Dr.Gargoyle
Aug 29, 04:40 PM
We also dont need to buy an escalade that gets about 10 miles to the gallon and then drive it EVERYWHERE. take a walk, ride your bike. every little bit helps
THAT is something we agree completely on. :D ;) I bike back and forth to the university every day. I save money both on gas and gym at the same time as I do something for the environment.
THAT is something we agree completely on. :D ;) I bike back and forth to the university every day. I save money both on gas and gym at the same time as I do something for the environment.
D*I*S_Frontman
Oct 10, 08:34 AM
I love my Macs. I love OS X. Having a reliable machine running unobtrusively and intuitively makes me more productive and lets me enjoy the process more.
That being said, I am now pretty much immune to the reality distortion field that surrounds Steve Jobs. High-end Macs are dog-slow at most things when compared with high-end AMD/Intel offerings. On the occasional perfectly-tweaked AltiVec intensive tasks a Dual G4 can just barely eek out a frog hair margin victory over the competition. Otherwise they get smoked.
The software side of Apple is doing great things, however. When good ol' Steve said Apple would be "innovating" its way through the recession, this has got to be what he meant. And they are succeeding on that front. OS X spanks all comers when it comes to features, interface, and stability. NO contest.
I think everyone knows that the latest Mac offerings are stop-gap measures. Steve is treading water calmly, trying not to panic, waiting on his two primary chip manifacturers, IBM and Motorola, to deliver the real world processors the R&D has been promising for some time now and rescue Apple.
Not to say Apple is in immediate financial trouble. With Steve at the helm, Apple will continue to be profitable. Apple is in serious credibility trouble, however, among professionals due to lackluster performance. 100mhz mobos are a complete joke for $1k + systems and 167mhz top speed with crippled DDR as the best available? Yikes.
Mac people don't expect the world. We just want machines on par with the rest of the computing world, because we KNOW we already have far and away the best OS working environment. We just don't have that right now. It is my hope that IBM will charge in like the Cavalry and drop a powerful new chip in Apple's lap that will bring Macs right back to the top performance-wise.
Then those switch ads will have some teeth.
That being said, I am now pretty much immune to the reality distortion field that surrounds Steve Jobs. High-end Macs are dog-slow at most things when compared with high-end AMD/Intel offerings. On the occasional perfectly-tweaked AltiVec intensive tasks a Dual G4 can just barely eek out a frog hair margin victory over the competition. Otherwise they get smoked.
The software side of Apple is doing great things, however. When good ol' Steve said Apple would be "innovating" its way through the recession, this has got to be what he meant. And they are succeeding on that front. OS X spanks all comers when it comes to features, interface, and stability. NO contest.
I think everyone knows that the latest Mac offerings are stop-gap measures. Steve is treading water calmly, trying not to panic, waiting on his two primary chip manifacturers, IBM and Motorola, to deliver the real world processors the R&D has been promising for some time now and rescue Apple.
Not to say Apple is in immediate financial trouble. With Steve at the helm, Apple will continue to be profitable. Apple is in serious credibility trouble, however, among professionals due to lackluster performance. 100mhz mobos are a complete joke for $1k + systems and 167mhz top speed with crippled DDR as the best available? Yikes.
Mac people don't expect the world. We just want machines on par with the rest of the computing world, because we KNOW we already have far and away the best OS working environment. We just don't have that right now. It is my hope that IBM will charge in like the Cavalry and drop a powerful new chip in Apple's lap that will bring Macs right back to the top performance-wise.
Then those switch ads will have some teeth.
Abstract
Mar 19, 10:08 AM
aah yes of course.. (slap on forehead). hmm.. then adding DRM on fly before delivering might be the workaround apple does... although as noted in my previous post, that can be defeated too.
No no, I don't think people get it.
If they put DRM on the track before you buy it, then everyone who buys that song will have the same song with the same DRM, which means that any computer can play it, as everyone has the same iTunes and a track with the same DRM.
Adding specific DRM on the fly isn't what Apple has to do, either. Your iTunes still has to know that it IS the computer that you can play a particular track from, and not just any computer.
No no, I don't think people get it.
If they put DRM on the track before you buy it, then everyone who buys that song will have the same song with the same DRM, which means that any computer can play it, as everyone has the same iTunes and a track with the same DRM.
Adding specific DRM on the fly isn't what Apple has to do, either. Your iTunes still has to know that it IS the computer that you can play a particular track from, and not just any computer.
econgeek
Apr 12, 11:09 PM
No, your ignorance of Adobe's stance in the professional broadcast industry comes off as snotty.
It is impossible for me to display any ignorance of a topic of which I have not addressed. I challenge you to find a post from me where I use the phrase "professional broadcast industry".
If you cannot do it, then you are constructing a lie out of whole cloth in order to attack me, because, apparently, you cannot construct a counter argument to any of the points I have made.
I think your need to attack me proves my case beyond any need of myself to defend my point or myself.
It is impossible for me to display any ignorance of a topic of which I have not addressed. I challenge you to find a post from me where I use the phrase "professional broadcast industry".
If you cannot do it, then you are constructing a lie out of whole cloth in order to attack me, because, apparently, you cannot construct a counter argument to any of the points I have made.
I think your need to attack me proves my case beyond any need of myself to defend my point or myself.
wdogmedia
Aug 29, 04:10 PM
I'd just like to inject here that Apple is apparently complying with all U.S. environmental regulations and, to my mind anyway, has no corporate responsibility towards the environment beyond that. They are certainly not bound by the law to have CPU and iPod recycling programs, for example.
If they were breaking environmental law, that would be entirely different. Their social responsibility towards the environment is to act within the law, which they are doing.
If they were breaking environmental law, that would be entirely different. Their social responsibility towards the environment is to act within the law, which they are doing.
Trash Can
Jun 19, 06:44 PM
panzer06,
I'm not here to bash AT&T - just sharing my perspective. You may be right - the problem may be within the phone itself. You also make a good point about many people overlooking dropped calls because of texting and such. All I know is that the phone should work in many places that it doesn't - full bars or not. And the problem is not limited to voice.
I had AT&T prior to Verizon and my experience back then was less than stellar. I took a chance with the iPhone 3G hoping things improved. IMO, it hasn't. FWIW, my sister (non-iPhone user) had AT&T while living in Atlanta and it worked great. However, she encountered a myriad of connection problems when she moved to LA. I'm sure that for every person who says they have problems with ABC in XYZ, there will be someone else who says just the opposite.
The beauty of all this is that everyone has the ability to choose what works for them.
I'm not here to bash AT&T - just sharing my perspective. You may be right - the problem may be within the phone itself. You also make a good point about many people overlooking dropped calls because of texting and such. All I know is that the phone should work in many places that it doesn't - full bars or not. And the problem is not limited to voice.
I had AT&T prior to Verizon and my experience back then was less than stellar. I took a chance with the iPhone 3G hoping things improved. IMO, it hasn't. FWIW, my sister (non-iPhone user) had AT&T while living in Atlanta and it worked great. However, she encountered a myriad of connection problems when she moved to LA. I'm sure that for every person who says they have problems with ABC in XYZ, there will be someone else who says just the opposite.
The beauty of all this is that everyone has the ability to choose what works for them.
Warbrain
Oct 8, 07:55 AM
Android my not be recognizable to the average consumer but GOOGLE sure as hell is.
You average consumer has figured out that Android is made by Google. People trust Google and know they put out some great stuff. People know about google maps, google earth, google street view and Gmail shall I go on..
All great things. People know the Android phones are made by google. The customization is a huge selling point as you can add a lot of apps. Set up the interface to exactly how you like it. Something you can not nor ever will be able to be done on the iPhone. That limitation is really a bad point about the phone.
I think you're giving people too much credit. I can tell someone about Android and they don't have a clue about the OS or who makes it.
You average consumer has figured out that Android is made by Google. People trust Google and know they put out some great stuff. People know about google maps, google earth, google street view and Gmail shall I go on..
All great things. People know the Android phones are made by google. The customization is a huge selling point as you can add a lot of apps. Set up the interface to exactly how you like it. Something you can not nor ever will be able to be done on the iPhone. That limitation is really a bad point about the phone.
I think you're giving people too much credit. I can tell someone about Android and they don't have a clue about the OS or who makes it.
twoodcc
Oct 10, 10:32 AM
it's too early to tell yet. this is all just speculation at this point. wait until more android phones and android 1.5 is out first
mdriftmeyer
Apr 28, 08:35 AM
Almost all of that is due to the iPad. They had around 4% of the global market for computers last year.
Apple sold 820K+ more Macs in Q2 2011 over Q2 2010. You want to dismiss the halo effect that's your business.
Apple sold 3.76 million Macs during the quarter Q2 2011. [http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2011/04/20results.html]
Apple sold 2.94 million Macintosh� computers during the quarter Q2 2010. [http://images.apple.com/euro/cemea_en/pr/library/2010/04/20results.pdf]
Come Q2 2012 we'll see that increase more than double year of year putting the Macs sold nearing 5.5+ million for Q2 2012. Of course, it will look small next to the 15 million iPads, but only a fool would think 5.5+ million in a quarter of Macs is small.
Face it. The trend lines of the top 3 is down, not up.
Apple sold 820K+ more Macs in Q2 2011 over Q2 2010. You want to dismiss the halo effect that's your business.
Apple sold 3.76 million Macs during the quarter Q2 2011. [http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2011/04/20results.html]
Apple sold 2.94 million Macintosh� computers during the quarter Q2 2010. [http://images.apple.com/euro/cemea_en/pr/library/2010/04/20results.pdf]
Come Q2 2012 we'll see that increase more than double year of year putting the Macs sold nearing 5.5+ million for Q2 2012. Of course, it will look small next to the 15 million iPads, but only a fool would think 5.5+ million in a quarter of Macs is small.
Face it. The trend lines of the top 3 is down, not up.
OllyW
Apr 30, 03:03 AM
The iPod wasn't an instant success, sales only really only took off after the introduction of the Dock Connecter, but mostly the Click Wheel. This places it in with big sales really starting in 2005. That timeframe to 2009 (which was peak iPod sales, and included the Touch) is only 4 - 5 years, not a decade.
I think the real reason the iPod took off around that time was because it was properly opened up to the Windows market with the introduction of USB syncing and iTunes for Windows.
I think the real reason the iPod took off around that time was because it was properly opened up to the Windows market with the introduction of USB syncing and iTunes for Windows.
Denarius
Mar 15, 09:56 PM
I still regard nuclear fission as the best option among fossil fuel technologies to get us over the hump until alternative energy sources can cover 100% of demand and/or nuclear fusion is ready for commercial use. I still would prefer us to phase out coal, oil, gas and trash burning plants before we shut down our nuclear reactors as they have better carbon footprints and the mining of their fuel is overall less damaging than coal strip mining. Do we need to quickly move away from Gen I and II technology and get to at least III+ technology for all of our reactors, absolutely, but exiting nuclear fission technology at least in the short to midterm seems like a poor choice to me.
Cheers,
Ahmed
Agreed, nuclear Fusion's the best hope in the long term although I'm sure many will believe that's evil as well because of the word 'nuclear' being there.
Little bit of trivia, did you know that hospital CAT scanners were originally called NMR scanners (nuclear magnetic resonance), but they changed the name because it scared people? Why hasn't anybody coined the word 'nuclearphobe' yet :rolleyes:
Cheers,
Ahmed
Agreed, nuclear Fusion's the best hope in the long term although I'm sure many will believe that's evil as well because of the word 'nuclear' being there.
Little bit of trivia, did you know that hospital CAT scanners were originally called NMR scanners (nuclear magnetic resonance), but they changed the name because it scared people? Why hasn't anybody coined the word 'nuclearphobe' yet :rolleyes:
Apple OC
Mar 15, 08:34 PM
how can they NOT design for the possibility of coolant failure in the holding basin and put it also within a containment vessel? especially if, as you imply, there are some spent rods in it pretty much at any time.
They just did not predict a tsunami of this scale causing the situation we are now faced with.
Unfortunately it takes something like this to correct mistakes moving forward. That being said ... this will get fixed.
This Nuclear Disaster has now been confirmed as the worst since Chernobyl and is far from being resolved.
I wish the heros working on this all the best.
They just did not predict a tsunami of this scale causing the situation we are now faced with.
Unfortunately it takes something like this to correct mistakes moving forward. That being said ... this will get fixed.
This Nuclear Disaster has now been confirmed as the worst since Chernobyl and is far from being resolved.
I wish the heros working on this all the best.
appleguy123
Apr 10, 11:36 AM
Ya know what? This is good advice. After doing a LOT of thinking about this, I realize that I'm probably best off sticking with Windows.
When it comes right down to it, I'm really just "curious" about trying a Mac. I don't actually have a particular reason, and I don't have any problems with Windows (believe it or not).
It looks like both operating systems have a few advantages and both operating systems have their share of annoyances. Truth is, I'm having a hard time finding a real advantage to switching.
If I were starting out today I'd most likely go with a Mac. But I'm an old dude, not a kid. I'm very comfortable with Windows and I really LIKE certain things about it. In fact, the first thing I'd do on a Mac is try to set it up so the Dock works just like the Start button in Windows. A rational person would have realized long ago that this is crazy. If I want a Mac to work like Windows I should just use Windows. Duh. But my curiosity along with the attractive cosmetic looks of the Mac got the best of me.
I won't lie, I'll forever be curious about "the other side"... but in my case I think I'd just be asking for a lot of headaches figuring out how to do all of these things differently than I'm used to.
Anyway...
Thanks to everyone that helped by adding your thoughts, I really appreciate it. And since I can't be the only one out there with similar feelings maybe this thread will help them too. Some will choose to switch to Mac, some will choose to stick with Windows.
And that's the way it goes. :)
You could always buy a Mac and run windows on it. It would let you satisfy your curiosity, and have a safe fallback to the OS you know. And a beautiful computer.
When it comes right down to it, I'm really just "curious" about trying a Mac. I don't actually have a particular reason, and I don't have any problems with Windows (believe it or not).
It looks like both operating systems have a few advantages and both operating systems have their share of annoyances. Truth is, I'm having a hard time finding a real advantage to switching.
If I were starting out today I'd most likely go with a Mac. But I'm an old dude, not a kid. I'm very comfortable with Windows and I really LIKE certain things about it. In fact, the first thing I'd do on a Mac is try to set it up so the Dock works just like the Start button in Windows. A rational person would have realized long ago that this is crazy. If I want a Mac to work like Windows I should just use Windows. Duh. But my curiosity along with the attractive cosmetic looks of the Mac got the best of me.
I won't lie, I'll forever be curious about "the other side"... but in my case I think I'd just be asking for a lot of headaches figuring out how to do all of these things differently than I'm used to.
Anyway...
Thanks to everyone that helped by adding your thoughts, I really appreciate it. And since I can't be the only one out there with similar feelings maybe this thread will help them too. Some will choose to switch to Mac, some will choose to stick with Windows.
And that's the way it goes. :)
You could always buy a Mac and run windows on it. It would let you satisfy your curiosity, and have a safe fallback to the OS you know. And a beautiful computer.
NathanMuir
Apr 24, 12:15 PM
And an almost fanatical devotion to the Pope...
Sorry, couldn't help myself.
What about fear of hell in the afterlife? Pretty powerful motivator that.
That all depends upon what branch of religion you follow/ believe in.
Your little Pope quip illustrates that you're unaware of just how narrow you made this thread.
You're sadly mistaken if you think that the Pope presides over all religious activity. There are a great many religious belief systems besides the Catholic Church.
Fear of death. That's why religion was invented and why it will always exist.
It must be very simple and claustrophobic up there. ;)
Who would I be to argue with such an excellent generalization?
Sorry, couldn't help myself.
What about fear of hell in the afterlife? Pretty powerful motivator that.
That all depends upon what branch of religion you follow/ believe in.
Your little Pope quip illustrates that you're unaware of just how narrow you made this thread.
You're sadly mistaken if you think that the Pope presides over all religious activity. There are a great many religious belief systems besides the Catholic Church.
Fear of death. That's why religion was invented and why it will always exist.
It must be very simple and claustrophobic up there. ;)
Who would I be to argue with such an excellent generalization?
Di9it8
Aug 29, 04:25 PM
I wonder if they mentioned the fact that Dell has made the computer a disposable purchase with their $299 PCs. I'm serious people buy a new Dell every few years because they are garbage. Do you honestly think people give them back for recycling. They sell them on ebay or craigslist, and the new owner after about a year puts them in the dumpster. With Apple people keep their machines much longer, and are much more likely to recycle them because they are smaller and easier to take to a recycling center (no CRT). This alone makes Apple greener then Dell.
We are still using on a daily basis a G3 WallStreet laptop, the battery is gone but otherwise it is quite reliable. This long life must make Apples greener as we have disposed of 1 Toshiba and 2 IBM machines in the same time span :rolleyes:
We are still using on a daily basis a G3 WallStreet laptop, the battery is gone but otherwise it is quite reliable. This long life must make Apples greener as we have disposed of 1 Toshiba and 2 IBM machines in the same time span :rolleyes:
Interstella5555
Mar 18, 10:53 AM
1) Why would I need an extra 2GB when I'm already Unlimited?
2) Why would I need to pay an extra $20 for 1s and 0s going from my laptop thru my phone. If I'm using the laptop, I'm not using my phone and vice versa. It's still single use.
3) Do you pay "Extra" for home internet because you have a wireless router that allows you to connect multiple PCs to the same connection?? How is tethering on a mobile phone any different??? This sets a precedence that could allow for home internet providers to charge on a per PC connect basis.
You used to. Back in the day most ISPs would charge per IP address for high speed Internet.
2) Why would I need to pay an extra $20 for 1s and 0s going from my laptop thru my phone. If I'm using the laptop, I'm not using my phone and vice versa. It's still single use.
3) Do you pay "Extra" for home internet because you have a wireless router that allows you to connect multiple PCs to the same connection?? How is tethering on a mobile phone any different??? This sets a precedence that could allow for home internet providers to charge on a per PC connect basis.
You used to. Back in the day most ISPs would charge per IP address for high speed Internet.
SandynJosh
May 2, 04:06 PM
You're not quite understanding what I'm saying or the situation here. Safari auto-downloads a zip file, runs it through Archive Utility which extracts something and then runs it.
It happens to be an installer this time. What if next time it's a malicious piece of code ? Why did it auto-execute, under what conditions and could these conditions be used to execute something other than an installer ?
Think a bit beyond the current situation. The malware authors do.
I think I understands what you are saying. However, for the sake of clarity, let me answer your question relating to "why it auto-executed." The Safari protection level needs to be set to "Allow 'Safe' files to be opened."
This allows the Archive Utility to open the .zip file which contains the installation file to begin execution. Had the user not allowed this action, the file would never had made it to the user's computer without the user deliberate allowing it to be downloaded.
Once the installer is running, it still needs the user to enter and password and authorize the installer to install the software. If the user doesn't have the computer's administrator password, then once more the malware is blocked.
To address your other question, as to what conditions could malicious code get into OSX:
1. First, the file would need to be considered "safe" to be allowed to auto-download and auto-open, AND the browser would need to be set to allow this.
2. Then, like the case with the installer above, it would need to seek the user's permission to be installed. This again, required the complicity of the user, who would still need the administrator's password.
It happens to be an installer this time. What if next time it's a malicious piece of code ? Why did it auto-execute, under what conditions and could these conditions be used to execute something other than an installer ?
Think a bit beyond the current situation. The malware authors do.
I think I understands what you are saying. However, for the sake of clarity, let me answer your question relating to "why it auto-executed." The Safari protection level needs to be set to "Allow 'Safe' files to be opened."
This allows the Archive Utility to open the .zip file which contains the installation file to begin execution. Had the user not allowed this action, the file would never had made it to the user's computer without the user deliberate allowing it to be downloaded.
Once the installer is running, it still needs the user to enter and password and authorize the installer to install the software. If the user doesn't have the computer's administrator password, then once more the malware is blocked.
To address your other question, as to what conditions could malicious code get into OSX:
1. First, the file would need to be considered "safe" to be allowed to auto-download and auto-open, AND the browser would need to be set to allow this.
2. Then, like the case with the installer above, it would need to seek the user's permission to be installed. This again, required the complicity of the user, who would still need the administrator's password.
Clive At Five
Sep 20, 05:22 PM
I just wanted to point out that "hard drive" is an extremely generic term when it comes to layman's terms regarding computers. [...] I have users that refer to the entire COMPUTER as the "hard drive". There is a very good chance that Iger knows very little about computers and could simply be miscommunicating what he means.
I whole-heartedly agree.
I find it higly unlikely that there's a physical Hard Drive in the box that amounts to anything more than the UI and/or chache/buffer.
There's absolutely no need and would complicate the equation indefinitely, especially concerning digital rights.
Let's assume Iger is right, though, that there IS a HDD in the TelePort (or as you infidels call it, iTV), and that it can act as a stand-alone media access point. The question remains, how would you be able to get media onto it? Either 1) it comes with some sort of operating system which allowed you to connect it to iTS for content, or 2) it could be detected by a Mac or PC as a computer/HD over the network in order to drag-n-drop media.
Option 1, I think, is too far-fetched and risky. There would be substantial reliability issues using HDs that small to run an OS. We've all heard many nightmare-ish stories about people trying to bring their home computer to work, booting via iPod. Nonetheless, this seems like the most likely option for the use of a HDD.
Option 2, if this is the case, you already have a full-sized (i.e. reliable) HDD in your computer, which is connected to the internet, (i.e. iTS) for content. Why would you even need a HD in the box? Basically, Apple would be spending money on MicroDrives which don't have a reliable life-span and take up valuable space inside the box and for what? So that you can have an identical copy of a 1GB movie on both your Mac and your iTV box? As long as streaming works, there's no need. As long as streaming works, there's no need. As long as streaming works, there's no need!
PLUS, with iTunes DRM, you are limited to the number of copies you can make on devices you own. So an HD in the iTV would eat up one of those copies for any of the media you would choose to load onto it.
I do think, however, it would be likely to allow it to connect to .Mac, although streaming from the net is slower than from within an internal network... and on top of that, I don't know many people who store full-length, full-quality movies in their .Mac storage. In fact, I don't know any.
So, that's why I think there will be no HDD in the TelePort.
-Clive
I whole-heartedly agree.
I find it higly unlikely that there's a physical Hard Drive in the box that amounts to anything more than the UI and/or chache/buffer.
There's absolutely no need and would complicate the equation indefinitely, especially concerning digital rights.
Let's assume Iger is right, though, that there IS a HDD in the TelePort (or as you infidels call it, iTV), and that it can act as a stand-alone media access point. The question remains, how would you be able to get media onto it? Either 1) it comes with some sort of operating system which allowed you to connect it to iTS for content, or 2) it could be detected by a Mac or PC as a computer/HD over the network in order to drag-n-drop media.
Option 1, I think, is too far-fetched and risky. There would be substantial reliability issues using HDs that small to run an OS. We've all heard many nightmare-ish stories about people trying to bring their home computer to work, booting via iPod. Nonetheless, this seems like the most likely option for the use of a HDD.
Option 2, if this is the case, you already have a full-sized (i.e. reliable) HDD in your computer, which is connected to the internet, (i.e. iTS) for content. Why would you even need a HD in the box? Basically, Apple would be spending money on MicroDrives which don't have a reliable life-span and take up valuable space inside the box and for what? So that you can have an identical copy of a 1GB movie on both your Mac and your iTV box? As long as streaming works, there's no need. As long as streaming works, there's no need. As long as streaming works, there's no need!
PLUS, with iTunes DRM, you are limited to the number of copies you can make on devices you own. So an HD in the iTV would eat up one of those copies for any of the media you would choose to load onto it.
I do think, however, it would be likely to allow it to connect to .Mac, although streaming from the net is slower than from within an internal network... and on top of that, I don't know many people who store full-length, full-quality movies in their .Mac storage. In fact, I don't know any.
So, that's why I think there will be no HDD in the TelePort.
-Clive
balamw
Apr 10, 03:15 PM
It looks like both operating systems have a few advantages and both operating systems have their share of annoyances. Truth is, I'm having a hard time finding a real advantage to switching.
That's why true "switchers" are rare. Those who have a need for Windows will continue to run Windows, in a VM, via Boot Camp or on a separate Windows machine.
However many of us who live in both OSes prefer Mac OS X on a Mac where it is appropriate.
The only "advantage" is being able to use OS X for the things it is good at.
I agree with you, in general principle. When I switched to Mac, I decided to learn the "Mac way" of doing things, rather than trying to make Mac work like Windows.
That's what I mean. Making Mac OS X work like Windows is a sure fire recipe for frustration. It's not Windows. Just like Windows 7 and Vista can still confuse hardcore XP users. It's just different.
For me, I have a huge music library and letting iTunes manage it for me is a huge load off of me. I ripped all of my ~1000 CDs to FLAC with EAC as the source of my iTunes AAC library, and am in the process of converting that all to ALAC so it can live in iTunes.
B
That's why true "switchers" are rare. Those who have a need for Windows will continue to run Windows, in a VM, via Boot Camp or on a separate Windows machine.
However many of us who live in both OSes prefer Mac OS X on a Mac where it is appropriate.
The only "advantage" is being able to use OS X for the things it is good at.
I agree with you, in general principle. When I switched to Mac, I decided to learn the "Mac way" of doing things, rather than trying to make Mac work like Windows.
That's what I mean. Making Mac OS X work like Windows is a sure fire recipe for frustration. It's not Windows. Just like Windows 7 and Vista can still confuse hardcore XP users. It's just different.
For me, I have a huge music library and letting iTunes manage it for me is a huge load off of me. I ripped all of my ~1000 CDs to FLAC with EAC as the source of my iTunes AAC library, and am in the process of converting that all to ALAC so it can live in iTunes.
B
blue22
Apr 12, 11:00 PM
Steve Jobs said the new version would be "awesome," well I disagree. He was completely wrong... IT IS FREAKIN' ASTOUNDING! Bravo Apple!
+1
Yes, this is a great update for FCP. And the $299 price tag makes it that much more "astounding" so I don't know why some people here are bemoaning this release.
+1
Yes, this is a great update for FCP. And the $299 price tag makes it that much more "astounding" so I don't know why some people here are bemoaning this release.
ShavenYak
Sep 20, 01:19 PM
?? TiVo will provide you a PVR that burns DVDs, has a tuner and hard drive, and wirelessly connects to your macintosh and plays your photo library and itunes for $300 plus you have to buy a usb network reciever for like $25.
So it's basically the same thing except for the videos which of course didn't exist when tivo adopted the technology, and since they'll play your photos they'll probalby adopt the videos too. I think I'll just hold out for my TiVo to do the same thing PLUS be a PVR and DVD burner.
TiVo will also charge you $12.95 every month (or $299 every two years) for the rest of your life for the privilege of using their box. Look at that - you can buy the newest, latest-n-greatest iTV every two years (if Apple adds functionality that often) for the price of TiVo's service fees. And then probably sell the old one on eBay for enough money to buy the next version of OS X. Besides, if you want HDTV, the TiVo solution is $800. Plus fees. Plus a USB wireless receiver. And you still can't play music or video from the iTunes Store.
Don't get me wrong, I think TiVo's technology is great... but, I'm already paying $ every month to my cable company who sends me TV listings, and numerous sites on the Internet have free TV listings; at least some basic level of TiVo functionality should be free as well (yes, I know about the TiVo Basic or whatever they called it in some of the DVD-burning TiVos - that wasn't good enough). I'd much rather have TiVo than this crappy Scientific Atlanta DVR that Charter provides. But it costs less to rent than the TiVo service fee, and I'd still need to pay Charter to rent two CableCards if I replaced it with a TiVo. Which would suck, since I'd have just emptied my checking account to buy the TiVo in the first place.
My dream is for Apple to buy TiVo. Last I checked, Apple's cash on hand was more than TiVo's market cap.
So it's basically the same thing except for the videos which of course didn't exist when tivo adopted the technology, and since they'll play your photos they'll probalby adopt the videos too. I think I'll just hold out for my TiVo to do the same thing PLUS be a PVR and DVD burner.
TiVo will also charge you $12.95 every month (or $299 every two years) for the rest of your life for the privilege of using their box. Look at that - you can buy the newest, latest-n-greatest iTV every two years (if Apple adds functionality that often) for the price of TiVo's service fees. And then probably sell the old one on eBay for enough money to buy the next version of OS X. Besides, if you want HDTV, the TiVo solution is $800. Plus fees. Plus a USB wireless receiver. And you still can't play music or video from the iTunes Store.
Don't get me wrong, I think TiVo's technology is great... but, I'm already paying $ every month to my cable company who sends me TV listings, and numerous sites on the Internet have free TV listings; at least some basic level of TiVo functionality should be free as well (yes, I know about the TiVo Basic or whatever they called it in some of the DVD-burning TiVos - that wasn't good enough). I'd much rather have TiVo than this crappy Scientific Atlanta DVR that Charter provides. But it costs less to rent than the TiVo service fee, and I'd still need to pay Charter to rent two CableCards if I replaced it with a TiVo. Which would suck, since I'd have just emptied my checking account to buy the TiVo in the first place.
My dream is for Apple to buy TiVo. Last I checked, Apple's cash on hand was more than TiVo's market cap.
Steve121178
Apr 28, 07:45 AM
Guessing 2012 see Apple shift up again? Redesigned MacBook Pro's, retina display iPad 3..
Doubtful. Windows 8 = large PC sales as people choose to upgrade etc
Doubtful. Windows 8 = large PC sales as people choose to upgrade etc
Clive At Five
Aug 29, 12:40 PM
no no no no no.
The things that are bad for the environment are also used intensively in the PRODUCTION of materials used in computers, the Mo-Boards, the Processors, anything solid state. Sure the things contain trace amounts of Lead and other crap but they aren't nearly as harmful to the environment as, say MAKING a microprocessor. Thus, I have no idea why on Earth Intel isn't #1 based solely on the sheer volume of byproduct they produce.
And if Greenpeace is going after PC makers, Dell, again just by their VOLUME, dwarfs Apple in toxins used in their products. Apple, however, makes a noticable effort (i.e. free disposal w/a new Mac, iPod) to ensure that people don't just toss their computers in a way that will hurt the environment. Dell has a service as well, but it isn't free.
I think Greenpeace just spun the roulette wheel and it landed in Apple's disfavor.
I care about the environment, but Greenpeace is out of hand. It's the little things like free disposal that make the difference. It might be what keeps some people from slipping pieces of old computers in their trash can week-by-week.
... oh come on, like you've never done that...
-Clive
The things that are bad for the environment are also used intensively in the PRODUCTION of materials used in computers, the Mo-Boards, the Processors, anything solid state. Sure the things contain trace amounts of Lead and other crap but they aren't nearly as harmful to the environment as, say MAKING a microprocessor. Thus, I have no idea why on Earth Intel isn't #1 based solely on the sheer volume of byproduct they produce.
And if Greenpeace is going after PC makers, Dell, again just by their VOLUME, dwarfs Apple in toxins used in their products. Apple, however, makes a noticable effort (i.e. free disposal w/a new Mac, iPod) to ensure that people don't just toss their computers in a way that will hurt the environment. Dell has a service as well, but it isn't free.
I think Greenpeace just spun the roulette wheel and it landed in Apple's disfavor.
I care about the environment, but Greenpeace is out of hand. It's the little things like free disposal that make the difference. It might be what keeps some people from slipping pieces of old computers in their trash can week-by-week.
... oh come on, like you've never done that...
-Clive
Drewnrupe
Sep 21, 10:43 AM
I havent gone through and taken numbers but it appears that a large number of the people demanding that this device should provide DVR functionalty already have a Tivo - how many posts decrying the lack of DVR end up " I'll keep my Tivo " ?
Isnt that the point - you have a Tivo - you have made the decision to keep your recorded TV media in its traditional place - the living room / den.
The iTV concept starts from the premis that this is an outdated concept.
In these days of multiple TV households , viewing on computer screens and ipods it only makes sense to centralize your media. This way we can say good bye to the "3 receiver satalite deals" and "sycronized Tivos" that result in multiple boxes in every room.
Once you get past the concept that your TV media source should originate in the place where you historically viewed TV all the pieces fall into place.
Before all this iTV talk came about I had already put an airport in the bedroom to listen to internet radio via airTunes. When considering Tivo i discovered that lifetime licenses were not an option any more and did not want to take on another "small monthly fee". I now have an EyeTv 200 linked to my Mac in the office and plug an eyehome into the airport express sitting in the bedroom - it works great for me and was selected as a direct alternative to Tivo - it just seemed right to have this located by the computer and hot add more electronics to the bedroom.
Yes there are limitations - the greatest at the moment being that i cannot use the eyehome to watch iTunes pyrchased Movies ( hence the need for the iTV/Teleport).
Yes I cannot schedule recording from the Tv , but I can from the office which is usually where I am when i think to record something, and also if I am out of the house i can schedule recording via the internet which is great.
Digital channels are missing but generally the channels up above the 100 mark are not interesting to me and HD would be nice for the few programs I watch that provide it, but these are limitations of the solution that I am using - NOT THE CONCEPT.
The computer provides the central storage point for your media. It gets to the TV via iTV or some equivalent Distribution system. The media itself can come from your DVDs , a DVR linked to the computer, downloaded from the internet, or your old Betamax plugged into an encoder digitizing to the computer.
If Eyetv doesnt cut it as your DVR, then there can and I am sure will be other options - hey even Tivo - but again i hold that it should be part of the central media storage , not sitting under the TV - or worse still under several Tvs.
For as long as we continue to try and combine these functions of media source, storage and replay into single boxes we will always have duplicattion of effort and boxes.
People that wtill think they need ANOTHER computer, or Another disk drive or another dvd player next to their TV and that iTV should include all this are just holding on to an historical concept or an entertainment center havign to be centered int the living room.
Where you watch any of this media there should only be a screen , speakers , and as little else as possible - iTV ( or for now eyehome) - is pretty little !!!
I think this realy is the missing link that makes a computer-centric household media solution viable and appealing to the majority of even single computer households. I certainly would not have purchased an eyeTv if eyeHome didnt exist , and this is the same reason I will not purchase a movie until either eyehome can show it on my TV or iTV arrives to do the same.
Drew
Isnt that the point - you have a Tivo - you have made the decision to keep your recorded TV media in its traditional place - the living room / den.
The iTV concept starts from the premis that this is an outdated concept.
In these days of multiple TV households , viewing on computer screens and ipods it only makes sense to centralize your media. This way we can say good bye to the "3 receiver satalite deals" and "sycronized Tivos" that result in multiple boxes in every room.
Once you get past the concept that your TV media source should originate in the place where you historically viewed TV all the pieces fall into place.
Before all this iTV talk came about I had already put an airport in the bedroom to listen to internet radio via airTunes. When considering Tivo i discovered that lifetime licenses were not an option any more and did not want to take on another "small monthly fee". I now have an EyeTv 200 linked to my Mac in the office and plug an eyehome into the airport express sitting in the bedroom - it works great for me and was selected as a direct alternative to Tivo - it just seemed right to have this located by the computer and hot add more electronics to the bedroom.
Yes there are limitations - the greatest at the moment being that i cannot use the eyehome to watch iTunes pyrchased Movies ( hence the need for the iTV/Teleport).
Yes I cannot schedule recording from the Tv , but I can from the office which is usually where I am when i think to record something, and also if I am out of the house i can schedule recording via the internet which is great.
Digital channels are missing but generally the channels up above the 100 mark are not interesting to me and HD would be nice for the few programs I watch that provide it, but these are limitations of the solution that I am using - NOT THE CONCEPT.
The computer provides the central storage point for your media. It gets to the TV via iTV or some equivalent Distribution system. The media itself can come from your DVDs , a DVR linked to the computer, downloaded from the internet, or your old Betamax plugged into an encoder digitizing to the computer.
If Eyetv doesnt cut it as your DVR, then there can and I am sure will be other options - hey even Tivo - but again i hold that it should be part of the central media storage , not sitting under the TV - or worse still under several Tvs.
For as long as we continue to try and combine these functions of media source, storage and replay into single boxes we will always have duplicattion of effort and boxes.
People that wtill think they need ANOTHER computer, or Another disk drive or another dvd player next to their TV and that iTV should include all this are just holding on to an historical concept or an entertainment center havign to be centered int the living room.
Where you watch any of this media there should only be a screen , speakers , and as little else as possible - iTV ( or for now eyehome) - is pretty little !!!
I think this realy is the missing link that makes a computer-centric household media solution viable and appealing to the majority of even single computer households. I certainly would not have purchased an eyeTv if eyeHome didnt exist , and this is the same reason I will not purchase a movie until either eyehome can show it on my TV or iTV arrives to do the same.
Drew