The Best of Macworld SF 2006

ptorrone writes "We podcasted live, we posted over 100 photos real time via a WiFi camera + EVDO as we walked around and now we've picked the top 5 products we liked the most at Macworld San Fran 2006. It's safe to say our picks aren't likely to be the same ones you'll see in the usual "best of" lists. We gave top marks to products, services and software that we think fit the "Maker" mindset - technology on your time and a bit of news from the future... Here they are..."

Comments

Google Earth + SketchUp

[mysqlrocks]

Wow, the Google Earth + SketchUp integration looks pretty cool. I couldn't find anywhere how much SketchUp costs but they have a free trial.

Re:Google Earth + SketchUp

[ptorrone]

sketchup is $495: http://www.sketchup.com/cgi-bin/store/trybuy.html

Re:Google Earth + SketchUp

[grahamsz]

My cousin is an architect and the guys in his office have already started putting buildings into landscapes. Sounds like a neat idea, although until they have better background 3d models of cities it has fairly limited use (in my mind).

Re:Google Earth + SketchUp

[Anonymous Coward]

It should also be noted that SketchUp has Ruby bindings -- so you can write an extension script.

Re:Google Earth + SketchUp

[Lisandro]

Ouch. I was considering purchasing it (Windows version), as something like that could be very useful to design electronic gadget enclosures, but at that price, i can stick to pencil and paper.

Re:Google Earth + SketchUp

[rho]

An architect friend swears by Sketchup. He's been using it for several years, and preferred it to the new Revit from Autodesk.

I know this is Slashdot, and OSS is the best thing in the world, but programs that charge sometimes really are worth it. I used to use Strata StudioPro. The productivity increase between it and the other 3D programs at the time (mid- late-1990s) was ridiculously high. (As it happened, Strata was at least half the price of the Autodesk tools.) Based on my friend's recommendation, I'd not hesitate to at least try the software. If your business is in design mockups, it's well worth the $500.

Re:Google Earth + SketchUp

[Lisandro]

Don't get me wrong, i've been checking their website and it looks like a terrfic product. It's just that $500 feels like a lot; you can get very decent CAD products from $50 up, including Audodesk's Autosketch 9 for about $150! $500 is just too much for a hobbyst like me, which i infered from the article is part of the target audience for the software.

    I'm not OSS zealot, and i pay gladly for software if i think it's worth it. I'll try the demo tormorrow, and i'm pretty sure i'll like it from what i've seen so far - the "push/pull designing" thing alone had me drooling for a while. But i don't know if it'll turn out to be $500-worth. Rememeber, a full-fledged CAD package is in the vecinity of $700-800.

Re:Google Earth + SketchUp

[ozmanjusri]

But i don't know if it'll turn out to be $500-worth. Rememeber, a full-fledged CAD package is in the vecinity of $700-800.

I've been using Sketchup for a couple of years now, and it's been well worth it to me. While it doesn't replace Autocad completely, i'm finding I'm using it a lot more often than Autocad, and often end up just using the traditional CAD package to do the final tweaks.

Re:Google Earth + SketchUp

[rho]

A "full fledged CAD" package is either AutoCAD ($2500) or Microstation (used to be about $3000, not sure now). Or Revit, which is both buggy and expensive ($2000-ish, but a per-year license rental arrangement).

Motorola Chip

[c0d3r]

I got an Itainium 2 Chip key chain for my last conference. Is it too late to get a Motorola chip key chain since Apple moved to intel processors?

Re:Motorola Chip

[Poltras]

I don't know, what about PowerPC in all this?

Party like its 1985

[ShamusYoung]

The VR glasses are good for a laugh. From TFA:

Sure, there's a little bit of a Jordie LaForge factor, but the 50 or so people we watched try these on at the booth all pretty much said "these ain't that bad, I could wear them."

Yes, but they are all geeks. This isn't going to take off the way the iPod did. The iPod is sexy. The glasses are more like an ersatz contraceptive.

But if nobody was looking, I would try them out for sure!

Re:Party like its 1985

[pimpimpim]

yes indeed, glasses like that have been showing up for ages, never ever worked. VR is a thing that passed by I guess.

Re:Party like its 1985

[DaftShadow]

These glasses look pretty cool. I've been trying to get my hands on a pair of the "new age" of small form displays. Why have an LCD monitor? Why not have a totally mobile monitor setup? Just plop on your display, and voila! These don't look like those crappy full-face helmets. They are sleek and interesting.

These things aren't "3D virtual reality glasses"; they are small-form, optical LCD displays. And it's not like they just plopped an LCD up either... they have tiny lenses in front of the display that allow your eyes to focus correctly and look at this thing for hours on end, just like you were staring at your monitor that's sitting two feet away. It's brilliant stuff.

Combine this with an OQO or other such portable device, and you have a totally mobile computing platform. Or why not just use Ipod Linux...

- DaftShadow

Re:Party like its 1985

[vertinox]

yes indeed, glasses like that have been showing up for ages, never ever worked. VR is a thing that passed by I guess.

Nah. VR was just was a false pretender technology back then.

The headshets were way too bulky, expensive, and from my experience they always gave me a eyeache after an hour.

If they can solve all three of those problems then it would be accepted in the market place. VR has got a few more generations to go with the size and quality and I believe eventually they'll get the image projected straight onto the retina which hopefully would get around the eyestrain.

After all, if you could watch porn on the bus on the way to work and look stylish doing it, then I think you've got a winner.

Re:Party like its 1985

[Anonymous Coward]

ersatz contraceptive

Phillip K Dick, is that you?

Re:Party like its 1985

[Anonymous Coward]

But if nobody was looking, I would try them out for sure!

Lemme guess, you have a file on you iPod video named 'Boobman's big adventure in tittyland'?

Sorry, I had to...

Re:Party like its 1985

[OldManAndTheC]

The glasses are more like an ersatz contraceptive.

You know that's something I've never understood: if geeks aren't able to reproduce, where do the new geeks come from??? It's not like there's ever any shortage of geeks, new ones are cropping up all the time.

Is there some sort of recessive mutation? Some little gene with thick glasses and a lisp that randomly takes over the Y chromosome and then WHOOPS the blonde hunky adonis dad looks down and sees that (gulp) his newborn son is a geek?

Re:Party like its 1985

[abes]

Two words: Spontaneous generation.

Re:Party like its 1985

[deander2]

hah. for the record, i don't disagree with you. this things are still dorky, even if they are the least dorky video goggles ever. but when i read:

This isn't going to take off the way the iPod did.

i thought "yeah, because /.ers were so good at predicting the success of THAT device." :-P

heh. vr goggles. No wireless. Less space than a nomad. Lame.

Re:Party like its 1985

[Anonymous Coward]

yes indeed, glasses like that have been showing up for ages, never ever worked. VR is a thing that passed by I guess.

Absolutely! Clearly, everything that hasn't worked yet obviously never will!

Nice logic.

Re:Party like its 1985

[GoodOmens]

I bought my first ipod the day them came out. I knew they would be big ... just took a bit longer then I thought ;-)

Re:Party like its 1985

[timeOday]

I still think goggles will make it, simply because nothing else can do what they do. A huge 3d display in a pocketable form factor? Sorry, but there's nothing on the horizon besides goggles to do that.

If nothing else, they should revolutionize video games. Experiencing the virtual world through a small motionless rectangle is so limiting... we only accept it because we don't know better.

Re:Party like its 1985

[ozmanjusri]

The headshets were way too bulky, expensive, and from my experience they always gave me a eyeache after an hour.
If they can solve all three of those problems then it would be accepted in the market place.

It's unlikely they'll solve the headache problem real soon. It's a result of your eyes having to focus on a screen a couple of cm away while your brain is interpreting the scene as being remote.

Re:Party like its 1985

[Shanep]

It's unlikely they'll solve the headache problem real soon. It's a result of your eyes having to focus on a screen a couple of cm away while your brain is interpreting the scene as being remote.

The optics in these sorts of units are supposed to present you with an image that would require your eyes to focus at the equivalent of some reasonable distance. 10ft to infinity, for example.

Like when I look through my SLR viewfinder at the focusing screen. In reality I am focusing on a small screen 3cm away, but optically it is the equivalentof a large screen much further away.

Having said that, those optical systems are fixed, yet the depth perception of objects is constantly changing, so I guess that could give you eye strain. Your brain would be saying focus in or focus out when an object is moving closer or further away, but the resulting out of focus image coming back would be confusing your brain into compensating for something that is not expected. So your eyes would be constantly making small focus corrections, I guess causing eye strain and I wonder if the confusion would also be giving you a headache?

Re:Party like its 1985

[Shanep]

VR is a thing that passed by I guess.

Did VR really pass? When I was at college all those years ago and VR was a chosen subject of mine, VR was considered to have roles in visualization (medical, architectural, etc), simulation (flight, driving, etc) and games.

I think it has been with us the whole time. Certainly 3D goggles make the emersion into a virtual reality more realistic, but I don't think goggles are required for something to qualify as being VR.

Battlefield 2 sure gets my heart racing at times. Even without the stereo component of depth perception.

Re:Party like its 1985

[Golias]

This isn't going to take off the way the iPod did. The iPod is sexy. The glasses are more like an ersatz contraceptive.

But if nobody was looking, I would try them out for sure!

Who cares what they look like? If I'm on a plane, and having these means I can sit back and enjoy a movie or two on (the illusion of) a nice-sized screen, I don't care if they're pink with little purple skulls on them. I'm putting them on!

Re:Party like its 1985

[tntguy]

We come from core dumps.

Re:Party like its 1985

[ceoyoyo]

If you're not doing 3D with the glasses then that isn't a problem though. You SHOULD be able to make these things so that they show the same thing to both eyes, put in a lens so the image appears to be at inifinity, and it would be like watching God's TV. 3D that's not really 3D is always going to be a bit of a strain, but is cool for reasonable periods of time.

sensors

[pimpimpim]

These environmental sensors should have some wireless functionality, it looks rather tedious to collect them all the time, by the time you put them in the reader, you stop the datamining. It would be much nicer if you could just but the reader closeby and read out the data over bluetooth or something. And who needs something like that anyway? Weather fanatics?

Re:sensors

[dorsey]

You'd have to collect them periodically anyway to replace/recharge the batteries. And you'd have to collect them more frequently if the batteries also had to power a transmitter.

Re:sensors

[Anonymous Coward]

Biologists use these to monitor environmental conditions at research sites. I used them 8 years ago as an undergrad, so I am rather surprised they are being treated as "new". These guys have been around forever, and their product was exceptional 8 years ago. WIFI would kick ass since you could also use it to find the sensor rather than flagging it and have to worry about somebody wandering off with your 200 dollar thermometer/humidity sensor (they do other things too like light level).

Re:sensors

[Detritus]

I have something similar (NOMAD OM-43) that I use to record indoor temperature and relative humidity. It can be programmed and downloaded via an RS-232 port. It will run for a very long time on a lithium battery. If can be useful if you have stuff that is sensitive to temperature and humidity, like musical instruments, photographic film, magnetic tape, etc. It's also interesting to have a historical record of the actual conditions, as opposed to what they are supposed to be.

Re:sensors

[stefanlasiewski]

And who needs something like that anyway? Weather fanatics?

Scientists and science students. I spent many many hours of my college life driving/walking/travelling into a field to check the rainmeter and temperature. This would have saved me a ton of time, if I could afford them.

And to emphasize what the other poster said, wireless is very power hungry and would increase the battery requirements by quite a bit. Those little sensors wouldn't be so little anymore.

Re:sensors

[javaxman]

it looks rather tedious to collect them all the time, by the time you put them in the reader, you stop the datamining. It would be much nicer if you could just but the reader closeby and read out the data over bluetooth or something. And who needs something like that anyway?

Any number of scientists and engineers could make use of such devices. Sure, you stop the datamining as soon as you pick up the device, but the idea ( should you want continuous data ) is that you put down a new one when you pick up the previous one. Real-time access to the data might not really be that interesting ( you're likely looking for macro-level trends, not single events ). Also notice that there are voltage-level sensors among others, it's not just about weather.

Re:sensors

[dubbayu_d_40]

Dust Networks makes just such a thing. Their wireless devices have a variety of analog and digital points (the digital points can be actuated) and a serial port. This allows anyone to attach any device they want. Although battery powered, the batteries supposedly last a long time (I've never had to replace one in the past year that I've had them), and there is a battery level sensor so your apps can monitor and automatically schedule battery replacement. This stuff is hot in building and control systems because it is so expensive to run wire.

Re:sensors

[blackest_k]

I've got a little weather station device not fantastic but it does have a little sensor which transmits the outside temperature out in the garden wirelessly continually for the last two months its powered by a slightly oversize watch battery. it shows no sign of quitting just yet.

Re:sensors

[Icekold]

Link please?

Re:sensors

[Anonymous Coward]

There even more tedious because they're extremely flakey. We tried using HOBO sensors before and they would either 1) run the battery dry in a matter of minutes (supposed to last a week+) 2) randomly reset themselves, forgetting their sampling parameters and loosing all data. Extremely frustrating.

Re:sensors

[blackest_k]

http://www.reviewcentre.com/reviews97025.html

is a little review of the device.
the german website for
digitech is

http://www.digitech-gmbh.de/

but it basically says the sites in development but you can email them on
webmaster@digitech-gmbh.de

btw this was just a £7.99 device
my point basically was a remote sensor doesnt need to eat batterys to be wireless

Google doesn't "get it"

[pomo monster]

I've had this thought before, but nothing crystallizes it like Google Earth for OS X. The application is ugly. The interface is cluttered and somewhat inscrutable. It looks like a direct port from the Windows version with no regard for Mac UI conventions, up-to-date widgets (the 10.0-style tabs and sliders, in particular), or even alignment (scrollbars that overlap with adjacent elements? WTF).

This, to me, only reflects Google's broader philosophy. They don't release products that give people what they need, or solve problems they didn't know they had. Google releases whatever products the technology allows them to build, without regard of how, where, or even why it fits into people's lives. Google has a "because we can" mentality rather than one of "because it would help." Hence the bare-walls interfaces and inexplicable feature spammage. In this, Google behaves remarkably like Microsoft.

Don't get me wrong, I love Google for what it is, but not what it ain't: particularly tasteful or particularly elegant.

Re:Google doesn't "get it"

[ShamusYoung]

This, to me, only reflects Google's broader philosophy. They don't release products that give people what they need, or solve problems they didn't know they had. Google releases whatever products the technology allows them to build, without regard of how, where, or even why it fits into people's lives. Google has a "because we can" mentality rather than one of "because it would help." Hence the bare-walls interfaces and inexplicable feature spammage. In this, Google behaves remarkably like Microsoft.

Ow. Harsh.

I would suggest that while both are famous for numerous features covered in uglyness, the reasons differ. Microsoft looks at the market and thinks "how can we control this?" Google is more like a bunch of engineers sitting around saying "you know what would be cool to build?". In both cases the thing is ugly, but in the case of Google it's just a lack of asthetics. Everything feels sort of proto-typish.

Now that I've said it, I admit that I don't see how it matters.

Re:Google doesn't "get it"

[pomo monster]

Yeah, I agree, that's probably an accurate perspective on the difference between the two. The only reason I can see why it matters is that it gives me an excuse to respect Google a little more than Microsoft. :-)

Re:Google doesn't "get it"

[poot_rootbeer]

Practically all of your comments about Google would be true of Open Source Software as well, with slight alterations. Would it be fair to say that OSS doesn't "get it"? To compare them to Microsoft?

Re:Google doesn't "get it"

[ben_1432]

They don't release products that give people what they need, or solve problems they didn't know they had. Google software is more of a cop-out these days ... it's thrown together and released in a hurry and more often than not it's just someone else's idea with a shiney new logo.

Re:Google doesn't "get it"

[webzone]

Indeed, it is a direct port from Windows. A real Mac developer sane in their mind would break all the OS X design conventions like Google does with Google Earth. It is not only the UI, but also everything underneath.

The dialogs are bundled in the executable instead of being attached as Interface Builder files. There are a bunch of icons, like the "info" icon (i in a speech bubble), take right from Windows 2000. The buttons are placed at the wrong locations in dialogs and the default buttons are not always selected like they should be. There's more but my eyes bleed because of this Windowish UI so I'll just say that it is a beta and stay optimistic.

Re:Google doesn't "get it"

[pomo monster]

Some projects yes, some projects no, owing to the remarkable diversity of open source software. I've seen a lot of open-source apps and hacks that approach development and user experience with thoughtfulness and polish, and others that are more focused on doing cool stuff with the technology for its own sake. It'd be wrong to characterize OSS on the whole as one or the other--but if pressed, then yeah, I'd have to say a majority of the best-known OSS projects are of the latter variety. Apache is one exception (maybe because it's targeted to web admins and technicians to begin with). Firefox sort of straddles the line.

Re:Google doesn't "get it"

[webzone]

Sorry I meant "wouldn't break all the OS X design conventions".

Re:Google doesn't "get it"

[IamTheRealMike]

It's based on Qt, which doesn't use the native rendering APIs on the Mac, hence the old style and slightly odd rendering glitches.

That said, I find it rich that Mac users whinge when getting ports of Windows apps yet when Apple ports Mac apps to Windows blatant HIG/toolkit violations are the order of the day. *cough* QuickTime *cough*

Re:Google doesn't "get it"

[daviddennis]

This is certainly a good summary of why I prefer the Mac to Linux. The Mac is like Linux would be if huge amounts of care were poured into its design.

D

Re:Google doesn't "get it"

[the idoru]

*cough* QuickTime *cough*

To be fair, QT on OS X also breaks Apple's own Human Interface Guidelines. It's UI is trash all around.

Re:Google doesn't "get it"

[Blakey Rat]

Firefox "gets" the home market, but totally misses the corporate market. For instance, it can't be deployed with roaming profiles, because it roams the cache instead of putting it in Local Settings where it belongs.

Re:Google doesn't "get it"

[Kadin2048]

I think that's pretty much true; within OSS projects, there are the projects that were designed because somebody needed to "do something" in particular, and then there are those projects which were designed and built because somebody thought it would be "cool to do." The subtle difference in motivation produces very different products in the end. "Do something" products are inherently limited in scope, and tend to focus inwards after a time, refining and refining a core idea. "Cool to do" projects tend to expand outwards; once they've done one thing, they expand outwards to do more things. In a completely FOSS environment, you need both -- the former to provide little bits of well-done functionality and the latter to connect them all together into something larger.

Overall I'm going to second others and say that I've always been impressed at the 'fit and finish' of Mac OS X. It's not perfect (in particular I wish they made it easier to run X apps on top of Aqua) but despite some people's claims to the contrary, in my experience it's far easier to configure, mostly because of its consistency. Linux will always have an Achilles' heel because its flexibility also breeds complexity. For example, configuring wireless on a Mac is a no-brainer, because there is basically only one option for the cards: Apple.

Re:Google doesn't "get it"

[Blakey Rat]

No, Mac users generally hate the "metal" look as well. It doesn't fit OS 9 *or* OS X interface guidelines, either. What that is is the marketing department getting out of control, and I think Mac, Linux *and* Windows geeks all hate that.

Re:Google doesn't "get it"

[pomo monster]

They're guidelines, not commandments, and I think Apple recognizes "a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds." The first couple versions of QuickTime after it went "aluminum" were horrid, to be sure. But 6.0's great.

Re:Google doesn't "get it"

[Elwood P Dowd]

I'll point out that occasionally "because we can" coincides with "what they need". Just based on luck & volume.

A huge number of ph.d.s doing whatever "because we can" is kindof elegant. imo.

Re:Google doesn't "get it"

[Anonymous Coward]

Hello, this is general Mac users speaking (we decided we should probably speak for ourselves). Actually we don't hate the "metal" look.

Re:Google doesn't "get it"

[The Amazing Fish Boy]

That said, I find it rich that Mac users whinge when getting ports of Windows apps yet when Apple ports Mac apps to Windows blatant HIG/toolkit violations are the order of the day. *cough* QuickTime *cough*

Why would a Mac user care how software acts on Windows?

Re:Google doesn't "get it"

[kawaldeep]

Don't get me wrong, I love Google for what it is, but not what it ain't: particularly tasteful or particularly elegant.

have you forgotten google search, which embodies elegant, simple, usable interface design? or gmail?

Re:Google doesn't "get it"

[aristotle-dude]

You don't "get it". This is a beta release. I think they will eventually port over to nib files. Give then some time. I'm happy that it is now available on OSX.

Re:Google doesn't "get it"

[Paradise Pete]

Practically all of your comments about Google would be true of Open Source Software as well, with slight alterations. Would it be fair to say that OSS doesn't "get it"

No. If the Mac Google Earth were open source, you can bet your ass that the interface would be fixed up in a week.

Re:Google doesn't "get it"

[Anonymous Coward]

So, Apple is making everything metal because the customers hate it. That sounds like a great way to sell $130 upgrades.

Re:Google doesn't "get it"

[daviddennis]

I suspect you're being sarcastic, but to make things a little clearer, it's worth noting that as long as Google's user interface was done in GT/GTK it's not really feasible to fix the flaws without either rewriting Google Earth entirely, or fixing GT/GTK for the Mac.

Sadly, I don't see that as being likely, unless someone takes this message as a challenge and goes to work :-).

Why has Linux/Unix (other than the Mac) been stuck with such ugly tools, anyway? Do open source people not care about how things look? Or is it just too time-consuming to make things look right?

D

Re:Google doesn't "get it"

[creepynut]

Windows users don't care because there is no HIG that is followed consistantly. Even Microsoft's own products look and feel differently from application to application. MS Office for example.

Re:Google doesn't "get it"

[creepynut]

You're missing one detail. The UI is ugly in Windows aswell.

Re:Google doesn't "get it"

[Anonymous Coward]

"Don't get me wrong, I love Google for what it is, but not what it ain't: particularly tasteful or particularly elegant." and yet you call yourself PoMo Monster... nice

Re:Google doesn't "get it"

[Paradise Pete]

it's worth noting that as long as Google's user interface was done in GT/GTK it's not really feasible to fix the flaws without either rewriting Google Earth entirely, or fixing GT/GTK for the Mac.

You're right. But a lot of small things would get fixed pretty quickly. For instance, using a tool usually slaps an odd dialog box right on top of the thing you're trying to operate on. There ought to be a place for the dialog that's not on top of the image. I had a mental list of a dozen more examples, but it's way too late at night. But certainly there a bunch of places that could be cleaned up in an afternoon or so. That nobody has done so (and they are the same on Windows) is perhaps an indication that Windows users have been trained to tolerate any old crappy interface, and maybe even blame themselves for not knowing how to use it.

One of the things that makes Macintosh software have better interfaces is that a developer can't get away with not doing it. If the users won't put up with it then you've got no choice except to put in the extra effort (and it is often considerable) to polish the interface. I've written Mac apps in which more than half the time was spent on it.

Re:Google doesn't "get it"

[eikonos]

I'm a Mac user too, and I dislike brushed metal so much (if I wanted big and clunky widgets I'd switch back to Windows) that I installed Iridium. http://www.sagefire.org/C1827030151/E2005081220104 6/index.html

Re:Google doesn't "get it"

[zpok]

I don't know, imo whatever google does, it does pretty good, .

I'm totally into design, GUI's and yes, the mac. But when accessing a service, I don't care how pretty it is, as long as it's easy and gives me useful results. Did I mention fast there? Any online service should be fast before anything else. If not, don't bother, I'm sure I won't.

Fast, easy, useful.

Apart from that, I try to judge free stuff differently from stuff I pay for.

So, let's see, free, fast, useful, and um, not so pretty.

In short, I don't agree with you. I think Google gets it and gives even better.

Re:Google doesn't "get it"

[tpgp]

The Mac is like Linux would be if huge amounts of care were poured into its design.

No - the Mac is a very nice Unix-like o/s with lovely eye-candy.

It is however nothing like linux.

Does it run in embedded environments? Can I access the source? Can I port it to sparc? If there's a bug can I fix it?

Under linux - the answer to all of them is yes, under Apple no.

Re:Google doesn't "get it"

[kensan]

So he could say: wow Windows sucks it looks so much nicer on my Mac... *aaahhhh* ;)

Re:Google doesn't "get it"

[daviddennis]

Sure you can access the source, to the extent you would want to for embedded environments, anyway.

MacOS X rests above the open source Darwin project, so if you want to make Darwin embedded, go right ahead.

D

Re:Google doesn't "get it"

[Anonymous Coward]

Since when did questions of how similar different software projects are boil down only to your favorite software licence?

In any case, Darwin is the core OS of OSX (i.e. with the "eye candy" and other fluff you're presumably not interested in removed), and the answers to your question are "you have the source, make it so", "yes", "yes", and "yes".

Re:Google doesn't "get it"

[bloodstains]

MS Office for example.

...and Windows Media Player. Ugh...

Re:Google doesn't "get it"

[tpgp]

Sure you can access the source, to the extent you would want to for embedded environments, anyway.

What? You think you don't need a gui in an embedded environment?

Re:Google doesn't "get it"

[daviddennis]

I think Apple's GUI is way too high-overhead for a portable device, so I think the desirablity of such in embedded environments would be questionable at best.

Notice what a hard time Nokia had with its tablet running Linux. It was widely panned as underpowered, and an equivalent MacOS X-powered device would run into the same problems.

D

Re:Google doesn't "get it"

[tpgp]

Well thanks for pointing that out Captain Obvious.

I was trying to point out that OSX is not just linux with lots of polish - because it lacks the one of the things that makes linux really great - access to the source.

Your arguments that I don't want the source, have no need for the source, etc are not relevant to this thread.

Now, on to your point.

I think Apple's GUI is way too high-overhead for a portable device, so I think the desirablity of such in embedded environments would be questionable at best.

Embedded is not the same as portable. Wikipedia says An embedded system is a special-purpose computer system, which is completely encapsulated by the device it controls. And lists ATMs, Security monitoring systems and DVD recorders amongst embedded devices. OSX would be suitable for many of these - if you had access to the Aqua source.

Re:Google doesn't "get it"

[ceoyoyo]

Agreed. Google should hire a good Cocoa programmer/UI designer. It would probably take about a week to slap a NICE OS X UI on Google Earth. After all, it's just an OpenGL view and a bunch of edit boxes and buttons.

Re:Google doesn't "get it"

[ceoyoyo]

Captain Obvious's point was that OS X (Darwin) is exactly like Linux in that it is open source. Now, if you want a GUI, THAT's where the difference comes in. X and KDE/Gnome/whatever are open source. Aqua isn't.

I really don't think you'd want to run Aqua on your ATM, embedded security monitoring system, DVD recorder or cell phone any more than you'd want to run Gnome on them. You'd want to use something way lighter, and you can.

Re:Google doesn't "get it"

[ceoyoyo]

Nope, if it were open source I'd personally slap a nice Cocoa interface on it ASAP. That is, assuming that Google did the smart thing and isolated their engine from the GUI code....

Re:Google doesn't "get it"

[tpgp]

Captain Obvious's point was that OS X (Darwin) is exactly like Linux in that it is open source. Now, if you want a GUI, THAT's where the difference comes in. X and KDE/Gnome/whatever are open source. Aqua isn't.

*sigh* OSX is more then darwin. Yes, Darwin is Open source, no OSX is not open source.

I really don't think you'd want to run Aqua on your ATM, embedded security monitoring system, DVD recorder or cell phone any more than you'd want to run Gnome on them. You'd want to use something way lighter, and you can.

You really just don't get it do you? If you had the aqua source, you could make it lighter. Or just use it's widget libraries, or whatever.

Just pointing out what seperates linux (used in the distro sense) & OSX. Not saying Apple should open Aqua.

Re:Google doesn't "get it"

[tigersha]

Sigh. You are right about the general trend is geekdom. The problem lies in the whole Style vs Substance thing. It is generally true that substance is better than style. But for some reason, geeks think that this implies that any style whatsoever detracts from substance.

This is the same mentality that makes my colleagues force my co-workers to type their stuff in HTML instead of using a simple Rich Text Editor, use a green screen instead of a GUI, tell them that typing a command is easier than pressing a button. "Don't worry, its not hard". The mentality that a HTML app is better than a Swing app. "Look, you can do this from anywhere in the world now!". Ok, so the UI and usability is crap, but you can do it from orbit?? WHO CARES? 99% of the time the work is done from the same bloody machine in the office!

My favourite bugbear, produce all their documents in Arial (on a printer) instead of using, I don't know, readable fonts. "You BOUGHT a font??!!!" Yes, hell, I did. I value my personal corrspondence. "How can you PAY for something like that". I don't know, the typographer has to eat and creating a good readable font is a long hard project? Maybe?

Style is a good thing, and makes the substance better. SUBSITUTING style for substance is not a good idea. That is not the same thing though. And no, typing a command is not easier than pressing a button. More powerful, maybe, but not easier.

To summarize, Easy != Dumb

Making things really Easy and Powerful at the same time, is the real challenge here.

Re:Google doesn't "get it"

[ceoyoyo]

Sure you could. Like all those fast, light, embedded versions of Gnome people are running on their cell phones....

I don't think I'm the one that doesn't get it.

Re:Google doesn't "get it"

[tpgp]

Sure you could. Like all those fast, light, embedded versions of Gnome people are running on their cell phones....

I never mentioned phones - I mentioned embedded systems. However, just to humour you, here is a video of a cell phone running gtk.

I don't think I'm the one that doesn't get it.

I'm afraid you are. I specifically mentioned libraries, yet you used gnome as your example.

Re:Google doesn't "get it"

[ceoyoyo]

A phone is an example of an embedded system. These days a phone is one of the more capable embedded systems.

Ah, now GTK, yes, a cross platform GUI toolkit is very handy. I've said in other threads that I think Cocoa would make a killer cross platform GUI toolkit. Cocoa is based on NextStep (thus why all the classes have an NS prefix). There is an open source implementation of this called GNUStep (http://www.gnustep.org/) which looks very promising. They're even planning to implement parts of Cocoa itself.

Now, the part of OS X that you wanted open sourced wasn't Cocoa, it was Aqua. Aqua would be roughly equivalent to full blown X plus a heavy window manager (such as Gnome or KDE). You don't start with one of those and pare it down to fit in an embedded system.

I agree though, a GUI toolkit like Cocoa would be great. Hopefully Apple will help out the GNUStep people like they have various other open source projects relevant to them.

Anyway, the original post, to which you replied rudely, by the way, simply stated a belief that Apple's GUI (not just their widget toolkit) was too high-overhead for an embedded device. The OP didn't suggest that you don't need or want the source, he pointed out that your statement that the source to OS X is not available is not entirely correct, that in fact the parts of the source you would want for an embedded project ARE available. Note that Darwin also runs GTK, QT, etc., which are perfectly good toolkits that are appropriate for embedded environments.

Re:Google doesn't "get it"

[tpgp]

Now, the part of OS X that you wanted open sourced wasn't Cocoa, it was Aqua

1) I specifically said that I was not asking Apple to open anything.

2) I stated that OSX was a great system, but was not 'linux with lots of polish' because it lacked one of the things that made linux great - access to the source.

3) Embedded was an an example of what you can do with access to the source.

Anyway, the original post, to which you replied rudely, by the way,

I think you need to read the entire thread - the post you refer to was not the original post, but a reply to a posting of mine. I called the poster Captain Obvious (I presume this is the bit you meant was rude) because his reply was both obvious and not particularly relevant to the thread.

simply stated a belief that Apple's GUI (not just their widget toolkit) was too high-overhead for an embedded device.

You (like C.O.) missed the point, if you had access to the GUI source along with Darwin you could use the parts you liked. Expose, Quartz, Cocoa, whatever. Surely its not all so heavyweight that some of it wouldn't be useful?

your statement that the source to OS X is not available is not entirely correct,

No, it is entirely correct. The source to Mac OS X is not available. Darwin + GTK + X is not OS X.

The rest of your post I generally agree with (allthough I'm not really sure why you wrote it) - Yup, cocoa is pretty cool & it would be nice if it was cross platform.

Again, I'll reiterate that I am not asking Apple to open-source OS X - simply stating that OSX is not simply 'linux with lots of polish' because it lacked one of the things that made linux great - access to the source.

Early Adopters

[Ford Prefect]

If anyone's wondering precisely what Apple meant by 'February' with regard to MacBook Pro's expected shipping date, I know! (For the UK, at least.)

It's February 15th.

I, erm, know this because I went and ordered one earlier this evening...

** Deep shame at falling for Apple's marketing so easily. **

On the bright side, my iBook's getting rather old, and I've never had genuinely new hardware before! :-)

Re:Early Adopters

[wootest]

Why's that bad? They didn't say February 1st, they said February. I would have been ecstatic if it had been February 27th.

Re:Early Adopters

[Ford Prefect]

Neither good nor bad, just a random bit of information - and maybe a vague indication of how long one should wait before the inevitable 'OMG IT GOT SCRATCHED', 'it exploded in my lap!' and 'it's eeevil and I can prove it cos it doesn't boot Gentoo' stories on Slashdot... ;-)

Although apparently, talking about a shipping date of a new Apple laptop which was announced by Apple at an Apple conference which is also the subject of the fabled article (in the 'Apple' section, no less) is off-topic. Moderators, I apologise. Would you prefer it if I made a tired 'in Soviet Russia!' joke instead?

So... only 2 of the 5 things are Mac specific.

[spoco2]

Erm... how was this list a super Mac related list? Only the first and last items (the Sketch thing and the iPod dock) are specifically for Apple products, the other three are general use USB and video items that have to alegence to Mac or PC specifically...

Pretty darn lacking I think.

Re:So... only 2 of the 5 things are Mac specific.

[Dynedain]

Erm... how was this list a super Mac related list? Only the first and last items (the Sketch thing and the iPod dock) are specifically for Apple products, the other three are general use USB and video items that have to alegence to Mac or PC specifically...

And Sketchup has been a cross platform app for several years. It might have been Windows first, but I can't remember. Oh, and the Google Earth plugin for Sketchup has been available for the Windows version since mid-November.

Re:So... only 2 of the 5 things are Mac specific.

[javaxman]

Erm... how was this list a super Mac related list?

only in that they're items shown at MacWorld Expo, actually. That's it. It's pretty typical that most things shown at MacWorld also support other computers or operating systems.

Re:So... only 2 of the 5 things are Mac specific.

[prichardson]

It's Apple-related because these are products demoed at MacWorld.

My favorite

[DurendalMac]

Is that Powerlogix came out as the first to announce that they have everything in place for 7448 based CPU upgrades (the latest revision of the G4) and will start selling them once Motorola gets their head out of their ass and starts putting them out in volume. Funny, that was supposed to happen in October. Moto hit the usual goddamn production issues. I guess spinning off into Freescale did nothing for their chip production. Anyway, I'm drooling over the prospect of a 2+ghz dual G4 upgrade...

Re:My favorite

[javaxman]

once Motorola gets their head out of their ass and starts putting them out in volume. Funny, that was supposed to happen in October.

That's not funny. That's sad. I'm not in the market for a computer any time soon, but stuff like that makes me very happy for Apple that they made the Intel decision.

I'm drooling over the prospect of a 2+ghz dual G4 upgrade

That's a more than $500 upgrade... I guess it *might* make sense, as long as you don't want a faster FSB and graphics card as well...

Re:Go wild...

[Cheviot]

Now I remember why I don't read the -1 posts.

New Laptop

[Professor_UNIX]

Let me just start off by saying that I'm relieved that my 6 month old Powerbook G4 is now the base for their benchmarks for the "4x faster" MacBook Pro. The funniest thing is that I finally broke down and bought it 3 weeks before they announced a complete switch to Intel chips because I was getting sick of the slow 800MHz G3 iBook I was using. Hahahaha. I wonder how much my $2500 Powerbook G4 is worth in trade-in value towards a MacBook Pro... $2000? $1500? It's only 6 months new! *sob*

Re:New Laptop

[stevencbrown]

I wouldn't worry.

I bought a PB around the same time as you, well, actually just after the announcement.

I personally think first revision stuff is a bit flaky, and I doubt you will actually see a 4 fold improvement in performance.

I would also expect a lot more heat/noise than the PB.

Plus, you've had your PB for 6 months - another couple of revisions of the MacBook Pro, probably take you up to about 2 years from when you bought it, and you'll be entitled to upgrade to it.

Re:New Laptop

[Feelgood]

So far, I've got 6 beefs with the new laptops:
1) MacBook Pro? That's what you're calling it?
2) Remote - cool (if of limited use); no cleverly designed place to stow it on/in the laptop - not cool (it will get quickly misplaced)
3) No FW800? I thought this was the pro model?
4) No PC card slot, just ExpressCard? (see #6)
5) No S-Vid out? I have to buy an additional adapter?
6) No modem?? I have to buy the external USB modem. I can't even use a PC card.

Live Podcast

[Jazzer_Techie]

Maybe it's just me, but doesn't the phrase "live podcast" contradict itself? The files are recorded, posted online, linked to by an RSS feed, and then downloaded by the listener. Some podcasts could certainly be posted quickly, but they can't be live. (Just another case of buzzword hype, IMHO.)

Re:Live Podcast

[precize]

Maybe a new acronym is needed....

Buzzword-free, Real-time, pODCAST

Yup, brodcasting is where the future is at. People in the future will say things like, "Don't you remember when brodcast had an 'a'?"

Re:Live Podcast

[wadetemp]

Well live TV isn't live either, but they still call it live TV. It's got to pass through nipple filters, and then it has to do that electromatic waves transmission thing.

Hell, given the speed of light being as slow as it is, life isn't live either.

Re:Live Podcast

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh to live and die in the USA! ... and experience nothing.

Will "nipple-filters" be a component in the restricted high-definition format of the future?

Maybe i'll just stick to the region-free discs from the (soho) corner store.

Rumor Sites Are Bogus

[Anonymous Coward]

My favorite part about MacWorld 2006 is that ThinkSecret didn't get anything right.

They spent weeks talking about 13.3" widescreen iBooks and Mac minis with DVR capabilities, and high-def streaming from .Mac, and Final Cut Pro 6, and this and that. Other rumor sites hyped plasma TVs and spreadsheet applications and updated iPod shuffles.

And none of them got anything right.

Maybe now people will realize that rumor sites make everything up.

Re:Rumor Sites Are Bogus

[Anonymous Coward]

Or maybe Apple just MASSIVLY dissapointed by bringing essentially nothing anyone wanted or expected to the show!

One friend described the show as the iPod cover show. In fact the entire show should have just been called iPodWorld :(

Re:Rumor Sites Are Bogus

[hyfe]

Maybe now people will realize that rumor sites make everything up.

Yes, it is amazing how rumour sites seem to consist of rumours. Mind-boggling it is!

Re:Rumor Sites Are Bogus

[Anonymous Coward]

iPods were discussed in the first small section of the show, then it was all Macs and software. Releasing Intel Macs 6 months ahead of schedule is hardly "nothing".

Re:Rumor Sites Are Bogus

[vux984]

One friend described the show as the iPod cover show. In fact the entire show should have just been called iPodWorld :(

vs

"This is Mac-world," Jobs said in emphasizing that Tuesday would be about Mac hardware and software and not at all about the music player that's had such a vital role in bolstering Apple's fortunes. And so it was that the iPod, usually at the center of any Apple news event, went through the day without a single update or new release.

MacWorld Article

Hrmmm... one of you is lying.

Re:Rumor Sites Are Bogus

[prichardson]

They've been right in the past.

They predicted the G5s when they came out. The lid was just tighter this time around.

Re:Rumor Sites Are Bogus

[geniusj]

Kevin Rose (of TechTV fame) got everything right . . .

Re:Rumor Sites Are Bogus

[javaxman]

Maybe now people will realize that rumor sites make everything up.

Well, they don't make everything up. They report stories that "sources" give to them. Maybe now they ( and some of their readers ) will realize that Apple feeds them BS before big announcements.

They kept talking about iBooks and Mac minis, and I kept thinking "what low-end chips will they put in the mini? Boy, those Powerbooks haven't seen any real upgrade in ages, I thought the Intel switch was all about getting better portable options, and ... why would there be an iBook update before a PowerBook update?" It turns out I was right. Maybe I should start Mac rumor site :-)

Prediction: look for minis and iBooks soon after affordable Core Solo chips are shipping. You read it here first !

Re:Rumor Sites Are Bogus

[daviddennis]

Nothing says that these are not planned products, just that they didn't come out at Macworld.

If we see new iBooks and they are the same form factor as the old iBooks, then I'd say you have a point.

If the next revision of a Mac Mini has no PVR, then again you are right.

But we don't know since we have not encountered the next revision of either product. It will come up soon enough, I'm sure. It does seem logical to conclude that since the iMacs have dual core processors, the Mac Mini certainly might have them (in other words, they are not being reserved for the PowerMacs).

I think what's going on here is that Apple didn't want anything to take from the announcement of iLIfe (which obviously sells well or it wouldn't have gotten so much time there) and from the drama of the new Intel products.

Once that's done, another dramatic presentation is going to deal with the PVR (if it exists) and the iBooks. It's a matter of spreading out his message to make sure we're all hanging on our seats with anticipation. Steve is a master manipulator of this kind of thing.

Incidentally, their report on Final Cut Pro 6 said it would come out at NAB in April (if my memory serves), and I'm sure it will because Final Cut has roughly annual releases that occur at NAB. Of course I didn't need a rumor site to tell me that, but it was interesting to see what they think is going to be announced.

One exciting conclusion I can draw from all this is that the new PowerMacs will probably be all dual dual core processors or stronger, or they would not have let that technology into iMacs. I think that's pretty exciting, don't you?

D

Re:Rumor Sites Are Bogus

[Jeff DeMaagd]

It doesn't make sense to introduce Final Cut 6 at a consumer show, though MacBook Pro doesn't make sense in that light. I don't really think MacBook Pro is a pro media unit though except for use by early adopters and developers, because running pro apps under emulation is stupid, those apps need to be updated first.

Anyway, usually the pro stuff is announced at pro events, such as Final Cut 5 being announced at NAB 2005, Aperture and dual core Powermacs were announced at a major pro photography convention in NYC. I don't know where or when they'd announce a Mac with DVR features, I hope Apple does release DVR Mac hardware, but I wonder if they would shirk from the idea to appease their iTunes video partners.

Re:Rumor Sites Are Bogus

[cmdrbuzz]

The pro apps (Logic, Final Cut etc) are being released as Universal binaries in March, if you own the latest version then you can get a new DVD for $49.

Re:Rumor Sites Are Bogus

[eclectic4]

"... but I wonder if they would shirk from the idea to appease their iTunes video partners."

Why would their video partners give a shit? You still have to pay for the video first. My Mac still comes standard with a CD burner, and they still sell well over a million songs a day via iTunes. iTunes lets you burn personal copies for backup purposes *cough* with ease, and I'm not sure how this would be any different. If being able to burn them helps them sell, then I promise you, you won't see any video partners shy away from this at all.

Re:Rumor Sites Are Bogus

[NutscrapeSucks]

With a remote control and a webcam, it's probably not totally correct to call these "Pro" models -- there's going to be a lot of rich yuppie home buyers as well.

--Potential Rich Yuppie

Re:Rumor Sites Are Bogus

[ceoyoyo]

I expect they released the MacBook Pro to tell Adobe they better get a move on with the universal binary of Photoshop. They're still selling Powerbooks and G5 towers for the people who need PS, but that's going to stop this year. Now the early adopter MacBook graphics pros are going to be clamoring for Adobe to release universal Photoshop.

Oops. I Misread that as...

[eno2001]

..."The Best Macworld Evar! 2006"

And who get the real revenew from mac going Intel?

[bubulubugoth]

The gadget sales people.

Mac are still so expensive, but all those nice gadgets, the migthy mouse clone, those things, white and shiny, that where utterly inaccesible for the "mass" of the PC users becose "MAC compatible" would hardly means that it will run on PC, now all those "niche gadgets", will be PC compatible! Oh
yes! with less effort...

More and more gadgeters will make PC compatible MAC style stuff...

Remember how MAC sued a few Case builders becose they were using the "nose of an airplane" shape for a PC case... well... that will become more, and more common...

My favourite

[Moby Cock]

I think the best part of Macworld so far, for me, we hearing that Apple's stock closed at $80.86 on the day they unveiled Intel Macs.

Re:My favourite

[david-bo]

Please moderators - the parent isn't informative, it is funny. Sheesh.

Cunning

[mr_tenor]

Maybe if they establish the appearance of just making wild guesses then they won't be sued again if a "leak" happens to be true ;)

Apple fanatics don't "get it"

[Anonymous Coward]

If Google Earth provides a useful service, I'll use it, ugly or not. You can be all HIG compliant and have the most perfectly aligned widgets and the prettiest fonts and use all OS X tricks in the book like Cocoa spell-checking and what-not, but if you don't give me maps as good as Google I'll pass. If you know a better alternative to Google Earth, please suggest it. Otherwise, there is little point to your whine.

Re:Apple fanatics don't "get it"

[pomo monster]

I'll use it too, but that's no reason to bite my tongue and point out that things couldn't be better. Have you no vision?

what

[schroet]

Podcasted? lol.

ROCBIT 3 - USB ENCRYPTED EXTERNAL HARD DRIVES

[zhenga]

Real time hardware encryption/decryption sounds nice. But from the looks of it, it uses an USB key (you get two) that is used to access your drive. (correct me if i'm wrong, i just briefly browsed their site)

But what if you loose your keys, or somebody just steals your key?

Wouldn't it be alot nicer if you could just set the HDD password in your OS and when you try accessing it it would popup a password screen asking for ze password. Just like Encrypted Disk images in OS X or TrueCrypt on Windows.

Even better would be integration with Keychain Access in Mac OS X. imagine automatically locking the drive when you are away for 5 minutes or automatically have access to the drive when you login with your user account.

Re:ROCBIT 3 - USB ENCRYPTED EXTERNAL HARD DRIVES

[Detritus]

That's not so great if someone steals the drive and computer. I'd rather have a random key (128-bit or 256-bit) on a removable USB key, than depend on a user supplied password, which can probably be guessed or hacked in a number of ways.

Re:And who get the real revenew from mac going Int

[javaxman]

Mac are still so expensive, but all those nice gadgets, the migthy mouse clone, those things, white and shiny, that where utterly inaccesible for the "mass" of the PC users becose "MAC compatible" would hardly means that it will run on PC, now all those "niche gadgets", will be PC compatible! Oh yes! with less effort...

Honestly, what on earth are you talking about ? Name one current piece of hardware that works on a Macintosh but does not work on a PC.

Maybe the Mighty Mouse should 'just work' as a USB mouse, it's even supported by Apple under XP. Maybe the ball might not work 'just right' without some other software support ( maybe? ) but I can't think of anything else that's an external device that wouldn't work at least to some degree with a PC... maybe some USB audio devices ? Couldn't you just write drivers for those? Aren't there PC equivalents? How does Apple being on Intel make writing a Windows driver for, say, a Griffin iMic any different than it is now? BTW, I checked, and actually, the iMic supports XP... what's the hardware you're talking about that will be affected by the Mac Intel switch, exactly? I've tried, including with the example of the Mighty Mouse you've given, but they're *all* PC devices, it seems.

Plenty of PC stuff still won't really work on a Macintosh, though, just because a Macintosh isn't going to have 'legacy' stuff like RS232 parallel ports or PS/2 inputs, but anything else was ( and is ) still going to be a matter of writing supporting software- which still puts the OS with less market share at a disadvantage, no matter how easy developing for OS X is. The Intel switch doesn't change that, and for most gadget-makers it doesn't change anything, except the perception of folks like you.

All of this stuff is Mac-specific only in that it was being shown at MacWorld Expo. A ton of MacWorld Expo stuff is also PC-compatible... but that's nothing new. As for PC makers ( and others ) cribing Apple hardware design, that's nothing new, either, and I don't see how it could really get more prevalent than it already is.

And?

[Savage-Rabbit]

Erm... how was this list a super Mac related list? Only the first and last items (the Sketch thing and the iPod dock) are specifically for Apple products, the other three are general use USB and video items that have to alegence to Mac or PC specifically...

Couldn't you find anything else to complain about? Who ever said this was a super Mac related list? It's a blog by some nerds about the 5 coolest products they saw at Macworld and therefore presumably will now support OS.X. If AutoCad announced that it had released an OS.X port I would consider that newsworthy even if the Windows version has been around for years.

Re:And?

[spoco2]

Couldn't you find anything else to complain about?

No, not really. :)

Who ever said this was a super Mac related list?

Well, see, I figured, that being a Macworld event... and being that Apple zealo... enthusiasts... go on and on how much better the Mac is because it has much better hardware, apps etc. I just figured that the best of Macworld might, you know, consist of things that are truly Mac specific and cool... not just some little usb/video gadgets that don't really have much to do with a 'Mac' as such... in fact those probes, I warrent, will be used in the vast majority on PCs, because they tend to be the machines of tinkerers...

Just odd is all.

Re:And who get the real revenew from mac going Int

[Anonymous Coward]

Mac are still so expensive, but all those nice gadgets, the migthy mouse clone, those things, white and shiny,

Ok, starts off ok, sentence is beginning to run a little long, Mac isn't plural so there's a missing 's' on the end of "Mac", but other than that it's ok, but...

that where utterly inaccesible for the "mass" of the PC users becose "MAC compatible" would hardly means that it will run on PC, now all those "niche gadgets", will be PC compatible! Oh

Ok, now the sentence is beginning to lose readability. On top of this "MAC" is used in place of "Mac". One has to assume we're talking about Apple Macintoshes not Ethernet IDs, but...

More and more gadgeters will make PC compatible MAC style stuff...

Again, Ethernet IDs are used in place of a well known user friendly computer from Apple. Wierd.

Remember how MAC sued a few Case builders becose they were using the "nose of an airplane" shape for a PC case... well... that will become more, and more common...

Now we're off in the deep end, and can't swim and have no water wings. It seems these Ethernet IDs are suing the people who made the former chairman of AOL. Even read as apparently intended, it seems a user friendly computer is suing PC case makers. Why would a computer initiate a lawsuit? Do they even have legal standing?

From beginning with a problem with pluralisation but nonetheless being relatively on target, you've managed to unevolve. I don't doubt that most people will have problems understanding what the hell you're talking about, even if they change MAC to Mac, or in the last sentence, Apple. Have you considered a career with Fox News?

Windows Media Plugin for Quicktime

[NutscrapeSucks]

Microsoft seems to have given up on Windows Media Player for Mac, and instead released a free plugin for QuickTime. Unlike WMP/Mac, this supports WM9 and the latest stuff.

http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windowsmedia/play er/flip4mac.mspx

Supposedly some incompatibilities with QuickTime 7.04 (released yesterday).

Re:Windows Media Plugin for Quicktime

[javaxman]

Microsoft seems to have given up on Windows Media Player for Mac, and instead released a free plugin for QuickTime.

Now, with the exception of the MacBook Pro itself, that may be the best news out of MacWorld yet!

Supposedly some incompatibilities with QuickTime 7.04 (released yesterday).

How very... typical. Any details as to the problems? Should we hold off on installing it? Does it work with 7.04 at all?

Re:Windows Media Plugin for Quicktime

[wadetemp]

Flip4Mac 2.0 & QT 7.0.4 work fine... BUT the QuickTime application crashes whenever you close a QuickTime window that was playing a WMV. I experienced this myself and every Mac forum I read had users saying the same thing.

I never tried it with anything before 7.0.4, so I don't know if this is caused by 7.0.4 or it's just inherent to Flip4Mac 2.0.

Re:Windows Media Plugin for Quicktime

[Macka]

Yep, I just tried it and it behaves as you said. Plays the wmv file just fine, but when you close the window when its finished Quicktime crashes and you get the crash report dialogue box up. I filled it in and sent if off to Apple.

Re:Windows Media Plugin for Quicktime

[javaxman]

the QuickTime application crashes whenever you close a QuickTime window that was playing a WMV.

Somehow, that sounds less horrible than using the Windows Media Player... ;-)

What of battery life?

[Inoshiro]

All the Powerbook webpages proudly display the battery life. They're not lieing, either; when I use my laptop for note taking at school, I get 5 hours from it with wireless on and the screen dimmed a bit.

MacBook Pro's website makes no mention of battery life.

Re:What of battery life?

[Anonymous Coward]

2hrs max.

The grandparent shouldn't fret too much. People will still be paying top dollar for the "Last of the REAL PB's" in a few years, and at least he will have native apps.

Re:What of battery life?

[bipolarpinguino]

Seriously? 2 hours? Then what the hell is all this we've been hearing about processor effeciency? That's what I would expect with iSight going and the screen at full blast. I doubt the validity of your statement. I would expect between 4~5 hours.

Re:What of battery life?

[CaptainDefragged]

And you would most likely be correct. A link posted on /. a few days ago had AnandTech testing two virtually identical ASUS notebooks - one with the new CoreDuo cpu. Battery time was tested and came out about 15% longer than the Pentium M for their business applications test suite.

Integrated iSight

[Concerned Onlooker]

Did anyone else look at that integrated iSight and think about the part in Cryptonomicon where the guy scripts his built in laptop camera to make a capture every 15 seconds or so? I'm curious as to how accessible that little camera will be.

Re:Integrated iSight

[CottonEyedJoe]

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&client =safari&rls=en&q=applescript+isight&spell=1

Wonder away... Generally OSX is highly scriptable

Re:Integrated iSight

[Twid]

Pretty accessible. It's easy enough to put your iSight and iChat into "auto-answer" mode, which would be handy to catch dumb thieves. :)

Also, I personally use and like Evocam. It's great webcam software and scriptable, and can do the "auto capture every x minutes" thing.

There is a small green light that comes on whenever the camera is active.

You mean Freescale chip...

[javaxman]

I got an Itainium 2 Chip key chain for my last conference. Is it too late to get a Motorola chip key chain since Apple moved to intel processors?

and wouldn't you rather have an IBM G5 chip keychain, anyway?

Um... wow.

[Anonymous Coward]

1. Google purchases company which makes this earth-overhead-view program thing.
2. Google, wanting to be nice, releases program as freeware.
3. Mac users look at program, go "Wow, that's great! But why can't we use it?"
4. Google, wanting to be nice, gets someone to do a quick dirty mac port, because they are a web technology company and don't have a team of mac engineers or anything.
5. Guy on slashdot yells mercilessly at Google for not having gone all-out to re-engineer this free application they didn't even write to conform to the interface standards of an operating system they don't even officially support.

YAY!

My favorite thing at Macworld so far...

[aarku]

Is a little company hidden away in the ATI rooms demoing a wicked game engine called Unity. I can't begin to say how great this thing looks. They'll be demoing on Thursday and Friday, too.

new mac question

[rayde]

anybody manage to hear an intel mac startup sound?? just curious if it's something new or if they use the same one as previous macs.

Re:new mac question

[Aqua OS X]

"cha-ching"

Re:new mac question

[Filecore]

It has the same 'boing' as before.
It boots up just like a PPC Mac - grey background, blue then login screen.

New site in town

[smurfsurf]

> Maybe now people will realize that rumor sites make everything up.

Yeah. But I heard there is a new site up that is supposed to be better than the rest. Even with a podcast. "Super Secret Apple Rumours" or such some.

Not Microsoft, Flip4Mac

[fideli]

I'd like to make it clear that Microsoft did not release this component. It has been around for a while now and has always cost $10. Only yesterday did Microsoft license it and start to distribute it. Visit Google News for more info.

Re:Not Microsoft, Flip4Mac

[NutscrapeSucks]

I should have pointed that out -- it's a third party port of MS's WMV code. But I gave MS credit because they are giving it away for free on their website, which means they must have waved royalties or something.

Re:Not Microsoft, Flip4Mac

[CottonEyedJoe]

I can imagine the exchange... "Hi, Flip. This is Bill Gates. We'd like to buy a site license for flip4mac. Which site? umm... Earth."

Well then it doesn't make sense

[Anonymous Coward]

"I guess it *might* make sense, as long as you don't want a faster FSB and graphics card as well..."

Might as well just go all out and say "it doesn't make sense".

The trouble with the G4 used in the PB and iBook isn't that the G4 core is all that bad; its fine. But the FSB is 533mhz. It matters because the CPU speed of a modern CPU is pretty close to irrelevant if its waiting on fetches from memory all the time because it has the FSB characteristics of a P3. They could ramp the G4 up to a zillion Ghz and it wouldn't make a damned bit of difference; something that I wish the Mac fantatics would have stopped defending apple about.

Common sense said Apple should have made the Intel switch intstead of the G5 switch, but politics and marketing ruled the day instead of leadership and good engineering, so we got jerked around for almost two years waiting for a decent laptop. So we finally got it. I only hope it has two mouse buttons (a la "mighty mouse") so those people defending a single button mouse saying "It isn't so bad to press the control key" can just stop the silly charade.

Re:Well then it doesn't make sense

[javaxman]

I only hope it has two mouse buttons (a la "mighty mouse") so those people defending a single button mouse saying "It isn't so bad to press the control key" can just stop the silly charade.

but... it isn't so bad to press the control key, really... you act like my hand isn't on the keyboard anyway...

Re:Go wild...

[Anonymous Coward]

OMG Mac teh Man runs on teh LEENUX!!!1!

Tense Issues

[SRain315]

cast (v)
Present tense: cast
Past tense: cast

broadcast (v)
Present tense: broadcast
Past tense: broadcast

podcast (v)
Present tense: podcast
Past tense: podcasted?!?

They tell me English is evolving, and I try to remember that evolution produces many non-viable branches...

But Google wants me to buy it

[SuperKendall]

Yes Google Earth is free. But if you look the reason is that Google would very much like me to purchase Google Earth + for $20 (or a pro version for $400).

If it looks bad it's a damn poor enticement for me to spend more money. Not to mention that parts do not even work, like To and From hardly ever working with addresses that are valid for "Fly To".

Payback

[SuperKendall]

If you can't fight such sites legally, would it not be so much sweeter to feed them bogus intelligence from the inside? If you increase the noise enough no-one can see the signal.

Yeah I know it's overly paranoid. Just something to think about. :-)

I can build where?

[a11en]

Um, that mean I can build in the Metaverse finally?! SaWheeet...

You might want to check out Blender and it's RTE

[Qbertino]

Looks a bit like a Blender (& Nemo & Qoobee & Virtools) rippoff to me. And considering that Blender Real Time runs on Linux and even some more OSes and Blender Logic Bricks are even easyer to programm with than JavaScript I'd recommend you check it out.
And since Blender is open source you'll be paying 0$ rather than 999$ :-) . And the Blender Real Time Engine uses Python, which I think is pretty neat aswell.
Check out Blender.org and also check out the Blender Game Kit Book. Not for the newest Version of Blender, but quite up to date with the Blender Game Engine Features.
(newest Blender Version)

Re:You might want to check out Blender and it's RT

[keli]

Well except that Unity can be used to develop actual games. I don't know about Blender RT, but I haven't seen any finished games done using it.

Btw Blender is mainly a 3D modeller, Unity is a 3D game development environment... you can use blender to create the 3D assets and import them into Unity. There is a tiny overlap between the two but the main focus of each product is vastly different.