kcmac
Mar 26, 12:07 PM
I'm shocked at how many people are so willing to just wave away all the nice under-the-hood changes and improvements that Lion 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?
As an amateur OS X developer, I really hate this attitude because it will end up slowing Lion adoption. That really sucks, because there are a ton of awesome changes in 10.6 that I (and many, many other developers) would love to take advantage of to make their software even greater, but it's not going to be viable to go Lion-only for said features until Lion is installed on the majority of Macs out there.
The people that read sites such as macrumors is minuscule in comparison to the number of apple users out there. There will be nothing slow about the adoption of Lion. Just as all of the versions before it. In fact, I am betting on a faster than normal adoption.
You will be foolish to wait around unless you want to get buried in the on-slaught of new and improved apps to take advantage of Lion from day one.
As an amateur OS X developer, I really hate this attitude because it will end up slowing Lion adoption. That really sucks, because there are a ton of awesome changes in 10.6 that I (and many, many other developers) would love to take advantage of to make their software even greater, but it's not going to be viable to go Lion-only for said features until Lion is installed on the majority of Macs out there.
The people that read sites such as macrumors is minuscule in comparison to the number of apple users out there. There will be nothing slow about the adoption of Lion. Just as all of the versions before it. In fact, I am betting on a faster than normal adoption.
You will be foolish to wait around unless you want to get buried in the on-slaught of new and improved apps to take advantage of Lion from day one.
fivepoint
Mar 22, 12:56 PM
Precisely. The UN mandate is to enforce a no-fly zone, amongst other things, tasks that are particularly suited for certain nations. I'm no gung-ho supporter of this action in Libya, but it strikes me as similar to Bosnia, with the real political pressure coming particularly from France for very real reasons.
Expect the overt US involvement to rapidly scale back soon.
Did Ronald Reagan get a go-ahead from Congress in 1986 for attacking Libya?
No he did not. It was a mistake then, it is a mistake now. The only difference is, I oppose it in all circumstances, regardless of who's president. You only oppose it when it's a Republican in office.
Wait a second. Wait a second. You are trying to compare the media's portrayal of GWB over about SEVEN years, TWO wars, and HOW MANY lies to Libya and less then ONE WEEK. The Lybia thing has been going on for about a day or so. In the FIRST days of the Afghanistan war, did you hear ANY mainstream media criticizing GWB? In the FIRST days of the Iraq war, did you hear ANY mainstream media criticizing GWB? Democrats were falling all over themselves to support the President and the need to get those WMDs, which is why after almost 6 years, it was a defining issue of the presidential campaign. The candidates 5 years later were all explaining why they supported one war then, but not now after all the lies were exposed, or how they were against it all along. Not to mention Afghanistan after 7 years. There were a few, unlike now, where there are a lot.
This is THE FIRST WEEK of this thing, and NBC nightly news had their entire story about: criticism from congress; inability of white house to deal with that problem, partly because in Brazil; late involvement; involvement here but not in Somalia, Congo, etc..., risk that Ghaddafi would survive this and remain in power; lack of real Arab support and weak coalition; and fact that opposition is disorganized, poorly armed and leaderless, and probably won't be able to win without military support on the ground.
That's pretty hard reporting, and I'm very happy Congress is being critical. Almost everything Fivepoint, the GOP and the Democrats who are speaking out have said is a valid concern. They should have done this during week ONE of Afghanistan, and Iraq. I know I don't want another one of those.
(edit) Yesterday, NPR was talking about Candidate Obama vs. President Obama, and pointed out Candidate Obama's statements about ONLY CONGRESS CAN DECLARE WAR. They discussed, at length, prior presidents assumption of power, Obama's use of it and how guest couldn't imagine a new president opposed to a power like this giving it up. So, maybe you should watch some NBC, ABC, CBS and listen to some NPR. Mind you, in FPs defense, I spent 16 hours in the car since this all started, so I've probably heard every story...
New York Yankees New Era
New Era New York Yankees pink
It will be in all pink with
New Era Red Bull 59fifty Pink
New York Yankees New Era Cap
new-era-jordan-fitted-pink-hat
New York Yankees Turquoise Hot
New Era 59 Fifty Yankees
New York Yankees Caps : New
New York Yankees Pink Hat
New York Yankees Plaids Spring
New york yankees hot pink
New york yankees cap pink
pink new york yankees caps.
New York Yankees Baseball Cap
new york yankees cap pink.
Pink New York Yankees Cap with
Expect the overt US involvement to rapidly scale back soon.
Did Ronald Reagan get a go-ahead from Congress in 1986 for attacking Libya?
No he did not. It was a mistake then, it is a mistake now. The only difference is, I oppose it in all circumstances, regardless of who's president. You only oppose it when it's a Republican in office.
Wait a second. Wait a second. You are trying to compare the media's portrayal of GWB over about SEVEN years, TWO wars, and HOW MANY lies to Libya and less then ONE WEEK. The Lybia thing has been going on for about a day or so. In the FIRST days of the Afghanistan war, did you hear ANY mainstream media criticizing GWB? In the FIRST days of the Iraq war, did you hear ANY mainstream media criticizing GWB? Democrats were falling all over themselves to support the President and the need to get those WMDs, which is why after almost 6 years, it was a defining issue of the presidential campaign. The candidates 5 years later were all explaining why they supported one war then, but not now after all the lies were exposed, or how they were against it all along. Not to mention Afghanistan after 7 years. There were a few, unlike now, where there are a lot.
This is THE FIRST WEEK of this thing, and NBC nightly news had their entire story about: criticism from congress; inability of white house to deal with that problem, partly because in Brazil; late involvement; involvement here but not in Somalia, Congo, etc..., risk that Ghaddafi would survive this and remain in power; lack of real Arab support and weak coalition; and fact that opposition is disorganized, poorly armed and leaderless, and probably won't be able to win without military support on the ground.
That's pretty hard reporting, and I'm very happy Congress is being critical. Almost everything Fivepoint, the GOP and the Democrats who are speaking out have said is a valid concern. They should have done this during week ONE of Afghanistan, and Iraq. I know I don't want another one of those.
(edit) Yesterday, NPR was talking about Candidate Obama vs. President Obama, and pointed out Candidate Obama's statements about ONLY CONGRESS CAN DECLARE WAR. They discussed, at length, prior presidents assumption of power, Obama's use of it and how guest couldn't imagine a new president opposed to a power like this giving it up. So, maybe you should watch some NBC, ABC, CBS and listen to some NPR. Mind you, in FPs defense, I spent 16 hours in the car since this all started, so I've probably heard every story...
wordoflife
Apr 11, 02:19 PM
Depending on what features are available on iOS 5 for iPhone 4 compared to 3GS, I might upgrade. Getting sick of my 3GS.
Multimedia
Jul 15, 05:02 AM
Here's Link To NTI Dragon Burn for Mac OS X (http://www.ntius.com/default.asp?p=dragonburn/dburn4_main).
Dragon Burn enables Mac desktop and PowerBook notebook computer users to quickly and easily begin producing audio, data, mixed-mode CDs, and DVDs. Dragon Burn's Multi-Burning engine allows users to simultaneously write multiple CDs or DVDs. It also fully supports the newest internal and external drives, including 16x DVD-R drives.Thanks ksz. I checked it out and the multi burning capability is great. But Dragon Burn will not let you write Images which I find incredibly lame. I use Toast 7 a lot and I use it most of the time to write images not to physically burn discs. I would love to be able to write multiple Images with something. But, alas, Dragon Burn is not it. :(http://www.creativemac.com/2001/04_apr/news/toast53.htm
Still, from what I've read you need multiple instances of Toast open. I'll try Disk Utility for burning two images at once when I get a new image that I need to burn.Wow. I had no idea I could have multiple copies of Toast 7 open. Just made a dupe and it works! Thanks Eldorian. I can really push my Quad to further limits now that I know this. Mucho Gracias.
Dragon Burn enables Mac desktop and PowerBook notebook computer users to quickly and easily begin producing audio, data, mixed-mode CDs, and DVDs. Dragon Burn's Multi-Burning engine allows users to simultaneously write multiple CDs or DVDs. It also fully supports the newest internal and external drives, including 16x DVD-R drives.Thanks ksz. I checked it out and the multi burning capability is great. But Dragon Burn will not let you write Images which I find incredibly lame. I use Toast 7 a lot and I use it most of the time to write images not to physically burn discs. I would love to be able to write multiple Images with something. But, alas, Dragon Burn is not it. :(http://www.creativemac.com/2001/04_apr/news/toast53.htm
Still, from what I've read you need multiple instances of Toast open. I'll try Disk Utility for burning two images at once when I get a new image that I need to burn.Wow. I had no idea I could have multiple copies of Toast 7 open. Just made a dupe and it works! Thanks Eldorian. I can really push my Quad to further limits now that I know this. Mucho Gracias.
Keebler
Apr 10, 04:01 PM
i know i'll be hanging around my macs looking for internet news on Tuesday.
I do think it was a pr*ck move they pulled - one i would have expected from the microsoft of old holding everyone by the short n' curlys! :(
And, I didn't travel much, but did a few times and I know i wouldn't be happy if my trip to Vegas was suddenly cancelled b/c of showboating.
I worked for a software company years ago and those events were months, if not a full year's worth of planning, energy and sales forecasted. Such a crucial way for a company to interact with their users.
Let's hope the release justifies forcing the other sponsors to pull.
I do think it was a pr*ck move they pulled - one i would have expected from the microsoft of old holding everyone by the short n' curlys! :(
And, I didn't travel much, but did a few times and I know i wouldn't be happy if my trip to Vegas was suddenly cancelled b/c of showboating.
I worked for a software company years ago and those events were months, if not a full year's worth of planning, energy and sales forecasted. Such a crucial way for a company to interact with their users.
Let's hope the release justifies forcing the other sponsors to pull.
SevenInchScrew
Dec 9, 01:09 AM
DoFoT:
It depends on what you want from a game. If you care more about driving and tuning than painting and whatnot go buy GT5. Its all about driving and not much else.
I love it because i'm a bit of a car nerd. If you like cars you will like GT5. If you love cars you will love GT5, its just that simple.
I guess I'll throw in my counterpoint to that then, just to give him another opinion to mull over, because I love cars and don't love GT5....
The game is not real good. Every time I've played it, I can't help but think of how it could have been SOOO much better, if they just trimmed back on the crazy feature list a bit. The game tries to be everything to everyone who likes cars. But the problem with that is, trying to do many things means you'll never excel at any of them. Often the implementation of things in this game is a little weak or unfulfilling because of that. For example...
NASCAR is in, but is pretty plain and boring, and doesn't feel like a real cup race. If you like NASCAR, you'd be better served with a full game based on that.
Same with WRC stuff. Yes, the rally is pretty decent. But, I've played a bunch of REALLY awesome rally games before, and this is nowhere near as good.
Day and Night cycles, and Weather effects look amazing.... on the very few tracks that you can actually have them function on.
The sounds of the cars, just as with every GT game that has come before it, is terrible. Very few cars actually sound like their real-world version, and when you tune them up, they get even less distinctive.
The car list, while huge, is FILLED with cars that I have absolutely no desire to drive in a racing game. I get Kaz's intention, bringing in cars from many eras and different parts of the automotive spectrum to see them, and maybe appreciate them more. But this is a racing game at its core, and I don't ever want to race a VW Kombi.
And lastly, the menus are just pitiful. It really feels like they designed them first, all those years ago, and then never touched them again. So many games have come and gone with great menu systems, and this game took nothing away from them, because they are just awful in this game.
This game really had the potential to be amazing. If they got rid of NASCAR, WRC, Karts, etc, and took out about 4-500 of the boring, crappy cars, we'd be getting somewhere. Use the time and effort that those removed things would have occupied to make some manageable menus, more Premium cars, and get the Day-Night cycle and Weather on all tracks. That would have been great. But that isn't what we got.
Don't get me wrong, it is a good game. But GT games aren't supposed to just be good, they are supposed to be GREAT. But even after a 6 year wait, we only got pretty good.
But hey, as I've said on many occasions, it does make some DAMN GOOD screenshots. Almost unreal at times...
Click to HUGE-size
http://imgur.com/hLJ12.jpg
http://imgur.com/V06hb.jpg
http://imgur.com/Vciun.jpg
http://imgur.com/ZGPiF.jpg
http://imgur.com/IMrhk.jpg
It depends on what you want from a game. If you care more about driving and tuning than painting and whatnot go buy GT5. Its all about driving and not much else.
I love it because i'm a bit of a car nerd. If you like cars you will like GT5. If you love cars you will love GT5, its just that simple.
I guess I'll throw in my counterpoint to that then, just to give him another opinion to mull over, because I love cars and don't love GT5....
The game is not real good. Every time I've played it, I can't help but think of how it could have been SOOO much better, if they just trimmed back on the crazy feature list a bit. The game tries to be everything to everyone who likes cars. But the problem with that is, trying to do many things means you'll never excel at any of them. Often the implementation of things in this game is a little weak or unfulfilling because of that. For example...
NASCAR is in, but is pretty plain and boring, and doesn't feel like a real cup race. If you like NASCAR, you'd be better served with a full game based on that.
Same with WRC stuff. Yes, the rally is pretty decent. But, I've played a bunch of REALLY awesome rally games before, and this is nowhere near as good.
Day and Night cycles, and Weather effects look amazing.... on the very few tracks that you can actually have them function on.
The sounds of the cars, just as with every GT game that has come before it, is terrible. Very few cars actually sound like their real-world version, and when you tune them up, they get even less distinctive.
The car list, while huge, is FILLED with cars that I have absolutely no desire to drive in a racing game. I get Kaz's intention, bringing in cars from many eras and different parts of the automotive spectrum to see them, and maybe appreciate them more. But this is a racing game at its core, and I don't ever want to race a VW Kombi.
And lastly, the menus are just pitiful. It really feels like they designed them first, all those years ago, and then never touched them again. So many games have come and gone with great menu systems, and this game took nothing away from them, because they are just awful in this game.
This game really had the potential to be amazing. If they got rid of NASCAR, WRC, Karts, etc, and took out about 4-500 of the boring, crappy cars, we'd be getting somewhere. Use the time and effort that those removed things would have occupied to make some manageable menus, more Premium cars, and get the Day-Night cycle and Weather on all tracks. That would have been great. But that isn't what we got.
Don't get me wrong, it is a good game. But GT games aren't supposed to just be good, they are supposed to be GREAT. But even after a 6 year wait, we only got pretty good.
But hey, as I've said on many occasions, it does make some DAMN GOOD screenshots. Almost unreal at times...
Click to HUGE-size
http://imgur.com/hLJ12.jpg
http://imgur.com/V06hb.jpg
http://imgur.com/Vciun.jpg
http://imgur.com/ZGPiF.jpg
http://imgur.com/IMrhk.jpg
kdarling
Mar 22, 05:47 PM
The difference is Samsung outsources it's OS development, it's developer community management, it's app ecosystem.
To whom do they outsource?
I'm genuinely curious since they've been advertising related jobs lately.
Thanks for any links or other info!
To whom do they outsource?
I'm genuinely curious since they've been advertising related jobs lately.
Thanks for any links or other info!
Blue Velvet
Mar 23, 06:11 AM
Libya is more like Bosnia than Iraq. A moment of force has the potential to change the scope of the conflict, hopefully for the positive, in a way that a full-blown invasion would merely complicate. That's the central part that fivepoint, who is merely interested in making another partisan screed, is ignoring.
Well exactly. Far easier to tag together some buzzwords, maybe pull something from FoxNews than it is to think critically about the issue. This inane comparison between coalition numbers was also picked up by Steve M.:
Fox Nation huffily declares that "Bush Had 2 Times More Coalition Partners in Iraq Than Obama Has in Libya." Bush's thirty-nation list, of course, included such global powers as Azerbaijan, Estonia, Latvia, and Uzbekistan, and didn't include the likes of, y'know, Germany and France.
But if we're going to play games like this, in the run-up to the war, how many coalition partners did Bush attract per week? The Libyan uprising started just about a month ago and Obama's coalition is fifteen nations. When do you date the start of the "Iraq crisis" the Bushies manufactured? The Axis of Evil speech, fourteen months before the war began? The Battle of Tora Bora, a month before that? The first administration meetings on Iraq regime change, mere days after Bush's inauguration, and more than two years before the Iraq War started? By that standard, Bush barely acquired one coalition partner a month! Obama obtained more than three partners a week!
I'm reminded of the 2000 electoral maps that measured Bush's vote by geography, as if winning a county with more jackrabbits than people was the equivalent of winning a county full of apartment buildings.
http://nomoremister.blogspot.com/2011/03/well-if-were-going-to-be-ridiculous.html
Meanwhile, Juan Cole lays out ten reasons why this is not like Iraq:
Here are the differences between George W. Bush�s invasion of Iraq in 2003 and the current United Nations action in Libya:
1. The action in Libya was authorized by the United Nations Security Council. That in Iraq was not. By the UN Charter, military action after 1945 should either come as self-defense or with UNSC authorization. Most countries in the world are signatories to the charter and bound by its provisions.
2. The Libyan people had risen up and thrown off the Qaddafi regime, with some 80-90 percent of the country having gone out of his hands before he started having tank commanders fire shells into peaceful crowds. It was this vast majority of the Libyan people that demanded the UN no-fly zone. In 2002-3 there was no similar popular movement against Saddam Hussein.
3. There was an ongoing massacre of civilians, and the threat of more such massacres in Benghazi, by the Qaddafi regime, which precipitated the UNSC resolution. Although the Saddam Hussein regime had massacred people in the 1980s and early 1990s, nothing was going on in 2002-2003 that would have required international intervention.
4. The Arab League urged the UNSC to take action against the Qaddafi regime, and in many ways precipitated Resolution 1973. The Arab League met in 2002 and expressed opposition to a war on Iraq. (Reports of Arab League backtracking on Sunday were incorrect, based on a remark of outgoing Secretary-General Amr Moussa that criticized the taking out of anti-aircraft batteries. The Arab League reaffirmed Sunday and Moussa agreed Monday that the No-Fly Zone is what it wants).
5. None of the United Nations allies envisages landing troops on the ground, nor does the UNSC authorize it. Iraq was invaded by land forces.
6. No false allegations were made against the Qaddafi regime, of being in league with al-Qaeda or of having a nuclear weapons program. The charge is massacre of peaceful civilian demonstrators and an actual promise to commit more such massacres.
7. The United States did not take the lead role in urging a no-fly zone, and was dragged into this action by its Arab and European allies. President Obama pledges that the US role, mainly disabling anti-aircraft batteries and bombing runways, will last �days, not months� before being turned over to other United Nations allies.
8. There is no sectarian or ethnic dimension to the Libyan conflict, whereas the US Pentagon conspired with Shiite and Kurdish parties to overthrow the Sunni-dominated Baathist regime in Iraq, setting the stage for a prolonged and bitter civil war.
9. The US has not rewarded countries such as Norway for entering the conflict as UN allies, but rather a genuine sense of outrage at the brutal crimes against humanity being committed by Qaddafi and his forces impelled the formation of this coalition. The Bush administration�s �coalition of the willing� in contrast was often brought on board by what were essentially bribes.
10. Iraq in 2002-3 no longer posed a credible threat to its neighbors. A resurgent Qaddafi in Libya with petroleum billions at his disposal would likely attempt to undermine the democratic experiments in Tunisia and Egypt, blighting the lives of millions.
http://www.juancole.com/2011/03/top-ten-ways-that-libya-2011-is-not-iraq-2003.html
Well exactly. Far easier to tag together some buzzwords, maybe pull something from FoxNews than it is to think critically about the issue. This inane comparison between coalition numbers was also picked up by Steve M.:
Fox Nation huffily declares that "Bush Had 2 Times More Coalition Partners in Iraq Than Obama Has in Libya." Bush's thirty-nation list, of course, included such global powers as Azerbaijan, Estonia, Latvia, and Uzbekistan, and didn't include the likes of, y'know, Germany and France.
But if we're going to play games like this, in the run-up to the war, how many coalition partners did Bush attract per week? The Libyan uprising started just about a month ago and Obama's coalition is fifteen nations. When do you date the start of the "Iraq crisis" the Bushies manufactured? The Axis of Evil speech, fourteen months before the war began? The Battle of Tora Bora, a month before that? The first administration meetings on Iraq regime change, mere days after Bush's inauguration, and more than two years before the Iraq War started? By that standard, Bush barely acquired one coalition partner a month! Obama obtained more than three partners a week!
I'm reminded of the 2000 electoral maps that measured Bush's vote by geography, as if winning a county with more jackrabbits than people was the equivalent of winning a county full of apartment buildings.
http://nomoremister.blogspot.com/2011/03/well-if-were-going-to-be-ridiculous.html
Meanwhile, Juan Cole lays out ten reasons why this is not like Iraq:
Here are the differences between George W. Bush�s invasion of Iraq in 2003 and the current United Nations action in Libya:
1. The action in Libya was authorized by the United Nations Security Council. That in Iraq was not. By the UN Charter, military action after 1945 should either come as self-defense or with UNSC authorization. Most countries in the world are signatories to the charter and bound by its provisions.
2. The Libyan people had risen up and thrown off the Qaddafi regime, with some 80-90 percent of the country having gone out of his hands before he started having tank commanders fire shells into peaceful crowds. It was this vast majority of the Libyan people that demanded the UN no-fly zone. In 2002-3 there was no similar popular movement against Saddam Hussein.
3. There was an ongoing massacre of civilians, and the threat of more such massacres in Benghazi, by the Qaddafi regime, which precipitated the UNSC resolution. Although the Saddam Hussein regime had massacred people in the 1980s and early 1990s, nothing was going on in 2002-2003 that would have required international intervention.
4. The Arab League urged the UNSC to take action against the Qaddafi regime, and in many ways precipitated Resolution 1973. The Arab League met in 2002 and expressed opposition to a war on Iraq. (Reports of Arab League backtracking on Sunday were incorrect, based on a remark of outgoing Secretary-General Amr Moussa that criticized the taking out of anti-aircraft batteries. The Arab League reaffirmed Sunday and Moussa agreed Monday that the No-Fly Zone is what it wants).
5. None of the United Nations allies envisages landing troops on the ground, nor does the UNSC authorize it. Iraq was invaded by land forces.
6. No false allegations were made against the Qaddafi regime, of being in league with al-Qaeda or of having a nuclear weapons program. The charge is massacre of peaceful civilian demonstrators and an actual promise to commit more such massacres.
7. The United States did not take the lead role in urging a no-fly zone, and was dragged into this action by its Arab and European allies. President Obama pledges that the US role, mainly disabling anti-aircraft batteries and bombing runways, will last �days, not months� before being turned over to other United Nations allies.
8. There is no sectarian or ethnic dimension to the Libyan conflict, whereas the US Pentagon conspired with Shiite and Kurdish parties to overthrow the Sunni-dominated Baathist regime in Iraq, setting the stage for a prolonged and bitter civil war.
9. The US has not rewarded countries such as Norway for entering the conflict as UN allies, but rather a genuine sense of outrage at the brutal crimes against humanity being committed by Qaddafi and his forces impelled the formation of this coalition. The Bush administration�s �coalition of the willing� in contrast was often brought on board by what were essentially bribes.
10. Iraq in 2002-3 no longer posed a credible threat to its neighbors. A resurgent Qaddafi in Libya with petroleum billions at his disposal would likely attempt to undermine the democratic experiments in Tunisia and Egypt, blighting the lives of millions.
http://www.juancole.com/2011/03/top-ten-ways-that-libya-2011-is-not-iraq-2003.html
jdminpdx
Apr 8, 01:31 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) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8G4 Safari/6533.18.5)
I was at BB yesterday and inquired about buying one. They has them but the manager wouldn't sell me one. He refuses to tell me why and I was told that he was instructed to hault sales temporarily. Hmmm
I was at BB yesterday and inquired about buying one. They has them but the manager wouldn't sell me one. He refuses to tell me why and I was told that he was instructed to hault sales temporarily. Hmmm
michaelflynn
Apr 6, 12:46 PM
A lot of pros have already left Mac, but I have been holding out. However, this is the last straw. If the new FCP disappoints I will be jumping ship, buying a high-end PC and switching to Avid or Premiere. I just can't stand the frustrations anymore of watching every consumer itoy get upgraded, and then the Pro stuff getting shafted.
The time is now. The new FCP had better have something equivalent to Mercury Playback, optimization for RED footage, different HD codecs, real-time playback, 64 bit, multi-core usage, etc. If it's a dumbed-down consumer product I will be absolutely livid.
I would try out Premiere on your Mac before jumping to PC. I edit on Premiere for Windwos at one of my part-time jobs, and it is terribly unstable on every machine I've used. Constant crashes and hang-ups, and I don't like the interface as much as FCP. People cite native DSLR support as an advantage, but you have to sit there and wait for Premiere to "conform" every clip, which can take 45 minutes for large projects...probably the same amount of time it would take to convert to ProRes!
The time is now. The new FCP had better have something equivalent to Mercury Playback, optimization for RED footage, different HD codecs, real-time playback, 64 bit, multi-core usage, etc. If it's a dumbed-down consumer product I will be absolutely livid.
I would try out Premiere on your Mac before jumping to PC. I edit on Premiere for Windwos at one of my part-time jobs, and it is terribly unstable on every machine I've used. Constant crashes and hang-ups, and I don't like the interface as much as FCP. People cite native DSLR support as an advantage, but you have to sit there and wait for Premiere to "conform" every clip, which can take 45 minutes for large projects...probably the same amount of time it would take to convert to ProRes!
Squire
Aug 5, 11:30 PM
Does anyone think the recent "problems" at Apple are going to have any effect on what happens Monday.
Story: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/08/05/BUGAHKBK3H1.DTL
If there are products that are they "maybe" list, this might put them on the "go" list. Big news pushes stock prices up and pushes the "problem" stories on page 2.
I agree. In fact, I was going to post the same thing. I was all set to be disappointed by the keynote until I read a new Forbes article on the topic. They are expecting some pretty amazing things; things that will divert media attention away from Apple's embarrassing financial scandal.
-Squire
P.S. How about seamless MSN/Yahoo! Messenger support in iChat?\
<edit> All of which has upped the stakes for Apple and Jobs, the company's public face. He must show the world something new when he delivers the keynote at Monday's conference. Really new. Something revolutionary, not evolutionary, that will excite the fans, grow the business--and change the subject.
http://www.forbes.com/home/technology/2006/08/04/ipod-jobs-zune_cx_ck_rr_0804apple.html
Story: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/08/05/BUGAHKBK3H1.DTL
If there are products that are they "maybe" list, this might put them on the "go" list. Big news pushes stock prices up and pushes the "problem" stories on page 2.
I agree. In fact, I was going to post the same thing. I was all set to be disappointed by the keynote until I read a new Forbes article on the topic. They are expecting some pretty amazing things; things that will divert media attention away from Apple's embarrassing financial scandal.
-Squire
P.S. How about seamless MSN/Yahoo! Messenger support in iChat?\
<edit> All of which has upped the stakes for Apple and Jobs, the company's public face. He must show the world something new when he delivers the keynote at Monday's conference. Really new. Something revolutionary, not evolutionary, that will excite the fans, grow the business--and change the subject.
http://www.forbes.com/home/technology/2006/08/04/ipod-jobs-zune_cx_ck_rr_0804apple.html
Macnoviz
Jul 20, 08:07 AM
heavy
It looks like 2006 won't be like 1984
It looks like 2006 won't be like 1984
TMay
Apr 6, 05:42 AM
Have any of you been able to use Sandy Bridge hardware h.264 on the MBP for your AVC files?
I understand that there is an issue with 24p (it's 24.000 hz not 23.976 hz as it should be) which will be corrected with Ivey Bridge, but 30p/60p/60i should work fine. I'm assuming that this feature will show up in Lion, but probably isn't yet supported in SL.
I understand that there is an issue with 24p (it's 24.000 hz not 23.976 hz as it should be) which will be corrected with Ivey Bridge, but 30p/60p/60i should work fine. I'm assuming that this feature will show up in Lion, but probably isn't yet supported in SL.
portishead
Apr 12, 12:54 PM
Then that just begs the question, "why haven't these people left already?" FCP has been fairly stagnant for years. There are plenty of other alternatives, so doesn't that kinda make them fanboyish too for sticking it out when up to this point Apple has given zero hints about when or how it will take FCP to the next level?
I'm not in the video editing biz, but if the pro s/w I use in my profession hobbled my efficiency and workflow the way you are carping about FCP, and there were viable alternatives, I would abandon it quicker than pigeon can snatch a bread crumb. Just sayin'.
People just love to complain. Yes Apple has been a little behind in the NLE business lately. They can't be on top all the time. Avid has made fantastic strides lately, and so has Adobe, although I would never advise using Premiere. You have to remember though Avid made a lot of bad moves, from nearly dropping Mac support to their closed hardware system. Just recently have they finally started to look like they got it together. FCP is being updated today, so all this nonsense about apple neglecting the pro market can stop. You may not like the update, but from what I've heard (not much) it's going to be pretty amazing.
I'm not in the video editing biz, but if the pro s/w I use in my profession hobbled my efficiency and workflow the way you are carping about FCP, and there were viable alternatives, I would abandon it quicker than pigeon can snatch a bread crumb. Just sayin'.
People just love to complain. Yes Apple has been a little behind in the NLE business lately. They can't be on top all the time. Avid has made fantastic strides lately, and so has Adobe, although I would never advise using Premiere. You have to remember though Avid made a lot of bad moves, from nearly dropping Mac support to their closed hardware system. Just recently have they finally started to look like they got it together. FCP is being updated today, so all this nonsense about apple neglecting the pro market can stop. You may not like the update, but from what I've heard (not much) it's going to be pretty amazing.
iMikeT
Aug 17, 03:28 PM
I'll just wait until the 4GHZ Mac Pro. I wonder what that bad boy can do.:rolleyes:
Nuck81
Nov 12, 02:36 PM
Gah!!
I have it preordered and will be at my moms when it is going to be delivered!!
I have it preordered and will be at my moms when it is going to be delivered!!
puuukeey
Sep 13, 12:32 PM
http://images.amazon.com/images/P/B0007US79Y.01._AA240_SCLZZZZZZZ_.jpg
MORE POWER!
MORE POWER!
aafuss1
Aug 6, 05:30 PM
Why sell a new keyboard for front row, if you can sell a new Mac to the same person? Including the sensor in the Cinema Displays would enable Apple to sell more of their display, on which they probably have a very good profit margin (when you compare to other manufacturers).
They could also just put it into the tower. Even if that is under the desk, it might not be that much of a problem. In my experience the sensor responds very nicely to the remote even if the line of sight between them is somewhat obstructed.
However the best solution I think, was suggested by someone on these forums. I don't know, whether it has been quoted here already, because I did not go through all the messages. This poster suggested to combine the sensor with an external iSight. That could be connected to any monitor and would probably have a good IR reception because of beeing on top of the monitor and thus very exposed.
Apple would have to make the IR
They could also just put it into the tower. Even if that is under the desk, it might not be that much of a problem. In my experience the sensor responds very nicely to the remote even if the line of sight between them is somewhat obstructed.
However the best solution I think, was suggested by someone on these forums. I don't know, whether it has been quoted here already, because I did not go through all the messages. This poster suggested to combine the sensor with an external iSight. That could be connected to any monitor and would probably have a good IR reception because of beeing on top of the monitor and thus very exposed.
Apple would have to make the IR
DCJ001
Mar 26, 07:57 PM
im using snow leopard, will all my documents and apps gone if i upgrade to lion ?
PowerPC (Rosetta) emulation is no longer offered. That means if you have any PowerPC applications they won't be able to run in Mac OS X Lion. You can determine if you are still running PowerPC applications by going into Applications -> Utilities -> System Profiler -> Applications and viewing "By Kind". This will show you which applications you have that are running under PowerPC. Rosetta had already become an optional install in Snow Leopard, and it appears Apple will be removing support for it entirely in Lion.
http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1104601
PowerPC (Rosetta) emulation is no longer offered. That means if you have any PowerPC applications they won't be able to run in Mac OS X Lion. You can determine if you are still running PowerPC applications by going into Applications -> Utilities -> System Profiler -> Applications and viewing "By Kind". This will show you which applications you have that are running under PowerPC. Rosetta had already become an optional install in Snow Leopard, and it appears Apple will be removing support for it entirely in Lion.
http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1104601
McKellar
Sep 19, 02:04 AM
What is wrong with you people? Meroms in other brands of laptops haven't, or are only *just* starting to ship, and you people wail that Apple is doomed, when in the worst case scenario, they'll be a few days behind Dell. If they don't ship by next month, then sure, complain, but really, most of those who moan that Apple is "OMG SO OUTDATED MEROM MBPS SHOULD HAVE BEEN RELEASED 2 MONTHS AGO!!!" are out of touch with reality.
HBOC
Apr 8, 01:50 AM
I'll pile on here.
I hate Best Buy.
I miss Circuit City.
I wish there was a Frys in Utah.
There, I feel better. I hope this place suffers. I hate Best Buy.
Fry's is way WORSE than Best Buy. All those tools are on commission, whereas BB they are not, although BOTH locations have equally clueless people. And their prices are not that great, and there is NO sales tax here in Oregon. They won't even match Amazon or Newegg. No one sells for less than those two... Not missing much my man.. and don't get me started on the "build it yourself PC section and TV section...
I hate Best Buy.
I miss Circuit City.
I wish there was a Frys in Utah.
There, I feel better. I hope this place suffers. I hate Best Buy.
Fry's is way WORSE than Best Buy. All those tools are on commission, whereas BB they are not, although BOTH locations have equally clueless people. And their prices are not that great, and there is NO sales tax here in Oregon. They won't even match Amazon or Newegg. No one sells for less than those two... Not missing much my man.. and don't get me started on the "build it yourself PC section and TV section...
Millah
Apr 27, 08:02 AM
How large did this file grow to?
Cory Bauer
Apr 12, 08:00 PM
Yeah no kidding...they should have taken the "New" off the page at least a year ago.
No kidding, right? Also, fancy meeting you here, Jester :cool:
No kidding, right? Also, fancy meeting you here, Jester :cool:
phatpat88
Jul 15, 12:40 AM
Burn two DVD's at once and DVD copying.
Burning a DVD while watching another?
Dude, there is totally a use for the power user!
Burning a DVD while watching another?
Dude, there is totally a use for the power user!
No comments:
Post a Comment