ekwipt
Apr 12, 11:31 PM
Final Cut X looks amazing
I think everyone's got the one click colour correcting thing wrong, it will be great for documentaries or reality TV when you have different format cameras shot by cameramen and producers who may not be exceptional camera operators. You'll be able to cut everything on the timeline and roughly colour correct the shots so they look good for your first edit. It will basically do away with the "Color Corrector 3-way" tool and I'm guessing you'll be able to fine adjust the correction with an interface similar to it.
This event was for Final Cut X, I'm hoping they'll be updating the other apps in the suite and release them on the app store.
I'm thinking FCX will turn into another plugin revenue stream for Apple, something they didn't talk about it in the conference. So you may log on to an Apple Pro store and download plugins from different manufacturers an Apple will take a 10% or so cut on everything. So there will be Logic X and when you download an AU component they'll take a cut, when you download a new FX plugin they'll take a cut.
so maybe Color will be integrated into final Cut X but you'll buy it as a plugin of sorts that will be hosted in Final Cut X.
I think Soundtrack Pro will be turfed and Logic X will have it's features built into it.
Blackmagic Design and AJA might come up with a new Log and Capture tool for their capture cards and you won't be sitting waiting for thing to capture you'll be able to edit as they are capturing.
I don't use DVD Studio Pro and believe it will o away, everything is streamed over the net now anyway. Vimeo, Youtube etc
Have you checked out Sendoid? Studios will be using this more and more to send each other files, no more uploading with YouSendIt or DropBox.
I think everyone's got the one click colour correcting thing wrong, it will be great for documentaries or reality TV when you have different format cameras shot by cameramen and producers who may not be exceptional camera operators. You'll be able to cut everything on the timeline and roughly colour correct the shots so they look good for your first edit. It will basically do away with the "Color Corrector 3-way" tool and I'm guessing you'll be able to fine adjust the correction with an interface similar to it.
This event was for Final Cut X, I'm hoping they'll be updating the other apps in the suite and release them on the app store.
I'm thinking FCX will turn into another plugin revenue stream for Apple, something they didn't talk about it in the conference. So you may log on to an Apple Pro store and download plugins from different manufacturers an Apple will take a 10% or so cut on everything. So there will be Logic X and when you download an AU component they'll take a cut, when you download a new FX plugin they'll take a cut.
so maybe Color will be integrated into final Cut X but you'll buy it as a plugin of sorts that will be hosted in Final Cut X.
I think Soundtrack Pro will be turfed and Logic X will have it's features built into it.
Blackmagic Design and AJA might come up with a new Log and Capture tool for their capture cards and you won't be sitting waiting for thing to capture you'll be able to edit as they are capturing.
I don't use DVD Studio Pro and believe it will o away, everything is streamed over the net now anyway. Vimeo, Youtube etc
Have you checked out Sendoid? Studios will be using this more and more to send each other files, no more uploading with YouSendIt or DropBox.
greenstork
Sep 12, 07:18 PM
I am a video editor. All the content I shoot these days is High Def. My client's video is high def. The personal movies I take of my kids are high def. I edit them in either Final Cut Pro HD or iMovie HD. I use a dLink 550 now to stream high def to my 27 LCD monitor.
BlueRay disks are soon to be high def. The iTV will handle High Def via ethernet at least.
High Def Broadcasts exist right now in SLC.
Not sure where you are at with all this but I view a lot of high def content.
I know there is plenty of HD out there but all I'm saying is that the only thing currenlty supported by Apple are your own home movies. There's no Apple solution for playing recorded HD television through their iTV. What's possible and waht's already integrated into iTunes are two different things, with completely different levels of geek involved.
BlueRay disks are soon to be high def. The iTV will handle High Def via ethernet at least.
High Def Broadcasts exist right now in SLC.
Not sure where you are at with all this but I view a lot of high def content.
I know there is plenty of HD out there but all I'm saying is that the only thing currenlty supported by Apple are your own home movies. There's no Apple solution for playing recorded HD television through their iTV. What's possible and waht's already integrated into iTunes are two different things, with completely different levels of geek involved.
29point97
Apr 12, 11:55 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_2_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8C148 Safari/6533.18.5)
Just left. Waiting at the airport with some huge questions as a commercial editor. No talk of motion. If it's an app store download might be a small program no motion presets or content. I honestly wonder if there is a tape capture window. I didn't see a filters tab XML support or any kind os manager. Seems you edit color and export. I'm hoping it was just the sneakest of peeks and that there's a lot more hiding in there. Otherwise I'm holding onto fcp7 for dear life and wait for 11.
Just left. Waiting at the airport with some huge questions as a commercial editor. No talk of motion. If it's an app store download might be a small program no motion presets or content. I honestly wonder if there is a tape capture window. I didn't see a filters tab XML support or any kind os manager. Seems you edit color and export. I'm hoping it was just the sneakest of peeks and that there's a lot more hiding in there. Otherwise I'm holding onto fcp7 for dear life and wait for 11.
ct2k7
Apr 24, 05:39 PM
I think it's a bit late to worry about that :D
haha. One thing we agree on :):apple:
haha. One thing we agree on :):apple:
.jpg "Six Flags New England#39;s (or")
OutThere
Mar 13, 12:10 PM
I do feel that nuclear energy has a place in our energy production environment. That said, I regret that the problems in Japan will increase the public anxiety over nuclear power, because it will create opposition to the construction of new, safer, cleaner nuclear plants and place us in a position of having to continue using old nuclear plants which are less efficient and less safe.
Uranium mining can be an ugly process, but nuclear power sounds to me to be a pretty good option, particularly when paired with deep borehole disposal, which could nearly eliminate the ever-present waste question.
Uranium mining can be an ugly process, but nuclear power sounds to me to be a pretty good option, particularly when paired with deep borehole disposal, which could nearly eliminate the ever-present waste question.
ddtlm
Oct 12, 06:40 PM
The result for my OSX 10.2 DP 800 G4 on the floating test is 85.56 seconds. I used -O and -funroll-loops as flags.
So this is about 45% the speed of my P3-Xeon 700. Not very good at all, but it falls within the ream of believeability.
So this is about 45% the speed of my P3-Xeon 700. Not very good at all, but it falls within the ream of believeability.
steadysignal
May 3, 07:24 AM
so much for the no malware on macs myth :D
funny how the apple fanboys are getting all defensive :rolleyes:
funny how your post is at -19.
funny how the apple fanboys are getting all defensive :rolleyes:
funny how your post is at -19.
Reach
Apr 13, 03:32 AM
Did they, the BBC, have a time machine? In CS3/CS4 was the Adobe offerings.
They probably borrowed the doctor's Tardis.
They probably borrowed the doctor's Tardis.
Sounds Good
Apr 6, 02:26 PM
Oh, and for the person who made the "troll" post... seriously??? The OP put "for switchers only" because he wants to hear from people who have actually made the decision to switch. He wants to learn from their experiences as opposed to just getting bashed by Apple fanboys who'll belittle his question and not provide any genuine help.
Bingo. This is EXACTLY right.
Anyway...
I spent some time at an Apple store today. I messed around with the Macbook Air machines mostly. It's gonna take a few visits to have a better idea of things.
Frankly I'm a little bummed, since I was quite tempted to get a Mac -- pretty soon, in fact. Now I'm really not so sure. I (personally) might be better off with Windows 7. Not sure.
One thing I learned while at the Apple store: I'm pretty sure I'll be getting an iPad 2. :)
Bingo. This is EXACTLY right.
Anyway...
I spent some time at an Apple store today. I messed around with the Macbook Air machines mostly. It's gonna take a few visits to have a better idea of things.
Frankly I'm a little bummed, since I was quite tempted to get a Mac -- pretty soon, in fact. Now I'm really not so sure. I (personally) might be better off with Windows 7. Not sure.
One thing I learned while at the Apple store: I'm pretty sure I'll be getting an iPad 2. :)
appleguy123
Apr 24, 08:29 AM
The atheists I have known over the years tend to be far more bitter towards the world than theists. This does NOT mean everyone here is bitter towards the world. But it is a general trend I have noticed with the many atheists I have interacted with over the years and a trait I once shared. Bitterness tends to make you a loner. Loners seem to gravitate towards the internet because it is a place people accept you, at least somewhat, regardless of whatever reasons you are that way. I am in many regards a loner; I have probably 20k or 25k posts on forums over the past years as a result. I suspect this is also true of the majority of posters here, deep down, we do not naturally form relationships quickly and it's way easier to get cheap social interaction online than in the dreaded Real Life.
I'm sorry, but this a demonstrable lie. Atheists are almost never suicide bombers, have a lower crime rate, and don't predict the freaking end of the world to happen in their life time.
These facts don't fit your assumption about Atheists.
I'm sorry, but this a demonstrable lie. Atheists are almost never suicide bombers, have a lower crime rate, and don't predict the freaking end of the world to happen in their life time.
These facts don't fit your assumption about Atheists.
puma1552
Mar 12, 05:11 AM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/532.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0.5 Mobile/8B117 Safari/6531.22.7)
Not once have I said anything is safe. Not once have I said there is nothing to worry about; just the opposite--it's a serious situation and could get worse.
All I've said is we don't have enough information to make much of an assessment and to not panic.
With all due respect, somebody who doesn't even realize hydrogen is explosive isn't really in a position to tell someone holding two degrees in the field and speaking a good amount of the local language that he's de facto right and I'm de facto wrong.
Not once have I said anything is safe. Not once have I said there is nothing to worry about; just the opposite--it's a serious situation and could get worse.
All I've said is we don't have enough information to make much of an assessment and to not panic.
With all due respect, somebody who doesn't even realize hydrogen is explosive isn't really in a position to tell someone holding two degrees in the field and speaking a good amount of the local language that he's de facto right and I'm de facto wrong.
snebes
Apr 20, 09:09 PM
Windows has an option to hide such files. OS/X does not.
Open Terminal, run: ls /
Open the root HD folder in Finder.
See a difference?
Open Terminal, run: ls /
Open the root HD folder in Finder.
See a difference?
mikethebigo
Apr 12, 10:33 PM
All this stuff sounds pretty cool. Lots of modern enhancements to an already popular product. It is just as SJ said, the Macs aren't going anywhere as they are needed to be the "trucks" of the world - all the conspiracy theorists that say Apple with replace OSX with iOS can just chill out :cool:
Sydde
Apr 22, 08:50 PM
Atheists often, rightly or wrongly, seem to count agnostics in their number much as Blues is of classified as a part of Jazz (wrongly, IMO).
This document from census.gov (http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2011/tables/11s0075.pdf) looks to me like it is showing a fairly steady increase in unbelief, which can only be a good thing.
On this forum, there only appear to be a lot of atheists because they tend to be outspoken, put forth strong arguments (the strength of which may be a matter of opinion), and respond quickly to religious nonsense.
This document from census.gov (http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2011/tables/11s0075.pdf) looks to me like it is showing a fairly steady increase in unbelief, which can only be a good thing.
On this forum, there only appear to be a lot of atheists because they tend to be outspoken, put forth strong arguments (the strength of which may be a matter of opinion), and respond quickly to religious nonsense.
radio893fm
Aug 29, 12:29 PM
I have to say, I am APPALLED by the irresponsible attitude of some people on this forum (and probably the world). Businesses, corporations, governments, AND individuals should all be behaving in a socially and environmentally responsible manner. This is in no way "anti-progress". When did you all gain the right to be so selfish, self-centred, and bigoted in your beliefs?
Are you really surprised? The Apple FAN BOYS won't ever see the light. Whatever Apple does is simply RIGHT for them, even if it means killing the world.
Sad...
Are you really surprised? The Apple FAN BOYS won't ever see the light. Whatever Apple does is simply RIGHT for them, even if it means killing the world.
Sad...
Photics
Apr 9, 09:47 AM
You know how stereoscopic vision works, right?
I know how the 3DS works, but it was still fun to try. :D
Basically, the 3DS has an 800 x 240 display. It's using double the pixels to recreate the 3D effect, by creating the same image twice, but slightly adjusted to mimic three dimensions.
I think this is a horrible design choice, as the graphics looked blocky to me. I think Apple made the better decision. The extra resolution on the Retina Displays is used to make the graphics more crisp. I think it looks great! A sharper screen makes it more pleasant to use my iPhone, where the 3D effect made it more uncomfortable to use the 3DS.
Before you point out the mote in our eyes, remove the plank from your own.
If I had a plank in my eye, the 3D effect on the 3DS would be useless anyway. :p
I know how the 3DS works, but it was still fun to try. :D
Basically, the 3DS has an 800 x 240 display. It's using double the pixels to recreate the 3D effect, by creating the same image twice, but slightly adjusted to mimic three dimensions.
I think this is a horrible design choice, as the graphics looked blocky to me. I think Apple made the better decision. The extra resolution on the Retina Displays is used to make the graphics more crisp. I think it looks great! A sharper screen makes it more pleasant to use my iPhone, where the 3D effect made it more uncomfortable to use the 3DS.
Before you point out the mote in our eyes, remove the plank from your own.
If I had a plank in my eye, the 3D effect on the 3DS would be useless anyway. :p
KnightWRX
May 2, 05:51 PM
Until Vista and Win 7, it was effectively impossible to run a Windows NT system as anything but Administrator. To the point that other than locked-down corporate sites where an IT Professional was required to install the Corporate Approved version of any software you need to do your job, I never knew anyone running XP (or 2k, or for that matter NT 3.x) who in a day-to-day fashion used a Standard user account.
Of course, I don't know of any Linux distribution that doesn't require root to install system wide software either. Kind of negates your point there...
In contrast, an "Administrator" account on OS X was in reality a limited user account, just with some system-level privileges like being able to install apps that other people could run. A "Standard" user account was far more usable on OS X than the equivalent on Windows, because "Standard" users could install software into their user sandbox, etc. Still, most people I know run OS X as Administrator.
You could do the same as far back as Windows NT 3.1 in 1993. The fact that most software vendors wrote their applications for the non-secure DOS based versions of Windows is moot, that is not a problem of the OS's security model, it is a problem of the Application. This is not "Unix security" being better, it's "Software vendors for Windows" being dumber.
It's no different than if instead of writing my preferences to $HOME/.myapp/ I'd write a software that required writing everything to /usr/share/myapp/username/. That would require root in any decent Unix installation, or it would require me to set permissions on that folder to 775 and make all users of myapp part of the owning group. Or I could just go the lazy route, make the binary 4755 and set mount opts to suid on the filesystem where this binary resides... (ugh...).
This is no different on Windows NT based architectures. If you were so inclined, with tools like Filemon and Regmon, you could granularly set permissions in a way to install these misbehaving software so that they would work for regular users.
I know I did many times in a past life (back when I was sort of forced to do Windows systems administration... ugh... Windows NT 4.0 Terminal Server edition... what a wreck...).
Let's face it, Windows NT and Unix systems have very similar security models (in fact, Windows NT has superior ACL support out of the box, akin to Novell's close to perfect ACLs, Unix is far more limited with it's read/write/execute permission scheme, even with Posix ACLs in place). It's the hoops that software vendors outside the control of Microsoft made you go through that forced lazy users to run as Administrator all the time and gave Microsoft such headaches.
As far back as I remember (when I did some Windows systems programming), Microsoft was already advising to use the user's home folder/the user's registry hive for preferences and to never write to system locations.
The real differenc, though, is that an NT Administrator was really equivalent to the Unix root account. An OS X Administrator was a Unix non-root user with 'admin' group access. You could not start up the UI as the 'root' user (and the 'root' account was disabled by default).
Actually, the Administrator account (much less a standard user in the Administrators group) is not a root level account at all.
Notice how a root account on Unix can do everything, just by virtue of its 0 uid. It can write/delete/read files from filesystems it does not even have permissions on. It can kill any system process, no matter the owner.
Administrator on Windows NT is far more limited. Don't ever break your ACLs or don't try to kill processes owned by "System". SysInternals provided tools that let you do it, but Microsoft did not.
All that having been said, UAC has really evened the bar for Windows Vista and 7 (moreso in 7 after the usability tweaks Microsoft put in to stop people from disabling it). I see no functional security difference between the OS X authorization scheme and the Windows UAC scheme.
UAC is simply a gui front-end to the runas command. Heck, shift-right-click already had the "Run As" option. It's a glorified sudo. It uses RDP (since Vista, user sessions are really local RDP sessions) to prevent being able to "fake it", by showing up on the "console" session while the user's display resides on a RDP session.
There, you did it, you made me go on a defensive rant for Microsoft. I hate you now.
My response, why bother worrying about this when the attacker can do the same thing via shellcode generated in the background by exploiting a running process so the the user is unaware that code is being executed on the system
Because this required no particular exploit or vulnerability. A simple Javascript auto-download and Safari auto-opening an archive and running code.
Why bother, you're not "getting it". The only reason the user is aware of MACDefender is because it runs a GUI based installer. If the executable had had 0 GUI code and just run stuff in the background, you would have never known until you couldn't find your files or some chinese guy was buying goods with your CC info, fished right out of your "Bank stuff.xls" file.
That's the thing, infecting a computer at the system level is fine if you want to build a DoS botnet or something (and even then, you don't really need privilege escalation for that, just set login items for the current user, and run off a non-privilege port, root privileges are not required for ICMP access, only raw sockets).
These days, malware authors and users are much more interested in your data than your system. That's where the money is. Identity theft, phishing, they mean big bucks.
Of course, I don't know of any Linux distribution that doesn't require root to install system wide software either. Kind of negates your point there...
In contrast, an "Administrator" account on OS X was in reality a limited user account, just with some system-level privileges like being able to install apps that other people could run. A "Standard" user account was far more usable on OS X than the equivalent on Windows, because "Standard" users could install software into their user sandbox, etc. Still, most people I know run OS X as Administrator.
You could do the same as far back as Windows NT 3.1 in 1993. The fact that most software vendors wrote their applications for the non-secure DOS based versions of Windows is moot, that is not a problem of the OS's security model, it is a problem of the Application. This is not "Unix security" being better, it's "Software vendors for Windows" being dumber.
It's no different than if instead of writing my preferences to $HOME/.myapp/ I'd write a software that required writing everything to /usr/share/myapp/username/. That would require root in any decent Unix installation, or it would require me to set permissions on that folder to 775 and make all users of myapp part of the owning group. Or I could just go the lazy route, make the binary 4755 and set mount opts to suid on the filesystem where this binary resides... (ugh...).
This is no different on Windows NT based architectures. If you were so inclined, with tools like Filemon and Regmon, you could granularly set permissions in a way to install these misbehaving software so that they would work for regular users.
I know I did many times in a past life (back when I was sort of forced to do Windows systems administration... ugh... Windows NT 4.0 Terminal Server edition... what a wreck...).
Let's face it, Windows NT and Unix systems have very similar security models (in fact, Windows NT has superior ACL support out of the box, akin to Novell's close to perfect ACLs, Unix is far more limited with it's read/write/execute permission scheme, even with Posix ACLs in place). It's the hoops that software vendors outside the control of Microsoft made you go through that forced lazy users to run as Administrator all the time and gave Microsoft such headaches.
As far back as I remember (when I did some Windows systems programming), Microsoft was already advising to use the user's home folder/the user's registry hive for preferences and to never write to system locations.
The real differenc, though, is that an NT Administrator was really equivalent to the Unix root account. An OS X Administrator was a Unix non-root user with 'admin' group access. You could not start up the UI as the 'root' user (and the 'root' account was disabled by default).
Actually, the Administrator account (much less a standard user in the Administrators group) is not a root level account at all.
Notice how a root account on Unix can do everything, just by virtue of its 0 uid. It can write/delete/read files from filesystems it does not even have permissions on. It can kill any system process, no matter the owner.
Administrator on Windows NT is far more limited. Don't ever break your ACLs or don't try to kill processes owned by "System". SysInternals provided tools that let you do it, but Microsoft did not.
All that having been said, UAC has really evened the bar for Windows Vista and 7 (moreso in 7 after the usability tweaks Microsoft put in to stop people from disabling it). I see no functional security difference between the OS X authorization scheme and the Windows UAC scheme.
UAC is simply a gui front-end to the runas command. Heck, shift-right-click already had the "Run As" option. It's a glorified sudo. It uses RDP (since Vista, user sessions are really local RDP sessions) to prevent being able to "fake it", by showing up on the "console" session while the user's display resides on a RDP session.
There, you did it, you made me go on a defensive rant for Microsoft. I hate you now.
My response, why bother worrying about this when the attacker can do the same thing via shellcode generated in the background by exploiting a running process so the the user is unaware that code is being executed on the system
Because this required no particular exploit or vulnerability. A simple Javascript auto-download and Safari auto-opening an archive and running code.
Why bother, you're not "getting it". The only reason the user is aware of MACDefender is because it runs a GUI based installer. If the executable had had 0 GUI code and just run stuff in the background, you would have never known until you couldn't find your files or some chinese guy was buying goods with your CC info, fished right out of your "Bank stuff.xls" file.
That's the thing, infecting a computer at the system level is fine if you want to build a DoS botnet or something (and even then, you don't really need privilege escalation for that, just set login items for the current user, and run off a non-privilege port, root privileges are not required for ICMP access, only raw sockets).
These days, malware authors and users are much more interested in your data than your system. That's where the money is. Identity theft, phishing, they mean big bucks.
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.
Sounds Good
Apr 6, 08:22 AM
Good stuff, Spaceman, very helpful.
Question: where can I go online to learn about some of these "more advanced" things? Not just the basic "Why a Mac?" videos, but the good stuff.
Question: where can I go online to learn about some of these "more advanced" things? Not just the basic "Why a Mac?" videos, but the good stuff.
WiiDSmoker
Apr 20, 09:31 PM
No, of course not. I just find it interesting that someone who clearly dislikes a company and its products so much has so much free time to spend on a board for people who do enjoy said company and products.
So this site is for fanboys only?
So this site is for fanboys only?
noservice2001
Sep 26, 01:32 AM
so can i expect a quad core macbook pro soon?
Object-X
Sep 12, 05:27 PM
I really don't understand all the comments about why doesn't it have a DVD player, or it doesn't have Tivo capabilities, ect. I really think you all are missing the point: it is designed to eventually replace all those technologies. OK, it doesnt' do it yet, but Jobs said something very important at the end of the keynote, and that was "you can see the direction we are heading".
The whole concept here is to make DVD players, recorders, rentals, and even channel viewing irrelevant. You will purchase, subscribe, rent?, and control all media content on your computer and simply stream it to an HDTV.
Does it support HDTV resolutions? Not yet, but I'm sure it will. Remember, iTV is a direction, not the end of the road.
So, the complaints are more or less becaues we are impatient and want it all now. This is just a start. If done right, this concept of computer, iTunes Store, and iTV could replace cable and satellite TV service. Why screw around trying to record shows, edit commercials, ect. when you can just get and control your content easily and simply with your computer?
I like this whole idea. I can see cable news channels offering their content via TVcasts that you can subscribe too, and other network channels offering their media libraries for download or even rental; and the iTunes Store will basically act as the purchasing hub. Want Monday nights football game? Just subscribe to it on iTunes and it will download automatically and you can watch it whenever. Who needs Tivo? Don't need 200 channels of crap? Just download the stuff you want to watch and have your own media library. Who needs cable and commercials?
The whole concept here is to make DVD players, recorders, rentals, and even channel viewing irrelevant. You will purchase, subscribe, rent?, and control all media content on your computer and simply stream it to an HDTV.
Does it support HDTV resolutions? Not yet, but I'm sure it will. Remember, iTV is a direction, not the end of the road.
So, the complaints are more or less becaues we are impatient and want it all now. This is just a start. If done right, this concept of computer, iTunes Store, and iTV could replace cable and satellite TV service. Why screw around trying to record shows, edit commercials, ect. when you can just get and control your content easily and simply with your computer?
I like this whole idea. I can see cable news channels offering their content via TVcasts that you can subscribe too, and other network channels offering their media libraries for download or even rental; and the iTunes Store will basically act as the purchasing hub. Want Monday nights football game? Just subscribe to it on iTunes and it will download automatically and you can watch it whenever. Who needs Tivo? Don't need 200 channels of crap? Just download the stuff you want to watch and have your own media library. Who needs cable and commercials?
Pants
Oct 9, 04:18 AM
Ive been using xp pro for 3 months here at work, and I have to say I'm quietly impressed. Its never crashed, nothing has unepectedly quit (and its running a bunch of custom pci cards, so if ever it was flakey, id have expected it to be so with this rig...). My only complaint is the 'look' of it - osX does look nicer, but then osX is a lot less snappy.
So where does my money go to with Apple? I posses a bunch of apples, and each time I buy a new one i feel a little less 'happy' and a little more like a regular consumer. After all, the days of non proprietory hardware being used in apples are gone - its all usb and firewire (and not even cutting edge usb at that). Some of my reasons for disliking M$ are also beginning to surface with appl� - .mac for a start. What osX has done is open my eyes to using linux at home (or maybe x86 solaris) ...switching? hmmm....
oh, and did anyone mention that apples floating point performance was good? no - its awful!
So where does my money go to with Apple? I posses a bunch of apples, and each time I buy a new one i feel a little less 'happy' and a little more like a regular consumer. After all, the days of non proprietory hardware being used in apples are gone - its all usb and firewire (and not even cutting edge usb at that). Some of my reasons for disliking M$ are also beginning to surface with appl� - .mac for a start. What osX has done is open my eyes to using linux at home (or maybe x86 solaris) ...switching? hmmm....
oh, and did anyone mention that apples floating point performance was good? no - its awful!
LightSpeed1
Apr 22, 12:48 AM
It was only a matter of time.
No comments:
Post a Comment