The single device would probably shut off the music playing during phone conversations, or at least reduce the volume.
I hate the lumpy pockets and moments of confusion (was that the phone or my iPod?) inherent in dragging around multiple devices. There's also the greater risk of losing them when they drop out of your pocket, something that's happened to me with dismaying frequency.
I presently use a T-Mobile Sidekick, which is a combination phone, PDA and web browsing device, and it works great except where reception is a problem (which turns out to be everywhere, but that's not the conceptual device's fault). I think it would be neat to combine that with a music player, but certainly the user interface would be a very tough challenge.
It seems more logical to me to bring the iTMS and iTunes development to the iPod division than leaving them with the Mac. After all, iTunes is available for Windows, and plenty of Windows users are buying.
I don't remember where I read this concern, but it's Johnathan Ive, not John Rubenstein, who's responsible for all the cool designs. I have to assume he stays with the Mac division, or perhaps his talents get split between the two. I can't see future Apple products without him, whether they be Macs or i-Devices.
Suburbia has largely mutated into Edge City without most people being aware of it. So for example, I live in Woodland Hills, California, in a very cool house on top of a hill. I live about 3 miles away from my workplace. That's Edge City; my job is where I live, so I don't commute far at all. You might notice that in the Slashdot poll mentioned above, about 30% of people live within 6 miles of their work. This is the reason.
You don't need to squeeze everyone in massive high-rise apartment blocks or characterless row houses to let people live near their work. You do have to accept somewhat high density - I live on a 5200 square foot lot, not an acre (which is about 9x as much).
It's unfortunate that the New Urbanism looks progressive compared to what's normally being built by today's builders. I feel very fortunate to be in an area built up during the 20s through the 60s, where builders took pride in what they constructed and big profits were not the sole motivating factor.
But this all being said, I don't think the New Urbanism is the answer to our nation's ills. In my view, the merits of suburbia - privacy, the potential for individualty and some nice outdoor space to stay in on a sunny day - outweigh the disadvantages.
It would be, but I think the EPA cares more about emissions than fuel economy. You could say the economy figures are a (theoretically at least) useful byproduct of the emissions testing they already have to do.
It was an exaggeration to make a point: That people whose computers get broken into or hit by virus and worm attacks feel real suffering and pain from the experience, as I did.
A computer system is not a unique person, but nowadays it's very much an extension of one. It has things I've written, things I've done, and important stuff I need to remember. If it's lost, a whole chunk of my life goes away.
I think the preoccupation society as a whole has with people breaking into computers is sick, especially considering that many people are on the side of the person doing the attacks. And that disgusts me since I've seen what a horrible pain it is to recover from an attack.
It frustrates me that people deliberately and maliciously seek out to cause uncountable numbers of innocent people pain. I think people who are sick enough to act that way deserve to be weeded out and removed from society.
For all the outrage I've gotten from my analogy, nobody's put a serious dent in my point: That people who do these things get away with it all the time, and that they somehow need to be stopped.
If you want to counteract my feelings and my analogy, let's hear some positive recommendations on how to deal with these people. What would you do to put the point in their heads that this kind of conduct hurts real people and has enormous costs?
I come from the old school ITS programming environment where there was no security... because most people who got access to a computer could be trusted not to delete each other's files. It's deeply depressing to me that people exist who are as cruel and malicious as the crackers and virus writers of today.
I've suffered a few breakins where I have lost control over my machine. These times feel like a severe violation. I'm not going to go quite this far, because the physical experience gives rape an entirely different dimention, but it feels like I'd expect being raped does. The same feelings of violation, degradation and a lot of lost time and hard work to get things back to normal.
I'd love to see the same penalties applied to breaking into computer systems as as applied to rape, because then I think the people doing these things would have to consider what they're doing and their imipact on their victims. Right now, I think most people like this guy think it's a game, instead of focusing on the incredible amounts of agony that is caused.
To me, anyone who creates a worm is like a serial rapist. True, he damages each victim less, but he reaches out and molests massive numbers of victims -- deliberately and with malice.
If you don't think we should kill these people for writing virii or breaking into systems, how do you think they should be treated, so they won't write them again, and so others can be deterred from it?
This seems to be amazingly variable. I own a TiBook bought in December of 2002 and it's been remarkably trouble-free. The only hardware problem I had was a latch that sometimes doesn't catch. I could have sent it back under warranty, but in all honesty I didn't want to take the time, so I've lived with it and all is fine. It seems to have actually fixed itself. In software problems, I had to reload the OS once, but all my data survived the misadventure just fine.
I also have a G5/2ghz dual processor, which replaced a dual G4/450, and both systems have performed flawlessly over the years.
Guess it all depends on some combination of how you treat your machines and random luck. I bought all of my machines shortly after their introduction, so that isn't even a factor.
I really don't think people should have to treat their computers like a fortress by installing millions of lines of complex and potentially unreliable code on their computers, just to guard against outside attacks. It's like being forced to run an armor plated car, and accepting the huge performance and fuel economy hit.
So I run Macs, which solves all those problems and more.
Macs are a little more expensive, yes, but the amount of time and aggravation saved is worth every penny.
I run all Macs at home and I never get virii, never get spyware, and they keep on running at good speeds virtually forever.
Frankly, I'm not a paranoid enough person to run Windows, and in all honesty I don't want to become one.
I don't understand why Apple's market share hasn't soared thanks to this and other similar advantages.
I know that one day there will be a Mac virus or two, but the economic motive just isn't there for spyware, thanks to Apple's low market share. I think it would have to double or triple, which it isn't doing any time soon, to justify spyware development.
So my answer is: Get a Mac. You'll be happier. It's prettier than Windows. It's slicker, too. And you won't get these pesky problems. Are they slower? In some cases, but armor-plating your PC is going to make it run a lot worse than the Mac, if the complaints in my company about our AV software are any indication.
It seems to me Google held its own against resources most people wouldn't even have.
The author, being a reporter on a major newspaper, has contacts he can ask questions to that the average Joe surely does not. Our efforts at getting these answers via phone would almost certainly fail, and the library is a 10min drive away. If you add the 20 minutes it would take to drive to the library and back in the results, Google would be fastest every time, and only marginally less accurate.
This is written by a guy who either still writes for the Register, or used to do so. I don't think he's a Microsoft shill, but I think as a journalist he wants stuff to report about, and is probably irked Apple's not feeding him the dope. It's not by accident news is called dope by the press, you know; it's addictive, like food.
That being said, Apple seems pretty good at sending out frequent security updates when needed, and it's dead easy to keep a system patched. Until I see something escaping into the wild, I'm not going to be too concerned. But I will avoid tempting fate by keeping my system patched.
Relax. Your Kaypro will be much more of a collectors' item than my G5. Historic!
G5 works great, though. If you have that kind of money, I really don't think you can go wrong with one. It's one sweet machine, and despite what the other person replying to me said, it's really not much out of line with other brand-name PC pricing for systems of similar power.
I think the reason for these gargantuan requirements is some kind of 3D interface with lots of transparency they're creating for it. If Linux sticks to X-Windows I don't think requirements are going to have to increase much. Debian still runs on a 12mb system and a 386 processor. Red Hat seems to have amazingly high requirements, probably because of all the GUI eye candy that's included in these systems nowadays.
Not Final Cut Pro or Apple Motion, which looks like a major threat to After Effects. Apple's doing some great software, and I'm really pleased to be on board with them.
And I love both the aesthetics of the platform and the lack of need for constant vigilance against virii and spyware which make administrating PCs so much - ahem - fun.
Well, I have 410gb disk and 3.5GB RAM on my dual 2ghz PowerMac G5, which sounds like it might just scrape past the minimium Longhorn requirements if it was the PC equivalent.
But I spent about $4,000 making it that way, which hardly sounds realistic even in 2008.
Why did I spend $4,000 on a computer? Because I do CPU-sapping Final Cut Pro and After Effects work. Nobody spends this kind of money just to run the newest operating system. Well, not unless they're insanely wealthy anyway.
I think these requirements will be a tough sell even in 2008. I wonder if the hardware requirements are a major reason for the delays, since there's no way consumers today would accept anything near them.
Would you rather have one fewer alternative to the Windows juggernaut?
The Cult of Mac keeps Apple alive and healthy and I think that's a very cool thing. It's not cheap to be an Apple cultist - I spend at least $3,000 a year on Apple hardware of various kinds - but what I get in return are genuinely great products that deliver excellent value for those who can look past a stiff initial price tag.
You could certainly argue that there is a similar cult built around Linux. There are even some Windows users whose behaviour has distinctly cult-like overtones. Perhaps a consumer cult is formed whenever people have as intimate a relationship with something as people do with their computers.
It might just be a reflection of human behaviour and nothing particularly special. Although there's no question that Steve Jobs is a master showman.
I was planning to switch from Coke to Pepsi for the duration of the promotion, but as you say it's not cost-effective for heavy drinkers such as myself to buy individual bottles.
I did buy a few and I won all but one of them. I really liked the promotion and I'm sorry it's (nearly) over. There are still caps in the stores, so I think they should have extended the redemption period.
Since I wasn't able to tilt the bottle and see which bottles were winners, I thought it was interesting that I won most of them. I live in LA, and we've only had the bottles for a couple of weeks now. Perhaps they had to use up the winning caps and so a higher percentage of people here were winners.
I think they should have stuck in maybe 3 codes for each 12-pack. That would have given the heavy drinkers a chance to win. The contest as it is seems designed for light drinkers, and that's just plain silly. Why not cater to your huge customers and hope to snag a few from Coke?
(I'm afraid that I like Diet Coke in cans quite a bit more than Diet Pepsi in bottles, so from a conversion perspective this was a flop).
Except the real reason people are cheaper in India is that it's a lot cheaper to live in India.
From what I understand, the Indian programmers are making $5-10k a year, and that's sufficient to give them a middle-class lifestyle.
$10k a year might just barely rent you a studio apartment in most of LA, not including any taxes, food or utilities.
Your Indian friend prefers to be in the US because he doesn't have to look at the dreadful poverty or suffer through the horrid infrastructure. But my understanding is that he could own a nice house in India on the salaries paid by outsourcers.
Two years ago, Premiere was a dismal product, based on an ancient code base which was never that great to begin with. Final Cut Pro blew a huge gust of cold air into Adobe's camp, with a program which at the time had simply overwhelming superiority. Premiere was $699 and FCP was $999, but FCP was like a Mercedes-Benz S55 AMG racing a Yugo. The difference was just that stark, and as a result anyone with half a brain and no serious investment in PC-based software went straight to FCP, no arguments allowed. This is the source of the perfectly accurate argument that FCP is an excellent value compared to Premiere - it simply offers more.
I think about a year ago (or was it six months?), Adobe introduced Premiere Pro, which was a complete, ground-up rewrite of Premiere, with many features seemingly copied from Final Cut. By then, Final Cut had such overwhelming popularity and market share that there was little point in doing a Mac version. It would have been creamed in the marketplace thanks to customer loyalty to FCP.
Nowadays, it's possible that Premiere is almost as good an editing program as FCP. I don't think it's likely because the FCP team hasn't stood still, but it's surely possible. But the exceptionally poor image Premiere has from years of neglect has not helped them, and deservedly so.
Most Premiere users who don't need the full FCP would probably be best off with Final Cut Express, which has almost all FCP's features save some advanced compositing and the ability to edit formats other than DV. It's $300 which I think is significantly cheaper than Premiere.
Finally, Avid's DV software has just about the highest learning curve of any editing software I've seen. It's radically different from anything else I've seen, and many of the differences are due to limitations in software that look quaintly dated nowadays. As a result, even a free Avid isn't much threat to FCP.
I'm really looking forwared to trying Motion, thanks to the Real-Time effects. After Effects is horrible at previews; it makes turtles seem quick, even on my 2ghz dual G5 with 3.5gb RAM. At $299, buying it and giving it a look is pretty much a no-brainer for anyone on a Mac.
It's the Premiere story done over again; Adobe has been pretty sluggish in upgrading the After Effects engine and now they may be forced to do it.
It sure looks like you PC users should thank Apple for providing this spur, because I don't think the upgrades you're going to see would have happened without competition from Apple.
I was thinking of getting a 17" PowerBook to replace my 15" model, and this is usually the best time to buy, with lower prices on the outgoing models and of course the excitement of the incoming ones.
How much difference is there between the old and new 17" models? Would I notice.25ghz in actual use? And would I notice the graphics chip differences at all as a non-gamer who mainly uses the system for pro applications such as Final Cut and After Effects?
The most likely consensus seems to be an announcement around the January 2005 MacWorld. I'm sure it's at least six months away. If it's announced in MacWorld, it seems to take at least two months for the new machines to show up.
So if you need a machine now, this is a good time to buy.
An interesting theory. I always wondered about the "Gloomy Gus" user interface of Windows 2000 and before.
It's worth noting that Windows 3.1 was pretty bright. The gloomed-out trend started with Windows95. They must have gotten some ear-searing criticism from corporate buyers who - in line with your theory - are mostly in gloomy climes like New York and the midwest.
As for corporations, well, the man with the grey flannel suit is still present in the world, and the gloomy gus gray of Windows matches that pretty well.
I've noticed that most IT people tend to change the interface back to Gloomy Gus. I'm in a distinct minority preferring it the way it comes out of the box, albiet by a fairly narrow margin. It's cheerful, but MacOS X has it beat on the taste issue, seemingly without effort.
All my personal computing - representing very substantial investments - is in MacOS X computers.
I know how to drive my car, but I don't have a clue how to maintain it. We have people called mechanics who do that. A car can still be run safely as long as you bring it to someone every few months to be checked.
There are two things about computers, however, that really make this metaphor break down.
If I had to understand how a car worked, I'm sure I could. A car is orders of magnitude simpler than a computer. In fact, I'll bet Internet Explorer alone has more complexity than the average car, and there are thousands of subsystems within Windows, many of comparable complexity, and most hidden and completely unknown by most users or even programmers.
I don't think it's possible at this point for anyone to have a complete idea of how Windows works as a whole. You don't know the whole API; you know the API calls you need. Even as a programmer, it's quite unlikely that you have the big picture of how everything fits together.
But really, you shouldn't have to. I have no clue how my electric drill works; I just switch it on and it does its job. I think most people feel computers should work in the same way - and quite honestly I think they're right.
This looks like it's very similar to the more expensive version with still capability (which you really shouldn't bother with in a video camera). It was given a review which praised the image quality but admitted it didn't reach the peak of the top 3CCD camcorders.
I have to admit that I wasn't thrilled by the iSight camera's quality; a friend demoed it to me and my $500 Canon ZR-series video camera was much better. However, that might have been due to the extreme low light in her apartment.
That being said, I was able to try a LogiTech QuickCam on my PowerMac G4 at work and if my memory serves it worked just fine. I think the cheaper brands don't support the Mac, but the QuickCam's cheap enough and it does.
Slashdot Mirror
The single device would probably shut off the music playing during phone conversations, or at least reduce the volume.
I hate the lumpy pockets and moments of confusion (was that the phone or my iPod?) inherent in dragging around multiple devices. There's also the greater risk of losing them when they drop out of your pocket, something that's happened to me with dismaying frequency.
I presently use a T-Mobile Sidekick, which is a combination phone, PDA and web browsing device, and it works great except where reception is a problem (which turns out to be everywhere, but that's not the conceptual device's fault). I think it would be neat to combine that with a music player, but certainly the user interface would be a very tough challenge.
D
It seems more logical to me to bring the iTMS and iTunes development to the iPod division than leaving them with the Mac. After all, iTunes is available for Windows, and plenty of Windows users are buying.
I don't remember where I read this concern, but it's Johnathan Ive, not John Rubenstein, who's responsible for all the cool designs. I have to assume he stays with the Mac division, or perhaps his talents get split between the two. I can't see future Apple products without him, whether they be Macs or i-Devices.
D
And it's even surviving a Slashdotting, which is pretty darn impressive considering how big that thing must be.
D
Suburbia has largely mutated into Edge City without most people being aware of it. So for example, I live in Woodland Hills, California, in a very cool house on top of a hill. I live about 3 miles away from my workplace. That's Edge City; my job is where I live, so I don't commute far at all. You might notice that in the Slashdot poll mentioned above, about 30% of people live within 6 miles of their work. This is the reason.
You don't need to squeeze everyone in massive high-rise apartment blocks or characterless row houses to let people live near their work. You do have to accept somewhat high density - I live on a 5200 square foot lot, not an acre (which is about 9x as much).
I really love the single-family home lifestyle and wouldn't give it up without a fight. It really is great to have genuine control over your own domain instead of being in an ugly, characterless block. Here is the kind of building "New Urbanists" want to squeeze us into. By comparison, here's where I live today.
It's unfortunate that the New Urbanism looks progressive compared to what's normally being built by today's builders. I feel very fortunate to be in an area built up during the 20s through the 60s, where builders took pride in what they constructed and big profits were not the sole motivating factor.
But this all being said, I don't think the New Urbanism is the answer to our nation's ills. In my view, the merits of suburbia - privacy, the potential for individualty and some nice outdoor space to stay in on a sunny day - outweigh the disadvantages.
D
It's an opinion piece, meaning it will land on the opinion pages, which I think are about in the middle of the magazine.
I doubt that it will have a massive global impact, especially since it only talks about a single characteristic of the product.
D
It would be, but I think the EPA cares more about emissions than fuel economy. You could say the economy figures are a (theoretically at least) useful byproduct of the emissions testing they already have to do.
D
It was an exaggeration to make a point: That people whose computers get broken into or hit by virus and worm attacks feel real suffering and pain from the experience, as I did.
A computer system is not a unique person, but nowadays it's very much an extension of one. It has things I've written, things I've done, and important stuff I need to remember. If it's lost, a whole chunk of my life goes away.
I think the preoccupation society as a whole has with people breaking into computers is sick, especially considering that many people are on the side of the person doing the attacks. And that disgusts me since I've seen what a horrible pain it is to recover from an attack.
It frustrates me that people deliberately and maliciously seek out to cause uncountable numbers of innocent people pain. I think people who are sick enough to act that way deserve to be weeded out and removed from society.
For all the outrage I've gotten from my analogy, nobody's put a serious dent in my point: That people who do these things get away with it all the time, and that they somehow need to be stopped.
If you want to counteract my feelings and my analogy, let's hear some positive recommendations on how to deal with these people. What would you do to put the point in their heads that this kind of conduct hurts real people and has enormous costs?
D
I come from the old school ITS programming environment where there was no security ... because most people who got access to a computer could be trusted not to delete each other's files. It's deeply depressing to me that people exist who are as cruel and malicious as the crackers and virus writers of today.
I've suffered a few breakins where I have lost control over my machine. These times feel like a severe violation. I'm not going to go quite this far, because the physical experience gives rape an entirely different dimention, but it feels like I'd expect being raped does. The same feelings of violation, degradation and a lot of lost time and hard work to get things back to normal.
I'd love to see the same penalties applied to breaking into computer systems as as applied to rape, because then I think the people doing these things would have to consider what they're doing and their imipact on their victims. Right now, I think most people like this guy think it's a game, instead of focusing on the incredible amounts of agony that is caused.
To me, anyone who creates a worm is like a serial rapist. True, he damages each victim less, but he reaches out and molests massive numbers of victims -- deliberately and with malice.
If you don't think we should kill these people for writing virii or breaking into systems, how do you think they should be treated, so they won't write them again, and so others can be deterred from it?
D
This seems to be amazingly variable. I own a TiBook bought in December of 2002 and it's been remarkably trouble-free. The only hardware problem I had was a latch that sometimes doesn't catch. I could have sent it back under warranty, but in all honesty I didn't want to take the time, so I've lived with it and all is fine. It seems to have actually fixed itself. In software problems, I had to reload the OS once, but all my data survived the misadventure just fine.
I also have a G5/2ghz dual processor, which replaced a dual G4/450, and both systems have performed flawlessly over the years.
Guess it all depends on some combination of how you treat your machines and random luck. I bought all of my machines shortly after their introduction, so that isn't even a factor.
D
I really don't think people should have to treat their computers like a fortress by installing millions of lines of complex and potentially unreliable code on their computers, just to guard against outside attacks. It's like being forced to run an armor plated car, and accepting the huge performance and fuel economy hit.
So I run Macs, which solves all those problems and more.
Macs are a little more expensive, yes, but the amount of time and aggravation saved is worth every penny.
I run all Macs at home and I never get virii, never get spyware, and they keep on running at good speeds virtually forever.
Frankly, I'm not a paranoid enough person to run Windows, and in all honesty I don't want to become one.
I don't understand why Apple's market share hasn't soared thanks to this and other similar advantages.
I know that one day there will be a Mac virus or two, but the economic motive just isn't there for spyware, thanks to Apple's low market share. I think it would have to double or triple, which it isn't doing any time soon, to justify spyware development.
So my answer is: Get a Mac. You'll be happier. It's prettier than Windows. It's slicker, too. And you won't get these pesky problems. Are they slower? In some cases, but armor-plating your PC is going to make it run a lot worse than the Mac, if the complaints in my company about our AV software are any indication.
D
It seems to me Google held its own against resources most people wouldn't even have.
The author, being a reporter on a major newspaper, has contacts he can ask questions to that the average Joe surely does not. Our efforts at getting these answers via phone would almost certainly fail, and the library is a 10min drive away. If you add the 20 minutes it would take to drive to the library and back in the results, Google would be fastest every time, and only marginally less accurate.
Good for Google!
D
This is written by a guy who either still writes for the Register, or used to do so. I don't think he's a Microsoft shill, but I think as a journalist he wants stuff to report about, and is probably irked Apple's not feeding him the dope. It's not by accident news is called dope by the press, you know; it's addictive, like food.
That being said, Apple seems pretty good at sending out frequent security updates when needed, and it's dead easy to keep a system patched. Until I see something escaping into the wild, I'm not going to be too concerned. But I will avoid tempting fate by keeping my system patched.
D
Relax. Your Kaypro will be much more of a collectors' item than my G5. Historic!
G5 works great, though. If you have that kind of money, I really don't think you can go wrong with one. It's one sweet machine, and despite what the other person replying to me said, it's really not much out of line with other brand-name PC pricing for systems of similar power.
I think the reason for these gargantuan requirements is some kind of 3D interface with lots of transparency they're creating for it. If Linux sticks to X-Windows I don't think requirements are going to have to increase much. Debian still runs on a 12mb system and a 386 processor. Red Hat seems to have amazingly high requirements, probably because of all the GUI eye candy that's included in these systems nowadays.
D
Not Final Cut Pro or Apple Motion, which looks like a major threat to After Effects. Apple's doing some great software, and I'm really pleased to be on board with them.
And I love both the aesthetics of the platform and the lack of need for constant vigilance against virii and spyware which make administrating PCs so much - ahem - fun.
D
Well, I have 410gb disk and 3.5GB RAM on my dual 2ghz PowerMac G5, which sounds like it might just scrape past the minimium Longhorn requirements if it was the PC equivalent.
But I spent about $4,000 making it that way, which hardly sounds realistic even in 2008.
Why did I spend $4,000 on a computer? Because I do CPU-sapping Final Cut Pro and After Effects work. Nobody spends this kind of money just to run the newest operating system. Well, not unless they're insanely wealthy anyway.
I think these requirements will be a tough sell even in 2008. I wonder if the hardware requirements are a major reason for the delays, since there's no way consumers today would accept anything near them.
D
And how is this bad?
Would you rather have one fewer alternative to the Windows juggernaut?
The Cult of Mac keeps Apple alive and healthy and I think that's a very cool thing. It's not cheap to be an Apple cultist - I spend at least $3,000 a year on Apple hardware of various kinds - but what I get in return are genuinely great products that deliver excellent value for those who can look past a stiff initial price tag.
You could certainly argue that there is a similar cult built around Linux. There are even some Windows users whose behaviour has distinctly cult-like overtones. Perhaps a consumer cult is formed whenever people have as intimate a relationship with something as people do with their computers.
It might just be a reflection of human behaviour and nothing particularly special. Although there's no question that Steve Jobs is a master showman.
D
I was planning to switch from Coke to Pepsi for the duration of the promotion, but as you say it's not cost-effective for heavy drinkers such as myself to buy individual bottles.
I did buy a few and I won all but one of them. I really liked the promotion and I'm sorry it's (nearly) over. There are still caps in the stores, so I think they should have extended the redemption period.
Since I wasn't able to tilt the bottle and see which bottles were winners, I thought it was interesting that I won most of them. I live in LA, and we've only had the bottles for a couple of weeks now. Perhaps they had to use up the winning caps and so a higher percentage of people here were winners.
I think they should have stuck in maybe 3 codes for each 12-pack. That would have given the heavy drinkers a chance to win. The contest as it is seems designed for light drinkers, and that's just plain silly. Why not cater to your huge customers and hope to snag a few from Coke?
(I'm afraid that I like Diet Coke in cans quite a bit more than Diet Pepsi in bottles, so from a conversion perspective this was a flop).
D
Except the real reason people are cheaper in India is that it's a lot cheaper to live in India.
From what I understand, the Indian programmers are making $5-10k a year, and that's sufficient to give them a middle-class lifestyle.
$10k a year might just barely rent you a studio apartment in most of LA, not including any taxes, food or utilities.
Your Indian friend prefers to be in the US because he doesn't have to look at the dreadful poverty or suffer through the horrid infrastructure. But my understanding is that he could own a nice house in India on the salaries paid by outsourcers.
D
Two years ago, Premiere was a dismal product, based on an ancient code base which was never that great to begin with. Final Cut Pro blew a huge gust of cold air into Adobe's camp, with a program which at the time had simply overwhelming superiority. Premiere was $699 and FCP was $999, but FCP was like a Mercedes-Benz S55 AMG racing a Yugo. The difference was just that stark, and as a result anyone with half a brain and no serious investment in PC-based software went straight to FCP, no arguments allowed. This is the source of the perfectly accurate argument that FCP is an excellent value compared to Premiere - it simply offers more.
I think about a year ago (or was it six months?), Adobe introduced Premiere Pro, which was a complete, ground-up rewrite of Premiere, with many features seemingly copied from Final Cut. By then, Final Cut had such overwhelming popularity and market share that there was little point in doing a Mac version. It would have been creamed in the marketplace thanks to customer loyalty to FCP.
Nowadays, it's possible that Premiere is almost as good an editing program as FCP. I don't think it's likely because the FCP team hasn't stood still, but it's surely possible. But the exceptionally poor image Premiere has from years of neglect has not helped them, and deservedly so.
Most Premiere users who don't need the full FCP would probably be best off with Final Cut Express, which has almost all FCP's features save some advanced compositing and the ability to edit formats other than DV. It's $300 which I think is significantly cheaper than Premiere.
Finally, Avid's DV software has just about the highest learning curve of any editing software I've seen. It's radically different from anything else I've seen, and many of the differences are due to limitations in software that look quaintly dated nowadays. As a result, even a free Avid isn't much threat to FCP.
I'm really looking forwared to trying Motion, thanks to the Real-Time effects. After Effects is horrible at previews; it makes turtles seem quick, even on my 2ghz dual G5 with 3.5gb RAM. At $299, buying it and giving it a look is pretty much a no-brainer for anyone on a Mac.
It's the Premiere story done over again; Adobe has been pretty sluggish in upgrading the After Effects engine and now they may be forced to do it.
It sure looks like you PC users should thank Apple for providing this spur, because I don't think the upgrades you're going to see would have happened without competition from Apple.
D
I was thinking of getting a 17" PowerBook to replace my 15" model, and this is usually the best time to buy, with lower prices on the outgoing models and of course the excitement of the incoming ones.
.25ghz in actual use? And would I notice the graphics chip differences at all as a non-gamer who mainly uses the system for pro applications such as Final Cut and After Effects?
How much difference is there between the old and new 17" models? Would I notice
D
The most likely consensus seems to be an announcement around the January 2005 MacWorld. I'm sure it's at least six months away. If it's announced in MacWorld, it seems to take at least two months for the new machines to show up.
So if you need a machine now, this is a good time to buy.
D
An interesting theory. I always wondered about the "Gloomy Gus" user interface of Windows 2000 and before.
It's worth noting that Windows 3.1 was pretty bright. The gloomed-out trend started with Windows95. They must have gotten some ear-searing criticism from corporate buyers who - in line with your theory - are mostly in gloomy climes like New York and the midwest.
As for corporations, well, the man with the grey flannel suit is still present in the world, and the gloomy gus gray of Windows matches that pretty well.
I've noticed that most IT people tend to change the interface back to Gloomy Gus. I'm in a distinct minority preferring it the way it comes out of the box, albiet by a fairly narrow margin. It's cheerful, but MacOS X has it beat on the taste issue, seemingly without effort.
All my personal computing - representing very substantial investments - is in MacOS X computers.
D
I know how to drive my car, but I don't have a clue how to maintain it. We have people called mechanics who do that. A car can still be run safely as long as you bring it to someone every few months to be checked.
There are two things about computers, however, that really make this metaphor break down.
If I had to understand how a car worked, I'm sure I could. A car is orders of magnitude simpler than a computer. In fact, I'll bet Internet Explorer alone has more complexity than the average car, and there are thousands of subsystems within Windows, many of comparable complexity, and most hidden and completely unknown by most users or even programmers.
I don't think it's possible at this point for anyone to have a complete idea of how Windows works as a whole. You don't know the whole API; you know the API calls you need. Even as a programmer, it's quite unlikely that you have the big picture of how everything fits together.
But really, you shouldn't have to. I have no clue how my electric drill works; I just switch it on and it does its job. I think most people feel computers should work in the same way - and quite honestly I think they're right.
D
The world's cheapest 3CCD camcorder is just $699.
This looks like it's very similar to the more expensive version with still capability (which you really shouldn't bother with in a video camera). It was given a review which praised the image quality but admitted it didn't reach the peak of the top 3CCD camcorders.
I have to admit that I wasn't thrilled by the iSight camera's quality; a friend demoed it to me and my $500 Canon ZR-series video camera was much better. However, that might have been due to the extreme low light in her apartment.
That being said, I was able to try a LogiTech QuickCam on my PowerMac G4 at work and if my memory serves it worked just fine. I think the cheaper brands don't support the Mac, but the QuickCam's cheap enough and it does.
D
Interesting, if true!
:-(.
But when I clicked on the link, it returned "Not found", and even an extensive search of the site revealed nothing.
You're either a great troll (people click Insightful without clicking on the link?) or there's something odd going on.
And yes, I did remove the "here" from the end of your URL and tried a bunch of other things and nothing got me to the link
D