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

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?

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.)

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: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: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: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?

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!

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"

[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 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.