mrblack927
Apr 11, 01:22 PM
The biggest hassle was keyboard differences for me. Some keys I use quite often like "home" and "end" are missing. Command, which fills in for control in most cases, isn't in the "corners" (first and last keys in the bottom row) so instead of using my pinky + index finger for things like copy/paste, I had to get used to using thumb + index finger.
That being said, once you get used to it, it's not a problem. Like many others, I use winXP at work and OSX at home. You would think it would be confusing, but muscle memory is an amazing thing. Your hands eventually know which keys to use based on the environment you're using. You become almost ambidextrous in that sense. ;)
That being said, once you get used to it, it's not a problem. Like many others, I use winXP at work and OSX at home. You would think it would be confusing, but muscle memory is an amazing thing. Your hands eventually know which keys to use based on the environment you're using. You become almost ambidextrous in that sense. ;)
matticus008
Mar 20, 06:33 PM
Is there anybody here who has ever changed their mind about digital rights management, i.e., accepted and then rejected it or rejected it and then accepted it over time? We've heard many members trying to convince others and I wonder if everybody has their mind permanently made up.
Has anybody ever "switched" on this issue?
Actually, I have. I'd been vehemently opposed to both the DMCA and DRM for the past several years (what's a good liberal to do?). I always held the opinion that it wasn't really doing anyone any real harm. I buy music, and the music I downloaded was probably not music I'd buy anyway, so I didn't see it harming sales. But then I came across more people like many in this thread, who believe that they are entitled to more than they agreed to or paid for, and who justify and rationalize their piracy to the point where it's just absolutely ridiculous, and now I see why DRM exists--because people don't actually want "fair use" or a way to preview music before buying it and supporting the artists they like. All they want is free music that they can pretend they own and control in a manner to which they've never been allowed by law.
Before digital files, no one would have argued that copying a CD and giving it away was wrong. But now the scale is much larger and it's much easier, and there are people pretending that it's legal or that it's now okay because the RIAA is somehow more corrupt than it was 10 years ago when filesharing was a niche activity for technophiles.
Has anybody ever "switched" on this issue?
Actually, I have. I'd been vehemently opposed to both the DMCA and DRM for the past several years (what's a good liberal to do?). I always held the opinion that it wasn't really doing anyone any real harm. I buy music, and the music I downloaded was probably not music I'd buy anyway, so I didn't see it harming sales. But then I came across more people like many in this thread, who believe that they are entitled to more than they agreed to or paid for, and who justify and rationalize their piracy to the point where it's just absolutely ridiculous, and now I see why DRM exists--because people don't actually want "fair use" or a way to preview music before buying it and supporting the artists they like. All they want is free music that they can pretend they own and control in a manner to which they've never been allowed by law.
Before digital files, no one would have argued that copying a CD and giving it away was wrong. But now the scale is much larger and it's much easier, and there are people pretending that it's legal or that it's now okay because the RIAA is somehow more corrupt than it was 10 years ago when filesharing was a niche activity for technophiles.
DrDomVonDoom
Apr 13, 01:29 PM
So basically what you are saying is that you are a two bit hack and a kid with just an ounce of creativity can easily replace you because any kid can afford a $300 program, whereas a $900 one keeps them artificially out of the game.
The really ironic thing about your post is that FCP 1.0 was a cost revolution itself bringing video editing to he masses for really the first time ever, which you took advantage of. Now that Apple is doing it again and you are at risk you seemingly outraged.
Try and get your facts right before spouting off and obviously you are no pro app user. Premier was before FCP and FCP was taken from premier as the person who built FCP was the same. Premier was the first cost revolution not FCP.1 as Macs didn't sell many at that point. It stands to reason that if you dilute something in price it will then be worth less, and in business you need a premium product to keep your head above water.. Its all very well Apple releasing garage band as this is ment for kids and individuals to play around with and when or if they decide to go and pursue this for a career they can up sell them to Logic or Pro Tools etc. This is a huge step up for that route, but what I am saying is this: If everyone has the same tools then how can it be called a pro app? The new FCP is pretty much based on Imovie and for those who dont except that try and use them both together and then you will see.
Take the Red camera.. this could sell for 5k and everyone would have one, so why would you pay a daily rate of $1500 to have someone use a camera that only costs $5k? Wake up and smell the coffee but as your post indicates you dont live in the real world as companies will pay more for something they feel is better than it really is. Its simple business logic and psychology. Companies pay a premium for a professional using professional gear not an app you download from the app store.
I think that is 'Professional' world that your living in is starting to change. Applications aren't just a forte of a few high and mighty code monkeys. For example I could go get Xcode off the App store and download it for 5 bucks, thats all you need to make a Killer iPhone app, 5 bucks. Angry Birds, made millions of dollers, and it started with 5 bucks. It could be used by a Fortune 500 company to create a in-shop app that can do much for the company, or it can be used by some kid in his room to create a game. This idea of there is a special elite out there is changing. Technology is embraced by everyone, and everyone born today will have the same oppertunity's to use them. Computers or Video Editing isn't just something that is done by geeks in a basement on some College campus using machines the size of desks. Its done by Granny's, Kiddo's, everyone. High Definition cameras are affordable to anyone with a little skill in saving. People aren't gonna need 'Professionals' forever. Why hire a Photographer for a wedding, when I can afford just as good Camera, photo editing software for less then it would be to hire them?
We can't keep professionals around just for the sake of keeping them around. If they are productive, if society needs them, then they will do fine. I'm sure your industry needs you, and plenty of regular joe's do to. But not forever, definatly not with the next generation of script kiddies and technology savvy teens.
The really ironic thing about your post is that FCP 1.0 was a cost revolution itself bringing video editing to he masses for really the first time ever, which you took advantage of. Now that Apple is doing it again and you are at risk you seemingly outraged.
Try and get your facts right before spouting off and obviously you are no pro app user. Premier was before FCP and FCP was taken from premier as the person who built FCP was the same. Premier was the first cost revolution not FCP.1 as Macs didn't sell many at that point. It stands to reason that if you dilute something in price it will then be worth less, and in business you need a premium product to keep your head above water.. Its all very well Apple releasing garage band as this is ment for kids and individuals to play around with and when or if they decide to go and pursue this for a career they can up sell them to Logic or Pro Tools etc. This is a huge step up for that route, but what I am saying is this: If everyone has the same tools then how can it be called a pro app? The new FCP is pretty much based on Imovie and for those who dont except that try and use them both together and then you will see.
Take the Red camera.. this could sell for 5k and everyone would have one, so why would you pay a daily rate of $1500 to have someone use a camera that only costs $5k? Wake up and smell the coffee but as your post indicates you dont live in the real world as companies will pay more for something they feel is better than it really is. Its simple business logic and psychology. Companies pay a premium for a professional using professional gear not an app you download from the app store.
I think that is 'Professional' world that your living in is starting to change. Applications aren't just a forte of a few high and mighty code monkeys. For example I could go get Xcode off the App store and download it for 5 bucks, thats all you need to make a Killer iPhone app, 5 bucks. Angry Birds, made millions of dollers, and it started with 5 bucks. It could be used by a Fortune 500 company to create a in-shop app that can do much for the company, or it can be used by some kid in his room to create a game. This idea of there is a special elite out there is changing. Technology is embraced by everyone, and everyone born today will have the same oppertunity's to use them. Computers or Video Editing isn't just something that is done by geeks in a basement on some College campus using machines the size of desks. Its done by Granny's, Kiddo's, everyone. High Definition cameras are affordable to anyone with a little skill in saving. People aren't gonna need 'Professionals' forever. Why hire a Photographer for a wedding, when I can afford just as good Camera, photo editing software for less then it would be to hire them?
We can't keep professionals around just for the sake of keeping them around. If they are productive, if society needs them, then they will do fine. I'm sure your industry needs you, and plenty of regular joe's do to. But not forever, definatly not with the next generation of script kiddies and technology savvy teens.
aricher
Aug 29, 10:57 AM
It's a very sad reality indeed.
greenstork
Sep 12, 04:55 PM
It seems that will stream HDTV content, so I have my Elgato recording my favorite show in HDTV than it streams it to my flat panel and I can control it from my couch without having to go back to my computer on the other room.
I can access the itunes store, see my photos listen my music, etc.
What else you guys want?
If the iTV streams HD content, then it's going to be heavily compressed HD content. Depending on the quality of the compression, it may look great on your flat panel and it may look just okay, we'll see.
I can access the itunes store, see my photos listen my music, etc.
What else you guys want?
If the iTV streams HD content, then it's going to be heavily compressed HD content. Depending on the quality of the compression, it may look great on your flat panel and it may look just okay, we'll see.
Edge100
Apr 15, 01:15 PM
So now were placing importance based on what? Suicide is suicide.
We're placing more importance on the bullying of gays because of the historical and widespread discrimination, hatred, and violence that gays have had to endure (and still endure) that obese people have not. We discussed this 8 pages ago.
We're placing more importance on the bullying of gays because of the historical and widespread discrimination, hatred, and violence that gays have had to endure (and still endure) that obese people have not. We discussed this 8 pages ago.
rasmasyean
Apr 22, 11:47 PM
It's believed that the Higgs Boson exists but as yet there is no proof of its existence. Despite this respected physicists continue to try and prove its existence.
There are many things we believe in the existence of despite lack of tangible proof.
The Higgs Boson is something that is speculated to exist based on mathematical models and observation of other properties in theory. Therefore they try to "look for it" in order to confirm their models.
Einstein's special relativity was also speculated to exist based on mathematical models. And there was no way to observe that and "prove" that those phenomenon exist until modern equipment was invented...like GPS.
Even when Einstein derived that light travels in "particles", it explained a lot of things, but it isn't really until now that we use "photons" to bombard atoms to do quantum mechanical work...like solar panels. But they were derived to exist based on some other doctrine that works in real life (not just your mind).
There is a line between using an established doctrine to determine something can exist vs. "faith" in something that exists with no basis to draw upon other than some book written thousands of years ago...presumably. That's why it's called "faith".
There are many things we believe in the existence of despite lack of tangible proof.
The Higgs Boson is something that is speculated to exist based on mathematical models and observation of other properties in theory. Therefore they try to "look for it" in order to confirm their models.
Einstein's special relativity was also speculated to exist based on mathematical models. And there was no way to observe that and "prove" that those phenomenon exist until modern equipment was invented...like GPS.
Even when Einstein derived that light travels in "particles", it explained a lot of things, but it isn't really until now that we use "photons" to bombard atoms to do quantum mechanical work...like solar panels. But they were derived to exist based on some other doctrine that works in real life (not just your mind).
There is a line between using an established doctrine to determine something can exist vs. "faith" in something that exists with no basis to draw upon other than some book written thousands of years ago...presumably. That's why it's called "faith".
econgeek
Apr 12, 10:47 PM
Color lets you make absurdly complex adjustments to a scene like a hollywood colorist-- in realtime-- 16 effective secondaries.. This has nothing like that.
I know what grading is. Prove to me that this App has no grading capability.
I know what grading is. Prove to me that this App has no grading capability.
MonkeyClaw
Sep 21, 08:49 AM
I think this thing is perfect, especially for a person like myself who does not watch a ton of TV. In the end it will be cheaper for me just running one of these on my TV and subscribing to a couple of shows as opposed to spending money on cable or satellite. The built in HDD is an interesting development, I'm curious to see what that might bring about. But as it stands, I'm sold, lol.
flopticalcube
Apr 15, 01:16 PM
Ok, replace "True" for "Orthodox". Mainstream Protestant, Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Greek Orthodox. Pretty much believe the same things. You can even throw some non-orthodox sects in there like the Mormons and still have a huge intersect on beliefs, especially on morality.
Except for the fastest growing contingent of Christians in the world, the evangelicals. Like I said, you are all finger pointing and being smug in your own belief as to the true interpretation. How laughable. If you are all true Christians, why is there more than one church?
Except for the fastest growing contingent of Christians in the world, the evangelicals. Like I said, you are all finger pointing and being smug in your own belief as to the true interpretation. How laughable. If you are all true Christians, why is there more than one church?
Huntn
Apr 25, 08:41 AM
As soon as you start down the slippery slope of stating that some things in the Bible (I use the Bible as an example but this applies equally to all religions) are not true (i.e the world was created in seven days) or that certain parts are meant to be interpreted by the reader (who's interpretation is correct?) you lose all credibility. If you are so determined to change your religion so that it fits in with modern science what is the point of being religious?
This is an excellent point. If you go with the all or nothing, then as soon as anything is suspect in your favorite holy document, then it all is. If any logic prevails then one must admit they don't know as much as they thought they did. Unfortunately this area is not a place where logic shines.
Part of the problem is that God has always been a terrible communicator. ;)
Floptical cube's post sounds like an excellent description of agnosticism. But every atheist I've ever met has believed that there's God.
I think it's important to remember that, although people can feel emotions about beliefs, beliefs aren't emotions. I don't feel that there's a God. I believe that there is one. I feel happiness, sadness, loneliness, hurt, and so forth. I believe that those feelings exist, but I don't believe that happiness, say, is either a truth or a falsehood. I don't believe that it's a conformity between my intellect and reality. My belief that there's a pine tree in my front yard is true because there is a pine tree there that causes my belief to be true. The tree will still be there 10 minutes from now, even if someone or something fools me into believing that it's gone. The truth or falsehood of my belief depends on the way things are in the world. I can't cause that tree to exist by merely believing that it does exist. I can't make it stop existing by simply believing that it doesn't exist, can I?
When someone talks about "not believing" my initial knee jerk reaction is to think this is a threshold as strong as "belief" but in actuality it's simply anything short of reaching the threshold of believing. In my case instead of saying "I don't believe" I think it is more accurate to say "I don't know."
This is an excellent point. If you go with the all or nothing, then as soon as anything is suspect in your favorite holy document, then it all is. If any logic prevails then one must admit they don't know as much as they thought they did. Unfortunately this area is not a place where logic shines.
Part of the problem is that God has always been a terrible communicator. ;)
Floptical cube's post sounds like an excellent description of agnosticism. But every atheist I've ever met has believed that there's God.
I think it's important to remember that, although people can feel emotions about beliefs, beliefs aren't emotions. I don't feel that there's a God. I believe that there is one. I feel happiness, sadness, loneliness, hurt, and so forth. I believe that those feelings exist, but I don't believe that happiness, say, is either a truth or a falsehood. I don't believe that it's a conformity between my intellect and reality. My belief that there's a pine tree in my front yard is true because there is a pine tree there that causes my belief to be true. The tree will still be there 10 minutes from now, even if someone or something fools me into believing that it's gone. The truth or falsehood of my belief depends on the way things are in the world. I can't cause that tree to exist by merely believing that it does exist. I can't make it stop existing by simply believing that it doesn't exist, can I?
When someone talks about "not believing" my initial knee jerk reaction is to think this is a threshold as strong as "belief" but in actuality it's simply anything short of reaching the threshold of believing. In my case instead of saying "I don't believe" I think it is more accurate to say "I don't know."
blumpy
Aug 29, 11:14 AM
I'm sorry but Greenpeace is so corrupt and misguided that it's really difficult to want to follow them. I really have to wonder if they're getting funding from the 'top' environmentally friendly companies. An environmentalist shakedown of sorts.
Chupa Chupa
Apr 28, 08:02 AM
I disagree. The only reason people stopped buying the iPod was because it was more convenient to have a phone and iPod in a single device. Once people started buying iOS and Android devices, they no longer *needed* an iPod.
So the iPod didn't die down because it was a fad... it died down because technology has replaced it. The need for a PMP such as the iPod is still very much alive, just in a different form.
I think the batteries of your sarcasm detector are low. You completely missed my point: the iPod is the granddaddy of today's iOS devices even though so many dismissed it when it was first released.
There were hordes of people in 2001 saying the iPod was a fad, that other MP3 players had more features, etc. Even years later people were dissing the iPod because it didn't have a radio and all of the iPod's supposed competitors did.
So the iPod didn't die down because it was a fad... it died down because technology has replaced it. The need for a PMP such as the iPod is still very much alive, just in a different form.
I think the batteries of your sarcasm detector are low. You completely missed my point: the iPod is the granddaddy of today's iOS devices even though so many dismissed it when it was first released.
There were hordes of people in 2001 saying the iPod was a fad, that other MP3 players had more features, etc. Even years later people were dissing the iPod because it didn't have a radio and all of the iPod's supposed competitors did.
greenstork
Sep 12, 06:46 PM
It is not subverted -- it is evolved. My clients -- the content providers and advertisers -- demand viral marketing efforts -- they are ahead of the curve: they want what works, they want the uTube factor, not yesterday's in your face ads.
Your clients represent the extreme minority of advertising content today. While that is changing, I concede, most advertisers are still in the old paradigm.
Your clients represent the extreme minority of advertising content today. While that is changing, I concede, most advertisers are still in the old paradigm.
dwd3885
Apr 15, 09:23 AM
no matter how you feel, people shouldn't be bullied.
milo
Sep 20, 11:21 AM
This must be a US-centric view. Here (UK) PVRs with twin Freeview (DTT) tuners and 80GB HDs are everywhere. And they are very cheap now (120 quid upwards).
I'm thinking of ditching my cable provider (NTL, I only get it for Sky One, which is just Simpsons repeats) and going with something like this:
http://www.topfield.co.uk/terrestrialequipment.htm
Apparently you can DL what you record to your Mac (USB). I suspect you'll then be able to play that on iTV.
Looks like a cool box, but still pretty expensive, $525 USD. And I assume not available in the USA. Anyone know what the cheapest PVR you can buy in the states is?
The only differences between a Mini and iTV are the connections on the back, better wireless speed and no DVD. Its pure the price and software that makes it a media device and not a computer.
And the fact that you can't use the iTV as a computer! The iPod can play audio and video like a mini can, does that make the iPod "a cut down mini" too?
If I have a mini, couldn't I use it as an iTV with frontrow? Why would I get an iTV when I can get a refirb mini for $200 more, when it can do more?
Because it's $200 more. And this is just the initial pricing, as time goes on the iTV will get cheaper faster than computers do.
I'm wondering why they couldn't/wouldn't just combine the mini and the iTV into a single unit. The mini's size could allow for a DVD slot/player/burner and maybe even allow for the Mac OS in the box, so you don't need another computer to stream your media from. In fact, I assumed that was what the Mini was ultimately destined for anyway.
Because it would be way more expensive than $200, with little chance of prices dropping much.
Since iTV most likely wont be a DVR device, I coughed up $700 today for a Sony DVR instead.
I am sure Apple has a brilliant plan for the iTV, but I fail to see it.
Well, the first step of the plan is to cost less than $700. :eek: At that price, the technology will never be anything more than a niche.
because everything on cable is available at itunes. your analogy is wrong.
He was talking about the future of iTunes/iTV. Who's to say that someday everything on cable won't be on iTunes?
I'm thinking of ditching my cable provider (NTL, I only get it for Sky One, which is just Simpsons repeats) and going with something like this:
http://www.topfield.co.uk/terrestrialequipment.htm
Apparently you can DL what you record to your Mac (USB). I suspect you'll then be able to play that on iTV.
Looks like a cool box, but still pretty expensive, $525 USD. And I assume not available in the USA. Anyone know what the cheapest PVR you can buy in the states is?
The only differences between a Mini and iTV are the connections on the back, better wireless speed and no DVD. Its pure the price and software that makes it a media device and not a computer.
And the fact that you can't use the iTV as a computer! The iPod can play audio and video like a mini can, does that make the iPod "a cut down mini" too?
If I have a mini, couldn't I use it as an iTV with frontrow? Why would I get an iTV when I can get a refirb mini for $200 more, when it can do more?
Because it's $200 more. And this is just the initial pricing, as time goes on the iTV will get cheaper faster than computers do.
I'm wondering why they couldn't/wouldn't just combine the mini and the iTV into a single unit. The mini's size could allow for a DVD slot/player/burner and maybe even allow for the Mac OS in the box, so you don't need another computer to stream your media from. In fact, I assumed that was what the Mini was ultimately destined for anyway.
Because it would be way more expensive than $200, with little chance of prices dropping much.
Since iTV most likely wont be a DVR device, I coughed up $700 today for a Sony DVR instead.
I am sure Apple has a brilliant plan for the iTV, but I fail to see it.
Well, the first step of the plan is to cost less than $700. :eek: At that price, the technology will never be anything more than a niche.
because everything on cable is available at itunes. your analogy is wrong.
He was talking about the future of iTunes/iTV. Who's to say that someday everything on cable won't be on iTunes?
Reach9
Apr 20, 08:36 PM
Oh great another Android vs. iOS argument.
C'mon fanboys, let people have their own opinion. But then again, it's "mac"rumors, so i think talking at the CNET forums or any other general big tech site would be ideal.
From my experience, an Android phone is a better smartphone than the iPhone. But the iPhone has a much better ecosystem, and is less fragmented and such.
But i'd take a better smartphone anytime. I'm willing to wait and give Apple a chance with iOS 5, who knows? Maybe they'll retake the crown as a better smartphone in my eyes? Then i won't be even thinking about Android!
Apple didn't want to release the iPhone 3G until the 3G network was well diverse around America, and the world. There are a lot of major countries internationally who don't even have LTE networks ready, so i think any expectations of an LTE should be from a 2012 iPhone.
C'mon fanboys, let people have their own opinion. But then again, it's "mac"rumors, so i think talking at the CNET forums or any other general big tech site would be ideal.
From my experience, an Android phone is a better smartphone than the iPhone. But the iPhone has a much better ecosystem, and is less fragmented and such.
But i'd take a better smartphone anytime. I'm willing to wait and give Apple a chance with iOS 5, who knows? Maybe they'll retake the crown as a better smartphone in my eyes? Then i won't be even thinking about Android!
Apple didn't want to release the iPhone 3G until the 3G network was well diverse around America, and the world. There are a lot of major countries internationally who don't even have LTE networks ready, so i think any expectations of an LTE should be from a 2012 iPhone.
ddtlm
Oct 12, 06:02 PM
MacCoaster:
Missed your request for ASM directions for a sec there. :) Anyway, I use NASM. Available here:
http://sourceforge.net/projects/nasm
I do my assembly in a .asm file, and use a C program as a wrapper to make things easy. C program, including my C loops. Notice that is't ugly and I manually change it to test different things, but hey it works. You can do better Im sure. :)
#include <math.h>
unsigned int asm_func1( );
unsigned int asm_func2( );
unsigned int asm_func3( );
unsigned int C_func1( )
{
Scorpion vs Sub Zero
Missed your request for ASM directions for a sec there. :) Anyway, I use NASM. Available here:
http://sourceforge.net/projects/nasm
I do my assembly in a .asm file, and use a C program as a wrapper to make things easy. C program, including my C loops. Notice that is't ugly and I manually change it to test different things, but hey it works. You can do better Im sure. :)
#include <math.h>
unsigned int asm_func1( );
unsigned int asm_func2( );
unsigned int asm_func3( );
unsigned int C_func1( )
{
MacinDoc
Apr 12, 11:04 PM
Yes, that was exactly my point. The people who know how to use the software are (sometimes) assistant editors, although I find the vast majority know how to do a few simple things, but do them well.. The original poster was implying you needed to be a hollywood film editor to judge technical capabilities, and I was saying they were the worst choice for just that reason.
The people who know the most about editing systems are the Sr. editors who work on heavy, effects based sequences that work in broadcast production environments (I'm not talking about me here). *They* are the ones who push systems to the limits and *they* are the ones who go to NAB. (They're still only 10% of that room)
I think that most of them will find that Apple has, at present abandoned them. That's not to say the industry won't shift, and there won't be enough 3rd party solutions out there, but they are throwing Avid a HUGE bone here.
FCP was making big inroads into broadcast, and they're throwing it away-- for today certainly.
Filmwise, could go either way, depending on the production. If it's got great RED/4k performance, "film" support isn't so important..
But for the indie crowd, they're really screwing them over, if they are abandoning Color. *THAT* is what shocked me. I'm also surprised that effects weren't more advanced. I couldn't see anything on a titling tool, but that's pretty imporant for Broadcast as well.. and *no* existing solution is good for that... They really had (have?) a chance to make that right, and it seems they don't care.
So, when I say "iMovie Pro" that isn't necessarily pejorative. This product is WAY, WAY, WAY more iMovie than FCP. That doesn't mean you can't cut "a real movie" on it. But for Broadcast TV, it's a real step down in a lot of ways-- at the very least not a step up.. The interface is very iMovie. They should have called it iMovie PRO, especially if they're getting rid of the rest of the FCS apps..
Now if it turns out this is just the tip of the iceberg-- then we really could be in for a treat.
Who said anything about discontinuing Color and the rest of FCS? I can't imagine Apple would think that Color could be replaced by one-click color correction. And once and for all, can we stop saying that making the interface easier to use is making the product less professional? Is OS X less professional than DOS?
The people who know the most about editing systems are the Sr. editors who work on heavy, effects based sequences that work in broadcast production environments (I'm not talking about me here). *They* are the ones who push systems to the limits and *they* are the ones who go to NAB. (They're still only 10% of that room)
I think that most of them will find that Apple has, at present abandoned them. That's not to say the industry won't shift, and there won't be enough 3rd party solutions out there, but they are throwing Avid a HUGE bone here.
FCP was making big inroads into broadcast, and they're throwing it away-- for today certainly.
Filmwise, could go either way, depending on the production. If it's got great RED/4k performance, "film" support isn't so important..
But for the indie crowd, they're really screwing them over, if they are abandoning Color. *THAT* is what shocked me. I'm also surprised that effects weren't more advanced. I couldn't see anything on a titling tool, but that's pretty imporant for Broadcast as well.. and *no* existing solution is good for that... They really had (have?) a chance to make that right, and it seems they don't care.
So, when I say "iMovie Pro" that isn't necessarily pejorative. This product is WAY, WAY, WAY more iMovie than FCP. That doesn't mean you can't cut "a real movie" on it. But for Broadcast TV, it's a real step down in a lot of ways-- at the very least not a step up.. The interface is very iMovie. They should have called it iMovie PRO, especially if they're getting rid of the rest of the FCS apps..
Now if it turns out this is just the tip of the iceberg-- then we really could be in for a treat.
Who said anything about discontinuing Color and the rest of FCS? I can't imagine Apple would think that Color could be replaced by one-click color correction. And once and for all, can we stop saying that making the interface easier to use is making the product less professional? Is OS X less professional than DOS?
alex_ant
Oct 9, 08:08 PM
Originally posted by gopher
Maybe we have, but nobody has provided compelling evidence to the contrary.
You must be joking. Reference after reference has been provided and you simply break from the thread, only to re-emerge in another thread later. This has happened at least twice now that I can remember.
The Mac hardware is capable of 18 billion floating calculations a second. Whether the software takes advantage of it that's another issue entirely.
My arse is capable of making 8-pound turds, but whether or not I eat enough baked beans to take advantage of that is another issue entirely. In other words,
18 gigaflops = about as likely as an 8-pound turd in my toilet. Possible, yes (under the most severely ridiculous condtions). Real-world, no.
If someone is going to argue that Macs don't have good floating point performance, just look at the specs.
For the - what is this, fifth? - time now: AltiVec is incapable of double precision, and is capable of accelerating only that code which is written specifically to take advantage of it. Which is some of it. Which means any high "gigaflops" performance quotes deserve large asterisks next to them.
If they really want good performance and aren't getting it they need to contact their favorite developer to work with the specs and Apple's developer relations.
Exactly, this is the whole problem - if a developer wants good performance and can't get it, they have to jump through hoops and waste time and money that they shouldn't have to waste.
Apple provides the hardware, it is up to developer companies to utilize the hardware the best way they can. If they can't utilize Apple's hardware to its most efficient mode, then they should find better developers.
Way to encourage Mac development, huh? "Hey guys, come develop for our platform! We've got a 3.5% national desktop market share and a 2% world desktop market share, and we have an uncertain future! We want YOU to spend time and money porting your software to OUR platform, and on top of that, we want YOU to go the extra mile to waste time and money that you shouldn't have to waste just to ensure that your code doesn't run like a dog on our ancient wack-job hack of a processor!"
If you are going to complain that Apple doesn't have good floating point performance, don't use a PC biased spec like Specfp.
"PC biased spec like SPECfp?" Yes, the reason PPC does so poorly in SPEC is because SPECfp is biased towards Intel, AMD, Sun, MIPS, HP/Compaq, and IBM (all of whose chips blow the G4 out of the water, and not only the x86 chips - the workstation and server chips too, literally ALL of them), and Apple's miserable performance is a conspiracy engineered by The Man, right?
Go by actual floating point calculations a second.
Why? FLOPS is as dumb a benchmark as MIPS. That's the reason cross-platform benchmarks exist.
Nobody has shown anything to say that PCs can do more floating point calculations a second. And until someone does I stand by my claim.
An Athlon 1700+ scores about what, 575 in SPECfp2000 (depending on the system)? Results for the 1.25GHz G4 are unavailable (because Apple is ashamed to publish them), but the 1GHz does about 175. Let's be very gracious and assume the new GCC has got the 1.25GHz G4 up to 300. That's STILL terrible. So how about an accurate summary of the G4's floating point performance:
On the whole, poor.******
* Very strong on applications well-suited to AltiVec and optimized to take advantage of it.
Maybe we have, but nobody has provided compelling evidence to the contrary.
You must be joking. Reference after reference has been provided and you simply break from the thread, only to re-emerge in another thread later. This has happened at least twice now that I can remember.
The Mac hardware is capable of 18 billion floating calculations a second. Whether the software takes advantage of it that's another issue entirely.
My arse is capable of making 8-pound turds, but whether or not I eat enough baked beans to take advantage of that is another issue entirely. In other words,
18 gigaflops = about as likely as an 8-pound turd in my toilet. Possible, yes (under the most severely ridiculous condtions). Real-world, no.
If someone is going to argue that Macs don't have good floating point performance, just look at the specs.
For the - what is this, fifth? - time now: AltiVec is incapable of double precision, and is capable of accelerating only that code which is written specifically to take advantage of it. Which is some of it. Which means any high "gigaflops" performance quotes deserve large asterisks next to them.
If they really want good performance and aren't getting it they need to contact their favorite developer to work with the specs and Apple's developer relations.
Exactly, this is the whole problem - if a developer wants good performance and can't get it, they have to jump through hoops and waste time and money that they shouldn't have to waste.
Apple provides the hardware, it is up to developer companies to utilize the hardware the best way they can. If they can't utilize Apple's hardware to its most efficient mode, then they should find better developers.
Way to encourage Mac development, huh? "Hey guys, come develop for our platform! We've got a 3.5% national desktop market share and a 2% world desktop market share, and we have an uncertain future! We want YOU to spend time and money porting your software to OUR platform, and on top of that, we want YOU to go the extra mile to waste time and money that you shouldn't have to waste just to ensure that your code doesn't run like a dog on our ancient wack-job hack of a processor!"
If you are going to complain that Apple doesn't have good floating point performance, don't use a PC biased spec like Specfp.
"PC biased spec like SPECfp?" Yes, the reason PPC does so poorly in SPEC is because SPECfp is biased towards Intel, AMD, Sun, MIPS, HP/Compaq, and IBM (all of whose chips blow the G4 out of the water, and not only the x86 chips - the workstation and server chips too, literally ALL of them), and Apple's miserable performance is a conspiracy engineered by The Man, right?
Go by actual floating point calculations a second.
Why? FLOPS is as dumb a benchmark as MIPS. That's the reason cross-platform benchmarks exist.
Nobody has shown anything to say that PCs can do more floating point calculations a second. And until someone does I stand by my claim.
An Athlon 1700+ scores about what, 575 in SPECfp2000 (depending on the system)? Results for the 1.25GHz G4 are unavailable (because Apple is ashamed to publish them), but the 1GHz does about 175. Let's be very gracious and assume the new GCC has got the 1.25GHz G4 up to 300. That's STILL terrible. So how about an accurate summary of the G4's floating point performance:
On the whole, poor.******
* Very strong on applications well-suited to AltiVec and optimized to take advantage of it.
the_mole1314
Mar 18, 11:11 AM
How long before the CEO of Napster writes a letter to the RIAA about this? Talk about karma.
But it's still not as bad as Napster's dilemma. With iTunes, you still have to actually BUY the song for this to work. Not everyone who purchases songs from iTunes will take out the DRM, most people don't even mind or know it's there to begin with.
Fishes,
narco.
And that rental services are based on per play, not per download, so without DRM, the music companies don't get paid. With iTunes, they still get paid the full amount as if it was a DRM file. I don't think this will hurt Apple at all, mainly because the companies are still getting paid in full for each download. Also, Apple can then inforce their Terms of Serive about how you have to use iTunes to download the songs, or they can cancell your account.
But it's still not as bad as Napster's dilemma. With iTunes, you still have to actually BUY the song for this to work. Not everyone who purchases songs from iTunes will take out the DRM, most people don't even mind or know it's there to begin with.
Fishes,
narco.
And that rental services are based on per play, not per download, so without DRM, the music companies don't get paid. With iTunes, they still get paid the full amount as if it was a DRM file. I don't think this will hurt Apple at all, mainly because the companies are still getting paid in full for each download. Also, Apple can then inforce their Terms of Serive about how you have to use iTunes to download the songs, or they can cancell your account.
firestarter
Mar 13, 07:27 PM
Solar plants can be put out in the scrub, they don't destroy what can be some of the most beautiful places on Earth like dams do, and have much less land impact.
We don't all have scrubland... or reliable sunshine! Can't see solar power taking off in the UK, I'm afraid. The same goes for most of Northern Europe.
We don't all have scrubland... or reliable sunshine! Can't see solar power taking off in the UK, I'm afraid. The same goes for most of Northern Europe.
jeffgarden
Mar 18, 05:04 PM
Sorry, i didn't read every post so this may be repeatative but...
If you're going to PAY for music to break drm, just buy it at a store or use Kazaa
OR get napster to go trial, get virtuosa 5.0 to make them mp3's and you're done
why would you pay for something you don't want
If you're going to PAY for music to break drm, just buy it at a store or use Kazaa
OR get napster to go trial, get virtuosa 5.0 to make them mp3's and you're done
why would you pay for something you don't want
ftrtrk
Sep 12, 04:47 PM
why the h can't they release it yet? Jobs was using it perfectly on stage, it looks great, this is confusing.
