Mark Morford, despite what he claiims in the article, is not a technical user. He's just a guy who insists that when he or his significant other plug a computer into the network, it should continue to work successfully.
It's okay to say that if you're a technical user you can secure Windows by simply obtaining up to date firewall hardware and/or software, loading SP2 from CD, buying $100 worth of anti-virus and spyware programs, and installing them before you connect your new computer to the network. Technical users can do things like that. Of course if you, as a technical user, value your time at more than $0 an hour, you've already spent the difference in cost between your generic PC and a 17" iMac with the gorgeous screen.
With Microsoft, Dell, HP and all other PC OEMs selling products to the public in an irresponsible manner, I don't think it's the fault of the users. Users who are buying something marketed as an appliance should not have to know how to make it safe. It should be sold to them safe, or the manufacturers are committing fraud on the public -- which is what both Morford and I believe.
If Mark and his SO have found a better way through Apple, I personally applaud them for making their choice. I've made the same choice, with the same results. I'm not as bullish on Apple as he is, since for some reason the person on the street is highly resistant to change, even when it's from a lousy product to an excellent one. But he's right in insisting that the computing products he buys adhere to minimum standards, such as, well, continuing to work after you plug them in the network.
I'm a technical user - I develop software for a living - but I would rather avoid a platform that makes me work harder on keeping it running than doing the work I need to do to perform my job -- which is plenty hard enough, rest assured!
Certainly you would have to agree that, for the point of view of all but the most rabid technical users, a product that doesn't blow up five minutes after you plug it in is far superior to one that does... right?
D
Re:Bush's Reality Distortion Field rivals Steve Jo
on
State of the Union
·
· Score: 1
Just because certain groups benefit from a proposal doesn't mean that it doesn't make the broader public better off as a whole.
We have a choice in Social Security. We can do what we're doing now, spending SS money almost entirely on benefits. This has the advantage of not giving bloodsucking stockbrokers and other scum money. It has the disadvantage of not accumulating anything for the future.
Or we can give bloodsucking stockbrokers and other scum the money and have them invest it. Over US history, this has inevitably resulted in profits even under the worst circumstances. For example, if you had invested in the S&P 500 during the height of the 1920s boom, you would have a substantial profit today despite the depression.
In other words, the right thing for bloodsucking stockbrokers is not necessarily the wrong thing for you or the country. It's a good idea to overcome your prejudices in this regard, or you'll miss out on significant opportunities.
But there is another fallacy in your argument, which is the thought that government is immune from economic forces. If the economy tanks, the government will not be able to pay Social Security benefits to the extent promised, either. After all, the government simply depends on tax revenues, and if they fall, then bad things will happen.
People on the other side seem to feel Government is infallible. One look at how well the schools work in your town should tell you, well, it's not. In fact, Government has a dismal record of failure in virtually every task it attempts, from fixing the roads to helping the poor.
In short, I don't want to trust the government to run my retirement, or my "social insurance contract" or whatever else you might call it, because I simply do not trust them to deliver. Private industry has its flaws, yes, but it's managed to deliver pretty well on the aggregate.
So in the end, I would much rather be in charge of my retirement investments than have someone else in charge of them. And that especially includes Social InSecurity, which in my eyes is neither social nor secure.
D
Re:Bush's Reality Distortion Field rivals Steve Jo
on
State of the Union
·
· Score: 1
Imagine that there was an insurance company that sold annuities.
Today, they announce that they're sorry, but that money you put in isn't enough and they'll only be able to pay 80% of promised benefits.
Would you be:
(a) Grateful as heck that they could pay anything at all, the poor dears
(b) Storming their headquarters building with pitchforks.
How about if they implied in all their advertising materials that they were saving the money you contributed up for your future, but they were actually using it to pay current beneficiaries, and that's why their return on your investment was less than zero?
(a) You were happy that they forced you to save something just because then you might have something instead of zero
(b) Storming their headquarters with pitchforks and homemade atomic weapons.
Now, what if the government told you that you were REQUIRED to put your money into this bad insurance company, because They knew what was good for you, and you were just a pathetic loser who couldn't be trusted to invest your own money?
Would you be:
(a) Happy the Government was taking care of you
(b) FURIOUS that the government was forcing you into a lousy deal, with no recourse whatsoever?
I don't know about you, but when it comes to Social InSecurity, I'm selecting choice B all the time, and have been ever since I started paying SI taxes for the first time. (It didn't help that I was self-employed and had to pay HUGE SI taxes).
SI was a good deal for the last generation, because our population was growing. It's nothing but a giant Ponzi ripoff for THIS generation, because Mr Ponzi has no more investors; with slowing population growth, there are no more new investors to pay benefits.
Bush's proposal may not be perfect, but it's a lot better than what we have now. For that, President Bush deserves our sincere thanks.
I'm still disgusted by Social Security, but President Bush is at least trying to make it less of a ripoff, when nobody else has had the guts to do it.
Oh, I'm not putting myself down. I just think it's funny.
But I did buy a fancy new video card to get better frame rates on Apple Motion, the fancy new compositing application. This is something I'm making a living with, so I was willing to pay more than the cost of a Mac Mini for it.
Sadly, frame rates have barely budged. Turns out Motion just doesn't handle large amounts of on-screen text gracefully. There's an improvement, but it's not the huge one I thought it would be for my $595 (Nvidia Ultra DDL).
But I suppose I do have bragging rights.
Not much good since I don't play (or like) computer games.
Could someone explain to me what is wrong with the Microsoft XML format license?
What is it that I can and cannot do with it?
The article this site links to is clear as mud, and everyone's talking as though they know what it means. I'm not sure if this is because I'm unusually dense, or because Slashdotter will believe anything about Microsoft they are told, without the need of further evidence.
I hate the company and its products, personally, and I do my best to avoid them, but in this particular case I'd like to understand what's wrong in detail before expressing my resentment.
Well, it's hard to deny that a dual 2.5ghz PowerMac G5 with dual 30" displays is, indeed, the ultimate tool for the creative professional:-).
That being said, I don't think there are enough of those high-spending people to make a computer company thrive.
I'm somewhere in between - I have a 2ghz dual PowerMac G5, which I bought upon introduction, and a 23" Cinema Display. I plan to upgrade to a 30" later this year and keep the 23" as a second monitor.
I'll probably get a new G5 when the 3ghz comes out, and let my business partner, who is super-cheap, inherit the 2ghz.
I buy a new computer, either a desktop or laptop, about once a year - but not unless there's a radical improvement like the G5 or the 1ghz PowerBook vs the 400mhz.
I suspect I'm a somewhat more common customer type, and I don't think I do Apple's bottom line any harm:-).
D
Re:Tablespork, you must have been the only one
on
Apple Updates PowerBooks
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
As someone who does heavy video editing, I can say that a 1ghz PowerBook G4 will perform flawlessly for any video editing task not involving heavy compositing. You'll see instant previews for everything that matters (dissolves, simple superimpositions, etc).
A G5+ processor is indispensible if you're converting from one video format to another (like when someone gives you a video screen capture that needs to be integrated) or when you're doing compositing (layering of images). In my experience, most of those are best done on the dual processor G5 in any event, and a dual processor G5 is unlikely to ever land in a laptop since the heat and power consumption problems are too difficult.
But the cold truth - in my opinion, anyway - is that few true Apple obsessives want to feel left out from the G5 revolution and so we are holding back from buying G4 PowerBooks because we just know it will be downright embarassing to have last year's model when the G5 PowerBook comes out.
In a sense this is very good because the flood of orders that will come when the new PowerBook G5 is introduced keep Apple in business. At the same time, it's a kind of sad testament to the power of ego in human life.
To the end user, then, accountability isn't all that useful. In fact, you could say Linux has better accountability since in the end the buck stops at Linus, Alan Cox and maybe a few of their closest friends.
How is this different from Microsoft, where we don't even know the identity of the person ultimately taking responsibility?
Responsibility seems to be executed a bit better on Linux than Windows since errors get found and patches distributed faster.
Liability is a dead heat since neither Microsoft nor Linux companies or individuals accept liability.
How is Microsoft accountable when their own license agreements say clearly that they are not liable for any consequences resulting from use of their systems?
If they were genuinely accountable, they'd be bankrupt.
I have to say, this is a pet peeve of mine - pretending to take responsibility when there is, in fact, no responsibility taken is just plain wrong.
Access works fine as a database...... as long as it has three records in it.
Once it has three thousand, forget it.
Learning that was one of the most painful experiences of my life, and the scars still show. As a direct result of that, whenever I hear the word "microsoft" I involuntarily cringe, duck and run for my life:-(.
This was around when Windows95 came out. For all I know it's a great database now. But then, it LOOKED like it would work great and had some elegant design features... and then when someone tried to actually use it with real data, it blew up.
I don't know about the probability of success of such an idea, but otherwise, what was the point of Picasa, free photo library software provided by Google?
I was completely baffled as to how such a thing would fit into Google's plans. This OS idea might be an answer...
I expect it to be a distribution of Linux, however, with some proprietary things overlaying it, perhaps a little like Darwin/Mac OS X.
If it happens, that is. Google certainly has enough money to make it happen, and perhaps enough hubris for a "We'll take over the world!" sort of plan.
Well, I was being polite, of course, but you could also say I was focusing on the root cause - because they don't understand each other, they think the other side is stupid. It's almost like they're different cultures.
Once upon a time, a computer was not a commodity, and the various brands of computer were truly unique and special things. I miss those days, and of course Apple Computer is now the sole heir to that tradition.
Digital camera makers also package Photoshop Elements in that way. And when I bought Macromedia Flash/Education Edition (I'm working on multimedia projects for education nowadays and was eligible), it was also Mac+PC. I don't know if the regular (non-education) CD was Mac+PC, but the education one certainly was.
If you use Office, you'll probably wind up buying Office. At $150 it doesn't exactly break the bank, but it's pretty stiff in comparison to the cost of using your old copy, or (more common, I fear) "liberating" it from work.
If you like the Apple look, I think you'll be very happy as a switcher since the whole OS is designed that way. It really is a fabulous experience.
I hope you got a laugh out of the other reply to your post, which was an ancient troll. He didn't even update the model numbers and mhz ratings he used, how sloppy was that?
But understand that there are two types of customer. One type, and I fear the most common, looks at the details of a product and tries to compare it to others using a laundry list of features. For instance, a computer with an 80gb hard drive is better than one with 40. One with 512mb is better than one with 256mb. This completely ignores whether the products are well designed and assembled, whether they run MacOS X or Windows, and so on. This type of buyer drives the market because he/she/it is most common. It's much easier to describe something in numbers than in depth.
People who appreciate Apple products tend to look more at the whole product than the specifications, and they realize that while Apple isn't the cheapest company in the world, it makes fabulous things because it sets out from the start to do just that.
The two types of customer really don't understand each other very well, and I think that's why there is so much passion between pro and anti-Apple factions. One point of view simply cannot understand the other.
One thing that does intrigue me is that obvious valid anti-Apple arguments are rarely seen. For instance, you have to re-purchase much of your software if you want to use an Apple computer to its full potential. If you have Office, you need Apple Office. If you have Adobe products, you need to upgrade them. And so on.
The best anti-Apple argument is that many people fear change and going to something different. I've known people like that and they are perhaps the hardest type of person to deal with. This is largely disregarded on Slashdot simply because most Slashdot people are happy to learn about new operating systems and user interfaces, but it is a genuine problem.
So yes, there are lots of trolls and they change but little over the years. Perhaps they are simply envious of the cohesiveness of the Apple community and its obvious love of the products. That's something very unusual in this day and age, and we should celebrate it. Don't kowtow to the God Steve, but don't ignore his virtues either.
I wouldn't be as negative on Linux as you are - surely it should be admitted that the "kids", in the long term, have created a high-quality product that works well for a large variety of applications, especially for knowledgeable users.
In my mind, though, it just doesn't match up well to a bunch of user interface obsessives over at Apple Computer. Can you imagine the meetings, with Steve obsessing on the exact shade of aqua blue to use for the default button on a form? I can imagine hours of bone-grinding tedium for the other folks on the team, while Steve pushes and shoves and demands as close to absolute perfection as we can get on this planet.
I don't see Open Souce folks doing that. They're too nice. They don't really care about the shade of aqua blue on their buttons at all. And none of them have much tolerence for ten hour meetings. They'll just use the same ugly shade Windows does and go on with their lives.
That's why Open Source software is never going to win on the cool factor when pitted against Steve Jobs and pals.
I don't think I'd enjoy working for Steve. But from the outside, the polished perfection he gives his products is second to none. that's the first thing I love about the Apple platform.
The second thing is that it gives you a near-perfect blend of Open Source software for web development, and commercial software for video editing, animation and word processing. So far, the commercial programs for those purposes are superior to their open source alternatives. So you can use open source for what it's great for, and proprietary software for what it's great for.
Neither of those advantages exist in Linux, and they are, broadly speaking, why I'm a Mac user nowadays and not a Linux user. So I join your puzzlement; I don't understand why someone buying into Apple hardware would not want their sofware as well.
So I'd certainly be interested in hearing peoples' responses to this question, and hopefully this less inflammatory post will help get reasonable people out of the woodwork.
There was actually an Ask Slashdot on this question a few days ago, so you might want to take a look at it.
That being said, in what way is the Mac mini not a "real computer"? It is a Unix system under the hood, after all. I bet your wife would like MacOS X a lot more than Linux or Windows, neither of which does nearly as well on the "cute and cuddly" test.
My post was from personal, hard experience on a PowerBook G4. The external drive failed in capture, probably because it shared the firewire bus with the camera:-(.
That was a pretty old PowerBook, though. The new ones might be better, especially with FireWire 800. However, I'd be cautious because I had a LaCie FireWire 800 drive on my G5 and it ground to a halt (you couldn't even see it) when my camera was on the 400 interface. I had to buy a FireWire 400 card and stick the camera on it for things to work properly. Since you can't do that on a laptop that might be a major problem. Not sure if that's Apple or LaCie's fault. Oddly enough the older FireWire 400 LaCie worked perfectly with the camera, so I don't know what's up there.
It is important to know, however, that you should NEVER use external drives without the Oxford 911 bridge or equivalent. Most cheap FireWire drives I've seen don't work at all with video. After some totally miserable, unsolvable experiences with off-brand drives, I'd stick with LaCie.
Most importantly, I have never had trouble capturing to an internal hard drive until it's almost full (say 90%+). So the best advice to our friend, based on my hard-won experience, is in fact to use the internal drive.
You're right in theory but in practice, with laptops, there are serious problems I've run into:-(.
I'm happy to be of help. If you have more questions, let me know.
If you're in a remote place in temporary surroundings while you're editing video, your stress level is going to be high enough without trying to make bleeding-edge stuff work.
I strongly recommend the Apple/Final Cut platform. Final Cut has served me well as a loyal user since version 1.1 eons ago, and Apple's served me even longer.
I know Apple's pricing can seem painful, but for Windows you'd need Adobe Premiere Pro or similar software. Per dealtime.com, the lowest "trusted store" price is $464.19. If you buy Final Cut Express with a new Mac, it's $99. So you have $363.20 to play with as a price difference for your PowerBook.
My recommended system would be the 15" PowerBook with SuperDrive so you can burn DVDs on the road. If you don't need to do that, the cheaper 15" would do. If you don't mind lugging it around, the 17" is truly spectacular.
I did a price check and had to admit that ThinkPads are a lot cheaper than PowerBooks. You are paying for MacOS X and for the video software, both of which took enormous amounts of time and effort to build. So did Windows, of course, but Bill's spreading the cost over a lot more units than Steve, so his costs are lower. That being said, I think the difference is only about 20-25% when equivalent features are compared, which in my view is not a bad premium for the extra utility you're getting.
So yes, Apple's expensive, but in my view, you get a lot for your money.
People who are answering this question with Linux knowledge are talking about things like checking out the software using CVS. This means they're telling you to get out on the bleeding edge. This may not be good advice if you have work to do and need to be pragmatic. If you're comfortable with that, more power to you, but it would make me a little queasy.
Check your disk space. It gets used up very fast. When I've tried using laptops with external firewire drives, even fancy ones like La Cie, they have not worked well at all; they are too slow. Make sure this is not the case on your laptop before buying it. The best solution I've found is to have your main projects on the laptop and send them off to external hard drives for archiving.
Make sure your laptop of choice has FireWire. I've been in the Apple world for so long that I don't know if this is common in PC laptops. Make sure it is before buying.
All of this being said, I'd seriously consider a PowerBook. You still get Unix tools, and you can get Final Cut Express for $99 with purchase. The PowerBook is similarly priced to high-end IBM laptops. If you don't want to spend that much, the iBook G4 would work fine but the higher screen resolution of the PowerBook's worth the money.
I really think that unless the freedom of open source is a huge advantage to you, you're better off with Apple's proprietary but first-rate solution. That being said, don't rely on external hard drives during production.
Others have pointed out that the new version of iMovie has solved most of these problems.
What's really solved these problems is Final Cut Express, which has all the features he needs for $99 when bought with a new Mac. FCE has the same professional video editing features as Final Cut Pro. It also includes LiveType and SoundTrack for titling and music composition respectively. That's a very fun bonus, especially for wedding work.
It blows anything on the PC end out of the water. Adobe had to write creaky old Premiere into Premiere Pro and it still doesn't match the Final Cut Express feature set.
If you want to have fun with compositing and animation, nothing beats Apple's new Motion software, although it requires a dual G5 to run well.
The reason the Mac is so highly recommended for this particular application is that it has the best video application made, Final Cut HD and Express.
For what he's doing, I don't think there's any difference between Express and HD. Express is just $99 when purchased with any new Mac, and that beats any other solution hollow for both quality and cost-effectiveness.
Fink and Portage are no more third-party than a Linux distribution, which is a system put together from disparate components from different vendors. As RMS says, it's "GNU/Linux", meaning that it's Linus' kernel + third-party software including the various Gnu commands. I don't normally care for RMS' nomenclature, since I think it unnecessarily confuses the person on the street, but it does make this point clear.
I have a job now where I am engaged in Linux server script development, video editing and motion graphics. With the Unix side, Final Cut HD(*) and Motion, I have all the tools I need on my Mac at a quite reasonable price.
D
(*) I purchased FC HD before Express came out. If I were developing today, I would have no reason to get anything higher-end than Express, particularly with Motion handling titles.
Jobs & co are already on record saying margins are similar to the eMac, and I can believe it, since the machine is actually priced quite similarly to an eMac without keyboard, mouse or monitor.
Repeat after me: "Social security if not life insurance. It's there to make sure you can eat at least once a day, even if you lose everything else."
We agree, then, that it's a baseline program, designed to provide minimal benefits.
Are minimal benefits worth over 12% of your income, when the same 12% invested over your lifetime would create a stable, prosperous retirement?
See, I think of government as a bundle of goods and services. If they are bad, then government is not treating us fairly, and to the extent it can be done, things should be changed. So George W Bush comes in and says "Great! You're right, let's change it!" How can I not love that President who has the guts to do that, over the social insurance lobby of people like you?
Do you believe that our Social Insurance program is great because it's collective social insurance and therefore we should not examine it in an effort to improve it? Is it bad for people like me to want better returns when we're required to invest 12% of our money in it?
Why should we not be required to buy our own mix of social insurance, as required by the government, instead of buying social insurance FROM the government?
We can buy auto insurance from a billion companies. We can buy fire insurance from a billion companies. Great! That makes sure prices are fair and services are good.
And that's my point. I'm not against the idea of social insurance, I'm against a specific deal, a miserable one for the majority of Americans working today.
George W Bush wants to change that deal to give us a chance at better returns, while removing a tremendous burden on the next generation, who will have to pay huge, huge SS taxes to support us when we retire.
You have given arguments for social insurance, which I suppose is fine, but you haven't given any arguments against SS private accounts, which are what I'm arguing for.
You have said NOTHING that defends the notion that SS is fair value for what we are collectively paying for it. Part of the social contract is that government has an obligation, when it compels us to do something, to be fair. In my opinion, SS is not at all fair. Thus my anger over this issue and my desire for private accounts.
Slashdot Mirror
Mark Morford, despite what he claiims in the article, is not a technical user. He's just a guy who insists that when he or his significant other plug a computer into the network, it should continue to work successfully.
... right?
It's okay to say that if you're a technical user you can secure Windows by simply obtaining up to date firewall hardware and/or software, loading SP2 from CD, buying $100 worth of anti-virus and spyware programs, and installing them before you connect your new computer to the network. Technical users can do things like that. Of course if you, as a technical user, value your time at more than $0 an hour, you've already spent the difference in cost between your generic PC and a 17" iMac with the gorgeous screen.
With Microsoft, Dell, HP and all other PC OEMs selling products to the public in an irresponsible manner, I don't think it's the fault of the users. Users who are buying something marketed as an appliance should not have to know how to make it safe. It should be sold to them safe, or the manufacturers are committing fraud on the public -- which is what both Morford and I believe.
If Mark and his SO have found a better way through Apple, I personally applaud them for making their choice. I've made the same choice, with the same results. I'm not as bullish on Apple as he is, since for some reason the person on the street is highly resistant to change, even when it's from a lousy product to an excellent one. But he's right in insisting that the computing products he buys adhere to minimum standards, such as, well, continuing to work after you plug them in the network.
I'm a technical user - I develop software for a living - but I would rather avoid a platform that makes me work harder on keeping it running than doing the work I need to do to perform my job -- which is plenty hard enough, rest assured!
Certainly you would have to agree that, for the point of view of all but the most rabid technical users, a product that doesn't blow up five minutes after you plug it in is far superior to one that does
D
Just because certain groups benefit from a proposal doesn't mean that it doesn't make the broader public better off as a whole.
We have a choice in Social Security. We can do what we're doing now, spending SS money almost entirely on benefits. This has the advantage of not giving bloodsucking stockbrokers and other scum money. It has the disadvantage of not accumulating anything for the future.
Or we can give bloodsucking stockbrokers and other scum the money and have them invest it. Over US history, this has inevitably resulted in profits even under the worst circumstances. For example, if you had invested in the S&P 500 during the height of the 1920s boom, you would have a substantial profit today despite the depression.
In other words, the right thing for bloodsucking stockbrokers is not necessarily the wrong thing for you or the country. It's a good idea to overcome your prejudices in this regard, or you'll miss out on significant opportunities.
But there is another fallacy in your argument, which is the thought that government is immune from economic forces. If the economy tanks, the government will not be able to pay Social Security benefits to the extent promised, either. After all, the government simply depends on tax revenues, and if they fall, then bad things will happen.
People on the other side seem to feel Government is infallible. One look at how well the schools work in your town should tell you, well, it's not. In fact, Government has a dismal record of failure in virtually every task it attempts, from fixing the roads to helping the poor.
In short, I don't want to trust the government to run my retirement, or my "social insurance contract" or whatever else you might call it, because I simply do not trust them to deliver. Private industry has its flaws, yes, but it's managed to deliver pretty well on the aggregate.
So in the end, I would much rather be in charge of my retirement investments than have someone else in charge of them. And that especially includes Social InSecurity, which in my eyes is neither social nor secure.
D
Imagine that there was an insurance company that sold annuities.
Today, they announce that they're sorry, but that money you put in isn't enough and they'll only be able to pay 80% of promised benefits.
Would you be:
(a) Grateful as heck that they could pay anything at all, the poor dears
(b) Storming their headquarters building with pitchforks.
How about if they implied in all their advertising materials that they were saving the money you contributed up for your future, but they were actually using it to pay current beneficiaries, and that's why their return on your investment was less than zero?
(a) You were happy that they forced you to save something just because then you might have something instead of zero
(b) Storming their headquarters with pitchforks and homemade atomic weapons.
Now, what if the government told you that you were REQUIRED to put your money into this bad insurance company, because They knew what was good for you, and you were just a pathetic loser who couldn't be trusted to invest your own money?
Would you be:
(a) Happy the Government was taking care of you
(b) FURIOUS that the government was forcing you into a lousy deal, with no recourse whatsoever?
I don't know about you, but when it comes to Social InSecurity, I'm selecting choice B all the time, and have been ever since I started paying SI taxes for the first time. (It didn't help that I was self-employed and had to pay HUGE SI taxes).
SI was a good deal for the last generation, because our population was growing. It's nothing but a giant Ponzi ripoff for THIS generation, because Mr Ponzi has no more investors; with slowing population growth, there are no more new investors to pay benefits.
Bush's proposal may not be perfect, but it's a lot better than what we have now. For that, President Bush deserves our sincere thanks.
I'm still disgusted by Social Security, but President Bush is at least trying to make it less of a ripoff, when nobody else has had the guts to do it.
D
Oh, I'm not putting myself down. I just think it's funny.
But I did buy a fancy new video card to get better frame rates on Apple Motion, the fancy new compositing application. This is something I'm making a living with, so I was willing to pay more than the cost of a Mac Mini for it.
Sadly, frame rates have barely budged. Turns out Motion just doesn't handle large amounts of on-screen text gracefully. There's an improvement, but it's not the huge one I thought it would be for my $595 (Nvidia Ultra DDL).
But I suppose I do have bragging rights.
Not much good since I don't play (or like) computer games.
D
Could someone explain to me what is wrong with the Microsoft XML format license?
What is it that I can and cannot do with it?
The article this site links to is clear as mud, and everyone's talking as though they know what it means. I'm not sure if this is because I'm unusually dense, or because Slashdotter will believe anything about Microsoft they are told, without the need of further evidence.
I hate the company and its products, personally, and I do my best to avoid them, but in this particular case I'd like to understand what's wrong in detail before expressing my resentment.
Many thanks.
D
Well, it's hard to deny that a dual 2.5ghz PowerMac G5 with dual 30" displays is, indeed, the ultimate tool for the creative professional :-).
:-).
That being said, I don't think there are enough of those high-spending people to make a computer company thrive.
I'm somewhere in between - I have a 2ghz dual PowerMac G5, which I bought upon introduction, and a 23" Cinema Display. I plan to upgrade to a 30" later this year and keep the 23" as a second monitor.
I'll probably get a new G5 when the 3ghz comes out, and let my business partner, who is super-cheap, inherit the 2ghz.
I buy a new computer, either a desktop or laptop, about once a year - but not unless there's a radical improvement like the G5 or the 1ghz PowerBook vs the 400mhz.
I suspect I'm a somewhat more common customer type, and I don't think I do Apple's bottom line any harm
D
As someone who does heavy video editing, I can say that a 1ghz PowerBook G4 will perform flawlessly for any video editing task not involving heavy compositing. You'll see instant previews for everything that matters (dissolves, simple superimpositions, etc).
A G5+ processor is indispensible if you're converting from one video format to another (like when someone gives you a video screen capture that needs to be integrated) or when you're doing compositing (layering of images). In my experience, most of those are best done on the dual processor G5 in any event, and a dual processor G5 is unlikely to ever land in a laptop since the heat and power consumption problems are too difficult.
But the cold truth - in my opinion, anyway - is that few true Apple obsessives want to feel left out from the G5 revolution and so we are holding back from buying G4 PowerBooks because we just know it will be downright embarassing to have last year's model when the G5 PowerBook comes out.
In a sense this is very good because the flood of orders that will come when the new PowerBook G5 is introduced keep Apple in business. At the same time, it's a kind of sad testament to the power of ego in human life.
D
What about Darwin?
...
It is an Apple, after all
D
Thanks for an insightful reply.
To the end user, then, accountability isn't all that useful. In fact, you could say Linux has better accountability since in the end the buck stops at Linus, Alan Cox and maybe a few of their closest friends.
How is this different from Microsoft, where we don't even know the identity of the person ultimately taking responsibility?
Responsibility seems to be executed a bit better on Linux than Windows since errors get found and patches distributed faster.
Liability is a dead heat since neither Microsoft nor Linux companies or individuals accept liability.
D
How is Microsoft accountable when their own license agreements say clearly that they are not liable for any consequences resulting from use of their systems?
If they were genuinely accountable, they'd be bankrupt.
I have to say, this is a pet peeve of mine - pretending to take responsibility when there is, in fact, no responsibility taken is just plain wrong.
D
Oh, come on.
... ... as long as it has three records in it.
:-(.
... and then when someone tried to actually use it with real data, it blew up.
Access works fine as a database
Once it has three thousand, forget it.
Learning that was one of the most painful experiences of my life, and the scars still show. As a direct result of that, whenever I hear the word "microsoft" I involuntarily cringe, duck and run for my life
This was around when Windows95 came out. For all I know it's a great database now. But then, it LOOKED like it would work great and had some elegant design features
Oops.
D
I don't know about the probability of success of such an idea, but otherwise, what was the point of Picasa, free photo library software provided by Google?
...
I was completely baffled as to how such a thing would fit into Google's plans. This OS idea might be an answer
I expect it to be a distribution of Linux, however, with some proprietary things overlaying it, perhaps a little like Darwin/Mac OS X.
If it happens, that is. Google certainly has enough money to make it happen, and perhaps enough hubris for a "We'll take over the world!" sort of plan.
D
Well, I was being polite, of course, but you could also say I was focusing on the root cause - because they don't understand each other, they think the other side is stupid. It's almost like they're different cultures.
Once upon a time, a computer was not a commodity, and the various brands of computer were truly unique and special things. I miss those days, and of course Apple Computer is now the sole heir to that tradition.
Digital camera makers also package Photoshop Elements in that way. And when I bought Macromedia Flash/Education Edition (I'm working on multimedia projects for education nowadays and was eligible), it was also Mac+PC. I don't know if the regular (non-education) CD was Mac+PC, but the education one certainly was.
D
If you use Office, you'll probably wind up buying Office. At $150 it doesn't exactly break the bank, but it's pretty stiff in comparison to the cost of using your old copy, or (more common, I fear) "liberating" it from work.
If you like the Apple look, I think you'll be very happy as a switcher since the whole OS is designed that way. It really is a fabulous experience.
Hope you enjoy!
D
I hope you got a laugh out of the other reply to your post, which was an ancient troll. He didn't even update the model numbers and mhz ratings he used, how sloppy was that?
But understand that there are two types of customer. One type, and I fear the most common, looks at the details of a product and tries to compare it to others using a laundry list of features. For instance, a computer with an 80gb hard drive is better than one with 40. One with 512mb is better than one with 256mb. This completely ignores whether the products are well designed and assembled, whether they run MacOS X or Windows, and so on. This type of buyer drives the market because he/she/it is most common. It's much easier to describe something in numbers than in depth.
People who appreciate Apple products tend to look more at the whole product than the specifications, and they realize that while Apple isn't the cheapest company in the world, it makes fabulous things because it sets out from the start to do just that.
The two types of customer really don't understand each other very well, and I think that's why there is so much passion between pro and anti-Apple factions. One point of view simply cannot understand the other.
One thing that does intrigue me is that obvious valid anti-Apple arguments are rarely seen. For instance, you have to re-purchase much of your software if you want to use an Apple computer to its full potential. If you have Office, you need Apple Office. If you have Adobe products, you need to upgrade them. And so on.
The best anti-Apple argument is that many people fear change and going to something different. I've known people like that and they are perhaps the hardest type of person to deal with. This is largely disregarded on Slashdot simply because most Slashdot people are happy to learn about new operating systems and user interfaces, but it is a genuine problem.
So yes, there are lots of trolls and they change but little over the years. Perhaps they are simply envious of the cohesiveness of the Apple community and its obvious love of the products. That's something very unusual in this day and age, and we should celebrate it. Don't kowtow to the God Steve, but don't ignore his virtues either.
D
You posted this exact same message with SGI instead of Mac in response to one of my posts a year or so back.
... upload such a post.
Since that is so, it clearly has no factual content and should be ignored.
I'm not angry, just puzzled as to why anyone would bother to write... um
D
I wouldn't be as negative on Linux as you are - surely it should be admitted that the "kids", in the long term, have created a high-quality product that works well for a large variety of applications, especially for knowledgeable users.
In my mind, though, it just doesn't match up well to a bunch of user interface obsessives over at Apple Computer. Can you imagine the meetings, with Steve obsessing on the exact shade of aqua blue to use for the default button on a form? I can imagine hours of bone-grinding tedium for the other folks on the team, while Steve pushes and shoves and demands as close to absolute perfection as we can get on this planet.
I don't see Open Souce folks doing that. They're too nice. They don't really care about the shade of aqua blue on their buttons at all. And none of them have much tolerence for ten hour meetings. They'll just use the same ugly shade Windows does and go on with their lives.
That's why Open Source software is never going to win on the cool factor when pitted against Steve Jobs and pals.
I don't think I'd enjoy working for Steve. But from the outside, the polished perfection he gives his products is second to none. that's the first thing I love about the Apple platform.
The second thing is that it gives you a near-perfect blend of Open Source software for web development, and commercial software for video editing, animation and word processing. So far, the commercial programs for those purposes are superior to their open source alternatives. So you can use open source for what it's great for, and proprietary software for what it's great for.
Neither of those advantages exist in Linux, and they are, broadly speaking, why I'm a Mac user nowadays and not a Linux user. So I join your puzzlement; I don't understand why someone buying into Apple hardware would not want their sofware as well.
So I'd certainly be interested in hearing peoples' responses to this question, and hopefully this less inflammatory post will help get reasonable people out of the woodwork.
D
There was actually an Ask Slashdot on this question a few days ago, so you might want to take a look at it.
That being said, in what way is the Mac mini not a "real computer"? It is a Unix system under the hood, after all. I bet your wife would like MacOS X a lot more than Linux or Windows, neither of which does nearly as well on the "cute and cuddly" test.
D
My post was from personal, hard experience on a PowerBook G4. The external drive failed in capture, probably because it shared the firewire bus with the camera :-(.
:-(.
That was a pretty old PowerBook, though. The new ones might be better, especially with FireWire 800. However, I'd be cautious because I had a LaCie FireWire 800 drive on my G5 and it ground to a halt (you couldn't even see it) when my camera was on the 400 interface. I had to buy a FireWire 400 card and stick the camera on it for things to work properly. Since you can't do that on a laptop that might be a major problem. Not sure if that's Apple or LaCie's fault. Oddly enough the older FireWire 400 LaCie worked perfectly with the camera, so I don't know what's up there.
It is important to know, however, that you should NEVER use external drives without the Oxford 911 bridge or equivalent. Most cheap FireWire drives I've seen don't work at all with video. After some totally miserable, unsolvable experiences with off-brand drives, I'd stick with LaCie.
Most importantly, I have never had trouble capturing to an internal hard drive until it's almost full (say 90%+). So the best advice to our friend, based on my hard-won experience, is in fact to use the internal drive.
You're right in theory but in practice, with laptops, there are serious problems I've run into
D
I'm happy to be of help. If you have more questions, let me know.
:-).
If you're in a remote place in temporary surroundings while you're editing video, your stress level is going to be high enough without trying to make bleeding-edge stuff work.
I strongly recommend the Apple/Final Cut platform. Final Cut has served me well as a loyal user since version 1.1 eons ago, and Apple's served me even longer.
I know Apple's pricing can seem painful, but for Windows you'd need Adobe Premiere Pro or similar software. Per dealtime.com, the lowest "trusted store" price is $464.19. If you buy Final Cut Express with a new Mac, it's $99. So you have $363.20 to play with as a price difference for your PowerBook.
My recommended system would be the 15" PowerBook with SuperDrive so you can burn DVDs on the road. If you don't need to do that, the cheaper 15" would do. If you don't mind lugging it around, the 17" is truly spectacular.
I did a price check and had to admit that ThinkPads are a lot cheaper than PowerBooks. You are paying for MacOS X and for the video software, both of which took enormous amounts of time and effort to build. So did Windows, of course, but Bill's spreading the cost over a lot more units than Steve, so his costs are lower. That being said, I think the difference is only about 20-25% when equivalent features are compared, which in my view is not a bad premium for the extra utility you're getting.
So yes, Apple's expensive, but in my view, you get a lot for your money.
Here's some video I shot in an especially stressful situation. Shot on a Canon XL1, edited with Final Cut Pro. Admittedly on a desktop. Glad I didn't risk my laptop over there
D
People who are answering this question with Linux knowledge are talking about things like checking out the software using CVS. This means they're telling you to get out on the bleeding edge. This may not be good advice if you have work to do and need to be pragmatic. If you're comfortable with that, more power to you, but it would make me a little queasy.
Check your disk space. It gets used up very fast. When I've tried using laptops with external firewire drives, even fancy ones like La Cie, they have not worked well at all; they are too slow. Make sure this is not the case on your laptop before buying it. The best solution I've found is to have your main projects on the laptop and send them off to external hard drives for archiving.
Make sure your laptop of choice has FireWire. I've been in the Apple world for so long that I don't know if this is common in PC laptops. Make sure it is before buying.
All of this being said, I'd seriously consider a PowerBook. You still get Unix tools, and you can get Final Cut Express for $99 with purchase. The PowerBook is similarly priced to high-end IBM laptops. If you don't want to spend that much, the iBook G4 would work fine but the higher screen resolution of the PowerBook's worth the money.
I really think that unless the freedom of open source is a huge advantage to you, you're better off with Apple's proprietary but first-rate solution. That being said, don't rely on external hard drives during production.
Hope that helps.
D
Others have pointed out that the new version of iMovie has solved most of these problems.
What's really solved these problems is Final Cut Express, which has all the features he needs for $99 when bought with a new Mac. FCE has the same professional video editing features as Final Cut Pro. It also includes LiveType and SoundTrack for titling and music composition respectively. That's a very fun bonus, especially for wedding work.
It blows anything on the PC end out of the water. Adobe had to write creaky old Premiere into Premiere Pro and it still doesn't match the Final Cut Express feature set.
If you want to have fun with compositing and animation, nothing beats Apple's new Motion software, although it requires a dual G5 to run well.
D
The reason the Mac is so highly recommended for this particular application is that it has the best video application made, Final Cut HD and Express.
For what he's doing, I don't think there's any difference between Express and HD. Express is just $99 when purchased with any new Mac, and that beats any other solution hollow for both quality and cost-effectiveness.
Fink and Portage are no more third-party than a Linux distribution, which is a system put together from disparate components from different vendors. As RMS says, it's "GNU/Linux", meaning that it's Linus' kernel + third-party software including the various Gnu commands. I don't normally care for RMS' nomenclature, since I think it unnecessarily confuses the person on the street, but it does make this point clear.
I have a job now where I am engaged in Linux server script development, video editing and motion graphics. With the Unix side, Final Cut HD(*) and Motion, I have all the tools I need on my Mac at a quite reasonable price.
D
(*) I purchased FC HD before Express came out. If I were developing today, I would have no reason to get anything higher-end than Express, particularly with Motion handling titles.
Jobs & co are already on record saying margins are similar to the eMac, and I can believe it, since the machine is actually priced quite similarly to an eMac without keyboard, mouse or monitor.
D
Repeat after me: "Social security if not life insurance. It's there to make sure you can eat at least once a day, even if you lose everything else."
We agree, then, that it's a baseline program, designed to provide minimal benefits.
Are minimal benefits worth over 12% of your income, when the same 12% invested over your lifetime would create a stable, prosperous retirement?
See, I think of government as a bundle of goods and services. If they are bad, then government is not treating us fairly, and to the extent it can be done, things should be changed. So George W Bush comes in and says "Great! You're right, let's change it!" How can I not love that President who has the guts to do that, over the social insurance lobby of people like you?
Do you believe that our Social Insurance program is great because it's collective social insurance and therefore we should not examine it in an effort to improve it? Is it bad for people like me to want better returns when we're required to invest 12% of our money in it?
Why should we not be required to buy our own mix of social insurance, as required by the government, instead of buying social insurance FROM the government?
We can buy auto insurance from a billion companies. We can buy fire insurance from a billion companies. Great! That makes sure prices are fair and services are good.
And that's my point. I'm not against the idea of social insurance, I'm against a specific deal, a miserable one for the majority of Americans working today.
George W Bush wants to change that deal to give us a chance at better returns, while removing a tremendous burden on the next generation, who will have to pay huge, huge SS taxes to support us when we retire.
You have given arguments for social insurance, which I suppose is fine, but you haven't given any arguments against SS private accounts, which are what I'm arguing for.
You have said NOTHING that defends the notion that SS is fair value for what we are collectively paying for it. Part of the social contract is that government has an obligation, when it compels us to do something, to be fair. In my opinion, SS is not at all fair. Thus my anger over this issue and my desire for private accounts.
D