11thIndian
Apr 11, 11:14 PM
So you really think it's just a handful of people on Macrumors?
Oh, and people I know.
So, how many do you think? Less than 10? Less than 100? What is your definition of "a lot"? Also please note I never said it was any kind of majority of FCP users or anything like that. I never said it was an industry-wide pandemic, although you'd like to put those words into my mouth as well. You'd also like to paint my claim that "a lot of pros are leaving FCP" as "combative", even though it's not. It's just an observation. I don't know why you're taking it so personally.
I'd say 25% of the current user base would be a lot.
Oh, and people I know.
So, how many do you think? Less than 10? Less than 100? What is your definition of "a lot"? Also please note I never said it was any kind of majority of FCP users or anything like that. I never said it was an industry-wide pandemic, although you'd like to put those words into my mouth as well. You'd also like to paint my claim that "a lot of pros are leaving FCP" as "combative", even though it's not. It's just an observation. I don't know why you're taking it so personally.
I'd say 25% of the current user base would be a lot.
4God
Jul 14, 11:00 PM
Power supplies produce a lot of heat. It makes great sense according to simply the most basic laws of thermodynamics.
Could you please explain this basic law of thermodynamics and I mean more extensively than "heat rises."
I always thought that the power supply was on top because of the heat generated by it. Since heat rises, it wouldn't pass over the rest of the computer on its way out. I still agree with you about the weight part though.
Bill the TaxMan
Well since the current G5's have a seperate chamber for the power supply, I guess that wouldn't matter. Also, isn't the air cooler at the bottom than at the already warm top? Go figure....
Could you please explain this basic law of thermodynamics and I mean more extensively than "heat rises."
I always thought that the power supply was on top because of the heat generated by it. Since heat rises, it wouldn't pass over the rest of the computer on its way out. I still agree with you about the weight part though.
Bill the TaxMan
Well since the current G5's have a seperate chamber for the power supply, I guess that wouldn't matter. Also, isn't the air cooler at the bottom than at the already warm top? Go figure....
MattInOz
Apr 5, 09:31 PM
I doubt Apple will ship a new version of FCP before they ship lion, there are simply no real video editor APIs in Snow Leopard that are capable of 64 bit, QT Kit is a joke.
HOWEVER, according to the developer page for Lion there will be a brand new A/V API in Lion that will be 64 bit and FCP will most likely be written in that.
I guess they could back port the entire API to Snow Leopard, but I wouldn't count on it.
There is little to no technical reason the new framework couldn't run on Snow Leopard as a private API embedded with the final cut release. If the framework you mean is AV Foundation then they don't need to backport it all. It's Not a "New" API it's been running on the iOS branch of OSX for a few years now. So Snow Leopard shouldn't be much of an issue, it's just a matter of tying it in to GCD and the other low level fun stuff SL brought online. It doesn't sound like there is anything in Lion that will mean it will work different at those low levels to stop it working.
Remember Apple owns both the OS and FCP. The low level video boffins at Apple seem to have been working all along to get the framework read for this release. The suggestion that in a company as small as Apple that a team developed the AV foundation without the FCP people knowing about it till the last minute is kind of ridiculous.
HOWEVER, according to the developer page for Lion there will be a brand new A/V API in Lion that will be 64 bit and FCP will most likely be written in that.
I guess they could back port the entire API to Snow Leopard, but I wouldn't count on it.
There is little to no technical reason the new framework couldn't run on Snow Leopard as a private API embedded with the final cut release. If the framework you mean is AV Foundation then they don't need to backport it all. It's Not a "New" API it's been running on the iOS branch of OSX for a few years now. So Snow Leopard shouldn't be much of an issue, it's just a matter of tying it in to GCD and the other low level fun stuff SL brought online. It doesn't sound like there is anything in Lion that will mean it will work different at those low levels to stop it working.
Remember Apple owns both the OS and FCP. The low level video boffins at Apple seem to have been working all along to get the framework read for this release. The suggestion that in a company as small as Apple that a team developed the AV foundation without the FCP people knowing about it till the last minute is kind of ridiculous.
Rafterman
Apr 27, 08:12 AM
Since I'm neither a criminal nor paranoid, I thought it was kind of cool/interesting too.
Its not about being a criminal or paranoid. This data is for the sole purpose of marketers to sell us crap.
Well, I'm tired of seeing ads everywhere I turn. You can't go to the bathroom now without seeing a ad shoved in your face and its becoming tiresome.
It reminds me of a line from Futurama:
Leela: Didn't you have ads in the 21st century?"
Fry: Well sure, but not in our dreams. Only on TV and radio, and in magazines, and movies, and at ball games... and on buses and milk cartons and t-shirts, and bananas and written on the sky. But not in dreams, no siree.
Well, Fry could have added our iPads and our phones too. Its disgusting already how much advertising has infiltrated our lives. You can't even read a news story on the internet without an ad being being intrusively shoved in your face.
Its not about being a criminal or paranoid. This data is for the sole purpose of marketers to sell us crap.
Well, I'm tired of seeing ads everywhere I turn. You can't go to the bathroom now without seeing a ad shoved in your face and its becoming tiresome.
It reminds me of a line from Futurama:
Leela: Didn't you have ads in the 21st century?"
Fry: Well sure, but not in our dreams. Only on TV and radio, and in magazines, and movies, and at ball games... and on buses and milk cartons and t-shirts, and bananas and written on the sky. But not in dreams, no siree.
Well, Fry could have added our iPads and our phones too. Its disgusting already how much advertising has infiltrated our lives. You can't even read a news story on the internet without an ad being being intrusively shoved in your face.
nagromme
Aug 25, 05:02 PM
I have always wondered if Apple's past industry record on support was really accurate. I think that Apple had such a loyal following of users that they tended to give Apple rosey marks for what most would classify as just average support.
A very logical theory--and sometimes true, no doubt--but three possible points to counter that:
* There is NOT a pattern of Mac users tending to hide their dissatisfaction--not even with even the smallest thing Apple does wrong. At least, not on these forums :D
* Consumer Reports (and PC Magazine too to some extent) break down the numbers in quantifiable ways: like whether Apple support solved the problem or not, and how long you had to wait on hold. It's not just "subjective impressions" being gathered. These are professional surveys after all.
* People aren't just loyal out of the blue, they're loyal because Apple HAS done well by them. People being happy on Mac is a FAIR factor, I think, not an unfair one. (The fact that Mac users like Apple/Macs so much is sometimes used as a REASON to claim that Apple/Macs don't deserve it. That's a little backwards at best.)
Nonetheless, I think you have a point about Switchers being an increasing group. I'm not sure exactly HOW that affects the outcome, but I think that it must, and that it's something Apple must adapt to.
As for this past month--I don't see any unusual pattern of complaints, personally. Things like that always fluctuate, and if there IS an increase in the last few weeks, I bet it's not the first such, nor the last.
For the record, my own experience: I have had Apple bend over backwards for me and offer better service (even free not-warranty repair for wear-and-tear) than they were bound to do. I have also had some frustration with getting canned responses from the first-level techs (at other companies too)--but I politely but firmly move up the ladder!
A very logical theory--and sometimes true, no doubt--but three possible points to counter that:
* There is NOT a pattern of Mac users tending to hide their dissatisfaction--not even with even the smallest thing Apple does wrong. At least, not on these forums :D
* Consumer Reports (and PC Magazine too to some extent) break down the numbers in quantifiable ways: like whether Apple support solved the problem or not, and how long you had to wait on hold. It's not just "subjective impressions" being gathered. These are professional surveys after all.
* People aren't just loyal out of the blue, they're loyal because Apple HAS done well by them. People being happy on Mac is a FAIR factor, I think, not an unfair one. (The fact that Mac users like Apple/Macs so much is sometimes used as a REASON to claim that Apple/Macs don't deserve it. That's a little backwards at best.)
Nonetheless, I think you have a point about Switchers being an increasing group. I'm not sure exactly HOW that affects the outcome, but I think that it must, and that it's something Apple must adapt to.
As for this past month--I don't see any unusual pattern of complaints, personally. Things like that always fluctuate, and if there IS an increase in the last few weeks, I bet it's not the first such, nor the last.
For the record, my own experience: I have had Apple bend over backwards for me and offer better service (even free not-warranty repair for wear-and-tear) than they were bound to do. I have also had some frustration with getting canned responses from the first-level techs (at other companies too)--but I politely but firmly move up the ladder!
Bill McEnaney
Apr 27, 12:21 PM
You obviously are posting without knowing anything about what a long form BC is. The short form is what the parents get and what you get when you ask the state for a copy. The long form is what is kept on file by the state. In other words, since it is handled very infrequently, it's probably going to look pristine.
If you don't like the guy, then say so, but it seems to me that to you, ignorance is more important than knowledge.
Maybe the certificate is legitimate, but I think the original short form would have been more convincing than a pristine copy of the long one. I like Obama, but I loathe his extreme liberalism.
If you don't like the guy, then say so, but it seems to me that to you, ignorance is more important than knowledge.
Maybe the certificate is legitimate, but I think the original short form would have been more convincing than a pristine copy of the long one. I like Obama, but I loathe his extreme liberalism.
faroZ06
Apr 27, 08:52 AM
I'm old-fashined I guess because I have no interest in having a smartphone in the first place. I just have a standard flip-phone. By owning a smartphone, you are always going to be faced with privacy issues because if you are using facebook/twitter and whatever else you are using to broadcasting your information. If you don't want advertisers to use your information, stop using social networking sites and search engines and stop being connected.
I also use a flip phone. It's cheaper, less likely to be stolen, better for calling, and inspired by Star Trek's tricorder :)
But I have an iPod Touch which I nearly lost...
I also use a flip phone. It's cheaper, less likely to be stolen, better for calling, and inspired by Star Trek's tricorder :)
But I have an iPod Touch which I nearly lost...
bruinsrme
Apr 27, 08:57 AM
He did furnish his official state-certified short-form birth certificate.
Before yesterday?
Before yesterday?
sehix
Nov 28, 09:44 PM
Actually, they do. They also got paid on every blank tape sold when cassettes were big. I think it is crazy for everyone to think that the music industry is greedy when it getting squeezed out of all of their revenue streams.
Actually, they aren't. They're making noises like it's happening, which isn't the same thing.
and kate middleton wedding
middleton wedding dress
kate middleton wedding dress
gown of Kate Middleton
Kate-Middleton-wedding-dress-
Kate Middleton Wedding Dress
Kate Middleton#39;s Wedding Dress
make her wedding dress,
Kate Middleton wedding dress
Kate Middleton wedding dress
Actually, they aren't. They're making noises like it's happening, which isn't the same thing.
KnightWRX
Mar 26, 07:58 AM
2) $129 is too much. This one cracks me up. Apple is bundling a $500 product into the OS (and other OS based servers are far more expensive) and people think $129 is too much?
Apple is bundling a bunch of GUI management tools, akin to Webmin. Was that worth 500$ before ? Nope. Is it more expensive elsewhere ? No. Let's face it, OS X Server was always a toy Unix compared to other big-Iron Unix systems and even to Linux as far as enterprise support goes. Volume management, hello Cupertino ?
Their old archaic way of managing storage is atrocious and no, I don't necessarily want to hook up with a huge array and run Xsan, I just want to intelligently manage my local storage. No, just RAID1 volumes is not enough, I want my volumes logical and independant of my physical volumes. I want to be able to move logical extents to new physical extents without having to take down anything on the box.
And what about those GUI tools ? I can't even just do X11 tunneling over SSH to my desktop to run them, I have either run their Remote Desktop stuff or use a 3rd party solution like VNC... What good are they ? At least make them web based (HP Systems Management Homepage type stuff) and join in to what the rest of the industry got clued into years ago if you don't want to code GUI stuff over X11.
And other OS based servers are not more expensive. Solaris is free (http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/server-storage/solaris/downloads/index.html). I won't even bother linking to all the free distributions of Linux that are ready for the server (Fedora, OpenSuSE, Arch, Ubuntu). The BSDs. Unix server product vendors make their money off of support contracts, not the actual software itself, an arena Apple obviously wants no part of.
All the bits and pieces of server software is mostly re-packaged open source components nowadays anyhow. Most every vendor out there is using Apache and Tomcat in their web-based products, Postfix on the mail side, I've seen a lot of MySQL and PostgreSQL based products (HP uses both, MySQL I've seen in their Output Manager product, PostgreSQL in their System Fault Management, Symantec uses MySQL for Brightmail), and let's not even get into OpenSSL and OpenSSH...
Heck, even Apple does this. OS X server is just a bunch of open source components packaged up together. Apache, OpenLDAP, OpenSSH, ClamAV...
So please, pretty please, with a cherry on top, let's not call OS X Server something worth 500$ and compare it to "others that are more expensive but in actuality are free to download and run and only expensive to get vendor support for".
This rant was longer than it should have been. I love OS X as a desktop OS. I'd pay 129$ for a Lion upgrade with my eyes closed. Best of both worlds. Unix underpinnings and powerful command-line (everything is there!) with integration for all my server products yet fast and easy to setup GUI that is mostly consistent so as to attract a large user base that makes it a good proposition for commercial software vendors to port their packages to. Apple just never got really serious about the server side of it (and lets face it, it's not their business and they obviously want no part of the entreprise market) and I'm not faulting them for that. Let's not be as disingenious as to claim their selling you a 500$ product for 129$ though.
I'm shocked at how many people are so willing to just wave away all the nice under-the-hood changes and improvements that Snow Leopard offers just because there aren't any super-radical UI changes... really disappointing to be honest. Does it really have to be all flashy to be of interest to you? What, the functional side of things doesn't matter any more?
See how this little change in your comment still makes it apply very much to the MacRumors crowd ? ;) The fact is, you're not really dealing with technical people on MacRumors, no matter how much some of them pretend they are. Heck, some of them still believe that HTML is a programming language and that they are web developers because their tools of choice are PhotoShop and Dreamweaver.
Apple is bundling a bunch of GUI management tools, akin to Webmin. Was that worth 500$ before ? Nope. Is it more expensive elsewhere ? No. Let's face it, OS X Server was always a toy Unix compared to other big-Iron Unix systems and even to Linux as far as enterprise support goes. Volume management, hello Cupertino ?
Their old archaic way of managing storage is atrocious and no, I don't necessarily want to hook up with a huge array and run Xsan, I just want to intelligently manage my local storage. No, just RAID1 volumes is not enough, I want my volumes logical and independant of my physical volumes. I want to be able to move logical extents to new physical extents without having to take down anything on the box.
And what about those GUI tools ? I can't even just do X11 tunneling over SSH to my desktop to run them, I have either run their Remote Desktop stuff or use a 3rd party solution like VNC... What good are they ? At least make them web based (HP Systems Management Homepage type stuff) and join in to what the rest of the industry got clued into years ago if you don't want to code GUI stuff over X11.
And other OS based servers are not more expensive. Solaris is free (http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/server-storage/solaris/downloads/index.html). I won't even bother linking to all the free distributions of Linux that are ready for the server (Fedora, OpenSuSE, Arch, Ubuntu). The BSDs. Unix server product vendors make their money off of support contracts, not the actual software itself, an arena Apple obviously wants no part of.
All the bits and pieces of server software is mostly re-packaged open source components nowadays anyhow. Most every vendor out there is using Apache and Tomcat in their web-based products, Postfix on the mail side, I've seen a lot of MySQL and PostgreSQL based products (HP uses both, MySQL I've seen in their Output Manager product, PostgreSQL in their System Fault Management, Symantec uses MySQL for Brightmail), and let's not even get into OpenSSL and OpenSSH...
Heck, even Apple does this. OS X server is just a bunch of open source components packaged up together. Apache, OpenLDAP, OpenSSH, ClamAV...
So please, pretty please, with a cherry on top, let's not call OS X Server something worth 500$ and compare it to "others that are more expensive but in actuality are free to download and run and only expensive to get vendor support for".
This rant was longer than it should have been. I love OS X as a desktop OS. I'd pay 129$ for a Lion upgrade with my eyes closed. Best of both worlds. Unix underpinnings and powerful command-line (everything is there!) with integration for all my server products yet fast and easy to setup GUI that is mostly consistent so as to attract a large user base that makes it a good proposition for commercial software vendors to port their packages to. Apple just never got really serious about the server side of it (and lets face it, it's not their business and they obviously want no part of the entreprise market) and I'm not faulting them for that. Let's not be as disingenious as to claim their selling you a 500$ product for 129$ though.
I'm shocked at how many people are so willing to just wave away all the nice under-the-hood changes and improvements that Snow Leopard offers just because there aren't any super-radical UI changes... really disappointing to be honest. Does it really have to be all flashy to be of interest to you? What, the functional side of things doesn't matter any more?
See how this little change in your comment still makes it apply very much to the MacRumors crowd ? ;) The fact is, you're not really dealing with technical people on MacRumors, no matter how much some of them pretend they are. Heck, some of them still believe that HTML is a programming language and that they are web developers because their tools of choice are PhotoShop and Dreamweaver.
infidel69
Mar 31, 02:37 PM
Lol, the fragmentation that "doesnt exist".
I knew it would bite them in the ass someday.
How is it biting them in the ass? Android is the fastest growing OS with a larger share than IOS. I think it's been a very succesfull strategy.
I knew it would bite them in the ass someday.
How is it biting them in the ass? Android is the fastest growing OS with a larger share than IOS. I think it's been a very succesfull strategy.
BlondeBuddhist
Jun 8, 08:47 PM
I would rather just order it online if I didn't want to drive to an Apple Store.
Seriously, RadioShack needs to die.
from what the Apple service rep told me today, in order to pre-order by adding a line I have to do the pre-ordering in the store.
Seriously, RadioShack needs to die.
from what the Apple service rep told me today, in order to pre-order by adding a line I have to do the pre-ordering in the store.
MacSawdust
Aug 26, 10:40 AM
This nows explains why mine is not valid.
admanimal
Mar 22, 12:52 PM
Meanwhile, Apple is drowning in orders and battling light leaks (http://www.electronista.com/articles/11/03/22/buyers.complain.of.multiple.faulty.replacements/) in displays. If the quality cannot be improved expeditiously, would-be customers may investigate the competition. :(
Yeah, with problems like that they are destined to fail. :rolleyes:
Yeah, with problems like that they are destined to fail. :rolleyes:
jaxstate
Jul 27, 10:37 AM
Wowzers, that expensive.
"$999 for the 2.93GHz Core 2 Extreme X6800"
"$999 for the 2.93GHz Core 2 Extreme X6800"
fenderbass146
Apr 8, 12:51 AM
I am in the Geek Squad at a Best Buy, and at least at my store there is no such thing happening, nor have we ever been instructed to tell a customer that we don't have a certain product, unless it's unreleased such as new movies etc,,, but once something is released, if we have it we sell it.
skunk
Mar 22, 07:59 PM
Probably, but it was certainly orchestrated to look anything but. Sarkozy was very obliging in shooting his mouth off, as was Cameron. It may have just been luck, but if so it was a remarkable piece of luck to have 4 submarines, a flagship-capable surface ship and all necessary support in the right place at the right time. These things don't travel very fast.
ender1122333
Apr 5, 08:47 PM
This could make me very happy.
Any news on a Logic studio refresh happening any time soon?
Any news on a Logic studio refresh happening any time soon?
BaldiMac
Mar 22, 02:42 PM
Display playbook = 7"
Display iPad = 9.7"
That's not half the size.
The diagonal is not the only way to measure a screen. I provided you with the numbers for the area of the screen to prove my claim.
Display iPad = 9.7"
That's not half the size.
The diagonal is not the only way to measure a screen. I provided you with the numbers for the area of the screen to prove my claim.
carmenodie
Mar 22, 01:12 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8F190 Safari/6533.18.5)
Please who the hell would take a step way back by going with Samsung. Yeah them tablets look cool and very thin but so damn what. Apple has the ecosystem and the customer service. Also the fit and finish of the iPad is so much more awesome then those Sammy tablets. I don't hate but come on! Samsung doesn't even control the effing software. All they can do is skin the Honeycomb OS. I'm not impressed.
Please who the hell would take a step way back by going with Samsung. Yeah them tablets look cool and very thin but so damn what. Apple has the ecosystem and the customer service. Also the fit and finish of the iPad is so much more awesome then those Sammy tablets. I don't hate but come on! Samsung doesn't even control the effing software. All they can do is skin the Honeycomb OS. I'm not impressed.
Stridder44
Apr 25, 03:40 PM
Wow, ignorance is bliss I guess. These idiots are going to sue Google next, right? Because if they think iOS is bad about tracking people, they're going to lose their s--t when they see what Android does.
dgree03
Mar 31, 02:39 PM
I've been wanting to say this for a very long time. Google's OS has no advantage over iOS. You could even say it has a disadvantage. Having to create a vanilla code base that needs to function on multiple pieces of hardware is complex, more complexity creates weaker system.
But here's my point. The ONLY ONLY reason why Android market share is anywhere near what it is today is because of the Buy One Get One options at most phone retailers. iOS has NEVER done that and hopefully never will. If you didn't care about the phone or service but needed two "Newer Smart Phones" one for you and one for your wife, why not go with the "Blah Blah" model from Verizon where if I buy one today I get the second for free (two year agreement and activation fees required).
Market share means nothing. This platform is doomed unless Google reins it in and get control over it. If they do, providers will be less willing to work with them, if they don't, by by Android.
My Two Cents.
-LanPhantom
Iphone are sold BOGO and even just free on contract over in other countries.
Android has quite a few advantages over iOS. And as it stands right now, android is still as "open" as it was 1 minutes before this article got posted
Nice try.
But here's my point. The ONLY ONLY reason why Android market share is anywhere near what it is today is because of the Buy One Get One options at most phone retailers. iOS has NEVER done that and hopefully never will. If you didn't care about the phone or service but needed two "Newer Smart Phones" one for you and one for your wife, why not go with the "Blah Blah" model from Verizon where if I buy one today I get the second for free (two year agreement and activation fees required).
Market share means nothing. This platform is doomed unless Google reins it in and get control over it. If they do, providers will be less willing to work with them, if they don't, by by Android.
My Two Cents.
-LanPhantom
Iphone are sold BOGO and even just free on contract over in other countries.
Android has quite a few advantages over iOS. And as it stands right now, android is still as "open" as it was 1 minutes before this article got posted
Nice try.
NJRonbo
Jun 22, 03:01 PM
myemosoul,
What district/area is this?
I am in central NJ and counting on some
stores around here to get a few...hopefully.
What district/area is this?
I am in central NJ and counting on some
stores around here to get a few...hopefully.
rezenclowd3
Aug 19, 11:06 PM
Racing games have come a long long way. Based on original racing sims, watching the shock absorbers flex is wonderful. You can feel the bumps. :)
I laugh at both dirt games because of this. The suspension is TOTALLY wrong on the buggies, and just odd on so many more in the game as to how it works. Its like the developers don't know how a double unequal length a-arm works....
For example when one damages a wheel and it rotates as if it is bent, or the hub is bent. The upper a-arm slides in and out lol.
Or in one of the NFS games when one steers max left or right, the inside wheel will stop and the outside will keep on going for a few degrees, and its not the ackerman mind you.
I don't mind the models being the same in GT5 from GT4, as long as online is as good or better than Forza 2. Forza 3 online was a much unneeded step backwards.
I laugh at both dirt games because of this. The suspension is TOTALLY wrong on the buggies, and just odd on so many more in the game as to how it works. Its like the developers don't know how a double unequal length a-arm works....
For example when one damages a wheel and it rotates as if it is bent, or the hub is bent. The upper a-arm slides in and out lol.
Or in one of the NFS games when one steers max left or right, the inside wheel will stop and the outside will keep on going for a few degrees, and its not the ackerman mind you.
I don't mind the models being the same in GT5 from GT4, as long as online is as good or better than Forza 2. Forza 3 online was a much unneeded step backwards.
