millerb7
May 2, 10:59 AM
Are you sure that is the end of it, just having safe files checked and this thing installs itself? I'm trying to figure out where this is happening (i tested it myself and all it did was unzip the .zip file, it didn't automatically launch the package installer and then click the Install button for me).
I mean your #1 issue is using safari... it sucks for anything of importance anyways besides random basic surfing.
I mean your #1 issue is using safari... it sucks for anything of importance anyways besides random basic surfing.
jasper77
Sep 20, 06:09 AM
Maybe in the future, Apple teams up with Marantz, Onkyo, Rotel and other AV surround reciever manufacturers to built ITV inside their recievers? (like some of them already have ipod dock connectors)
That way you don't need an optical and HDMI cable from ITV to your receiver. you just need 1 HDMI cable to connect your receiver to your HDTV. The ITV is built inside the AV receiver. And you can use the remote from your receiver the control the new front row.
that would be cool :cool:
That way you don't need an optical and HDMI cable from ITV to your receiver. you just need 1 HDMI cable to connect your receiver to your HDTV. The ITV is built inside the AV receiver. And you can use the remote from your receiver the control the new front row.
that would be cool :cool:
iJohnHenry
Mar 14, 11:50 AM
"China syndrome", not "Japan" syndrome.
Silly boy, the Earth's magma would swallow that 'little' pill with no problem.
And gravity has yet to go up. :p LOL
Silly boy, the Earth's magma would swallow that 'little' pill with no problem.
And gravity has yet to go up. :p LOL
superleccy
Sep 20, 06:11 AM
It's also far and away the worst. It's the televisual equivalent of drilling a hole in your skull and pouring pure ethanol into your brain.
Not quite. Having a hole in your skull and a brain full of ethanol is actually a pre-requisite for enjoying ITV.
Not quite. Having a hole in your skull and a brain full of ethanol is actually a pre-requisite for enjoying ITV.
Piggie
Apr 10, 04:46 AM
Trying to use a finger controlled touch screen as the new answer to everything, and young people thinking this is right, in a way reminds me of being at work.
We have a company that's been around for 60 or 70 years and has many systems in place to run smoothly that have been perfected over the decades as proven ways of doing things.
Many years later the original management retire etc, and very young, fresh faced managers straight from school come in, and want to "make their mark" they then set about rubbishing all the "old ways" of doing things, for no really reason other than THEY don't like them, and they are things of the past, hence they must be wrong for just this reason.
Old = Wrong, New = right.
They then implemented for force through their new systems, ignoring people who tell them "this won't work" and "you can't do it like that" as, in these young eyes, these people are just stick in the muds resistant to change.
Move forward a few years of this and everything is a mess, things are way more complicated than they every were, paperwork is much more and things that used to be simple are now causing people all sorts of issues.
But still the young managers refuse to admit they might be wrong and the ways things used to be done were better, and all the "workers" are struggling having the keep the new systems working.
A little like, someone saying, Oh a round steering wheel in a car? How old that design is, it has to be wrong, from now on all our cars won't have steering wheels, that's for old people, we are moving forward to a flat touch screen panel in the car, much more modern, and those people who don't like them, or think a car is harder to control are just old people who can't understand the possibilities that this will bring.
We have a company that's been around for 60 or 70 years and has many systems in place to run smoothly that have been perfected over the decades as proven ways of doing things.
Many years later the original management retire etc, and very young, fresh faced managers straight from school come in, and want to "make their mark" they then set about rubbishing all the "old ways" of doing things, for no really reason other than THEY don't like them, and they are things of the past, hence they must be wrong for just this reason.
Old = Wrong, New = right.
They then implemented for force through their new systems, ignoring people who tell them "this won't work" and "you can't do it like that" as, in these young eyes, these people are just stick in the muds resistant to change.
Move forward a few years of this and everything is a mess, things are way more complicated than they every were, paperwork is much more and things that used to be simple are now causing people all sorts of issues.
But still the young managers refuse to admit they might be wrong and the ways things used to be done were better, and all the "workers" are struggling having the keep the new systems working.
A little like, someone saying, Oh a round steering wheel in a car? How old that design is, it has to be wrong, from now on all our cars won't have steering wheels, that's for old people, we are moving forward to a flat touch screen panel in the car, much more modern, and those people who don't like them, or think a car is harder to control are just old people who can't understand the possibilities that this will bring.
Tobsterius
Apr 13, 04:42 AM
Yes, that was exactly my point. The people who know how to use the software are (sometimes) assistant editors, although I find the vast majority know how to do a few simple things, but do them well.. The original poster was implying you needed to be a hollywood film editor to judge technical capabilities, and I was saying they were the worst choice for just that reason.
The people who know the most about editing systems are the Sr. editors who work on heavy, effects based sequences that work in broadcast production environments (I'm not talking about me here). *They* are the ones who push systems to the limits and *they* are the ones who go to NAB. (They're still only 10% of that room)
I think that most of them will find that Apple has, at present abandoned them. That's not to say the industry won't shift, and there won't be enough 3rd party solutions out there, but they are throwing Avid a HUGE bone here.
FCP was making big inroads into broadcast, and they're throwing it away-- for today certainly.
Filmwise, could go either way, depending on the production. If it's got great RED/4k performance, "film" support isn't so important..
But for the indie crowd, they're really screwing them over, if they are abandoning Color. *THAT* is what shocked me. I'm also surprised that effects weren't more advanced. I couldn't see anything on a titling tool, but that's pretty imporant for Broadcast as well.. and *no* existing solution is good for that... They really had (have?) a chance to make that right, and it seems they don't care.
So, when I say "iMovie Pro" that isn't necessarily pejorative. This product is WAY, WAY, WAY more iMovie than FCP. That doesn't mean you can't cut "a real movie" on it. But for Broadcast TV, it's a real step down in a lot of ways-- at the very least not a step up.. The interface is very iMovie. They should have called it iMovie PRO, especially if they're getting rid of the rest of the FCS apps..
Now if it turns out this is just the tip of the iceberg-- then we really could be in for a treat.
Dead on.
There is of course, a lot of questions left unanswered and X, from what I've gathered, is very much is a step down. Where's the viewer? How accurate is this 'skimming' feature? Is it as annoying as the skimming feature in iMovie?
Was trim mode improved? from what I've seen, it looks dumbed down; even more simplified than what is the current version of FCP.
Does multi-camera editing still exist?
Where are the video scopes?
Dual monitor support?
ability to open multiple projects and time lines? And for that matter, what about timeline nesting? I know they've addressed this with this 'compound clips' but can I still take one timeline and drop it into another like I can in FCP 7?
Custom keyboard mapping?
What about the slew of third party plugins and filters I've spent money on? Will they still work?
Can I still capture tape or has Apple decided (like they have with DVDs) that tape is dead?
I think that this can go on and on.
As a long time professional FCP editor, I'm worried. Not because of change-- I like change. What I hate is when they change things and feel as if they need to reinvent how editors and editing have functioned for decades.
The people who know the most about editing systems are the Sr. editors who work on heavy, effects based sequences that work in broadcast production environments (I'm not talking about me here). *They* are the ones who push systems to the limits and *they* are the ones who go to NAB. (They're still only 10% of that room)
I think that most of them will find that Apple has, at present abandoned them. That's not to say the industry won't shift, and there won't be enough 3rd party solutions out there, but they are throwing Avid a HUGE bone here.
FCP was making big inroads into broadcast, and they're throwing it away-- for today certainly.
Filmwise, could go either way, depending on the production. If it's got great RED/4k performance, "film" support isn't so important..
But for the indie crowd, they're really screwing them over, if they are abandoning Color. *THAT* is what shocked me. I'm also surprised that effects weren't more advanced. I couldn't see anything on a titling tool, but that's pretty imporant for Broadcast as well.. and *no* existing solution is good for that... They really had (have?) a chance to make that right, and it seems they don't care.
So, when I say "iMovie Pro" that isn't necessarily pejorative. This product is WAY, WAY, WAY more iMovie than FCP. That doesn't mean you can't cut "a real movie" on it. But for Broadcast TV, it's a real step down in a lot of ways-- at the very least not a step up.. The interface is very iMovie. They should have called it iMovie PRO, especially if they're getting rid of the rest of the FCS apps..
Now if it turns out this is just the tip of the iceberg-- then we really could be in for a treat.
Dead on.
There is of course, a lot of questions left unanswered and X, from what I've gathered, is very much is a step down. Where's the viewer? How accurate is this 'skimming' feature? Is it as annoying as the skimming feature in iMovie?
Was trim mode improved? from what I've seen, it looks dumbed down; even more simplified than what is the current version of FCP.
Does multi-camera editing still exist?
Where are the video scopes?
Dual monitor support?
ability to open multiple projects and time lines? And for that matter, what about timeline nesting? I know they've addressed this with this 'compound clips' but can I still take one timeline and drop it into another like I can in FCP 7?
Custom keyboard mapping?
What about the slew of third party plugins and filters I've spent money on? Will they still work?
Can I still capture tape or has Apple decided (like they have with DVDs) that tape is dead?
I think that this can go on and on.
As a long time professional FCP editor, I'm worried. Not because of change-- I like change. What I hate is when they change things and feel as if they need to reinvent how editors and editing have functioned for decades.
R.Perez
Mar 13, 04:00 PM
The biggest wind farm in the world provides around 2MW/km^2. Your 100milesX100miles plant would only provide around 52 000MW (52GW) of power with same ratio. USA's power consumption in 2005 was 29PWh. I don't know how exactly this things can be converted but Fukushima I has installed power of 4.7GW and provides 25.8GWh each year while the biggest wind farm has installed capacity of 781MW. The plant you described would be around 10 times more powerful than the Fukushima but even then, it could provide around 250GWh which is a fraction of 29PWh.
If someone knows how to convert these things properly or has more info on this, please educate me/us.
Did I say at any point time that we should rely on just wind? or solar, or tidal for that matter? A combination of all three is in order here. On top of that re-thinking infrastructure so that at least some of the power can be generated from the home or building itself is in order. i.e. putting solar panels on all new construction. This would reduce the amount of energy needed from centralized sources. Also shifting towards smarter energy consumption would help as well, i.e. using geo-thermal to generate heat instead of oil or electricity and mandating more efficient lightbulbs and appliances.
If someone knows how to convert these things properly or has more info on this, please educate me/us.
Did I say at any point time that we should rely on just wind? or solar, or tidal for that matter? A combination of all three is in order here. On top of that re-thinking infrastructure so that at least some of the power can be generated from the home or building itself is in order. i.e. putting solar panels on all new construction. This would reduce the amount of energy needed from centralized sources. Also shifting towards smarter energy consumption would help as well, i.e. using geo-thermal to generate heat instead of oil or electricity and mandating more efficient lightbulbs and appliances.
ffakr
Oct 6, 12:00 AM
I must love punishment because I scanned this whole tread. We need some sort system to gather the correct info into one location. :-)
Multimedia, you're so far out of mainstream that your comments make no sense to all but .01 % of computer users.
Seriously.. Most people don't rip 4 videos to h264 while they are creating 4 disk images and browsing the web.
I work at a wealthy research university, I set up a new mac every week (and too many PCs). A 1st Gen dual 2.0 G5 is plenty fast for nearly all users. I'm still surprised how nice ours runs considering it's 3 years old. In my experience the dual cores are more responsive (UI latency) but a slightly faster dual proc will run intensive tasks faster.
The reality is, a dual core system.. any current dual core system.. is a fantastic machine for 95% of computer users. The Core2 Duo (Merom) iMacs are extermely fast. The 24" iMac with 2GB ram runs nearly everything instantaneously.
The dual dual-core systems are rediculously fast. Iv'e set up several 2.66GHz models and I had to invent tasks to slow the thing down. Ripping DVD to h264 does take some time with handbrake (half playback speed ((that's ripping 1hour of DVD in 30 minutes) but the machine is still very responsive while you're doing that, installing software, and having Mathematica calculate Pi to 100,000 places. During normal use (Office, web, mail, chats...) it's unusual to see any of the cpu cores bump up past 20%.
I'm sure Apple will have 4 core cpus eventually but I don't expect it will happen immediately. Maybe they'll have one top end version but it'd certainly be a mistake to move the line to all quad cores.
Here's the reality...
- fewer cores running faster will be much better for most people
- there are relatively few tasks that really lend themselves to massively parallelizaton well. Video and Image editing are obvious because there are a number of ways to slice jobs up (render multiple frames.. break images into sections, modify in parallel, reassemble...).
- though multimedia is an Apple core market.. not everyone runs a full video shop or rending farm off of one desktop computer. Seriously guys, we don't.
- Games are especially difficult to thread for SMP systems. Even games that do support SMP like Quake and UT do it fairly poorly. UT only splits off audio work on to the 2nd cpu. The real time nature of games means you can't have 7 or 8 independent threads on an 8 core systems without running into issues were the game hangs up on a lagging thread. They simply work better in a more serial paradigm.
- The first quad core chips will be much hotter than current Core2 chips. Most people.. even people who want the power of towers.. don't want a desktop machine that actually pulls 600W from the wall because of the two 120-130W cpus inside. also, goodby silent MacPros in this config.
- The systems will be far too I/O bound in an 8 core system. The memory system does have lots of bandwith but the benchmarks indicate it will be bus and memory constrained. It'll certainly be hard to feed data from the SATA drives unless you've got gobs of memory and your not working on large streams of data (like video).
http://www.tomshardware.com/2006/09/10/four_cores_on_the_rampage/
Finally, Apple's all about the perception. Apple has held back cpu releases because they wouldn't let a lower end cpu clock higher than a higher end chip. They did it with PPC 603&604 and I think they did it with G3 & G4.
It's against everything Apple's ever done to have 3.0 GHz dual dual-core towers in the mid range and 2.33GHz quad-core cpus in the high end.
I see some options here..
Maybe we'll get the dual 2.66 quad cores in one high end system. The price will go up.
Alternately.. this could finally be a rumored Mac Station.. or.. Apple has yet to announce a cluster node version of the intel XServe.
Geez.. almost forgot.
For most people... the Core2 desktop systems bench better than the 4core systems or even the dual Core2 Xeon systems because the DDR2 is lower latency than the FBDIMMs. To all the gamers.. you don't want slower clocked quad core chips.. not even on the desktop. You want a speed bump of the Core2 Duo.
Multimedia, you're so far out of mainstream that your comments make no sense to all but .01 % of computer users.
Seriously.. Most people don't rip 4 videos to h264 while they are creating 4 disk images and browsing the web.
I work at a wealthy research university, I set up a new mac every week (and too many PCs). A 1st Gen dual 2.0 G5 is plenty fast for nearly all users. I'm still surprised how nice ours runs considering it's 3 years old. In my experience the dual cores are more responsive (UI latency) but a slightly faster dual proc will run intensive tasks faster.
The reality is, a dual core system.. any current dual core system.. is a fantastic machine for 95% of computer users. The Core2 Duo (Merom) iMacs are extermely fast. The 24" iMac with 2GB ram runs nearly everything instantaneously.
The dual dual-core systems are rediculously fast. Iv'e set up several 2.66GHz models and I had to invent tasks to slow the thing down. Ripping DVD to h264 does take some time with handbrake (half playback speed ((that's ripping 1hour of DVD in 30 minutes) but the machine is still very responsive while you're doing that, installing software, and having Mathematica calculate Pi to 100,000 places. During normal use (Office, web, mail, chats...) it's unusual to see any of the cpu cores bump up past 20%.
I'm sure Apple will have 4 core cpus eventually but I don't expect it will happen immediately. Maybe they'll have one top end version but it'd certainly be a mistake to move the line to all quad cores.
Here's the reality...
- fewer cores running faster will be much better for most people
- there are relatively few tasks that really lend themselves to massively parallelizaton well. Video and Image editing are obvious because there are a number of ways to slice jobs up (render multiple frames.. break images into sections, modify in parallel, reassemble...).
- though multimedia is an Apple core market.. not everyone runs a full video shop or rending farm off of one desktop computer. Seriously guys, we don't.
- Games are especially difficult to thread for SMP systems. Even games that do support SMP like Quake and UT do it fairly poorly. UT only splits off audio work on to the 2nd cpu. The real time nature of games means you can't have 7 or 8 independent threads on an 8 core systems without running into issues were the game hangs up on a lagging thread. They simply work better in a more serial paradigm.
- The first quad core chips will be much hotter than current Core2 chips. Most people.. even people who want the power of towers.. don't want a desktop machine that actually pulls 600W from the wall because of the two 120-130W cpus inside. also, goodby silent MacPros in this config.
- The systems will be far too I/O bound in an 8 core system. The memory system does have lots of bandwith but the benchmarks indicate it will be bus and memory constrained. It'll certainly be hard to feed data from the SATA drives unless you've got gobs of memory and your not working on large streams of data (like video).
http://www.tomshardware.com/2006/09/10/four_cores_on_the_rampage/
Finally, Apple's all about the perception. Apple has held back cpu releases because they wouldn't let a lower end cpu clock higher than a higher end chip. They did it with PPC 603&604 and I think they did it with G3 & G4.
It's against everything Apple's ever done to have 3.0 GHz dual dual-core towers in the mid range and 2.33GHz quad-core cpus in the high end.
I see some options here..
Maybe we'll get the dual 2.66 quad cores in one high end system. The price will go up.
Alternately.. this could finally be a rumored Mac Station.. or.. Apple has yet to announce a cluster node version of the intel XServe.
Geez.. almost forgot.
For most people... the Core2 desktop systems bench better than the 4core systems or even the dual Core2 Xeon systems because the DDR2 is lower latency than the FBDIMMs. To all the gamers.. you don't want slower clocked quad core chips.. not even on the desktop. You want a speed bump of the Core2 Duo.
lilo777
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.
Stranger things happen. I just like the company (as in forum members, not Apple). ;)
Stranger things happen. I just like the company (as in forum members, not Apple). ;)
DakotaGuy
Oct 8, 08:47 PM
Who really gives a damn?
I would rather be sitting at my "old" iMac DV with a sllllloooow 400Mhz G3 then my buddies new 2. whatever GHz Wintel computer. Why you might ask? Because mine works and works right everytime. He has already had his back to the store 3 times for service and faulty components, not to mention problems with XP. In fact, I can get more done in less time, because I have never experienced any downtime with my Mac. For the last 3 years it has never failed me once, never re-loaded the OS only upgraded it, and never had any hardware problems. Everyone says Apple's hardware is junk because it is not as fast. Okay so maybe you can buy a cheap PC with 2 million GHz, but I can tell you in the end the Apple will outlast it and be more productive.
Downtime and OS problems cause a lot more downtime, then a couple of seconds here and there. You complain about Mac speed, but what if, like most PC's Apple only cared about speed and not overall hardware and software quality...all we would have is a fast POS IMHO.
So as I might get flamed for this post, get off Apple's back. Their products are not the pieces of crap everyone on here tries to make them out to be. You pay more for Apple because they don't sacrifice quality. If you want only speed and don't care about software, OS, or hardware quality, then why are you here??? Get a cheapo PC. The new Macs are not slow computers, sure there are some PC's that are a little faster and win the old GHz race, but when you make a purchase you have to look at the entire picture. Look at everything the machine offers, value, quality, style, longevity, productivity, etc... Apple is better.
I would rather be sitting at my "old" iMac DV with a sllllloooow 400Mhz G3 then my buddies new 2. whatever GHz Wintel computer. Why you might ask? Because mine works and works right everytime. He has already had his back to the store 3 times for service and faulty components, not to mention problems with XP. In fact, I can get more done in less time, because I have never experienced any downtime with my Mac. For the last 3 years it has never failed me once, never re-loaded the OS only upgraded it, and never had any hardware problems. Everyone says Apple's hardware is junk because it is not as fast. Okay so maybe you can buy a cheap PC with 2 million GHz, but I can tell you in the end the Apple will outlast it and be more productive.
Downtime and OS problems cause a lot more downtime, then a couple of seconds here and there. You complain about Mac speed, but what if, like most PC's Apple only cared about speed and not overall hardware and software quality...all we would have is a fast POS IMHO.
So as I might get flamed for this post, get off Apple's back. Their products are not the pieces of crap everyone on here tries to make them out to be. You pay more for Apple because they don't sacrifice quality. If you want only speed and don't care about software, OS, or hardware quality, then why are you here??? Get a cheapo PC. The new Macs are not slow computers, sure there are some PC's that are a little faster and win the old GHz race, but when you make a purchase you have to look at the entire picture. Look at everything the machine offers, value, quality, style, longevity, productivity, etc... Apple is better.
SamEdwards
May 13, 05:45 PM
I was looking into the MicroCell because I get tons of dropped calls in my apartment even though I have 4/5 bars. The AT&T employee told me that the Edge network is much less crowded in our area, Santa Monica, CA so you get far less dropped calls. Go to /settings/general/network and turn 'Enable 3G' off.
So far so good.
Since the majority of my problems are at home and I have wifi here it's a reasonable short term solution while they build more towers in our area later this year. Of course I can always turn 3G back on when I'm away from home and want to use the internet capabilities of the phone.
Love to know how it works for others.
Cheers,
Sam
So far so good.
Since the majority of my problems are at home and I have wifi here it's a reasonable short term solution while they build more towers in our area later this year. Of course I can always turn 3G back on when I'm away from home and want to use the internet capabilities of the phone.
Love to know how it works for others.
Cheers,
Sam
r0k
Apr 5, 09:48 PM
For a while I used pathfinder more than the built in finder. It was my "crutch" going from Windows to OS X.
BTW, if you click an item in a long finder list, then hold shift and click an item near the bottom, everything in between gets selected.
I absolutely hated the start menu because the IT knuckleheads at our office had it so badly messed up, it would often take 90 seconds to load the list of programs after I clicked on it. What I like on OS X that beats windows with a stick is Spotlight. You click the magnifying glass and type the first few characters of a command and it is already highlighted and if you hit enter it opens. The closest thing to this on windows was freeware called "launchy" that ran like an old slow mangy dog.
Of course there's (rare) times Spotlight gets slow. It happened earlier this evening. I got tired of force closing things so I just rebooted and now all is well. Another annoyance is that darned time machine that spins whenever I want to do some work. I've put it on a strict schedule (using time machine editor.app) and it only runs at 2 in the morning while I'm asleep and 2 in the afternoon while I'm gone to work.
I sometimes get tired of missing a "cut" function in finder. I still kind of miss explorer for dealing with files but I don't miss the slow response and lack of a credible quick view. BTW, after spotlight, quick view has to be the second best feature of OS X. Rapid, and I do mean rapid previews of almost every type of file in existence. Very nice. Next is preview. I know, it sounds like quick view but preview is actually like adobe acrobat reader for OSX (but it does a lot more and handles more than just pdf files). Don't dirty up your Mac with adobe reader when you have preview. Preview can mark up pdf files, move pages from one pdf to another. Very nice and it came free with the os.
I have mixed feelings about iTunes and iPhoto. They have their good points but they both can get very slow at times. Whatever you do, don't let iTunes or iPhoto copy files to their respective libraries unless you want to create monster files. At one time my iPhoto library was 67 gig. Now it's a somewhat more manageable 5 gig but it contains metadata (faces and places and etc) for about 100 gigs of photos.
Don't depend solely on Time Machine. Manually copy stuff you care about to another location such as dropbox or mobile me.
One thing that's a bit annoying is the single button mouse (even if it's smart enough to respond to right clicks). Don't bother with Apple mice. They are nice but I could never quite get used to them. I have logitech V470 bluetooth mice on my windows box at work and my Macbook at home.
Customization? Skins? There are some settings in system preferences and there are a lot of third party programs for things like reskinning the dock. I've decide all that stuff is a distraction. OS X isn't perfect but it works well as designed by Apple and I no longer feel the need to re-skin it. That's a windows habit that died hard. I could make my Linux and Windows boxes look like OS X but not vice versa. But you know what? That's where the similarity would end. OS X is so much nicer I have no desire to make it look like one of those other OS.
Add/Remove programs? That's what the trash basket is for. Simply drag something.app from Applications to the trash and it's (mostly) gone. There will sometimes be a few plist files left lying around but I don't think it's nearly as bad a mess as the windows registry.
Maximizing is one of my least favorite things about windows. The last time I wanted to do one thing at a time was when I was running DOS 6.22.
I never close windows to quit apps any more. I've gotten used to going to firefox->quit firefox rather than leaving bits of the program running in memory.
@toxic: How is a journaling filesystem like HFS+ prone to corruption? To me, it's every bit as good as EXT3 or NTFS and all 3 are better than FAT 32. I immediately reformat any external drives to HFS (journaled) before using them for the first time. I leave usb sticks alone as fat32 is good enough for them and I want to be able to view stuff on both windows and OS X on usb sticks.
BTW, if you click an item in a long finder list, then hold shift and click an item near the bottom, everything in between gets selected.
I absolutely hated the start menu because the IT knuckleheads at our office had it so badly messed up, it would often take 90 seconds to load the list of programs after I clicked on it. What I like on OS X that beats windows with a stick is Spotlight. You click the magnifying glass and type the first few characters of a command and it is already highlighted and if you hit enter it opens. The closest thing to this on windows was freeware called "launchy" that ran like an old slow mangy dog.
Of course there's (rare) times Spotlight gets slow. It happened earlier this evening. I got tired of force closing things so I just rebooted and now all is well. Another annoyance is that darned time machine that spins whenever I want to do some work. I've put it on a strict schedule (using time machine editor.app) and it only runs at 2 in the morning while I'm asleep and 2 in the afternoon while I'm gone to work.
I sometimes get tired of missing a "cut" function in finder. I still kind of miss explorer for dealing with files but I don't miss the slow response and lack of a credible quick view. BTW, after spotlight, quick view has to be the second best feature of OS X. Rapid, and I do mean rapid previews of almost every type of file in existence. Very nice. Next is preview. I know, it sounds like quick view but preview is actually like adobe acrobat reader for OSX (but it does a lot more and handles more than just pdf files). Don't dirty up your Mac with adobe reader when you have preview. Preview can mark up pdf files, move pages from one pdf to another. Very nice and it came free with the os.
I have mixed feelings about iTunes and iPhoto. They have their good points but they both can get very slow at times. Whatever you do, don't let iTunes or iPhoto copy files to their respective libraries unless you want to create monster files. At one time my iPhoto library was 67 gig. Now it's a somewhat more manageable 5 gig but it contains metadata (faces and places and etc) for about 100 gigs of photos.
Don't depend solely on Time Machine. Manually copy stuff you care about to another location such as dropbox or mobile me.
One thing that's a bit annoying is the single button mouse (even if it's smart enough to respond to right clicks). Don't bother with Apple mice. They are nice but I could never quite get used to them. I have logitech V470 bluetooth mice on my windows box at work and my Macbook at home.
Customization? Skins? There are some settings in system preferences and there are a lot of third party programs for things like reskinning the dock. I've decide all that stuff is a distraction. OS X isn't perfect but it works well as designed by Apple and I no longer feel the need to re-skin it. That's a windows habit that died hard. I could make my Linux and Windows boxes look like OS X but not vice versa. But you know what? That's where the similarity would end. OS X is so much nicer I have no desire to make it look like one of those other OS.
Add/Remove programs? That's what the trash basket is for. Simply drag something.app from Applications to the trash and it's (mostly) gone. There will sometimes be a few plist files left lying around but I don't think it's nearly as bad a mess as the windows registry.
Maximizing is one of my least favorite things about windows. The last time I wanted to do one thing at a time was when I was running DOS 6.22.
I never close windows to quit apps any more. I've gotten used to going to firefox->quit firefox rather than leaving bits of the program running in memory.
@toxic: How is a journaling filesystem like HFS+ prone to corruption? To me, it's every bit as good as EXT3 or NTFS and all 3 are better than FAT 32. I immediately reformat any external drives to HFS (journaled) before using them for the first time. I leave usb sticks alone as fat32 is good enough for them and I want to be able to view stuff on both windows and OS X on usb sticks.
Dr.Gargoyle
Aug 29, 02:45 PM
Notice the words "indirectly" and "thousands" in my post, not "directly" and "millions." You are correct that GM foods will not save Africa, and also correct that African goverments are as corrupt as they come.
But you're wrong to think that genetically-altered foods won't help, especially if administed by multi-national organizations, and NOT African governemtns.
It might help starving Africans, but we could also screw up our genetical inheritance royally. Cross breeding is a problem we know too little about.
But you're wrong to think that genetically-altered foods won't help, especially if administed by multi-national organizations, and NOT African governemtns.
It might help starving Africans, but we could also screw up our genetical inheritance royally. Cross breeding is a problem we know too little about.
emotion
Sep 20, 09:05 AM
Slightly OT but bear with me.
The Topfield TF5800 (see above) isn't fully HD capable but it's technically possible that it can record HD streams for use on your computer.
In this instance the iTV would be very useful (back on topic now :) ).
The Topfield TF5800 (see above) isn't fully HD capable but it's technically possible that it can record HD streams for use on your computer.
In this instance the iTV would be very useful (back on topic now :) ).
emotion
Sep 20, 09:47 AM
I'm wondering why they couldn't/wouldn't just combine the mini and the iTV into a single unit. The mini's size could allow for a DVD slot/player/burner and maybe even allow for the Mac OS in the box, so you don't need another computer to stream your media from. In fact, I assumed that was what the Mini was ultimately destined for anyway.
Thoughts?
What do you thnk the iTV offers that a Mini doesn't? I'm not sure it offers anything other than freeing the Mini so it can be used as a computer in front of a computer monitor somewhere else (which is apparently Jobs' view of where a computer should be).
I might have the wrong end of the stick though.
Thoughts?
What do you thnk the iTV offers that a Mini doesn't? I'm not sure it offers anything other than freeing the Mini so it can be used as a computer in front of a computer monitor somewhere else (which is apparently Jobs' view of where a computer should be).
I might have the wrong end of the stick though.
Chupa Chupa
Apr 13, 05:53 AM
Unfortunately, its already the case. When the DTP kicked in Apple was all pro and nothing else. Apple was for media creators and scientists. Now its the opposite.
That is a bit of a retelling of history.
When DTP kicked in in the late 80s, early 90s's, Jobs was already out of Apple and Apple started it's slow, painful downslide. The publishing and scientific markets were the only ones Apple had, not because that was Apple's stated mission, but because it was its lifeline, and mostly because Pagemaker, then Photoshop & Quark, on the Mac was superior to the Windows version. (Quark was Mac only for a couple years)
Apple badly botched the consumer market in the '90s by making 1001 Performa desktops confusing just about everyone, plus Macs were 2x more expensive than PCs with 1/2 of the popular s/w titles. Apple wanted this market, it just didn't know how to capture it and make a profit.
Every long time Apple follower knows that Jobs original mission for Apple, and especially the Mac, was to produce a computer for "the rest of us." Jobs has always been about making computing simpler and more refined. He did not set out to serve the pro community.
Lets dismiss these myths, and brush off the snobbery, contending that Apple was originally built to cater to the pro community and it sold out. That has never been its mission. It makes products that pros like, but it is a consumer electronics company, just like Sony or Panasonic, or Canon or Nikon, etc., etc.
That is a bit of a retelling of history.
When DTP kicked in in the late 80s, early 90s's, Jobs was already out of Apple and Apple started it's slow, painful downslide. The publishing and scientific markets were the only ones Apple had, not because that was Apple's stated mission, but because it was its lifeline, and mostly because Pagemaker, then Photoshop & Quark, on the Mac was superior to the Windows version. (Quark was Mac only for a couple years)
Apple badly botched the consumer market in the '90s by making 1001 Performa desktops confusing just about everyone, plus Macs were 2x more expensive than PCs with 1/2 of the popular s/w titles. Apple wanted this market, it just didn't know how to capture it and make a profit.
Every long time Apple follower knows that Jobs original mission for Apple, and especially the Mac, was to produce a computer for "the rest of us." Jobs has always been about making computing simpler and more refined. He did not set out to serve the pro community.
Lets dismiss these myths, and brush off the snobbery, contending that Apple was originally built to cater to the pro community and it sold out. That has never been its mission. It makes products that pros like, but it is a consumer electronics company, just like Sony or Panasonic, or Canon or Nikon, etc., etc.
rxse7en
Oct 11, 01:46 PM
I have the 24 left of the 20. Way cooler for a total of 3520 x 1200.No. I think the line will stay the way it is adding 2.33GHz + 800 and 2.66GHz + $1500 Clovertown options in the Processor section on the configure page. That way according to your type of workload style you can choose between 4 faster cores if you do less multi-threaded work vs 8 slower cores if you are all about a Multi-Threaded Workload.I can't stand less than 1200 high. You know Dell monitors rotate too and rotation is supported with ATI Video cards but not NVIDEA.Link please? Never mind I found it with Google.
I can only hope that CS3 will be processor aware. I'm dying out here with CS2 under Rosetta. Has Intel announced a speed bump on Woodcrest yet?
B
I can only hope that CS3 will be processor aware. I'm dying out here with CS2 under Rosetta. Has Intel announced a speed bump on Woodcrest yet?
B
alexdrinan
Jul 12, 04:04 PM
Exactly. Numerous people have tried to explain that Merom, Conroe and Woodcrest basically are the same CPU, yet few people seem to have understood it yet. The differences between the parts are almost exclusively external (or atleast not related to the execution core), like socket and FSB frequency. The core architecture has even been said by Intel reps to be the same. The only reason for a Woodcrest CPU to perform better than a Conroe (the non-Extreme edition) would be because of the slightly faster FSB. This advantage could soon be negated by the use of FB-DIMMs.
So, why get so worked up over this?
Even if the internal architecture of the two chips is the same, a Dual 3.0ghz Woodcrest configuration is still going to outperform a Single 2.66ghz Conroe. While Conroe might be very good, it's not the best, which is what pro customer's expect from Apple's highest-end workstation offering.
So, why get so worked up over this?
Even if the internal architecture of the two chips is the same, a Dual 3.0ghz Woodcrest configuration is still going to outperform a Single 2.66ghz Conroe. While Conroe might be very good, it's not the best, which is what pro customer's expect from Apple's highest-end workstation offering.
Huntn
Mar 13, 08:00 AM
The disaster in Japan is prompting this thread (obviously). I remember when nuclear power was described as the answer to all of our problems. I turned against Nuclear when I realized there was a waste problem, a tremendous problem that won't go away for over a thousand years. My understanding is that there might be a way to recycle nuclear waste, but the U.S. does not recycle nuclear fuel for "economic and security" reasons. I remember reading something about it, that used/recycled fuel could be used as a bomb. Then there are those ten thousand barrels of waste that nobody, especially Nevada do not want. If you look at France a substantial player in nuclear power, they have a "not in my backyard" problem. Throw in unpredictable events such as tsunamis, earthquakes, and terrorist events and nuclear does not seem all that wonderful to me.
Counter views?
Counter views?
Sheebahawk
Aug 29, 02:16 PM
that needs to be accounted for... the lifespan of an apple computer. Its about 3 times that of a dell, at least in my experiance. I've saved all my old macs cuz they still work.
neilp4453
Feb 12, 03:14 AM
All I'm going to say is that Apple isn't doing enough to keep iPhone users...well, iPhone users!
Two of my cousins now own droids. One had an iPhone and got a Droid once he started working at a Verizon store. The damn phone is jampacked with features that Apple refuses to include.
In order for Apple to improve their device, they must first be beaten. Otherwise, they will sit on their asses just watching the cash come in. They do it with their current line of computers and they are doing it now.
I love my iPhone but I think it is just that time. Hopefully they can come back. It is time to loosen their grip on the App Store, let Google do their "thang" and add numerous features that are available NATIVELY!
Two of my cousins now own droids. One had an iPhone and got a Droid once he started working at a Verizon store. The damn phone is jampacked with features that Apple refuses to include.
In order for Apple to improve their device, they must first be beaten. Otherwise, they will sit on their asses just watching the cash come in. They do it with their current line of computers and they are doing it now.
I love my iPhone but I think it is just that time. Hopefully they can come back. It is time to loosen their grip on the App Store, let Google do their "thang" and add numerous features that are available NATIVELY!
FX120
Mar 13, 06:22 PM
Maybe I can find a link. I've read (I think it was Popular Science) that a 10 square mile solar farm in the American West could provide enough to power the entire U.S. Now, due to distances, that power could not be transmitted to the East Coast, but it illustrates there are other much safer methods of obtaining power than dealing with the atomic genie.
I think the theory is the amount of solar energy falling on a 10sq mile area could be enough to satisfy our domestic energy needs.
That's different than building a solar power plant and actually harvesting that energy, as solar plants are very inefficient.
I think the theory is the amount of solar energy falling on a 10sq mile area could be enough to satisfy our domestic energy needs.
That's different than building a solar power plant and actually harvesting that energy, as solar plants are very inefficient.
iJohnHenry
Apr 15, 11:40 AM
I feel sad at how many of you are totally distorting the message of Christ.
Well, perhaps if the Bible didn't contain so much self-serving crap by religious 'elders', we might have a better chance picking out Christ's nuggets.
The real blame goes on those who use his name to sully his very purpose.
The real blame goes to those that cover themselves in His name, but only for false purpose.
Those false Christians make me sick.
OK, you got me on that one. Me too.
Well, perhaps if the Bible didn't contain so much self-serving crap by religious 'elders', we might have a better chance picking out Christ's nuggets.
The real blame goes on those who use his name to sully his very purpose.
The real blame goes to those that cover themselves in His name, but only for false purpose.
Those false Christians make me sick.
OK, you got me on that one. Me too.
mdntcallr
Oct 26, 11:04 AM
I am pretty excited about this, because if i read it right...
the new mac pro's will possibly come out at the same price point's as the higher end model's.
which when these come out... would mean that the ones out now may DROP in price. hey just a thought. a good one :p
the new mac pro's will possibly come out at the same price point's as the higher end model's.
which when these come out... would mean that the ones out now may DROP in price. hey just a thought. a good one :p
No comments:
Post a Comment