The "magic" of unix isn't just the "tools", the GNU, or the BSD toolset, but rather the design philosophy of stable, secure, and simple. OS X is built on top of that.
Instead of furthering their own proprietary OS, like everyone else does, Apple decided to adopt an open standard, based atop 30 year proven architectural design.
This is the "magic" of unix I'm talking about. Not the ability to code a shell script to kludge something at 2 am. That's not magic, that's just system admin's work, and every OS has it's own similar tasks. But not every OS has this "magic" I'm referring to... this philosophy on how to do things.
That's why I love OS X. It gives all of this 30 year advancement of UNIX systems a nice easy to use UI, so that when I'm working on a new song in Logic Audio, my system runs solid, runs fast, and runs long.
iTMS is a great tool for those "Human beings" who don't wish to waste time going to a record store, browsing through a very limited array of music, and then pay for it, and then carry it home, unwrap the bulletproof plastic shield, open the jewel case, rip the CD, store the jewel case and booklet or throw them out, and THEN listen..
I don't ever want to do any of this, I just want to click "buy" and then "play".
that's the purpose of iTMS.. anyone who thinks it's an RIAA fighting move has watched too many movies.
please read more before you say something like this.
It means a lot more. In Jaguar, it was XDarwin, you run it separately. Now X11 has been Aquafied, with full Quartz Extreme acceleration anad Direct Rendering. If you install it, you won't need to run anything extra, and it'll feel like the app is part of the whole Aqua interface, except for the X11-style buttons and widgets of course.
You can change the window manager if you wish to a non-aqua ones, Apple states this is possible for "advanced users".
Quartz was incorported to lighten the CPU load, the eye-candy is a side-benefit, and Expose is a feature made possible by good thorough R&D and engineering.
I'm sorry, you're completely wrong, this is impossible to do in linux.
part of OS X is bringing the "magic" of unix to a "human being".
i click button X, and Y happens. As opposed to the unix motto..
I configure X, I compile X, I build X, I install X, I adjust boot X I now have Y happening.
The two are WORLDS apart, and are the primary reason why Linux is not adopted by everyone.
People are willing to pay huge sums of money, if you allow them to do with ease what they otherwise couldn't. Linux developers need to learn this lesson.
unfortunately the authors reference to a software that uses undocumented API calls doesn't really provide a downside of the OS, but merely of that particular software's developer.
excuse me but I think you are part of the same world that the "bleeding edge" people are.
I still have a bike I bought 10 years ago, it works fine. It doesn't have all the l33t polymers and ultra thin materials that a today's bike would have, but both work fine on the road.
Much the same way, I could still to this date use a 386 with DOS to do my thesis work on.
The same way, one could use OS 9 to do all the work they would need to get done.
Uupgrading is not required in computer technology. It never is, as long as you can do what you need to do. I know musicians who use Logic Audio 4.2 in Mac OS 9 and are quite wealthy from it. They simply haven't upgraded for "comfort" reasons.
Eventually they will....there's no perish involved.
in real world, I don't wish to wait 7 minutes to open an email folder of 50,000 emails. 28 seconds seems more acceptable, and if I was the author and I had to do this once a day, to me it would be worth extra $100 or even $200 for this time saving.
in the real world, far too many people forget that money can always be gotten, but time can't.
that statement makes no sense when read directly as written. It's implying that the designation of a machine makes the difference in which type of disk works better.
I think you meant to say that "consistant disk activity" is better under SCSI, whereas "burst access" is better under IDE?
In that case, SCSI isn't really for the server alone, it's for anyone using a lot of disk access contiously, instead of in burst modes. This includes anyone like me who does a lot of audio recording, editing, mixing, or video work. Anyone who works with massive content storage requirements.
you see a song on an album, you don't buy it, you listen to all the other samples, since every single song on an album has a sample. Then you buy the album if you feel it's worth it. If not, you buy the songs you want. At $1 a song, and at roughly 15 songs per album, the albums are a good or fair deal as long as you like at least half the songs.
All have previews, there's no excuse.:) Hope you got your firewall fixed, because mine doesn't get "borked" while streaming from two computers.
the interface does not suck, and WMP interface is not better.. These are just your preferences, much like I have mine. Having said that, they didn't redefine anything. The buttons are that way because it's a Mac OS X application, they wanted to keep the look and feel identical, this was one of their goals.
If there was no reason for those applications to be loaded at startup, they wouldn't be loaded, so unless you know otherwise, please refrain from posting useless non-factual statements such as your third paragraph.
The restriction is there to satisfy certain corporate requirements. Think RIAA, think boardroom meetings. It would make sense to 'impose" a "non imposable" limit. The idea is real simple. Most ordinary consumers won't bother burning beyond 10 CD-Rs anyway. This could be used to prmoote the service to uneasy corporate interests, by stating that the point of the service is not to facilitate illegal sales of copyrighted materials, but instead they wish to allow archival and "fair use" burning. 10 CD-Rs per playlist sounds like a lot to me, enough at worst.
The idea of iTMS is that one doesn't need to go outside, get a CD, a physical medium, in order to listen to music "legally". The notion is akin to everything else the Internet has provided - an online legal purchasing service.
True, it's not for everyone, and those for who it's not will continue to buy physical media.
But I do wish to point something out. In case a better codec than AAC is utilized in the future, you will most liekly wish to recode all your songs, at some point, eventually everyone's done it. I have an odd feeling that the iTMS will not require this, instead it will provide the music in whatever new codec they use, and when you listen to the old codec songs, it will download the new ones automatically.
This could be the future. auto-codec updates of media. That would be super cool. Of course, that's just my dream.
Also make sure you have a full backup of your ripped archive, because in case of a hard drive failure, you'll certainly have to spend the time to re-rip, re-tag, and re-sort your music, or at least re-use WMP. Whereas with iTMS, it's a simple matter of re-downloading.
I think Apple has the benefit of looking at the market honestly, and catering to it.
They have publicly admited in a press release that there is "no profit in online music sales". The iTMS is yet to be profitable, and they acknolwedge this. Instead it's a conduit for iPods and possibly even sales of Macs - although that's not the strategy since any gamers are unlikely to switch. So really it'll help with iPod sales, but saturation will occur eventually. Since the iPod does not require OS X any longer, and neither does iTunes nor iTMS, this now allows Apple to sell to a market that is no longer as low as 3%.. which is wicked!
I thought the artists had a say in album pricing, or at least the labels representing the artist? Although I could be wrong as I haven't actually checked on this.
I'd wish iTMS would be available in Canada already...the market here is so much different, 50% of all internet users have broadband, compared with 25% in the USA. Of course, that means USA still has a larger population per capita with broadband simply because USA's population is far larger than that of Canada, regardless, this is a very viable market and they should get here fast, not for my sake, but for their own.
I note the lack of any factual statements in your post, which is instead riddled with "probably", "about", "sounds a lot", and "nearly".
Learn to do research before you post. Apple has admited publicly they have yet to turn a profit from iTMS and have also stated publicly there is no profit in online music sales (not yet anyway).
These are facts that Apple has stated. Apple must make deals with the RIAA, because if you haven't forgotten, the artists themselves signed deals for their music to be under the RIAA control. Thus Apple must deal with RIAA.
Don't kill the messanger, and don't post without doing research. I know it's easy, but try to refrain from being like most.
computers talking is one thing. it's like saying "you can watch any video today on any computer". Sure you can, but if it's coded with a codec only available for intel platforms, that statement falls on it's ass, does it not? interoperability is the acceptance of something by everyone... a standard.
cisco started it commercially, as a result, today, any computer can "talk" to any other computer. Before cisco made it this popular, you could get two disparate systems to talk, but everyone did it differently, custom kludges.
There's at least 10 Linux distros, several BSD distros, numerous MP3 players, 10 different laptop producers on the PC side...numerous OSes out there..
and why? because NONE of them provide in unison what the consumers need, or rather, what human beings need.
They need the power of a unix OS, with the simplicity of a functional UI, with a consitant workflow. So you can take your Linux and shuv it as far up your open source ass as you can manage to fit it in.. because Linux, even at v2.60 doesn't live up to any of it's own hype. In a nutshell, it's just a free version of windows with real stability, real open sourceness, and real people who love it. Linux rocks, but not for the average user.
NOT YET.
is this off topic? No. Because the point is, choice does not always equal better, useful, advanced, technology. Winamp still uses filenames for most of it's sorting, most peecee Windows users (even Linux) categorize their music manually, with directories. While iTunes, the user is never once concerned about the inherent file structure. The user is dealing with album names, authors, composers and song names.
The user is dealing with the media... the software is trnalsating that to the appropriate directory structures. When Linux mongers learn this, then we'll see some super impressive tools written.
Until then.. it's all just a kludge upon kludge of super shitty interoperability.
A long time ago, computers couldn't talk to each other, so cisco came up with the solution.
now we have codecs that don't work on all platform (ahem, intel's video codecs anyone?)
where's the solution to this? Let alone to "choice for consumers".
Slashdot Mirror
I'm glad you grew out of the Mac phase...
most of us Mac users see Windows as a phase, kinda like the teenage phase...
I believe my statement is true.
The "magic" of unix isn't just the "tools", the GNU, or the BSD toolset, but rather the design philosophy of stable, secure, and simple. OS X is built on top of that.
Instead of furthering their own proprietary OS, like everyone else does, Apple decided to adopt an open standard, based atop 30 year proven architectural design.
This is the "magic" of unix I'm talking about. Not the ability to code a shell script to kludge something at 2 am. That's not magic, that's just system admin's work, and every OS has it's own similar tasks. But not every OS has this "magic" I'm referring to... this philosophy on how to do things.
That's why I love OS X. It gives all of this 30 year advancement of UNIX systems a nice easy to use UI, so that when I'm working on a new song in Logic Audio, my system runs solid, runs fast, and runs long.
why's everyone on this RIAA trip..
iTMS is a great tool for those "Human beings" who don't wish to waste time going to a record store, browsing through a very limited array of music, and then pay for it, and then carry it home, unwrap the bulletproof plastic shield, open the jewel case, rip the CD, store the jewel case and booklet or throw them out, and THEN listen..
I don't ever want to do any of this, I just want to click "buy" and then "play".
that's the purpose of iTMS.. anyone who thinks it's an RIAA fighting move has watched too many movies.
well, seeing the environmental impacts, one can't say anything other than "damnn......" :)
does the exchange server use IMAP or keep folders otherwise on the server?
please read more before you say something like this.
It means a lot more. In Jaguar, it was XDarwin, you run it separately. Now X11 has been Aquafied, with full Quartz Extreme acceleration anad Direct Rendering. If you install it, you won't need to run anything extra, and it'll feel like the app is part of the whole Aqua interface, except for the X11-style buttons and widgets of course.
You can change the window manager if you wish to a non-aqua ones, Apple states this is possible for "advanced users".
the "not enough fingers" is related to the dutch boy, not the damn.
there's a tale of a dutch boy who held up a "dike".. aka a water damn, by putting his finger into the hole in the middle that opened up.
you got it backwards.
Quartz was incorported to lighten the CPU load, the eye-candy is a side-benefit, and Expose is a feature made possible by good thorough R&D and engineering.
Expose rocks.
I'm sorry, you're completely wrong, this is impossible to do in linux.
part of OS X is bringing the "magic" of unix to a "human being".
i click button X, and Y happens. As opposed to the unix motto..
I configure X,
I compile X,
I build X,
I install X,
I adjust boot X
I now have Y happening.
The two are WORLDS apart, and are the primary reason why Linux is not adopted by everyone.
People are willing to pay huge sums of money, if you allow them to do with ease what they otherwise couldn't. Linux developers need to learn this lesson.
unfortunately the authors reference to a software that uses undocumented API calls doesn't really provide a downside of the OS, but merely of that particular software's developer.
excuse me but I think you are part of the same world that the "bleeding edge" people are.
I still have a bike I bought 10 years ago, it works fine. It doesn't have all the l33t polymers and ultra thin materials that a today's bike would have, but both work fine on the road.
Much the same way, I could still to this date use a 386 with DOS to do my thesis work on.
The same way, one could use OS 9 to do all the work they would need to get done.
Uupgrading is not required in computer technology. It never is, as long as you can do what you need to do. I know musicians who use Logic Audio 4.2 in Mac OS 9 and are quite wealthy from it. They simply haven't upgraded for "comfort" reasons.
Eventually they will....there's no perish involved.
You are wrong. human beings write reviews, NOT newspapers.
one night, after some hot steamy action, tell her you'd like her to get her Mac on...
what's wrong with the test? He wanted a faster way to open his email, without having to wait 7-8 minutes every time.
He solved it by switching from IDE to SCSI.
I see absolutely nothing wrong with his solution.
in real world, I don't wish to wait 7 minutes to open an email folder of 50,000 emails. 28 seconds seems more acceptable, and if I was the author and I had to do this once a day, to me it would be worth extra $100 or even $200 for this time saving.
in the real world, far too many people forget that money can always be gotten, but time can't.
that statement makes no sense when read directly as written. It's implying that the designation of a machine makes the difference in which type of disk works better.
I think you meant to say that "consistant disk activity" is better under SCSI, whereas "burst access" is better under IDE?
In that case, SCSI isn't really for the server alone, it's for anyone using a lot of disk access contiously, instead of in burst modes. This includes anyone like me who does a lot of audio recording, editing, mixing, or video work. Anyone who works with massive content storage requirements.
hehe, oops.. yes you are right, my mistake :)
you see a song on an album, you don't buy it, you listen to all the other samples, since every single song on an album has a sample. Then you buy the album if you feel it's worth it. If not, you buy the songs you want. At $1 a song, and at roughly 15 songs per album, the albums are a good or fair deal as long as you like at least half the songs.
:) Hope you got your firewall fixed, because mine doesn't get "borked" while streaming from two computers.
All have previews, there's no excuse.
the interface does not suck, and WMP interface is not better.. These are just your preferences, much like I have mine. Having said that, they didn't redefine anything. The buttons are that way because it's a Mac OS X application, they wanted to keep the look and feel identical, this was one of their goals.
If there was no reason for those applications to be loaded at startup, they wouldn't be loaded, so unless you know otherwise, please refrain from posting useless non-factual statements such as your third paragraph.
The restriction is there to satisfy certain corporate requirements. Think RIAA, think boardroom meetings. It would make sense to 'impose" a "non imposable" limit. The idea is real simple. Most ordinary consumers won't bother burning beyond 10 CD-Rs anyway. This could be used to prmoote the service to uneasy corporate interests, by stating that the point of the service is not to facilitate illegal sales of copyrighted materials, but instead they wish to allow archival and "fair use" burning. 10 CD-Rs per playlist sounds like a lot to me, enough at worst.
The idea of iTMS is that one doesn't need to go outside, get a CD, a physical medium, in order to listen to music "legally". The notion is akin to everything else the Internet has provided - an online legal purchasing service.
True, it's not for everyone, and those for who it's not will continue to buy physical media.
But I do wish to point something out. In case a better codec than AAC is utilized in the future, you will most liekly wish to recode all your songs, at some point, eventually everyone's done it. I have an odd feeling that the iTMS will not require this, instead it will provide the music in whatever new codec they use, and when you listen to the old codec songs, it will download the new ones automatically.
This could be the future. auto-codec updates of media. That would be super cool. Of course, that's just my dream.
Also make sure you have a full backup of your ripped archive, because in case of a hard drive failure, you'll certainly have to spend the time to re-rip, re-tag, and re-sort your music, or at least re-use WMP. Whereas with iTMS, it's a simple matter of re-downloading.
I think Apple has the benefit of looking at the market honestly, and catering to it.
They have publicly admited in a press release that there is "no profit in online music sales". The iTMS is yet to be profitable, and they acknolwedge this. Instead it's a conduit for iPods and possibly even sales of Macs - although that's not the strategy since any gamers are unlikely to switch. So really it'll help with iPod sales, but saturation will occur eventually. Since the iPod does not require OS X any longer, and neither does iTunes nor iTMS, this now allows Apple to sell to a market that is no longer as low as 3%.. which is wicked!
I thought the artists had a say in album pricing, or at least the labels representing the artist? Although I could be wrong as I haven't actually checked on this.
I'd wish iTMS would be available in Canada already...the market here is so much different, 50% of all internet users have broadband, compared with 25% in the USA. Of course, that means USA still has a larger population per capita with broadband simply because USA's population is far larger than that of Canada, regardless, this is a very viable market and they should get here fast, not for my sake, but for their own.
isn't that the whole point of good software design? :)
To allow a human being to do a difficult task by clicking a few buttons...
Now that's progress!
I note the lack of any factual statements in your post, which is instead riddled with "probably", "about", "sounds a lot", and "nearly".
Learn to do research before you post. Apple has admited publicly they have yet to turn a profit from iTMS and have also stated publicly there is no profit in online music sales (not yet anyway).
These are facts that Apple has stated. Apple must make deals with the RIAA, because if you haven't forgotten, the artists themselves signed deals for their music to be under the RIAA control. Thus Apple must deal with RIAA.
Don't kill the messanger, and don't post without doing research. I know it's easy, but try to refrain from being like most.
not really.
computers talking is one thing. it's like saying "you can watch any video today on any computer". Sure you can, but if it's coded with a codec only available for intel platforms, that statement falls on it's ass, does it not? interoperability is the acceptance of something by everyone... a standard.
cisco started it commercially, as a result, today, any computer can "talk" to any other computer. Before cisco made it this popular, you could get two disparate systems to talk, but everyone did it differently, custom kludges.
Man why's everyone so worried about choice?
There's at least 10 Linux distros, several BSD distros, numerous MP3 players, 10 different laptop producers on the PC side...numerous OSes out there..
and why? because NONE of them provide in unison what the consumers need, or rather, what human beings need.
They need the power of a unix OS, with the simplicity of a functional UI, with a consitant workflow. So you can take your Linux and shuv it as far up your open source ass as you can manage to fit it in.. because Linux, even at v2.60 doesn't live up to any of it's own hype. In a nutshell, it's just a free version of windows with real stability, real open sourceness, and real people who love it. Linux rocks, but not for the average user.
NOT YET.
is this off topic? No. Because the point is, choice does not always equal better, useful, advanced, technology. Winamp still uses filenames for most of it's sorting, most peecee Windows users (even Linux) categorize their music manually, with directories. While iTunes, the user is never once concerned about the inherent file structure. The user is dealing with album names, authors, composers and song names.
The user is dealing with the media... the software is trnalsating that to the appropriate directory structures. When Linux mongers learn this, then we'll see some super impressive tools written.
Until then.. it's all just a kludge upon kludge of super shitty interoperability.
A long time ago, computers couldn't talk to each other, so cisco came up with the solution.
now we have codecs that don't work on all platform (ahem, intel's video codecs anyone?)
where's the solution to this? Let alone to "choice for consumers".
More Microsoft fudd. RIP.