Basically your typical movie would be about 2GB.
B
So what would be the size for a decent encoding of 480 (p or i)? Basically about DVD quality, but with a more efficient codec, which is the most likely format for release next week.
BC2009
Mar 30, 11:33 AM
Office and Windows are/were generic words OUTSIDE of the computer industry (like Apple). But app(lication) store is a generic word INSIDE of the computer industry and that the big legal difference here.
Like I just said.... Mac's had windows (and they called them that) before PC's had "Windows". Mac OS has used windows and trash and all that drag-and-drop and double-click-a-file goodness long before any DOS PC had it. Xerox invented it, sold it to Apple, and Apple used it in the Mac.
"Windows" was a generic term in the computer industry before Microsoft had any trademark.
EDIT: I still think neither should be allowed, but given the precedents out there I would give Apple the "App Store" trademark. Certainly MS is the pot calling the kettle black here. Considering their windows-based operating system is called "Windows" and their Office productivity suite is called "Office". These guys should all have to come up with better names for their stuff if they want a trademark. Like.... why not just stick an "i" in front of it? iApp Store (see how easy that was).
Like I just said.... Mac's had windows (and they called them that) before PC's had "Windows". Mac OS has used windows and trash and all that drag-and-drop and double-click-a-file goodness long before any DOS PC had it. Xerox invented it, sold it to Apple, and Apple used it in the Mac.
"Windows" was a generic term in the computer industry before Microsoft had any trademark.
EDIT: I still think neither should be allowed, but given the precedents out there I would give Apple the "App Store" trademark. Certainly MS is the pot calling the kettle black here. Considering their windows-based operating system is called "Windows" and their Office productivity suite is called "Office". These guys should all have to come up with better names for their stuff if they want a trademark. Like.... why not just stick an "i" in front of it? iApp Store (see how easy that was).
BRLawyer
Oct 12, 12:35 PM
It's a nice cause, but red iPods are really ugly, I must say...
asphalt-proof
Sep 15, 08:25 PM
Ok I think Steve is just playing with the rumor sites. First is was "G5 Powerbooks next Tuesday" Now its "iPhone next Tuesday, quarter, macworld, whatever." I think its just his way of palying a practical joke on us plebes. Probably sits back, snorts derisively whenever he sees this and throws a towel at his personal servant (whose name is Steve Ballmer).
gugy
Sep 26, 12:23 PM
Well, it looks like I wont be getting this phone now. Sorry, I'm Verizon and so are all the people I talk to, so I'm not gonna switch for this.
Yeah, I am in the same boat.
For me Cingular is the worst because I can't get it to work at my home and work. I have Verizon, is OK. but at least work. The truth is every carrier has a problem. I am still waiting to find somebody that says their carrier is 100% great and they are satisfied.
I hope iphone will work on other carriers. If not I'll wait until it comes with Verizon or any other carrier other than Cingular.
What good is to have an amazing phone if you can talk or get coverage?
Yeah, I am in the same boat.
For me Cingular is the worst because I can't get it to work at my home and work. I have Verizon, is OK. but at least work. The truth is every carrier has a problem. I am still waiting to find somebody that says their carrier is 100% great and they are satisfied.
I hope iphone will work on other carriers. If not I'll wait until it comes with Verizon or any other carrier other than Cingular.
What good is to have an amazing phone if you can talk or get coverage?
iJohnHenry
Apr 25, 07:11 AM
7 'pages' since my Midnight? :eek:
tl;dr
tl;dr
Flowbee
Aug 31, 09:30 PM
I actually have that cable. I've only used it a couple of times on my TV for kicks. After seeing the quality though, I decided never to do it again. :D Besides, all of the stuff I have on my iPod Video, I have on DVD. I just use it at work during lunch sometimes, or on trips. But hooking your iPod up to your TV should be done only if you have no other choice IMO. :)
Well, if I hadn't downloaded the Lost episodes from the iTMS, I might have agreed with you. The fact is, they look better than I expected.
I've found that videos downloaded from the iTMS generally look better on my TV than DVDs I've ripped and encoded for the iPod myself. I've tried the maximum iPod-compatible quality settings, and still cant get as sharp a picture as the Lost episodes I have. Except during really dark scenes, it's easy to forget I'm not just watching regular TV. It's obviously not nearly as good as a DVD, but it's not YouTube either. That being said, I have standard definition TV... no HD here. YMMV
I still think Apple will have to up the video quality if they want people to start buying downloads instead of actual discs.
Well, if I hadn't downloaded the Lost episodes from the iTMS, I might have agreed with you. The fact is, they look better than I expected.
I've found that videos downloaded from the iTMS generally look better on my TV than DVDs I've ripped and encoded for the iPod myself. I've tried the maximum iPod-compatible quality settings, and still cant get as sharp a picture as the Lost episodes I have. Except during really dark scenes, it's easy to forget I'm not just watching regular TV. It's obviously not nearly as good as a DVD, but it's not YouTube either. That being said, I have standard definition TV... no HD here. YMMV
I still think Apple will have to up the video quality if they want people to start buying downloads instead of actual discs.
LarryC
Apr 30, 11:04 PM
Two words: Future-proofing.
Macs are expensive, and many Mac users cannot afford or do not want to buy new Macs frequently. Such Mac users want to buy a Mac and have it work with the latest software and peripherals for as many years as possible. For such users, it makes total sense to want a Mac with Thunderbolt, even though there are isn't a single Thunderbolt peripheral on the market.
I absolutely agree. This is the same reason why I was hoping the USB 3.0 would be on this version. I realize now that is almost certainly not going to happen. I just thought that with so many PC's (including some PC laptops) already offering USB 3.0 that maybe the brand spankin' new iMac might be so equipped.
I was wondering why so many people are so opposed to Apple offering Blu-Ray as a BTO option. I have read where Steve Jobs spoke negatively about Blu-Ray, I wonder if these same people would be all gung-ho for BR if Jobs had spoken positively about it? I realize that he is a very smart man, but he isn't God! I always thought that BR would have been a great thing to have on a Mac for things like backing up your iTunes library. Imagine that, being able to back up your entire iTunes library on two or three BR discs. That would have been really nice. I read somewhere the other day that they either have or are getting ready to have BR discs that have a 100GB capacity. What in the world would have been wrong with that?
Macs are expensive, and many Mac users cannot afford or do not want to buy new Macs frequently. Such Mac users want to buy a Mac and have it work with the latest software and peripherals for as many years as possible. For such users, it makes total sense to want a Mac with Thunderbolt, even though there are isn't a single Thunderbolt peripheral on the market.
I absolutely agree. This is the same reason why I was hoping the USB 3.0 would be on this version. I realize now that is almost certainly not going to happen. I just thought that with so many PC's (including some PC laptops) already offering USB 3.0 that maybe the brand spankin' new iMac might be so equipped.
I was wondering why so many people are so opposed to Apple offering Blu-Ray as a BTO option. I have read where Steve Jobs spoke negatively about Blu-Ray, I wonder if these same people would be all gung-ho for BR if Jobs had spoken positively about it? I realize that he is a very smart man, but he isn't God! I always thought that BR would have been a great thing to have on a Mac for things like backing up your iTunes library. Imagine that, being able to back up your entire iTunes library on two or three BR discs. That would have been really nice. I read somewhere the other day that they either have or are getting ready to have BR discs that have a 100GB capacity. What in the world would have been wrong with that?
gleepskip
Apr 20, 09:59 AM
I'm a pretty serious Apple fanatic and I'm willing to scrap my family's iPhones because of this. I know the government can track me anyway by watching my movement across cell towers, but this is a huge affront to privacy.
If you tie this story to the recent news from Michigan that cops there are able to suck the data off of your phone at a traffic stop, then this is really frightening.
If you tie this story to the recent news from Michigan that cops there are able to suck the data off of your phone at a traffic stop, then this is really frightening.
gugy
Aug 31, 09:28 PM
The fact that it isn't a "format," for starters.
$10 ~ $15, if that is the price for anything below a 720p encoding of a movie, would be the stupidest thing that Apple has done. (Well, at least in the last 10 years or so.)
If they do 720p encodes - and that would have to be the minimum, as they really should be 1080p - then they might have something worthwhile. The problem is, this will totally clash with the move to Blu-Ray and HD-DVD, so being realistic, my guess would be 480p encodes. Which, of course, then makes purchasing movies this way versus DVD a really stupid decision (IMHO).
I'd love to see Apple get this right, but... I'm really not holding my breath.
Very true, I just can't see Apple doing this. That will kill the Movie store from the start.
IMHO they might do the rental of movies that was speculate before.
If they decide to sell it, it has to be cheaper than the current DVD offerings, unless the quality and resolution are higher. If not, I would not even waste my time going there to buy it.
$10 ~ $15, if that is the price for anything below a 720p encoding of a movie, would be the stupidest thing that Apple has done. (Well, at least in the last 10 years or so.)
If they do 720p encodes - and that would have to be the minimum, as they really should be 1080p - then they might have something worthwhile. The problem is, this will totally clash with the move to Blu-Ray and HD-DVD, so being realistic, my guess would be 480p encodes. Which, of course, then makes purchasing movies this way versus DVD a really stupid decision (IMHO).
I'd love to see Apple get this right, but... I'm really not holding my breath.
Very true, I just can't see Apple doing this. That will kill the Movie store from the start.
IMHO they might do the rental of movies that was speculate before.
If they decide to sell it, it has to be cheaper than the current DVD offerings, unless the quality and resolution are higher. If not, I would not even waste my time going there to buy it.
THX1139
Jul 20, 05:15 PM
You don't think Apple would get raked over the coals if they released towers that were slower than the last generation? Conroe is fast, but no way it beats a quad G5. And I don't think a promise of a quad machine later on helps public relations any.
Also, doesn't the kentsfield have the same limitation as conroe? That you can only use it in single processor configs? A woodcrest chipset would have a longer life since you'd use the same one for multiple cloverton configs.
Next gen, conroe gets you 2 cores, woodcrest gives you 2 chips for 4 cores.
Gen after that, kentsfield gets you 4 cores, cloverton gets you 2 chips for 8 cores. There's room for both chipsets for at least the next two generations, and I wouldn't be surprised if it continues beyond that.
I didn't mean to suggest the Conroe as a replacement for the G5 Quad. I was thinking more in line with replacing the duals. At this time, the only thing that would come close to replacing the current Quad would be Woodcrest and that's why I mentioned a possiblity for a 3GHZ Woodie in the lineup. I do see a need for a Woodcrest Quad as a professional work station, now and in the future... I just don't see why they would need to put Woodcrest in the complete line-up. Not sure how Kentsfield would play into the long term plan. However, I see nothing wrong with using Conroe in the middle and bottom (non Quad) machines if those are going to continue. Yea, everyone seems to want Quad across the board, but for some people that would be overkill and overly expensive. If you are a web developer or motion graphics designer working at web resolutions, do you need a Woodcrest Quad? Once the currently shipping duals are gone, are we going to be forced with choosing between Woodcrest in a tower... or an iMac or mini?
Maybe it all boils down to the need for Apple to split the lineup as been suggested in other threads. They should have a couple medium towers with Conroe (call them Macs) and then 2 or 3 high-end workstations that are priced accordingly for the Macpro line. I would love to get a Quad Woodcrest, but for the most part, it would be over-kill. Most professional work I do can be done on a single chip / dual core.
It's going to be interesting to see what direction Apple reveals next month. I still think it's strange that Apple hasn't announced Woodcrest if they are indeed going with that solution. Why wait for WWDC if the chips are ready?
Also, doesn't the kentsfield have the same limitation as conroe? That you can only use it in single processor configs? A woodcrest chipset would have a longer life since you'd use the same one for multiple cloverton configs.
Next gen, conroe gets you 2 cores, woodcrest gives you 2 chips for 4 cores.
Gen after that, kentsfield gets you 4 cores, cloverton gets you 2 chips for 8 cores. There's room for both chipsets for at least the next two generations, and I wouldn't be surprised if it continues beyond that.
I didn't mean to suggest the Conroe as a replacement for the G5 Quad. I was thinking more in line with replacing the duals. At this time, the only thing that would come close to replacing the current Quad would be Woodcrest and that's why I mentioned a possiblity for a 3GHZ Woodie in the lineup. I do see a need for a Woodcrest Quad as a professional work station, now and in the future... I just don't see why they would need to put Woodcrest in the complete line-up. Not sure how Kentsfield would play into the long term plan. However, I see nothing wrong with using Conroe in the middle and bottom (non Quad) machines if those are going to continue. Yea, everyone seems to want Quad across the board, but for some people that would be overkill and overly expensive. If you are a web developer or motion graphics designer working at web resolutions, do you need a Woodcrest Quad? Once the currently shipping duals are gone, are we going to be forced with choosing between Woodcrest in a tower... or an iMac or mini?
Maybe it all boils down to the need for Apple to split the lineup as been suggested in other threads. They should have a couple medium towers with Conroe (call them Macs) and then 2 or 3 high-end workstations that are priced accordingly for the Macpro line. I would love to get a Quad Woodcrest, but for the most part, it would be over-kill. Most professional work I do can be done on a single chip / dual core.
It's going to be interesting to see what direction Apple reveals next month. I still think it's strange that Apple hasn't announced Woodcrest if they are indeed going with that solution. Why wait for WWDC if the chips are ready?
tatonka
Apr 20, 01:40 PM
Apparently, this is related to AT&T only and it is not based on GPS location services but rather a database of cell towers. It contains no identifiable information and is sent to AT&T for analysis for signal strength statistics.
Since it does not contain personal information and is being used to analyze the state of the AT&T network, I don't see a problem here. People who are not inside of the US are not affected by this.
So why does it track the cell tower in the UK as well then? Click 2. Video (http://petewarden.github.com/iPhoneTracker/)
Since it does not contain personal information and is being used to analyze the state of the AT&T network, I don't see a problem here. People who are not inside of the US are not affected by this.
So why does it track the cell tower in the UK as well then? Click 2. Video (http://petewarden.github.com/iPhoneTracker/)
QCassidy352
Sep 9, 08:44 AM
I guess I've got mind whip lash from the transition to Intel. It's still kinda hard to wrap the mind around these speed improvments. I'm still used to the very modest speed bumps from the PPC days.
How wonderfully refreshing it is to see these leaps in speed with each product update. I hope this pace keeps up. Some may disagree, but I think it's spectacular compared to what we used to get from Moto/Freescale/IBM.
Nonsense. Maybe at the very end, but we used to see updates like 800mhz-->1Ghz. That's a 25% increase in performance (if processor power is the limiting factor). Even the G5 went dual 2.0 --> dual 2.5 in one jump, which is a bigger increase than this.
This is NOT the promised 20% increase; it's a 10% increase. Some areas may show more, but that only means that some show less.
I'm just not sure why everyone is so impressed with these imacs. The 24" was a great addition (and the low-end 17" for $1k is nice too), but the 17" and 20" are the same as the old models except for a processor speed bump and 1 GB RAM standard. All that for less money is not bad, but it's hardly thrilling considering that it's the first update in 8 months.
How wonderfully refreshing it is to see these leaps in speed with each product update. I hope this pace keeps up. Some may disagree, but I think it's spectacular compared to what we used to get from Moto/Freescale/IBM.
Nonsense. Maybe at the very end, but we used to see updates like 800mhz-->1Ghz. That's a 25% increase in performance (if processor power is the limiting factor). Even the G5 went dual 2.0 --> dual 2.5 in one jump, which is a bigger increase than this.
This is NOT the promised 20% increase; it's a 10% increase. Some areas may show more, but that only means that some show less.
I'm just not sure why everyone is so impressed with these imacs. The 24" was a great addition (and the low-end 17" for $1k is nice too), but the 17" and 20" are the same as the old models except for a processor speed bump and 1 GB RAM standard. All that for less money is not bad, but it's hardly thrilling considering that it's the first update in 8 months.
skunk
Apr 11, 01:15 PM
Because its **** as it doesn't have straightforward unit conversions and because everyone else in the world other than the US (and for a small number of things the UK) uses metric.I use metric feet.
Dave00
Sep 12, 02:46 PM
Kind of a huge gap, don'cha think? For an extra $100 I can nearly TRIPLE the capacity? Why would I even consider a 30 GB model?
Considerably thinner, for one. It doesn't seem like much until you see 'em side by side. The double platter really eats more space.
Dave
Considerably thinner, for one. It doesn't seem like much until you see 'em side by side. The double platter really eats more space.
Dave
Chopper9
Oct 12, 05:28 PM
Why do they always use the smaller sized iPods for the special editions?
I wanted the U2 iPod, but it was not the 60 gig.
I would like a red iPod, but want the 8 gig!
USE THE BEST MODEL... ESPECIALLY SINCE ITS GOING TO CHARITY!!!!!!!
I wanted the U2 iPod, but it was not the 60 gig.
I would like a red iPod, but want the 8 gig!
USE THE BEST MODEL... ESPECIALLY SINCE ITS GOING TO CHARITY!!!!!!!
juicedropsdeuce
Mar 29, 11:16 AM
.
By that point Steve will be long gone so this is easily possible.
By that point Steve will be long gone so this is easily possible.
econgeek
Apr 14, 12:21 PM
We really should be hoping that Thunderbolt succeeds and USB 3 fails. USB has always been a hack for lowest common denominator PCs and PC manufacturers who were not interested in investing in quality external communication.
USB is a poorly designed protocol, and rather than fix it, they have just extended it with USB3, and pretend like it is faster.
In real world use, USB3 is more like 2.5Gbps-- one way.
In real world use, Thunderbolt is 20Gbps-- both directions. (two 10Gbps channels)
This means Thunderbolt is effectively 20 times faster than USB3 -- if you maxed it out. Right now the two are competitive only because we don't have external devices capable of maxing out the bandwidth... but eventually we will.
I'll have to seriously considering delaying getting a new iMac until 2012 now. I don't want to be caught having to buy more expensive Thunderbolt external drives. Thunderbolt is great only if the drives are no more expensive than USB 3.0 drives.
What will be cheaper is whatever is the more popular. Thus we want Intel to delay support for USB3 and give thunderbolt time to be adopted widely. We really need to avoid another Firewire situation here, lest the entire world be held back by a crappy, second rate technology that is ubiquitous.
Look at the price difference of a USB 2 hard drive vs. Firewire- that is purely due to the USB market being bigger, it has no technological reason.
Think about the millions of people copying large files onto 1 or 2TB USB drives and how long they have to wait.... with no advantages of USB over Firewire.
USB2 is not even as fast as Firewire 400, let alone Firewire 800.
Drat, I just bought a MBP, first laptop upgrade in 4 years :( Hopefully we get a Thunderbolt-to-USB3 connector.
Those have been announced already at this weeks NAB. Apple will likely include USB3 in their laptops, though.
USB is a poorly designed protocol, and rather than fix it, they have just extended it with USB3, and pretend like it is faster.
In real world use, USB3 is more like 2.5Gbps-- one way.
In real world use, Thunderbolt is 20Gbps-- both directions. (two 10Gbps channels)
This means Thunderbolt is effectively 20 times faster than USB3 -- if you maxed it out. Right now the two are competitive only because we don't have external devices capable of maxing out the bandwidth... but eventually we will.
I'll have to seriously considering delaying getting a new iMac until 2012 now. I don't want to be caught having to buy more expensive Thunderbolt external drives. Thunderbolt is great only if the drives are no more expensive than USB 3.0 drives.
What will be cheaper is whatever is the more popular. Thus we want Intel to delay support for USB3 and give thunderbolt time to be adopted widely. We really need to avoid another Firewire situation here, lest the entire world be held back by a crappy, second rate technology that is ubiquitous.
Look at the price difference of a USB 2 hard drive vs. Firewire- that is purely due to the USB market being bigger, it has no technological reason.
Think about the millions of people copying large files onto 1 or 2TB USB drives and how long they have to wait.... with no advantages of USB over Firewire.
USB2 is not even as fast as Firewire 400, let alone Firewire 800.
Drat, I just bought a MBP, first laptop upgrade in 4 years :( Hopefully we get a Thunderbolt-to-USB3 connector.
Those have been announced already at this weeks NAB. Apple will likely include USB3 in their laptops, though.
addicted44
Mar 29, 11:56 AM
He means CUT and paste hence the caps. Not copy. i.e. The text you select is both deleted and copied to the clipboard. I use it a lot myself in Windows and do miss it in OSX. Also allows you to easily move files around by CUT and pasting them :D
SL has cut and paste. CMD+X, CMD+V
Finder does not support Cut and Paste for files, and is unlikely to do so. Its a philosophical difference, and to bring that up as an example of Win7 superiority is silly, at best. Apple could easily implement it, but they choose not to. Its another one of those "One button Mouse" deals, where Apple is being obstinate.
Windows 7 is a much better OS than its predecessors, but to claim it does the "little things" better than SL is so hilarious I don't know how to respond. There is literally no consistency between anything. Just go to the Control Panel, and while clicking dialogs you will be transported between windows that look like they are modern Web Pages (especially the network panels, with blinking computers) and panels that looked like they haven't realized that Windows 95 is obsolete yet.
Windows 7 is a UI and usability nightmare (compared to SL, although much better than Vista). What I do give credit to MS for is that its security model is rock solid (probably better than Linux and most Unixes). Mac OS X has fallen behind in security. This, however, is not that big an issue anymore, IMO, because all OS security is complex enough that attackers are relying on OS vulnerabilities less, and Social Engineering more to gain access. Again, Windows's bad (and more important in this context, horribly inconsistent over the years) UI has made its users more vulnerable to such attacks.
SL has cut and paste. CMD+X, CMD+V
Finder does not support Cut and Paste for files, and is unlikely to do so. Its a philosophical difference, and to bring that up as an example of Win7 superiority is silly, at best. Apple could easily implement it, but they choose not to. Its another one of those "One button Mouse" deals, where Apple is being obstinate.
Windows 7 is a much better OS than its predecessors, but to claim it does the "little things" better than SL is so hilarious I don't know how to respond. There is literally no consistency between anything. Just go to the Control Panel, and while clicking dialogs you will be transported between windows that look like they are modern Web Pages (especially the network panels, with blinking computers) and panels that looked like they haven't realized that Windows 95 is obsolete yet.
Windows 7 is a UI and usability nightmare (compared to SL, although much better than Vista). What I do give credit to MS for is that its security model is rock solid (probably better than Linux and most Unixes). Mac OS X has fallen behind in security. This, however, is not that big an issue anymore, IMO, because all OS security is complex enough that attackers are relying on OS vulnerabilities less, and Social Engineering more to gain access. Again, Windows's bad (and more important in this context, horribly inconsistent over the years) UI has made its users more vulnerable to such attacks.
thequicksilver
Aug 24, 07:33 AM
It's the sensible thing to do.
IMO though the bigger news is Creative being part of the Made for iPod campaign.
IMO though the bigger news is Creative being part of the Made for iPod campaign.
localoid
Apr 22, 02:19 AM
I really hope this happens but I have a feeling that it will be hobbled in some way. If it runs from an iTunes master copy of songs then it might preclude people uploading music that has been ripped from CDs or bought somewhere else (like Amazon).
Actually, Amazon gives you 5 gigs of space on your cloud drive for your own MP3s. When/if you buy songs from them, you get additional space for the songs you've purchased.
Actually, Amazon gives you 5 gigs of space on your cloud drive for your own MP3s. When/if you buy songs from them, you get additional space for the songs you've purchased.
Counter
Sep 29, 05:50 PM
...My initial reaction was similar to many, in that I couldnt' imagine why people would want a digital file with no physical media, no artwork, and digital rights management, but I've begun to feel this will gain the same appeal as digital audio has...
Right. All that and the picture isn't as good, the audio isn't as good, there's no cost benefit.
If they were half price I wouldn't by any. Max I would pay is a third of the fee to rent.
However, I will never use the iTunes store for music either. I like hard copies, album artwork, printed cd's, how they look on a shelf. But this is being real clinical about it, hard copies mean so much more than that.
I don't want to have to turn my computer on to see my music collection.
I'm not against the purely digital medium, it will just never be for me. I remember somebody saying on here when some sales statistics got posted 'it seems people are still buying music the traditional way'. LOL Factor Ten. CD's are going nowhere. Vinyl is coming back for christs sake, let alone CD's dying. Few real bands today release a record and don't have it on vinyl.
The current movie offering will only sell on ease of purchase.
I will always want shelves full of cool stuff to flick through. It doubles as one of the, if not thee, coolest features of a room.
Right. All that and the picture isn't as good, the audio isn't as good, there's no cost benefit.
If they were half price I wouldn't by any. Max I would pay is a third of the fee to rent.
However, I will never use the iTunes store for music either. I like hard copies, album artwork, printed cd's, how they look on a shelf. But this is being real clinical about it, hard copies mean so much more than that.
I don't want to have to turn my computer on to see my music collection.
I'm not against the purely digital medium, it will just never be for me. I remember somebody saying on here when some sales statistics got posted 'it seems people are still buying music the traditional way'. LOL Factor Ten. CD's are going nowhere. Vinyl is coming back for christs sake, let alone CD's dying. Few real bands today release a record and don't have it on vinyl.
The current movie offering will only sell on ease of purchase.
I will always want shelves full of cool stuff to flick through. It doubles as one of the, if not thee, coolest features of a room.
bdj21ya
Oct 12, 01:40 PM
Like zees...?
http://img144.imageshack.us/img144/7410/picture1pc9.png
Because this one you can actually buy - ColorWare do custom colourisation of iPods, computers, accessories, all sorts of things.
No, not like that at all. That one hurts my eyes. I mean there's one on there that's like the one I commented on, but same color clickwheel. Like this:
http://www.exit42design.com/stuffDirectory/redNanoClickwheel.jpg
http://img144.imageshack.us/img144/7410/picture1pc9.png
Because this one you can actually buy - ColorWare do custom colourisation of iPods, computers, accessories, all sorts of things.
No, not like that at all. That one hurts my eyes. I mean there's one on there that's like the one I commented on, but same color clickwheel. Like this:
http://www.exit42design.com/stuffDirectory/redNanoClickwheel.jpg
No comments:
Post a Comment