H. Flower
Apr 13, 12:01 AM
I need more information before I can form an opinion about this.
charliehustle
Nov 6, 04:41 PM
Maybe, but there is a good chance Verizon will screw it up.
Plus, the number of Windows users far surpasses MAC OS X users, but Apple is doing just fine when compared to Microsoft.
What are you talking about? You have any links to your belief that "verizon will screw it up"? or you just "believe"? kind of like the tooth fairy or santa?
lets' break it down.. (after all, this thread is about market share)
windows (90% market share of OS worldwide)
apple (10%)
Microsoft market cap, $250 Billion
Apple, $175 Billion
Microsoft Revenue:$56 billion
Apple Revenue:$36 billion
Microsoft Profit Margin:24%
Apple profit margin:15%
Microsoft total cash:$33 billion
apple total cash:$23 billion
I wish people would understand the difference between market share and "inferior product"
they do not go hand in hand. And because Google will sell more phones than apple does not mean google will have a better smartphone.
Plus, the number of Windows users far surpasses MAC OS X users, but Apple is doing just fine when compared to Microsoft.
What are you talking about? You have any links to your belief that "verizon will screw it up"? or you just "believe"? kind of like the tooth fairy or santa?
lets' break it down.. (after all, this thread is about market share)
windows (90% market share of OS worldwide)
apple (10%)
Microsoft market cap, $250 Billion
Apple, $175 Billion
Microsoft Revenue:$56 billion
Apple Revenue:$36 billion
Microsoft Profit Margin:24%
Apple profit margin:15%
Microsoft total cash:$33 billion
apple total cash:$23 billion
I wish people would understand the difference between market share and "inferior product"
they do not go hand in hand. And because Google will sell more phones than apple does not mean google will have a better smartphone.
Doctor Q
Mar 19, 12:31 PM
Seriously: if I walk in to a store and take CD from the shelf, and not pay it, I'm stealing. If I make an identical copy of the CD and leave the original on the shelf, I'm not stealing, I'm committing a copyright-infringment. But I'm not stealing.We've had this dictionary discussion before. But when a book author finds somebody using a photocopier to make a copy of their book instead of buying it, the word used doesn't matter as much as the fact you got something they were selling without paying.Same logic: if I take someone else's car, and drive away with it, I'm stealing it. But if I create an identical copy of the car (using a replicator I got from Star Trek) for myself, have I stolen anything? From whom have I stolen?Same logic: Musical artists aren't selling you round bits of plastic. They are selling you a copy of their music. Same logic: When you buy PhotoShop, you are buying more than the CD and some packaging. You are buying a license to use it, and even if you download a copy without taking something away from somebody else, you are getting something worth money and the owner/producer has reason to expect payment.I find it rather surprising how blindly people here defend Apple, even after seeing how they remove your rights little by little. How many times can you burn your iTunes-songs to CD? It used to be ten times. But Apple reduced it to seven.Yeah, and I wonder why they did that. It was at the same time they increased the number of Macs you can authorize, so overall it was an improvement. Maybe they were tinkering with their deal with the record labels.Then they removed the ability to share/stream your songs from itunes to others.I can't imagine how they made that mistake, allowing sharing over the Internet instead of only over LANs when anybody could tell you the record labels (yes, them again) would be up in arms.Little by little, you feel the DRM-noose tightening around your necks. It seems like a major PR-coup to me, when you have Apple reducing your rights little by little, and you guys are screaming "Yes! Reduce our rights even more!"I wonder if they could offer a new program: You get to have all DRM removed in exchange for burly RIAA enforcers paying you surprise visits whenever they like to check what you are listening to. I'm just kidding, but it's too bad that honest customers have to bear the burdens of dishonest customers, and that any of us have to feel hogtied.
edifyingGerbil
Apr 27, 12:10 PM
That particular assumption is one of my pet peeves. :D
(The assumption that God is the Christian version.)
For the purposes of the various arguments which try to prove the existence of God, they are all referring to the Judaeo-Christian God. The arguments try to fit in an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent being within a framework.... Although when I say fit it's more like shoe-horn.
The main argument against the Judaeo-Christian God is: there is evil in the world, God is meant to be all-powerful and all-loving, and all-knowing, yet evil continues unabated. Either God is not powerful enough to stem the tide of "evil" in which case he's not worthy of worship, or God doesn't know we're suffering, or God knows and is powerful enough but chooses not to do anything.
You should read Spinoza's idea of God, pantheism (if you don't know it already, I'm sorry for assuming). It's the one that most appeals to me :D
(The assumption that God is the Christian version.)
For the purposes of the various arguments which try to prove the existence of God, they are all referring to the Judaeo-Christian God. The arguments try to fit in an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent being within a framework.... Although when I say fit it's more like shoe-horn.
The main argument against the Judaeo-Christian God is: there is evil in the world, God is meant to be all-powerful and all-loving, and all-knowing, yet evil continues unabated. Either God is not powerful enough to stem the tide of "evil" in which case he's not worthy of worship, or God doesn't know we're suffering, or God knows and is powerful enough but chooses not to do anything.
You should read Spinoza's idea of God, pantheism (if you don't know it already, I'm sorry for assuming). It's the one that most appeals to me :D
ldburroughs
Mar 18, 12:29 PM
I wonder how long it'll be until Apple comes up with a fix for this?
iTunes SP2??? I kid, I kid.
iTunes SP2??? I kid, I kid.
Eraserhead
Mar 26, 03:05 AM
Love conquers all until it hits a rough patch
If you really love someone, surely you don't want to be with anyone else? If so, then it would be pretty moronic not to ultimately work out your issues with the other person.
If you really love someone, surely you don't want to be with anyone else? If so, then it would be pretty moronic not to ultimately work out your issues with the other person.
danielwsmithee
Sep 12, 03:53 PM
I have to disagree with many of the comments on this thread. I think this is an ideal device. I don't want a computer connected to my TV I want to gain access to the content on my computer on my TV. It is two different ways of looking at these products.
As far as not having a DVR/tuner that should be done on your computer. The products available from elgato eyeTV etc. are already excellent and probably much better then Apple could start up and hope to compete with. EyeTV is already compatible with iTunes and the iPod, and it will be for this too. You just have to realize that the recording is going to happen at your computer not your TV. I really think the combination of eyeTV, iTunes and iTV is going to be much better then any competitors MCE etc.
It all goes back to Apple's philosophy of making the computer the center of your digital life. The TV is just a tool now to view what you have on your computer.
This does also offer one advantage over the mini besides price component video.
As far as not having a DVR/tuner that should be done on your computer. The products available from elgato eyeTV etc. are already excellent and probably much better then Apple could start up and hope to compete with. EyeTV is already compatible with iTunes and the iPod, and it will be for this too. You just have to realize that the recording is going to happen at your computer not your TV. I really think the combination of eyeTV, iTunes and iTV is going to be much better then any competitors MCE etc.
It all goes back to Apple's philosophy of making the computer the center of your digital life. The TV is just a tool now to view what you have on your computer.
This does also offer one advantage over the mini besides price component video.
econgeek
Apr 12, 10:45 PM
It's 'pro' editing for the masses but I'm sure many will keep their Adobe and AVID tools around for more orgranized productions.
Hard to take anyone seriously as a professional who uses Adobe. Avid, sure, but the industry has moved to Final Cut Pro, at least the part of the industry I interface with.
You calling this Final Cut a "toy" after it was just presented to a room full of professionals who loved it seems odd. Why the need to diminish it when it is clear that if you werent' there, there's much we don't yet know?
Hard to take anyone seriously as a professional who uses Adobe. Avid, sure, but the industry has moved to Final Cut Pro, at least the part of the industry I interface with.
You calling this Final Cut a "toy" after it was just presented to a room full of professionals who loved it seems odd. Why the need to diminish it when it is clear that if you werent' there, there's much we don't yet know?
Rt&Dzine
Apr 26, 05:50 PM
Or it vanished in a miracle.
For the bread has risen.
That is too ******* funny!
For the bread has risen.
That is too ******* funny!
CTYankee
Oct 25, 10:40 PM
Each process is it's own thread. And most processes have multiple threads. Unless you only always have one program open at a time, more cores always can help speed up your system.
Open and doing something. Safari, Mail, iTunes, and working in photoshop probably won't benefit much from quad cores. Batching in PS, Aperture and doing a render in FCP would.
I am on the brink of buying something. What, time will tell. If the quad core does make a marked difference when running PS and at most one background process I'll consider it. Otherwise its a Dual core 2.66 for me.
Open and doing something. Safari, Mail, iTunes, and working in photoshop probably won't benefit much from quad cores. Batching in PS, Aperture and doing a render in FCP would.
I am on the brink of buying something. What, time will tell. If the quad core does make a marked difference when running PS and at most one background process I'll consider it. Otherwise its a Dual core 2.66 for me.
TalkAboutApple
Apr 5, 10:59 PM
I switched for a couple years...and then switched back, into Windows 7.
OSX seems really long in the tooth, other than time machine I can't think of clear advantages. The strange thing is that I find the UI lacking. I found I spent tons of time trying to manipulate the edges of windows for resizing, accidentally clicking on the desktop while in an application, etc.
I'd like to see some real innovation on the desktop, I know they can do it but it doesn't seem a priority.
OSX seems really long in the tooth, other than time machine I can't think of clear advantages. The strange thing is that I find the UI lacking. I found I spent tons of time trying to manipulate the edges of windows for resizing, accidentally clicking on the desktop while in an application, etc.
I'd like to see some real innovation on the desktop, I know they can do it but it doesn't seem a priority.
xIGmanIx
Apr 10, 11:06 AM
Epic is garbage and their engine is garbage.
ct2k7
Apr 24, 06:29 PM
they left out the interesting parts to keep people guessing
It just flows... it just works..
It just flows... it just works..
deputy_doofy
Apr 12, 10:47 AM
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.
THIS. You can legally run both (assuming you have a copy of Windows to install) and you can both learn the Mac AND have Windows as your safety net. With Bootcamp, Windows runs natively, fully utilizing the hardware, its graphics, etc.
THIS. You can legally run both (assuming you have a copy of Windows to install) and you can both learn the Mac AND have Windows as your safety net. With Bootcamp, Windows runs natively, fully utilizing the hardware, its graphics, etc.
Multimedia
Oct 6, 01:59 AM
Just a small point, but I think back in 2002? Apple's top end Quicksilver G4 towers were configured like this:
Fast 733Mhz, Faster 867Mhz, Fastest Dual 800Mhz
So I could see them having an octo 2.66 above a quad 3.0.I think they will offer a Dual 2.33GHz Clovertown because each Clovertown is priced the same as each 3GHz Woody - $851. If they did offer the 2.66GHz Clovertowns, the premium would be more than $642 more as they each cost $321 more than the 2.33GHz models - $1172. That's almost 40% more money for an 8% 330MHz bump in speed - hardly an amount any logical person would pay extra for.
I think Apple won't want to sell a $4,000 Mac Pro when they can sell a lot more $3,300 ones. At 2.33GHz, the Clovertown OctoMacs are still going to be able to process a total of almost 19GHz or more than 50% more crunching power than the 3GHz Quads. This is all about who needs more cores vs. who needs more power. Different workflows call for different choices. Some need 4 high powered cores while others, like myself, need more cores totalling more power that we know we can use simultaneously since our workflow applications can use 3-4 cores each.
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.One will not be priced higher than the other. Both options will be +$800. Where did you get the idea that the 2.33GHz Octo would be priced above the 3GHz Quad? Both pairs of processors sell from Intel to Apple for exactly the same amount of money. Did you overlook that fact? Or do you think Apple is going to gouge us?
All that's going to happen is one added line in the processor section of the BTO page which will look like this:
Two 2.33GHz Quad-Core Intel Xeon [Add $800]
Mac Pro buyers need to do their homework so they know which way to go. The 8-core Mac is not a replacement for the current line. It's not "better" for many users. It is only "better" for a certain class of users who know the applications they use can take advantage of several cores at once or that they can imagine a workflow of running multiple applications that could use more cores simultaneously. So it's evolutionary not revolutionary.
There is no reason to believe that any of the three existing lines in the processor section of the "Configure Now" page will be deleted, only that the above line will be added with little fanfare - probably a press release is about all. And perhaps Steve will mention it in his January 9 SteveNote.
I still think the 2.66GHz Quad for $2499 will remain most popular among the vast majority of Mac Pro buyers. Those of us who are hungry for more cores are a rare breed of users who have figured out how to keep all those cores busy most of the time. :pMultimedia, 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.Neither do I and I think your characterization of what I do and how I do it is completely a fabricaiton of your imagination. I never use h.264 EVER. And I certainly never encode 4 videos at once - even with the Clovertown I won't be able to do that without compromizing the speed of each encode. You are trying to trivialize what I do by exagerating and mocking a real workflow situation because you have made up your mind that 4 cores are enough. Why do you think it's just fine to MOCK a fellow Mac user because you don't do the same work as he or she does?
Is Intel putting Clovertowns on the market because no one has any use for them?
You are way exagerating how I need more cores for what. You are totally underestimating how many cores ONE application can use. Toast 7.1 will use almost 4 cores of an Intel Mac to create ONE DVD image. Handbrake will use almost 3 to rip one mp4 file from one of those images and it hasn't been optimized for the Mac Pro yet although it is UB. I think you are way out of line to say that it will be highly uncommon for many users to hose an 8-core Mac easily. There are numerous ways to do so in nothing flat. Seems like your imagination is weak.
I have one of those 2GHz Dual Core (DC) G5's here and it is making my life a lot easier because I can continue to record video on the Quad while off-loading just recorded video for editing over there via the GB Ethernet. Then I rip the images back on the Quad via the GB Ethernet conection because ripping them on the DC is much slower. Even ripping two DVD Images simultaneously is faster running both on the Quad than one on the DC and the other on the Quad.
So I don't agree with you that a 2GHz DC G5 Mac is great for most unless everyone is still only doing one thing at a time. While I agree I am in a very small group of compression fanatics, I submit to you that there are plenty of other different kinds of small groups out there who can also use 8 cores all day and all night long. And the sum total of all of us equals a significant market that Apple can serve by simply ordering a thousand Clovertowns and adding that line above to the "Configure Now" page of the current Mac Pro offering.
Fast 733Mhz, Faster 867Mhz, Fastest Dual 800Mhz
So I could see them having an octo 2.66 above a quad 3.0.I think they will offer a Dual 2.33GHz Clovertown because each Clovertown is priced the same as each 3GHz Woody - $851. If they did offer the 2.66GHz Clovertowns, the premium would be more than $642 more as they each cost $321 more than the 2.33GHz models - $1172. That's almost 40% more money for an 8% 330MHz bump in speed - hardly an amount any logical person would pay extra for.
I think Apple won't want to sell a $4,000 Mac Pro when they can sell a lot more $3,300 ones. At 2.33GHz, the Clovertown OctoMacs are still going to be able to process a total of almost 19GHz or more than 50% more crunching power than the 3GHz Quads. This is all about who needs more cores vs. who needs more power. Different workflows call for different choices. Some need 4 high powered cores while others, like myself, need more cores totalling more power that we know we can use simultaneously since our workflow applications can use 3-4 cores each.
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.One will not be priced higher than the other. Both options will be +$800. Where did you get the idea that the 2.33GHz Octo would be priced above the 3GHz Quad? Both pairs of processors sell from Intel to Apple for exactly the same amount of money. Did you overlook that fact? Or do you think Apple is going to gouge us?
All that's going to happen is one added line in the processor section of the BTO page which will look like this:
Two 2.33GHz Quad-Core Intel Xeon [Add $800]
Mac Pro buyers need to do their homework so they know which way to go. The 8-core Mac is not a replacement for the current line. It's not "better" for many users. It is only "better" for a certain class of users who know the applications they use can take advantage of several cores at once or that they can imagine a workflow of running multiple applications that could use more cores simultaneously. So it's evolutionary not revolutionary.
There is no reason to believe that any of the three existing lines in the processor section of the "Configure Now" page will be deleted, only that the above line will be added with little fanfare - probably a press release is about all. And perhaps Steve will mention it in his January 9 SteveNote.
I still think the 2.66GHz Quad for $2499 will remain most popular among the vast majority of Mac Pro buyers. Those of us who are hungry for more cores are a rare breed of users who have figured out how to keep all those cores busy most of the time. :pMultimedia, 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.Neither do I and I think your characterization of what I do and how I do it is completely a fabricaiton of your imagination. I never use h.264 EVER. And I certainly never encode 4 videos at once - even with the Clovertown I won't be able to do that without compromizing the speed of each encode. You are trying to trivialize what I do by exagerating and mocking a real workflow situation because you have made up your mind that 4 cores are enough. Why do you think it's just fine to MOCK a fellow Mac user because you don't do the same work as he or she does?
Is Intel putting Clovertowns on the market because no one has any use for them?
You are way exagerating how I need more cores for what. You are totally underestimating how many cores ONE application can use. Toast 7.1 will use almost 4 cores of an Intel Mac to create ONE DVD image. Handbrake will use almost 3 to rip one mp4 file from one of those images and it hasn't been optimized for the Mac Pro yet although it is UB. I think you are way out of line to say that it will be highly uncommon for many users to hose an 8-core Mac easily. There are numerous ways to do so in nothing flat. Seems like your imagination is weak.
I have one of those 2GHz Dual Core (DC) G5's here and it is making my life a lot easier because I can continue to record video on the Quad while off-loading just recorded video for editing over there via the GB Ethernet. Then I rip the images back on the Quad via the GB Ethernet conection because ripping them on the DC is much slower. Even ripping two DVD Images simultaneously is faster running both on the Quad than one on the DC and the other on the Quad.
So I don't agree with you that a 2GHz DC G5 Mac is great for most unless everyone is still only doing one thing at a time. While I agree I am in a very small group of compression fanatics, I submit to you that there are plenty of other different kinds of small groups out there who can also use 8 cores all day and all night long. And the sum total of all of us equals a significant market that Apple can serve by simply ordering a thousand Clovertowns and adding that line above to the "Configure Now" page of the current Mac Pro offering.
BRLawyer
May 2, 01:52 PM
So let me get this straight:
1 - I must search for something on the Internet that leads me to that link (probably suspicious already);
2 - Javascript, IF activated, will start downloading a file, even though such a process can be stopped in the Safari downloads window;
3 - The suspicious ZIP file MUST be opened, this happening automatically ONLY if the "safe files" option is activated;
4 - I must OPEN the unzipped suspicious file, which will then lead me to a suspicious installer;
5 - I must AUTHORIZE the computer to install the suspicious file by providing my password;
6 - EVEN after doing all that, I can just kill processes and delete the file so that all is fine again.
And people still wanna call that "virus" or "malware"? Gimme an effing break! I've got a lot more damage from script kiddies who once sent me a disguised terminal command as a PDF file.
This is a non-issue...Winblows fanboys, can't you come with something better than this? :cool:
1 - I must search for something on the Internet that leads me to that link (probably suspicious already);
2 - Javascript, IF activated, will start downloading a file, even though such a process can be stopped in the Safari downloads window;
3 - The suspicious ZIP file MUST be opened, this happening automatically ONLY if the "safe files" option is activated;
4 - I must OPEN the unzipped suspicious file, which will then lead me to a suspicious installer;
5 - I must AUTHORIZE the computer to install the suspicious file by providing my password;
6 - EVEN after doing all that, I can just kill processes and delete the file so that all is fine again.
And people still wanna call that "virus" or "malware"? Gimme an effing break! I've got a lot more damage from script kiddies who once sent me a disguised terminal command as a PDF file.
This is a non-issue...Winblows fanboys, can't you come with something better than this? :cool:
EricNau
Mar 13, 09:23 PM
MODERATOR NOTE
Please, this is not the place to debate the advantages and disadvantageous of nuclear power, nor any other politically-charged issue. From the Forum Rules:
Threads and posts on controversial political, religious, and social issues are to be limited to the Politics, Religion, Social Issues forum, and made only by those eligible for that forum.
If you wish to discuss this issue, please start a thread in PRSI (http://forums.macrumors.com/forumdisplay.php?f=47) if you qualify. Thanks
Meanwhile, my sincerest condolences to all who were affected by this disaster. Hang in there, and stay safe.
Please, this is not the place to debate the advantages and disadvantageous of nuclear power, nor any other politically-charged issue. From the Forum Rules:
Threads and posts on controversial political, religious, and social issues are to be limited to the Politics, Religion, Social Issues forum, and made only by those eligible for that forum.
If you wish to discuss this issue, please start a thread in PRSI (http://forums.macrumors.com/forumdisplay.php?f=47) if you qualify. Thanks
Meanwhile, my sincerest condolences to all who were affected by this disaster. Hang in there, and stay safe.
LQYoshi
Apr 11, 10:54 AM
I think you'll love your Mac mini, I'm a big fan of the form factor.
As far as you father, I expect he'll be impressed with it if he's not a tech person. I know people always seemed impressed the Mac mini was a full computer, and OS X makes it even cool.
If he is a tech person, he might insist that PCs are cheaper, but not in the same form factor(its rather hard to find a simiar PC with Intel chip...Dell makes the Zino HD, but it runs on AMD) And you can always run XP/Windows 7 to make him happy.
True true. It seems like a lot of money but it should be worth it. I've wanted this a long time.
Would it be possible/legal to create a Virtual machine on my mac mini running OSX Lion (when it's released) if I don't want to upgrade from Snow Leopard to Lion on my mini (when I get it/lion is out)?
As far as you father, I expect he'll be impressed with it if he's not a tech person. I know people always seemed impressed the Mac mini was a full computer, and OS X makes it even cool.
If he is a tech person, he might insist that PCs are cheaper, but not in the same form factor(its rather hard to find a simiar PC with Intel chip...Dell makes the Zino HD, but it runs on AMD) And you can always run XP/Windows 7 to make him happy.
True true. It seems like a lot of money but it should be worth it. I've wanted this a long time.
Would it be possible/legal to create a Virtual machine on my mac mini running OSX Lion (when it's released) if I don't want to upgrade from Snow Leopard to Lion on my mini (when I get it/lion is out)?
Tobsterius
Apr 13, 06:39 AM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Mobile/8G4)
Looks like Apple made it easier to use and the so-called "Pros" feel threatened by that because it takes less specialized knowledge to do impressive work. We might not be there yet, but in time even grandma can edit. You get the point.
Part of the reason established IT folk feel so threatened by Apple.
You're incorrect... well... at least I think you are.
I have yet to meet a professional in this field that resists products getting easier to use. But what professionals hate are changes so drastic that 1) there's a learning curve, thus slowing them down, preventing them to make a living and 2) removing features that significantly change the workflow that allow them to work quickly and creatively.
Number 2 is my biggest worry. A complete rewrite is great. 64 bit is great. Grand Central is great. Multi-Core is great. What isn't great is the potential loss of features. Even the littlest feature, that most people would find mundane, could be very important to editors who've become used to that feature being in their workflow.
I work in broadcast/cable news where editors have to turn packages around quickly. You remove features that prevent them to work quickly because it altered their workflow... well now you're in trouble.
I can buy the excuse "Well they'll add it in version 2" if we're talking about consumer programs like iMovie. iMovie is not "mission critical."
But that feature that existed in the old-world FCP versions MUST be in X from day one, IMO, or else Apple will face a steep uphill battle to win FCP editors back.
Looks like Apple made it easier to use and the so-called "Pros" feel threatened by that because it takes less specialized knowledge to do impressive work. We might not be there yet, but in time even grandma can edit. You get the point.
Part of the reason established IT folk feel so threatened by Apple.
You're incorrect... well... at least I think you are.
I have yet to meet a professional in this field that resists products getting easier to use. But what professionals hate are changes so drastic that 1) there's a learning curve, thus slowing them down, preventing them to make a living and 2) removing features that significantly change the workflow that allow them to work quickly and creatively.
Number 2 is my biggest worry. A complete rewrite is great. 64 bit is great. Grand Central is great. Multi-Core is great. What isn't great is the potential loss of features. Even the littlest feature, that most people would find mundane, could be very important to editors who've become used to that feature being in their workflow.
I work in broadcast/cable news where editors have to turn packages around quickly. You remove features that prevent them to work quickly because it altered their workflow... well now you're in trouble.
I can buy the excuse "Well they'll add it in version 2" if we're talking about consumer programs like iMovie. iMovie is not "mission critical."
But that feature that existed in the old-world FCP versions MUST be in X from day one, IMO, or else Apple will face a steep uphill battle to win FCP editors back.
Penfold2711
Apr 21, 07:02 AM
I love the title simply because it reads like its discussing Steve Jobs' involvement in fragmenting Android :D
Maybe thats why Steve has gone missing he's on a secret mission I can imagine Steve in dark glasses a trench coat and a hat running around google HQ with his macbook pro as we speak :D
Maybe thats why Steve has gone missing he's on a secret mission I can imagine Steve in dark glasses a trench coat and a hat running around google HQ with his macbook pro as we speak :D
Bill McEnaney
Mar 27, 07:09 AM
You have completely missed the point.
That doesn't surprise me. Please tell me exactly what point I missed.
That doesn't surprise me. Please tell me exactly what point I missed.
Liquorpuki
Mar 13, 06:41 PM
I love when people don't read threads....
this was already posted, way to go...
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=how-to-use-solar-energy-at-night
Did you even read the article you posted? The stored solar energy is drained after 8 hours. Which means if you have a day where the sun is obstructed, your city will black out.
this was already posted, way to go...
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=how-to-use-solar-energy-at-night
Did you even read the article you posted? The stored solar energy is drained after 8 hours. Which means if you have a day where the sun is obstructed, your city will black out.
appleguy123
Apr 22, 09:11 PM
someone hasn't posted in that thread for 5 months ... why would people all of a sudden want to revive it ... today we have this one.
I would be willing to bet that if given time this thread will be a carbon copy of that one.
That thread should be stickied, because I can't really think of any issue(relevant to this topic) we didn't cover in it.
I would be willing to bet that if given time this thread will be a carbon copy of that one.
That thread should be stickied, because I can't really think of any issue(relevant to this topic) we didn't cover in it.
Huntn
Apr 22, 09:05 PM
Didn't you know? Aside from owning Apple products it's also quite trendy being an atheist. They think they don't need to back up their points with Reason or facts so it's a kind of intellectual laziness which compels most people.
I'm not saying that I'm a devout Christian or anything of the sort, I'm agnostic, but it's based on Reason.
Huh?? I'm the last person who usually defends Atheists around here (nothing against them) :), I'm Agnostic too, but regardless if I think they are out on a limb for my own personal reasons, using the scientific method, with no practical evidence of God is it really fair to accuse them of not thinking and being lazy?? Lol. It could be argued that believing there is no God for lack of evidence is stronger than believing in God based on faith (lack of proof).
Because it's harder to imagine that an intelligent designer had a hand in it than it is to imagine that everything happened by chance?
So you saying imaging is required in both cases cause we can't prove a thing? ;)
I'm not saying that I'm a devout Christian or anything of the sort, I'm agnostic, but it's based on Reason.
Huh?? I'm the last person who usually defends Atheists around here (nothing against them) :), I'm Agnostic too, but regardless if I think they are out on a limb for my own personal reasons, using the scientific method, with no practical evidence of God is it really fair to accuse them of not thinking and being lazy?? Lol. It could be argued that believing there is no God for lack of evidence is stronger than believing in God based on faith (lack of proof).
Because it's harder to imagine that an intelligent designer had a hand in it than it is to imagine that everything happened by chance?
So you saying imaging is required in both cases cause we can't prove a thing? ;)
No comments:
Post a Comment