odyssey924
Apr 13, 12:16 AM
Here's the deal...(and I just realized that the way this is written might make it look like I have earlier posts in this thread. I don't. I'm jumping in right here.)
The reason that I think pros fear "dumbed down" isn't so much because they want something that is difficult to use, but rather because sometimes making difficult things easy makes things that were previously easy difficult, or impossible.
So just this week I had to help somebody with an iMovie problem. There was a part where they had 3 overlapping audio tracks. Movie audio, voiceover, and music. Try as they might, and try as I might, we could not get the movie audio to actually go away -- even though we had set it's volume level to "0%."
Oh...and did I mention that they're on a white iBook? Fine machine, but a little slow. So I copy their iMovie stuff onto an external drive so we can look at it on my Core i7 iMac instead.
Except iMovie on my iMac won't recognize the project on an external drive. I know that supposedly iMovie is supposed to...but it won't work. So I have to copy the files onto my iMac, and then iMovie magically sees them...because they're in the spot that iMovie wants files to be in.
Well the only way to get the clips to work right that I could come up with, was to actually run all their clips through Quicktime 7 and just delete the audio track off them. Voila! No audio track for iMovie to play, when it's not supposed to.
My point is that I spent 30 minutes dinking around with the "Easy" iMovie to do what would have taken me 10 seconds to do in Final Cut. (Select audio. Delete.)
And that's pretty much my experience every time I get lulled into trying to run a quick project through iMovie. Everything seems to be going well, I'm even sort of enjoying myself (Don't tell anyone), then I hit a snag or a wall...bump up into some limitation of iMovie that there isn't a very good work-around to...and wish that I'd just used Final Cut to begin with.
So while I agree that there are those who want pro tools to be difficult simply for the sake of having a high barrier of entry...
...I also think there are a ton of us that are just afraid that the cost of these new and handy features will be that some of the things we rely on doing, especially things that are a little "hackish," will become difficult/impossible. In the name of simplicity.
It's like my iPhone. I love it to pieces, and I don't plan to have any other type of phone any time soon, but sometimes I wish for a few more advanced features...features that are available (Usually through third-party tools) on Android. Instead I'm stuck hoping and wishing and praying that Apple will implement them.
+1 here. Every time I've tried to use iMovie for a "quick" edit it always ends in disasters like this. In my case, I was trying to move some music around and time my edits with the music. It was really infuriating trying to do this in iMovie compared to how fast I could have done it in FCP. I guess we'll have wait till Apple posts more info or we get it in our hands to really tell if it can be run like the current FCP.
The reason that I think pros fear "dumbed down" isn't so much because they want something that is difficult to use, but rather because sometimes making difficult things easy makes things that were previously easy difficult, or impossible.
So just this week I had to help somebody with an iMovie problem. There was a part where they had 3 overlapping audio tracks. Movie audio, voiceover, and music. Try as they might, and try as I might, we could not get the movie audio to actually go away -- even though we had set it's volume level to "0%."
Oh...and did I mention that they're on a white iBook? Fine machine, but a little slow. So I copy their iMovie stuff onto an external drive so we can look at it on my Core i7 iMac instead.
Except iMovie on my iMac won't recognize the project on an external drive. I know that supposedly iMovie is supposed to...but it won't work. So I have to copy the files onto my iMac, and then iMovie magically sees them...because they're in the spot that iMovie wants files to be in.
Well the only way to get the clips to work right that I could come up with, was to actually run all their clips through Quicktime 7 and just delete the audio track off them. Voila! No audio track for iMovie to play, when it's not supposed to.
My point is that I spent 30 minutes dinking around with the "Easy" iMovie to do what would have taken me 10 seconds to do in Final Cut. (Select audio. Delete.)
And that's pretty much my experience every time I get lulled into trying to run a quick project through iMovie. Everything seems to be going well, I'm even sort of enjoying myself (Don't tell anyone), then I hit a snag or a wall...bump up into some limitation of iMovie that there isn't a very good work-around to...and wish that I'd just used Final Cut to begin with.
So while I agree that there are those who want pro tools to be difficult simply for the sake of having a high barrier of entry...
...I also think there are a ton of us that are just afraid that the cost of these new and handy features will be that some of the things we rely on doing, especially things that are a little "hackish," will become difficult/impossible. In the name of simplicity.
It's like my iPhone. I love it to pieces, and I don't plan to have any other type of phone any time soon, but sometimes I wish for a few more advanced features...features that are available (Usually through third-party tools) on Android. Instead I'm stuck hoping and wishing and praying that Apple will implement them.
+1 here. Every time I've tried to use iMovie for a "quick" edit it always ends in disasters like this. In my case, I was trying to move some music around and time my edits with the music. It was really infuriating trying to do this in iMovie compared to how fast I could have done it in FCP. I guess we'll have wait till Apple posts more info or we get it in our hands to really tell if it can be run like the current FCP.
steve2112
Feb 22, 09:46 PM
That has changed. The Cummins, Powerstroke, and Duramax now have to meet the stringent emissions regulations. Why do you think they cost $8K now compared to the $3-4K before the new emission laws?
I thought anything with a GVWR of over 10k lbs was exempt from those standards. I know they are exempt from CAFE fuel economy standards.
I thought anything with a GVWR of over 10k lbs was exempt from those standards. I know they are exempt from CAFE fuel economy standards.
emotion
Nov 27, 02:35 PM
Maybe they should drop the price of the 20" Cinema Display to something more reasonable, such as $499 - $699 is far too much. In the UK it is �529!
I've seen 22" DVI Widescreen TFTs selling for under �300, often close to �200. $499 is probably too high still (even if it is a better standard of panel, and includes a Firewire hub) - maybe $399. Put the 17" up for ~$249 and aim it at Mac Mini purchasers (+iSight, -Firewire, 4 USB2 ports).
Some would hold up that the type of panels used (see the dell 24 vs acd 23 artcile) in the cheaper monitors is different and that is what you pay for.
Most people dont care that much though and do make the direct comparison. So price-wise the ACD looks to be a bad deal.
I've seen 22" DVI Widescreen TFTs selling for under �300, often close to �200. $499 is probably too high still (even if it is a better standard of panel, and includes a Firewire hub) - maybe $399. Put the 17" up for ~$249 and aim it at Mac Mini purchasers (+iSight, -Firewire, 4 USB2 ports).
Some would hold up that the type of panels used (see the dell 24 vs acd 23 artcile) in the cheaper monitors is different and that is what you pay for.
Most people dont care that much though and do make the direct comparison. So price-wise the ACD looks to be a bad deal.
kntgsp
Sep 14, 10:46 AM
The way CR seems to approach it (and I might have to reread their article that they keep changing and updating and reaffirming and I lost interest a while ago) is as if they approached a computer review like this:
"The aluminum Macbook can survive a 3 foot fall and still function. The aluminum Macbook will not melt on the stove."
"The plastic Toshiba can survive a 2.8 foot fall and still function. The plastic Toshiba will melt on the stove."
They then give excess weight to the latter statements about each laptop despite it not really being a normal use scenario and declare the Toshiba not recommendable. So what's the point? Is "not melting on a stove" an advantage? Sure. Is there a reason you should have a computer on a stove? No.
It seems like it's more fair to stress the importance of the initial normal use results than the secondary observations that have nothing to do with everyday usage and are not representative of what people will be doing with the device.
Of course that kind of reasoning is often met with "you can't tell a user how they should use a device". I agree, you can't. However when you label something not recommendable based essentially entirely on the extra -3dB attenuation (compared to my Galaxy S) and the fact that if you place the device on a flat surface and bridge the antenna with your finger you get the same extra -3dB attenuation, I fail to see the credible argument.
/yes I realize the pinky finger attenuation while laying a phone on a table is not destructive like cooking a laptop is. They are both about as relevant to everyday usage in my opinion.
"The aluminum Macbook can survive a 3 foot fall and still function. The aluminum Macbook will not melt on the stove."
"The plastic Toshiba can survive a 2.8 foot fall and still function. The plastic Toshiba will melt on the stove."
They then give excess weight to the latter statements about each laptop despite it not really being a normal use scenario and declare the Toshiba not recommendable. So what's the point? Is "not melting on a stove" an advantage? Sure. Is there a reason you should have a computer on a stove? No.
It seems like it's more fair to stress the importance of the initial normal use results than the secondary observations that have nothing to do with everyday usage and are not representative of what people will be doing with the device.
Of course that kind of reasoning is often met with "you can't tell a user how they should use a device". I agree, you can't. However when you label something not recommendable based essentially entirely on the extra -3dB attenuation (compared to my Galaxy S) and the fact that if you place the device on a flat surface and bridge the antenna with your finger you get the same extra -3dB attenuation, I fail to see the credible argument.
/yes I realize the pinky finger attenuation while laying a phone on a table is not destructive like cooking a laptop is. They are both about as relevant to everyday usage in my opinion.
iLEZ
Aug 7, 06:34 AM
*snip* ... The way one accesses networks in Windows seems much more straight forward, consistent, clean and intuitive in Windows XP than it does in OS X. That's my oppinion anyway. Maybe that's just me. Anyone else agree???
Not really. I just moved to Mac and i was surprised by the intuitive networking in OSX. However, i agree that it still could be better. Why the aliases? Why won't it connect to the PC when i type its local IP adress? Why is it so hard to have a permanently mounted network drive on your mac? I keep loosing it, having to re-mount it everytime i have taken my MacBook out of WiFi-range. Such things. Maybe most of it is me being a newbie, but still, that proves that it is not intuitive enough.
Not really. I just moved to Mac and i was surprised by the intuitive networking in OSX. However, i agree that it still could be better. Why the aliases? Why won't it connect to the PC when i type its local IP adress? Why is it so hard to have a permanently mounted network drive on your mac? I keep loosing it, having to re-mount it everytime i have taken my MacBook out of WiFi-range. Such things. Maybe most of it is me being a newbie, but still, that proves that it is not intuitive enough.
archer75
Apr 19, 11:27 AM
6950 6950 6950 6950 6950 6950 6950 6950 6950!
For heavens sake give it a nice GPU!!!!!!!!:eek:
Current imac with the 5750 is technically a 5850m. A 6850m is a slight downgrade from the 5850m. The 6950m is only a slight upgrade from the current imac.
Let's hope for a 6970m. Temps and power requirements are similar between the two but the performance gain is decent. It's the best we can hope for. And given the higher resolution of the 27" I would say it needs it.
I think it's safe to say they will get sandy bridge and thunderbolt but what I would also like to see is better speakers.
For heavens sake give it a nice GPU!!!!!!!!:eek:
Current imac with the 5750 is technically a 5850m. A 6850m is a slight downgrade from the 5850m. The 6950m is only a slight upgrade from the current imac.
Let's hope for a 6970m. Temps and power requirements are similar between the two but the performance gain is decent. It's the best we can hope for. And given the higher resolution of the 27" I would say it needs it.
I think it's safe to say they will get sandy bridge and thunderbolt but what I would also like to see is better speakers.
emotion
Nov 28, 05:07 AM
I'm surprised no one has ventured a guess as to whether these 17" monitors are going to be glossy or matte.
;)
:D :D :D
Cue 10 page heated argument.
;)
:D :D :D
Cue 10 page heated argument.
twoodcc
Jan 9, 09:33 AM
congrats to SciFrog for 4 million points!
i also recently got 4 million points. but i think my ppd is going down. the last 2 days have been bad for me, and it's looking like it might stay that way
it took me roughly 18-19 days to go from 3 mil to 4 mil. my best yet. but 4 to 5 probably won't be any faster, but we'll see
i also recently got 4 million points. but i think my ppd is going down. the last 2 days have been bad for me, and it's looking like it might stay that way
it took me roughly 18-19 days to go from 3 mil to 4 mil. my best yet. but 4 to 5 probably won't be any faster, but we'll see
drewsof07
Nov 24, 08:13 AM
ASK and you shall receive!!
28,530 posts!! see original post!!
What recession?
Yay Capitalism! hahaha :p
28,530 posts!! see original post!!
What recession?
Yay Capitalism! hahaha :p
Dr.Gargoyle
Sep 6, 06:36 PM
Luckily I get .Mac for free, but $99 is very expensive when compared to using flcker, gmail, youtube, etc.
Not to mention the �99 we pay each for .mac over here.
Not to mention the �99 we pay each for .mac over here.
gugy
Nov 15, 10:35 AM
cool
it's coming soon to a mac near you!
it's coming soon to a mac near you!
IbisDoc
Mar 25, 05:50 PM
Most of the naysayers believe that tilting and touch-screen gaming is for sissies. They want actual analog controllers and such. They'll never change that attitude because they what they were raised on. The younger, current group of gamers will find that tilt & touch is very natural for them so they won't be as prone to griping that the past is slowly fading away.
I like racing games a lot and this one looks terrific. Apple needs to build a game console with two iPad2 chips in it or one quad-core ARM processor. That would make one fine low-cost system with more games than you could possibly want available. Apple would just have to work out some touch & tilt controllers for it.
Touchscreen gaming requires you to LOOK AT THE TOUCHSCREEN. This works if the game is ON THE TOUCHSCREEN (for example, the iPad). This doesn't work if the game is on a different screen (for example, the TV). In touchscreen gaming, the concept is that you are watching the action on the screen that you are touching, not on a different screen 6-8 feet away.
In what way is that a dinosaur concept?
This will have limited usefulness, mainly tilting games. Or maybe a dumb game where you just need to smack the screen to whack a mole or something.
I like racing games a lot and this one looks terrific. Apple needs to build a game console with two iPad2 chips in it or one quad-core ARM processor. That would make one fine low-cost system with more games than you could possibly want available. Apple would just have to work out some touch & tilt controllers for it.
Touchscreen gaming requires you to LOOK AT THE TOUCHSCREEN. This works if the game is ON THE TOUCHSCREEN (for example, the iPad). This doesn't work if the game is on a different screen (for example, the TV). In touchscreen gaming, the concept is that you are watching the action on the screen that you are touching, not on a different screen 6-8 feet away.
In what way is that a dinosaur concept?
This will have limited usefulness, mainly tilting games. Or maybe a dumb game where you just need to smack the screen to whack a mole or something.
Angrisano
Sep 6, 07:40 PM
I'm a bit disappointed by this latest update as well. I'm still waiting for a headless Mac that will support my 19 inch dual monitors for under $2K. I recently built a nice Shuttle mini PC (not much bigger than the mini) with a P4 3ghz processor, 2gb ram, 250gb hard drive, 256mb graphics card and Litescribe DVD burner all for under $500.
Now I don't expect to pay so little for so much when buying a Mac. In fact I'm willing to pay double for the same specs. The trouble is, right now in Apple's line up you simply can't do it. Where is our mid-range expandable tower? I don't need all the power of the quad Xeon and my pocketbook doesn't need to pay that price.
I just want a decent middle of the road, expandable Mac for around $1K. I can build two really nice PCs for this price. Why can't I get one Mac?
Now I don't expect to pay so little for so much when buying a Mac. In fact I'm willing to pay double for the same specs. The trouble is, right now in Apple's line up you simply can't do it. Where is our mid-range expandable tower? I don't need all the power of the quad Xeon and my pocketbook doesn't need to pay that price.
I just want a decent middle of the road, expandable Mac for around $1K. I can build two really nice PCs for this price. Why can't I get one Mac?
suzerain
Jul 18, 12:30 PM
I disagree: people already spend time/gas/money DRIVING to a video store to rent something that become worse than useless: you have to drive again to return it :) Or, with Netflix you just have to mail it, but the wait is days--much longer than a download.
If people still drive to the video store to rent movies, then why are Blockbuster et al. going out of business? Everyone I know uses Netflix, not stores, nowadays, unless they don't have a computer, in which case iTunes is not their target market anyway.
I don't see online rental cutting into, like, BitTorrent, personally...if that was the point of the iTunes Store (to provide an alternative to pirating).
Rentals are stupid...what if something comes up and I can't watch my movie within the alotted time? I'm just screwed, then?
That's why the Netflix model is brilliant, though saddled with a delay...you can watch the movie whenever you want.
If people still drive to the video store to rent movies, then why are Blockbuster et al. going out of business? Everyone I know uses Netflix, not stores, nowadays, unless they don't have a computer, in which case iTunes is not their target market anyway.
I don't see online rental cutting into, like, BitTorrent, personally...if that was the point of the iTunes Store (to provide an alternative to pirating).
Rentals are stupid...what if something comes up and I can't watch my movie within the alotted time? I'm just screwed, then?
That's why the Netflix model is brilliant, though saddled with a delay...you can watch the movie whenever you want.
diogowerner
Aug 7, 05:29 AM
Mac OS X Leopard for Mac+PC :eek:
While MS is thinking about an "iPod killer", Apple releases a "Windows killer" :p
While MS is thinking about an "iPod killer", Apple releases a "Windows killer" :p
���h�?
Oct 23, 02:53 PM
I hope so. I want mine ASAP and hopefully before the MacExpo in London.
AppleScruff1
Apr 21, 05:57 PM
If this was about Microsoft or Google it would already be 20 pages long.
Hey Jude
Apr 10, 04:25 PM
I currently drive a manual transmission car and I prefer them over automatics, but the traffic situation is pretty bad where I live, so my next car will probably be an automatic.
Tailpike1153
Mar 22, 10:08 AM
I vote with my wallet. I veto the app. It ain't coming near my slice of the iOS ecosystem. My guts say that it should have been torpedoed. But on the flip, how many gay/lesbian apps are in the iOS ecosystem? All those gay/lesbian developers will probably get a boost in sales from the community and affliated supporters as they declare they are against the cure. Perhaps Apple was looking for a way to promote sales without promoting sales. Very sneaky.
zoran
Nov 21, 10:10 AM
This rumor seems to be only a rumor! Its Nov 21st today, when will octos come? Next year i guess... damn it!:mad:
mc68k
Jan 6, 05:51 PM
We are now in 56th place!
And mc68k should be over 10 million about now! Congrats! Happy new year :Dthats great news! it's been a while since we've been able to pass teams with ease. prob due to new enthusiastic users + the bigadv WUs
i'll be at 8 digits, not too bad. but it's really just a #. things might be changing for me for the worse WU-wise temporarily
And mc68k should be over 10 million about now! Congrats! Happy new year :Dthats great news! it's been a while since we've been able to pass teams with ease. prob due to new enthusiastic users + the bigadv WUs
i'll be at 8 digits, not too bad. but it's really just a #. things might be changing for me for the worse WU-wise temporarily
Dr.Gargoyle
Sep 6, 12:25 PM
Hmmm... I wouldnt be surprised if we will see a Mac Media (beefed up mini with 3.5'' HD and TV tuner) released the 12th to go with the Movie store.
Three iMacs. Why not three Mac minis?
Three iMacs. Why not three Mac minis?
mrblack927
Apr 4, 05:40 PM
I don't know about this whole fullscreen mode thing. The more "features" they add, the less I like it. I like to see pertinent information at a glance. I don't understand why the menu bar has to be hidden. I lose the ability to see my battery %, wifi status, even the time of day at a glance. All for what? to save 20 pixels of space? I'm sorry but if you need screen space that badly you should invest in a bigger monitor. Even the iOS devices leave the information bar at the top... :o
Just my thoughts...
Just my thoughts...
islanders
Dec 27, 10:33 PM
I'm waiting for one format or the other to win, and I don't have an HD set anyway.
You're comparing apples to oranges now. A cable box is a tuner and a self-contained unit. As far as we know, iTV will not have a tuner. Its only known function at this time is to stream content from a Mac, so that makes iTV like a Slingbox, not a cableco DVR. And Slingboxes don't have hard drives.
I wouldn't hold my breath on the word processing and web surfing. WebTV showed surfing the internet on a TV sucked because trying to read normal-sized text from six feet away was hard, and bumping the text size up would goof up the page layout generally. Same reason word processing would be silly.
I'm predicting a price around $400, but I'm also expecting a streaming device.
What bandwidth? The stuff you watch is downloaded to your Mac first, or even the iTV itself. They don't stream it every time you want to watch it. The iTunes Store is open for business for movies. The bandwidth problem has already been addressed.
That's lack of competition caused by effects of previous government sanctioned monopolies. And some "cooperation" by the different players in the industry. Kinda like how airline tickets and auto insurance are all pretty much the same.
Ok, I don�t know what a slingbox is� and I thought it was going to stream or operate like a TiVo, where it downloads while you are asleep, so it would need a harddrive.
Also, I�m not sure what you mean by TV? Do you mean a CRT with an aspect of 4:3? And, I would assume you don�t mean a flat panel LCD or Plasma, which now outsells tube tvs? A small HD plasma is 42�� and cost about $1000. I just got a Panny 9UK HD Plasma and it works quite will with a mac mini.
And when you download from the iTunes store this does go to a harddrive? So you think I�m going to buy both a new computer and the iTV, and pay $20 to download a few movies?
I already know I�m an idiot, thanks, but this still doesn�t make sense to me.
My point about price fixing was a wild hope that Apple might step in with iDish and offer a service without all the commercials, but I also said that I think this will be a HD movie download service, and web serfer, video server... like a mac mini, TiVo with streaming abilities from iTV.
The bandwidth limitation will be an issue if iTV wants to go past a download service.
You're comparing apples to oranges now. A cable box is a tuner and a self-contained unit. As far as we know, iTV will not have a tuner. Its only known function at this time is to stream content from a Mac, so that makes iTV like a Slingbox, not a cableco DVR. And Slingboxes don't have hard drives.
I wouldn't hold my breath on the word processing and web surfing. WebTV showed surfing the internet on a TV sucked because trying to read normal-sized text from six feet away was hard, and bumping the text size up would goof up the page layout generally. Same reason word processing would be silly.
I'm predicting a price around $400, but I'm also expecting a streaming device.
What bandwidth? The stuff you watch is downloaded to your Mac first, or even the iTV itself. They don't stream it every time you want to watch it. The iTunes Store is open for business for movies. The bandwidth problem has already been addressed.
That's lack of competition caused by effects of previous government sanctioned monopolies. And some "cooperation" by the different players in the industry. Kinda like how airline tickets and auto insurance are all pretty much the same.
Ok, I don�t know what a slingbox is� and I thought it was going to stream or operate like a TiVo, where it downloads while you are asleep, so it would need a harddrive.
Also, I�m not sure what you mean by TV? Do you mean a CRT with an aspect of 4:3? And, I would assume you don�t mean a flat panel LCD or Plasma, which now outsells tube tvs? A small HD plasma is 42�� and cost about $1000. I just got a Panny 9UK HD Plasma and it works quite will with a mac mini.
And when you download from the iTunes store this does go to a harddrive? So you think I�m going to buy both a new computer and the iTV, and pay $20 to download a few movies?
I already know I�m an idiot, thanks, but this still doesn�t make sense to me.
My point about price fixing was a wild hope that Apple might step in with iDish and offer a service without all the commercials, but I also said that I think this will be a HD movie download service, and web serfer, video server... like a mac mini, TiVo with streaming abilities from iTV.
The bandwidth limitation will be an issue if iTV wants to go past a download service.