It comes down to the mac expecting a Firewire DV cam, not a USB cam.
Not to bash Sony, but it figures they would create a DV cam [is it real DV, or some DV-like protocol... check] that *wasn't* firewire/IEEE 1394, despite the fact that they are a member of the 1394 consortium. Does any Mac user remember the Sony Spressa [a painfully bad USB CD-R drive]?
Sony has a habit of tweaking things so they make things as painful as possible for users. For example, their iLink is 4 pin 1394, rather than the *far* more common 6 pin. This means you don't have the option of bus power. Sigh.
My suggestion is to buy a DV cam with a firewire connection. There are many to choose from, and all of them [assuming they register as a DV cam on the firewire bus] will work in OSX
As I do this for a living [like many here], I can say I find the following helpful:
Omnigraffle Pro [for creating "linkable" wireframes, storyboards, and site maps. If you are familiar with Visio, it is similar in functionality.
BBEdit. It doesn't suck. I hand code all my HTML, so it is as tight as possible [while still being readable]. It also allows me to code Valid XHTML. If you are building huge sites, I create HTML and CSS templates in BBEdit and shove the templates into whatever CMS delivery system is used.
Photoshop/ImageReady for image manipulation. ImageReady is brilliant.
QuarkXpress or InDesign for creating documentation [that will be turned into PDFs]
For s/FTP, I use Transmit, because it's a Cocoa app, and as such has some pretty interesting features common to all cocoa apps.
When I need to make presentations, I will use Keynote, as it's a bit easier to deal with than Powerpoint. That said, I try to *never* use either. slide shows suck
I may be totally out of line, but the idea of single sign-on through tickets/tokens already works rather well with Kerberos. Why not incorporate Kerberos into the Jabber system?
Many people think that Kerberos is very difficult to implement properly, but it doesn't have to be so. Currently Apple makes authentication via Kerberos rather simple.
Perhaps I just don't see a benefit of going with something new/different when something battle tested will fit the bill.
I too have been sucked into the FE reality distortion field. It's a good game for people who like strategy, variably* deep plot and fantasy games.
I am surprised that the other FE games weren't ported over, considering the popularity of strategy and RPG games. Perhaps we'll see a "perfect collection" or something similar in the not-too-distant future.
The game has ups and downs. I find it frustrating that you can't buy items unless you are on a battle map. This means you must create a "pony express" method of sending out party members to the armories, then "trading" backward until the item you want reaches the party member who needs it. There are many other frustrating bits (like the inability to go back to a battle and do it again), but the game is so damned addictive!
* The plot can go into great detail if you choose to use the "support" capability of various characters. Doing so will unlock different endings and increase stats. Of course, you can "opt out" of the deeper plot points by eschewing the "support" capability altogether.
Detecting traffic jams is all well and good, but once there is a jam, there really isn't a hell of a lot you can do about it. On occasion, it may be easier to take another route. More often, another route simply isn't feasible
Apple currently uses GCC to build Panther. As XL is much faster in 95% of the situations, I would imagine that Apple would transition to XL once the Obj-C portions of the compiler were a bit more mature. [The public beta of XLC didn't have any Obj-C support]
I found the "Millionaire" segment to be rather amusing. They took data from the [then current] stock markets. If you look closely, you can see where the Dow was around that time in 1985 [well below 1000].. contrast to what it is now.
Also, is that not the worst combo toupee/comb-over on the planet?
It's also interesting that this is getting investigated from a security perspective, as the possibility of foreign nationals being trained inside our our jets becomes a larger concern. Publicity on longer "grounded" training could discourage moles/spies from enrolling in the programs, knowing in advance that they wouldn't be granted access to real equipment.
Although isn't the point of a simulator to simulate as closely as possible the real thing? I would assume that the cockpit in the simulator is the same [or fairly close] as the Real Thing.
Also, training has two parts: Simulation and "real world" trials. Once you are qualified in the sim, the next step is to get time in the actual vehicle. This means that when the "bad guys" get in the real vehicle, they will be that much more comfortable with the situation.
I second the SL-9000. it came with my receiver, and it is *beautiful*. It took me a bit to use, but once set up, it is a thing to behold. It has single button macros, so you can change the TV input, the receiver, and the DVD player all with one click. Not bad.
I was also surprised at the battery life. It has a backlight button, as well as a small LCD display [to show you what mode you are in], and yet the batteries last for well over a year with "normal" use. Not bad at all.
And yes, you want a remote with buttons. fully configurable PDA-like remotes are no good, as you can't "feel" the buttons in the dark, or in the light without looking at the remote.
Apple actually has a "Mac" version of the iPod and a "Windows" version of the iPod. Nowhere does it state that it is a "PC" version. The specs say that it requires a PC running Windows.
Although, with the latest generation of iPods [dockable], I don't even think they make the distinction between W vs. M.
While I understand what you are saying, and while this idea doesn't *quite* fit your problem, The theory is that you can do this [DRF/RSS to XHTML] today, via server-side XSLT.
I too am looking forward to <object> tags and what they can do. I think it will streamline the whole plug-in process.
Having MS decide that they will not update IE prettymuch prevents anyone from adopting it though. Gods, I hate monopolies. The only think I can think of to "break" the MS stranglehold is to purposfully make markup that breaks in IE, complete with a "best viewed with XXXXX" badge. Of course, standards are why we moved away from that bollocks in the first place.
First, I'd like to say, I am enjoying this thread. It's nice to have a rational conversation with someone who can create a good argument. Thanks!
regarding odd user-agents:
If I know it's going to be something used with those, yeah, I can make them scale pretty well.
But isn't that the point? you'll never know how people will view your site. Wanting to deliver content to everyone is a good idea. Why shut someone out? I've said it before, but with CSS you can deliver appropriate content to a user-agent.
That depends on how you manage your content, and how clean your code is. I've worked on sites with thousands of pages with HTML 4 that didn't rely on CSS to be updated quickly. If your content is coming out of a database, it's _really_ easy to just change your output template and be done with it, and avoid the CSS nightmares.
I agree. I am also saying that XHTML and CSS allow you to write cleaner, structural code. Your code can be managed more easily if you separate presentation from structure. Global Find and Replace isn't an elegant solution.
Database-driven sites are prime candidates for CSS, as you can save massive amounts of bandwidth by removing all the extraneous markup needed to style the page. The removal of the tag alone saves quite a bit on each page delivery. Think of it similarly to the stupid MS advert that "saves a nickle"
Now, I'm not advocating that all sites should be done this way, just that it's an option that is more realistic than going to extreme lengths with CSS-based templates. It seems to be an option that too many developers aren't even considering, when in many cases, it could be easily the best fit for their needs. I've been doing this stuff since '94, so I assure you, I know of whence I speak, and I've worked on sites that are frickin' HUGE, to sites that are amazingly small.
The option that is more realistic is the XHTML Transitional doctype. This allows you to still "cheat" and create a table-based layout while using CSS to do the rest. This is the option that most people use, as it is easy to transition to from legacy markup, and works well on legacy browsers [mostly due to the "cheating" described above]. For the record, I've been doing this as long as you have, doing huge sites [and not so huge] sites as well. When you have a site that has millions of pageviews a day, bandwidth becomes a serious issue.
It's too bad that HTML 5 never showed up, but then again, considering the skills of the W3C HTML working group, I doubt it'd have done much good, anyway. *shrug*
There will never be "HTML 5". The successor HTML 4.01 is XHTML 1.0. XHTML 1.1 is out [not Recommended, IIRC] as well, although it is different enough from XHTML 1.0 that makes it incompatible with every user-agent out there [deprecating the "a" and "img" tags, for expample]
Yes, you can make pixel perfect layouts in HTML 4.01 that will work in Netscape and IE.
But what about other browsers, like the browser on your Palm, or the browser hooked into a screen reader, or webTV? Does the layout scale? With CSS it does, both up and down.
I agree with you, in that if you don't update your site, it really doesn't matter what HTML version you code against. But what happens when you want to update your look, but keep the content? You could change your CSS once, in one place, and have a totally new site for all the pages. Using structural XHTML, you have that option.
Yes, I did use those words for a reason, but think about it...
Does it make more sense to create an XHTML/CSS site that can work on *every* browser, even if degraded, or a site that only works on 1 browser, and breaks when you want to update it?
There are many many ways to "hack" the CSS to make things work with IE and the "broken box model". Of course, you shouldn't have to "hack" anything, but that isn't the current reality.
If Wired* and ESPN* and others can pull off complex XHTML/CSS based sites, perhaps you are a bit too picky. That happens, and that isn't anything I can change. I can ask you to consider a CSS layout that works across all browsers as a design limitation. This will allow you to become more creative, with the added bonus of saving bandwidth and easy updating.
*As of this writing, it seems neither ESPN nor wired.com validate using the W3C validator. They are, however, CSS based. Wired's problem seems to be the lack of encoding the & properly in URLs. Blarg!
For the most part, IE 6 supports CSS "well enough". It is possible to create a site that uses XHTML Transitional and CSS that degrades well on all browsers [including the cursed NS4].
The real problem is that UI designers and programmers want to do what they know how to do, rather than consider the alternative.
Take a look at the following sites for additional information:
I checked out the site, and it seems that all of this could be done in plain old CSS. Why change PHP code at all when you can alter the look/position of the widgets in CSS and be done with it.
While most people plop presentation logic in with their PHP code doesn't mean it is the best way to do it. Use PHP to generate XHTML and use CSS to alter the presentation. No javascript needed, no multiple versions of a site for various browsers, no special "light" edition... handle it all in CSS.
I'm a mac user... Well, I always used them to connect to unix iron, but now macs *are* unix iron, so I am a happy camper. I don't do silly casemods, but I do enhance the innards to give it a bit more power.
I am also an SCCA Rally driver [no, not professional], and a Solo I and Solo II driver. My daily driver is a honda accord that I've modified with a Japanese Domestic Market H22A [JDM Prelude], coilovers, lightweight rims, etc. For the most part, this daily driver looks stock [slightly lowered]. The rally car is a Group N [class] WRX. It's the ugliest thing on the road, but *damn* it is fun to drive.
I suggest you check out www.scca.org if you are interested in racing, get into a club and get involved. Just like in the computer universe, being able to bounce ideas off other people is invaluable. Just don't be arrogant. Geeks tend to be a bit thick when it comes to social interaction, especially when the people you may deal with aren't peers intellectually. Do yourself a favour and keep the ears and mind open, and the mouth closed
The "why" in this case, is actually due to the fact that most iApps are very altivec-heavy. The problem with the G5 is that its implimentation of altivec isn't as mature as the 745X series of G4 processors.
The other thing to understand is that once the G5 becomes more mainstream, apps will be compiled for it [things like making sure both FPUs are fed, getting rid of vec_dist instructions in altivec code, etc]. As of this moment, few apps know what a G5 is, and to that end, can't run on it well.
Also, the DV codec either doesn't use Altivec, or doesn't use the 2nd processor.. I can't remember which. I am sure this is in a TIL somewhere
Give it time. All will be right soon enough.
For more reading on the subject, I suggest checking out the various threads of Mac Ach. over at Ars Technica.
Also, Panther shows some *serious* gains when using a G5. Expect the 10.4 to fully exploit the processor. [It has been stated by Apple that Panther/10.3 won't be "fully optimised" for the G5/64 bit]
...and by "it" I mean he's not telling the whole truth.
I have iTMS files on my powerbook. I travel internationally at least once a month, and I have *never* experienced a problem. Once the files are on your HD, they play just as they normally would if you were right at "home"
I have a nasty feeling this is some FUD, clear and simple. After all, this isn't an "article" this was an email.
While reading the various linkage [gasp!!] I came across what looks to be a *very* hot item for fans of Final Fantasy Tactics-style TRPGs [aside from the GBA sequal FF Tactics Advance]
It's called Disgaea: The Hour of Darkness and RPG gamer has a bunch of screens/video on it.
I have to remind myself that that site exists. I don't game much anymore, so I am not usually up on the latest and greatest. That said, I still long for a TRPG similar to the depth of play and plot I found in FFT
What has been nerfed are the old machines that were never really qualified to run OS X, but can be tricked into doing so if you have a 3rd party CPU upgrade card. Of course, there will be hacks to get them to work again. I wouldn't be too worried.
The other thing that you may have heard is that it will be almost impossible for a G=4 machine to be upgraded to a G5. This is because the G5 board architecture is *vastly* different than the G3 and G4. That being said, "impossible" has been done before.
Slashdot Mirror
That sounds kinda cool, but a much better version of that type of game is Enigmo. It's not lasers, it's fluids, and it is done in 3d space.
Brilliant game, full stop.
It comes down to the mac expecting a Firewire DV cam, not a USB cam.
Not to bash Sony, but it figures they would create a DV cam [is it real DV, or some DV-like protocol... check] that *wasn't* firewire/IEEE 1394, despite the fact that they are a member of the 1394 consortium. Does any Mac user remember the Sony Spressa [a painfully bad USB CD-R drive]?
Sony has a habit of tweaking things so they make things as painful as possible for users. For example, their iLink is 4 pin 1394, rather than the *far* more common 6 pin. This means you don't have the option of bus power. Sigh.
My suggestion is to buy a DV cam with a firewire connection. There are many to choose from, and all of them [assuming they register as a DV cam on the firewire bus] will work in OSX
As I do this for a living [like many here], I can say I find the following helpful:
Omnigraffle Pro [for creating "linkable" wireframes, storyboards, and site maps. If you are familiar with Visio, it is similar in functionality.
BBEdit. It doesn't suck. I hand code all my HTML, so it is as tight as possible [while still being readable]. It also allows me to code Valid XHTML. If you are building huge sites, I create HTML and CSS templates in BBEdit and shove the templates into whatever CMS delivery system is used.
Photoshop/ImageReady for image manipulation. ImageReady is brilliant.
QuarkXpress or InDesign for creating documentation [that will be turned into PDFs]
For s/FTP, I use Transmit, because it's a Cocoa app, and as such has some pretty interesting features common to all cocoa apps.
When I need to make presentations, I will use Keynote, as it's a bit easier to deal with than Powerpoint. That said, I try to *never* use either. slide shows suck
Hope this helps
I may be totally out of line, but the idea of single sign-on through tickets/tokens already works rather well with Kerberos. Why not incorporate Kerberos into the Jabber system?
Many people think that Kerberos is very difficult to implement properly, but it doesn't have to be so. Currently Apple makes authentication via Kerberos rather simple.
Perhaps I just don't see a benefit of going with something new/different when something battle tested will fit the bill.
I too have been sucked into the FE reality distortion field. It's a good game for people who like strategy, variably* deep plot and fantasy games.
I am surprised that the other FE games weren't ported over, considering the popularity of strategy and RPG games. Perhaps we'll see a "perfect collection" or something similar in the not-too-distant future.
The game has ups and downs. I find it frustrating that you can't buy items unless you are on a battle map. This means you must create a "pony express" method of sending out party members to the armories, then "trading" backward until the item you want reaches the party member who needs it. There are many other frustrating bits (like the inability to go back to a battle and do it again), but the game is so damned addictive!
* The plot can go into great detail if you choose to use the "support" capability of various characters. Doing so will unlock different endings and increase stats. Of course, you can "opt out" of the deeper plot points by eschewing the "support" capability altogether.
Detecting traffic jams is all well and good, but once there is a jam, there really isn't a hell of a lot you can do about it. On occasion, it may be easier to take another route. More often, another route simply isn't feasible
Apple currently uses GCC to build Panther. As XL is much faster in 95% of the situations, I would imagine that Apple would transition to XL once the Obj-C portions of the compiler were a bit more mature. [The public beta of XLC didn't have any Obj-C support]
The original "Fat Binaries" on the Mac were for 68k/PPC version, however, the idea of the FAT binary is not limited by CPU architecture.
You could easily produce a "Fat Binary" that runs on G3/G4-G5/Alpha/68K/SPARC. That said, it would be one big binary before you stripped it =)
I found the "Millionaire" segment to be rather amusing. They took data from the [then current] stock markets. If you look closely, you can see where the Dow was around that time in 1985 [well below 1000].. contrast to what it is now.
Also, is that not the worst combo toupee/comb-over on the planet?
Although isn't the point of a simulator to simulate as closely as possible the real thing? I would assume that the cockpit in the simulator is the same [or fairly close] as the Real Thing.
Also, training has two parts: Simulation and "real world" trials. Once you are qualified in the sim, the next step is to get time in the actual vehicle. This means that when the "bad guys" get in the real vehicle, they will be that much more comfortable with the situation.
I second the SL-9000. it came with my receiver, and it is *beautiful*. It took me a bit to use, but once set up, it is a thing to behold. It has single button macros, so you can change the TV input, the receiver, and the DVD player all with one click. Not bad.
I was also surprised at the battery life. It has a backlight button, as well as a small LCD display [to show you what mode you are in], and yet the batteries last for well over a year with "normal" use. Not bad at all.
And yes, you want a remote with buttons. fully configurable PDA-like remotes are no good, as you can't "feel" the buttons in the dark, or in the light without looking at the remote.
Apple actually has a "Mac" version of the iPod and a "Windows" version of the iPod. Nowhere does it state that it is a "PC" version. The specs say that it requires a PC running Windows.
Although, with the latest generation of iPods [dockable], I don't even think they make the distinction between W vs. M.
Just a clarification
While I understand what you are saying, and while this idea doesn't *quite* fit your problem, The theory is that you can do this [DRF/RSS to XHTML] today, via server-side XSLT.
I too am looking forward to <object> tags and what they can do. I think it will streamline the whole plug-in process.
Having MS decide that they will not update IE prettymuch prevents anyone from adopting it though. Gods, I hate monopolies. The only think I can think of to "break" the MS stranglehold is to purposfully make markup that breaks in IE, complete with a "best viewed with XXXXX" badge. Of course, standards are why we moved away from that bollocks in the first place.
It's difficult to win in this situation.
point of clarification:
should read:
The removal of the <font> tag alone saves quite a bit on each page delivery.
The Slashdot filter nuked it
First, I'd like to say, I am enjoying this thread. It's nice to have a rational conversation with someone who can create a good argument. Thanks!
regarding odd user-agents:
But isn't that the point? you'll never know how people will view your site. Wanting to deliver content to everyone is a good idea. Why shut someone out? I've said it before, but with CSS you can deliver appropriate content to a user-agent.
I agree. I am also saying that XHTML and CSS allow you to write cleaner, structural code. Your code can be managed more easily if you separate presentation from structure. Global Find and Replace isn't an elegant solution.
Database-driven sites are prime candidates for CSS, as you can save massive amounts of bandwidth by removing all the extraneous markup needed to style the page. The removal of the tag alone saves quite a bit on each page delivery. Think of it similarly to the stupid MS advert that "saves a nickle"
The option that is more realistic is the XHTML Transitional doctype. This allows you to still "cheat" and create a table-based layout while using CSS to do the rest. This is the option that most people use, as it is easy to transition to from legacy markup, and works well on legacy browsers [mostly due to the "cheating" described above]. For the record, I've been doing this as long as you have, doing huge sites [and not so huge] sites as well. When you have a site that has millions of pageviews a day, bandwidth becomes a serious issue.
There will never be "HTML 5". The successor HTML 4.01 is XHTML 1.0. XHTML 1.1 is out [not Recommended, IIRC] as well, although it is different enough from XHTML 1.0 that makes it incompatible with every user-agent out there [deprecating the "a" and "img" tags, for expample]
Yes, you can make pixel perfect layouts in HTML 4.01 that will work in Netscape and IE.
But what about other browsers, like the browser on your Palm, or the browser hooked into a screen reader, or webTV? Does the layout scale? With CSS it does, both up and down.
I agree with you, in that if you don't update your site, it really doesn't matter what HTML version you code against. But what happens when you want to update your look, but keep the content? You could change your CSS once, in one place, and have a totally new site for all the pages. Using structural XHTML, you have that option.
check out http://www.csszengarden.com/ for an example of this in action.
Yes, I did use those words for a reason, but think about it...
Does it make more sense to create an XHTML/CSS site that can work on *every* browser, even if degraded, or a site that only works on 1 browser, and breaks when you want to update it?
There are many many ways to "hack" the CSS to make things work with IE and the "broken box model". Of course, you shouldn't have to "hack" anything, but that isn't the current reality.
If Wired* and ESPN* and others can pull off complex XHTML/CSS based sites, perhaps you are a bit too picky. That happens, and that isn't anything I can change. I can ask you to consider a CSS layout that works across all browsers as a design limitation. This will allow you to become more creative, with the added bonus of saving bandwidth and easy updating.
*As of this writing, it seems neither ESPN nor wired.com validate using the W3C validator. They are, however, CSS based. Wired's problem seems to be the lack of encoding the & properly in URLs. Blarg!
For the most part, IE 6 supports CSS "well enough". It is possible to create a site that uses XHTML Transitional and CSS that degrades well on all browsers [including the cursed NS4].
The real problem is that UI designers and programmers want to do what they know how to do, rather than consider the alternative.
Take a look at the following sites for additional information:
I checked out the site, and it seems that all of this could be done in plain old CSS. Why change PHP code at all when you can alter the look/position of the widgets in CSS and be done with it.
While most people plop presentation logic in with their PHP code doesn't mean it is the best way to do it. Use PHP to generate XHTML and use CSS to alter the presentation. No javascript needed, no multiple versions of a site for various browsers, no special "light" edition... handle it all in CSS.
Use standards, people!
I'm a mac user... Well, I always used them to connect to unix iron, but now macs *are* unix iron, so I am a happy camper. I don't do silly casemods, but I do enhance the innards to give it a bit more power.
I am also an SCCA Rally driver [no, not professional], and a Solo I and Solo II driver. My daily driver is a honda accord that I've modified with a Japanese Domestic Market H22A [JDM Prelude], coilovers, lightweight rims, etc. For the most part, this daily driver looks stock [slightly lowered]. The rally car is a Group N [class] WRX. It's the ugliest thing on the road, but *damn* it is fun to drive.
I suggest you check out www.scca.org if you are interested in racing, get into a club and get involved. Just like in the computer universe, being able to bounce ideas off other people is invaluable. Just don't be arrogant. Geeks tend to be a bit thick when it comes to social interaction, especially when the people you may deal with aren't peers intellectually. Do yourself a favour and keep the ears and mind open, and the mouth closed
The other thing to understand is that once the G5 becomes more mainstream, apps will be compiled for it [things like making sure both FPUs are fed, getting rid of vec_dist instructions in altivec code, etc]. As of this moment, few apps know what a G5 is, and to that end, can't run on it well.
Also, the DV codec either doesn't use Altivec, or doesn't use the 2nd processor.. I can't remember which. I am sure this is in a TIL somewhere
Give it time. All will be right soon enough.
For more reading on the subject, I suggest checking out the various threads of Mac Ach. over at Ars Technica.
Also, Panther shows some *serious* gains when using a G5. Expect the 10.4 to fully exploit the processor. [It has been stated by Apple that Panther/10.3 won't be "fully optimised" for the G5/64 bit]
...and by "it" I mean he's not telling the whole truth.
I have iTMS files on my powerbook. I travel internationally at least once a month, and I have *never* experienced a problem. Once the files are on your HD, they play just as they normally would if you were right at "home"
I have a nasty feeling this is some FUD, clear and simple. After all, this isn't an "article" this was an email.
Sigh.
no rumours.. it's in Panther. Just wait 2 months
It's called Disgaea: The Hour of Darkness and RPG gamer has a bunch of screens/video on it. I have to remind myself that that site exists. I don't game much anymore, so I am not usually up on the latest and greatest. That said, I still long for a TRPG similar to the depth of play and plot I found in FFT
You heard incorrectly.
What has been nerfed are the old machines that were never really qualified to run OS X, but can be tricked into doing so if you have a 3rd party CPU upgrade card. Of course, there will be hacks to get them to work again. I wouldn't be too worried.
The other thing that you may have heard is that it will be almost impossible for a G=4 machine to be upgraded to a G5. This is because the G5 board architecture is *vastly* different than the G3 and G4. That being said, "impossible" has been done before.