In the last 10-15 years, if the same track appears on several different albums, it likely is mastered differently, or it may be a different mix all together.
If you sort by album, it really is not cluttered at all.
They chose the best approach to this. I would want to see each album the song appears on.
Here in Canada I can't buy squat from the iTunes Music Store, but I have been playing with it since it 'opened for business' - we can preview, but not actually buy anything outside of the U.S.
If I was allowed to buy, I probably would have purchased 10-20 songs by now.
Yes I have Acquisition (a really sweet Mac Gnutella client), and I have the usual assortment of piracy^H^H^H^H^H^H file sharing tools for Windows, but in that sea of file searching it's easy to lose one's vision of a really nice way to download music.
For example: I figured I would try to find some old Tears For Fears music. In the search field I just typed "Tears For Fears". In less than 5 seconds I had a track listing of 6 different Tears For Fears albums, including tracks I never knew they had done (did you know they covered Bowie's 'Ashes to Ashes'?)
Let me say this another way to better illustrate just how cool it is: it was EVERY ALBUM TRACK, listed only ONCE. I pick the song and I get it, really fast. With a file sharing app I pick from a list of thousands of different rips of the same songs, all of varying quality. I hit download, and maybe the host is slow. Maybe I get a "swarmed" download that won't be reconstructed properly when it gets here. Maybe it won't even really be the song I think I'm downloading. Maybe I get "remotely queued". Maybe it looked like a good bitrate before I downloaded it, but it turned out to be a crappy rip.
On the Apple service I hit "play" and I'm previewing the music in real time. I hit "download" and I've got the actual song I want, with no glitches.
Seriously - with these advantages, plus the fact that it is actually legal, I can't see why people wouldn't shell out a buck a song.
Like everybody else I hope Apple creates an indy section, maybe even something iDisk-based so that.Mac users can peddle their wares through the online store. I hope their selection grows quickly (yes there's a lot of stuff missing right now). I hope they increase their bitrate (I can hear the difference between the streamed previews and actual CD's). The DRM is not ideal, but in practice it's not imposing. Windows version is coming soon....And... dammit... bring it to Canada! iWant to go shopping!!!
I still use my hockey-puck mouse with my 1st-generation AGP G4. I have no problem with it at all, and somehow I am just as productive as people I know with many times more buttons on their mice.
It's not about the number of buttons on your mouse as much as the way you grow accustomed to working. Windows and X just don't really work with 1-button mice. They require you to right-click on things to get to certain places. Mac OS in contrast does not.
Occasionally the context-menu under the right mouse button is handy. I carry a 2-button Logitech scroll mouse with my iBook, which I use for most oddball OS X tasks. My tower is primarily focused on music and video stuff, so I don't spend a lot of time navigating through piles of apps - I use a few apps which simply gain no benefit from a 2-button mouse.
In fact, I must admit that sometimes with my 2-button mouse I will be moving it to the right and crash into something that is on my desk and inadvertently end up right-clicking something and choosing an option from the context menu as my finger comes up. This is annoying as hell, and sometimes I find myself cursing the existence of that right button!
On the other side of the coin, being able to "remote control" all your running apps from the Dock is really cool. But ctrl-click on a 1-button mouse really seems just as easy to me -- if I'm really intense into some work I will generally have a hand resting on the keyboard anyway.
The moral of the story: who really cares. Buy the mouse you want. You don't like the mouse that comes with your Mac? Well..... Apple I suppose really ought to make a BTO option to subtract the mouse and/or keyboard from a new computer for a small savings.
KOffice may not be the best suite out there, but by providing an OS X port, there is a much stronger motivation to develop KOffice.
Everybody benefits: another title for the Mac, it's free (as in beer), expanded KOffice user base, yet another reason for Mac users to use Fink, freedom of choice.....
It's an exciting time to be a Mac user. I honestly would not be surprised to hear that applications are becoming available to Mac users faster than new apps are being developed for Windows. In other words, the list of Mac-compatible desktop software titles may be growing at a faster rate than the list of Windows titles.
Apple buys Universal, cuts out 90% of the sleazy middle-man distributors by steering that distribution revenue to Akamai, from which Apple will benefit.
Let the actual music-store sales of CDs fade into oblivion where it belongs as it is grotesquely undercut by Apple's new music distribution service, which operates with only bandwidth as an expense - no worries about costly shipping, manufacturing and logistics.
The music distribution service has hooks into Apple's already attractive personal solutions (iTunes, iPod,.mac) making these products even more attractive to customers.
Universal benefits because it is first to jump on board and has a premier business relationship with Apple's new killer service, giving it a (slight) advantage over other labels who may have to pay a slightly higher premium to use the first ever legal on-line music distribution system that is effective and "just works".
If Apple/Universal does this properly (by playing the right cards at the right time), they will be laughing all the way to the bank.
If you are referring to running into this problem before the Finder was scriptable, then you are talking about before 1995, before there was a mainstream desktop *nix to achieve your task.
Besides, there will always be special cases when a particular application will require a different approach. I am referring to desktop productivity, while your batch renaming requirement seems more like system administration to me. (And you could have tried one of many shareware file browsing and/or batch-renaming utilities which even then were plentiful for the Mac).
As a creative professional dealing with lots of graphics and audio files, I felt more in touch with my stuff with OS 9 than I do with OS X. I found my files and launched them faster. I grabbed big handfulls of files (often by just positioning them to be close together in a window and rubber-band selecting the ones I want) and then dragged them into a different folder.
Let's say you have a dozen files in a folder, mixed in with other files, and they all have completely different names. I want to move the files "Picasso", "Monet" and "Matisse" into a folder one level up called "painted works", and I want to move "Devo", "Smashing Pumpkins" and "Beethoven" into a folder called "music". I want to leave all of the remaining files (some logos and my downloaded Elvis songs) in the folder I currently have. How would you do this quickly with a "symbolic command interface"?
This is stuff that desktop power-users need to be able to do with their eyes closed. Using Mac OS 9 I could do all that in about 5 seconds and carry on a conversation with somebody at the same time.
One small error, one huge error
on
A Better Finder?
·
· Score: 1
On the finder-4 page Sircusa states that paths were never seen by the user in Classic Mac OS. In fact, the exception to this is in "Get Info" windows. A minor quibble, but "never" is a strong word.
Also, In the very first (mock?) screen shot, Mr. Sircusa will have to blame something other than his photoshop skills for this omission! That "Library" folder icon's appearance hasn't changed in any way to indicate that it is open in another window elsewhere on the screen. To me, that's a very big deal, especially in the context of his article, which emphasises the importance of a "connection" between a folder and its Finder window.
Apart from that, I agree with most of the article, and I think John puts into words what so many Mac users have difficulty explaining.
I know I should probably be posting this on Ars, but I don't have an account there, and historically John S. has always checked the/. responses to his articles. John if you're reading I'd like to know what you think.
Re:OS X Finder Laundry List - Please add yours.
on
A Better Finder?
·
· Score: 1
Empty trash dialog: In OS 9 when you chose empty trash the dialog would tell you how many items it contains and how much space it takes up. In OS X we get nothing more than an "are you sure" warning.
Now, there is a problem with spatial locations. Specifically, I can't remember the location of EVERY HOUSE AND BUILDING IN THE F*CKING CITY. Given that I have 100GB on line, in 60,000+ documents, and piles more on tape, I can't remember each file. What I do is give each of these and ADDRESS, just like my house has an ADDRESS. We have directories (on-line and off-line) that let us retrieve the location given the address. In other words, to manage larger pieces of data, people resort to EXACTELY the scheme that OSX uses (and most other modern GUIs). Also, addresses can be manipulated symbolically.
Once you know the address, you use a map to find the house. And after you've travelled there a few times, you "know the way" to the house. You may forget street names, but you still know where to turn.
This is the kind of natural interaction with your files Sircusa is referring to. If you think in terms of path names you largely defeat the purpose of having a GUI in the first place. This is what non-Mac users just "don't get" when we refer to ease of use, because it's not easily explained.
To really appreciate Sircusa's article you have to have used the Classic Mac OS Finder, in a productive environment, for some time. To me there is not a more natural way to handle your files and folders. I don't think it's possible for it to be explained any better than it has been explained on Ars, and if you still disagree, you really have to experience it first-hand.
To this date there is no better user interface for general-purpose file navigation and administration than the classic Mac OS Finder.
A single-processor G4 machine gains little, if any speed by using DDR memory, so at present that should not be a deciding factor for you.
The 15" Ti book does accomodate more memory and has a PC card slot, but it is getting a little long in the tooth now that the newer aluminum enclosures seem to be preferred by the mobile Mac community. (The 15" Titanium PB has a painted covering which tends to flake or chip off after a while).
If you like the smaller footprint and can deal with the single RAM slot, go with the 12", it's a great laptop. If you need a bigger screen and don't want/can't afford the "lunch tray" 17-inch, you might do well to wait and see if the rumors are true: a revised 15" model is reported to be in the pipes, which will have a larger (15.4") display, an aluminum enclosure, DDR, and airport extreme. This is, of course, speculation.
Personally I'm still jazzed with my virtually flawless 500 MHz iBook (G3), and will be for some time.
J. Frank Parnell : Radiation, yes indeed! You hear the most outrageous lies about it. Half-baked goggle-boxed do-gooders telling everybody it's bad for you. Pernicious nonsense! Everybody could stand a hundred chest X-rays a year. Ought to have 'em too. When they canceled the project it almost did me in. One day my mind was ready to burst. The next day nothing swept away. But I showed them. I had a lobotomy in the end.
Otto: Lobotomy. Isn't that for loonies?
J. Frank Parnell: Not at all. A friend of mine had one. Designer of the neutron bomb. Ever hear of the neutron bomb? Destroys people. Leaves buildings standing. And it fits in a suit case. It's so small no one knows it's there until blamo. Eyes melt skin explodes everybody dead. It's so immoral working on the thing can drive you mad. That's what happened to this friend of mine. So he had a lobotomy. Now he's well again.
Otto: What kind of car does your friend drive?
J. Frank Parnell: Chevy Malibu.
Otto: This is really a nice old car. Why don't you let me drive?
J. Frank Parnell: What do you mean?
Otto: Well I don't know. I mean ah!. Don't you feel funny.?
J. Frank Parnell: Why should I feel funny? The two hemispheres are fundamentally at odds. Hemisphere, Hemisphere. You know it's strange. I do feel-
Given that the fastest Mac has DDR266 memory and it's not banked for parallel access or otherwise arranged for additional benefit, what aspect of the G4 architecture do you believe should be giving it an edge in these bandwidth-constrained tasks?
Off the top of my head I can think of the shorter pipeline and AltiVec. But, should the G4 have an "edge"? Who really cares?
Years ago, the Mac platform had the edge in performance and clock speed thanks to Power Computing's "Power Tower Pro 200". At that time nobody was whining that Windows has to switch to PPC in order to remain viable.
The "honest answer", the most relevant thing I can add to this, is that the PPC architecture and the Pentium architecture tend to leapfrog each other every few years, and right now it looks like PPC is losing by a small margin.
I'm not holding my breath, but IBM's 970 and other iterations of the "Power 4" line may well tip the scales slightly in the other direction. For a little while, at least.
Before Steve Jobs re-joined Apple he was interviewed in Rolling Stone (I think, or maybe it was Spin), and when asked how he felt about Apple's move to PowerPC architecture his response was that he was happy for Apple, because now they've got a Pentium of their own. Of course he was with NeXT at the time, but the point is that Apple, Motorola and Intel really don't care that much who is making faster machines, as long as they're marketable as being as fast as they can be.
Battling over processor speed is just what Intel/AMD/Motorola/IBM would like us to be doing, because of the few of us who are really qualified to say which architecture is faster, an even smaller percentage of those people realize just how moot the point is.
A slight Wintel performance edge is not going to have thousands of Mac users rushing over to the other side. And it isn't performance that makes Windows users switch to Mac.
I just see their methodology as odd... according to the article:
On the bus, the phone is plugged into a laptop that acts as a server for other machines on board.
Well doesn't that seem sort of backwards? Since it's a bus with space and power constraints, shouldn't you set up the workstations as laptops but have a fixed, tower server?
Nitpicking aside, 3G is definitely cool technology, but I'll wait until I see thousands of people trying to suck data at those kinds of speeds all from the same tower site before I become too impressed.
Think about it: a Windows licence is a Windows licence. MS makes nothing from the hardware. So regardless of whether you've spent $250 on a pieced-together jalopy of an i386-compatible clone or $2500 on a tricked-out Mac, you are still eligible for a copy of Windows.
Following this train of thought, it is in Microsoft's best interests to have VPC for Mac work very, very well, because it expands the installed base of Windows users and makes more money in licences for MS. And it (ugh) ensures the software market that they only need to write a Windows app to have it compatible on every home desktop.
MS's best move would be to improve Mac VPC's performance but not to improve its integration with Mac OS. In fact if I were MS I would probably create a Mac-hardware-bootable VPC that doesn't work with Mac OS.
It's sad, I agree, but it's a more realistic speculation than VPC for Mac just being discontinued. That would only be a detriment to Windows marketshare.
Could you be more specific about the exact finder ftp bug of which you speak?
I find that accessing ftp sites using the "connect to..." option is slow, and will only allow me to download (no uploads).
I can't find any documentation anywhere about the OS X Finder's ftp functionality and what I should and should not be able to do. Any advice would be much appreciated.
BTW I have not yet installed 10.2.4 (I'm not at my own machine right now), but if anybody could offer me any insight into this I'd be most grateful.
Well, I think it's official now; the letter X has been overused. First, we had X11 and all the things named after that, then Window XP and OS X. Now Xserve?
Well I have updated my iMovie and taken the new one for a whirl...
I was initially excited to hear about the resizeable window, because the previous (full screen) iMovie just looked stupid at resolutions above 1024 x 768. Big voids of space between the three main elements (the timeline, the bin, the viewer) just made using higher screen resolutions a pain, so I would always scale down my screen just to run iMovie.
I figured the resizeable window would be great, but when I make it fill my screen, the viewer gets bigger while the clip bin and the timeline don't expand at all. I would really like to see it expand so that you could see more thumbnails without having to scroll, but instead you just get a GIANT preview screen.
I find the single-window nature of iMovie to be very limiting. I know, I know, it's a consumer app, it's supposed to be very simple for very simple people, but I was always under the impression power is supposed to lurk behind the simplicity for those who need it.
If Apple is going to keep iMovie all in one window, they should make the panes between the screen elements moveable as well, so that I can have a bigger bin when I need it, and then make it small at my whim so I can watch a bigger preview.
Slashdot Mirror
In the last 10-15 years, if the same track appears on several different albums, it likely is mastered differently, or it may be a different mix all together.
If you sort by album, it really is not cluttered at all.
They chose the best approach to this. I would want to see each album the song appears on.
Acquisition is a really sweet Mac OS X Gnutella client.
Here in Canada I can't buy squat from the iTunes Music Store, but I have been playing with it since it 'opened for business' - we can preview, but not actually buy anything outside of the U.S.
.Mac users can peddle their wares through the online store. I hope their selection grows quickly (yes there's a lot of stuff missing right now). I hope they increase their bitrate (I can hear the difference between the streamed previews and actual CD's). The DRM is not ideal, but in practice it's not imposing. Windows version is coming soon. ...And... dammit... bring it to Canada! iWant to go shopping!!!
If I was allowed to buy, I probably would have purchased 10-20 songs by now.
Yes I have Acquisition (a really sweet Mac Gnutella client), and I have the usual assortment of piracy^H^H^H^H^H^H file sharing tools for Windows, but in that sea of file searching it's easy to lose one's vision of a really nice way to download music.
For example: I figured I would try to find some old Tears For Fears music. In the search field I just typed "Tears For Fears". In less than 5 seconds I had a track listing of 6 different Tears For Fears albums, including tracks I never knew they had done (did you know they covered Bowie's 'Ashes to Ashes'?)
Let me say this another way to better illustrate just how cool it is: it was EVERY ALBUM TRACK, listed only ONCE. I pick the song and I get it, really fast. With a file sharing app I pick from a list of thousands of different rips of the same songs, all of varying quality. I hit download, and maybe the host is slow. Maybe I get a "swarmed" download that won't be reconstructed properly when it gets here. Maybe it won't even really be the song I think I'm downloading. Maybe I get "remotely queued". Maybe it looked like a good bitrate before I downloaded it, but it turned out to be a crappy rip.
On the Apple service I hit "play" and I'm previewing the music in real time. I hit "download" and I've got the actual song I want, with no glitches.
Seriously - with these advantages, plus the fact that it is actually legal, I can't see why people wouldn't shell out a buck a song.
Like everybody else I hope Apple creates an indy section, maybe even something iDisk-based so that
I still use my hockey-puck mouse with my 1st-generation AGP G4. I have no problem with it at all, and somehow I am just as productive as people I know with many times more buttons on their mice.
It's not about the number of buttons on your mouse as much as the way you grow accustomed to working. Windows and X just don't really work with 1-button mice. They require you to right-click on things to get to certain places. Mac OS in contrast does not.
Occasionally the context-menu under the right mouse button is handy. I carry a 2-button Logitech scroll mouse with my iBook, which I use for most oddball OS X tasks. My tower is primarily focused on music and video stuff, so I don't spend a lot of time navigating through piles of apps - I use a few apps which simply gain no benefit from a 2-button mouse.
In fact, I must admit that sometimes with my 2-button mouse I will be moving it to the right and crash into something that is on my desk and inadvertently end up right-clicking something and choosing an option from the context menu as my finger comes up. This is annoying as hell, and sometimes I find myself cursing the existence of that right button!
On the other side of the coin, being able to "remote control" all your running apps from the Dock is really cool. But ctrl-click on a 1-button mouse really seems just as easy to me -- if I'm really intense into some work I will generally have a hand resting on the keyboard anyway.
The moral of the story: who really cares. Buy the mouse you want. You don't like the mouse that comes with your Mac? Well..... Apple I suppose really ought to make a BTO option to subtract the mouse and/or keyboard from a new computer for a small savings.
Why would you need to do that??? (wink, wink)
Everybody benefits: another title for the Mac, it's free (as in beer), expanded KOffice user base, yet another reason for Mac users to use Fink, freedom of choice.....
It's an exciting time to be a Mac user. I honestly would not be surprised to hear that applications are becoming available to Mac users faster than new apps are being developed for Windows. In other words, the list of Mac-compatible desktop software titles may be growing at a faster rate than the list of Windows titles.
If that HD is packaged in an MP3 player we will have to pay a huge levy on that gigabyte.
Let the actual music-store sales of CDs fade into oblivion where it belongs as it is grotesquely undercut by Apple's new music distribution service, which operates with only bandwidth as an expense - no worries about costly shipping, manufacturing and logistics.
The music distribution service has hooks into Apple's already attractive personal solutions (iTunes, iPod, .mac) making these products even more attractive to customers.
Universal benefits because it is first to jump on board and has a premier business relationship with Apple's new killer service, giving it a (slight) advantage over other labels who may have to pay a slightly higher premium to use the first ever legal on-line music distribution system that is effective and "just works".
If Apple/Universal does this properly (by playing the right cards at the right time), they will be laughing all the way to the bank.
Given the choice, I would rather take a 750-page book into the bathroom than my iBook. (The iBook gets a little warm on my left leg)
I just checked the link, out of curiosity, and it has been pulled from Adobe's site.
/. for the sake of posterity :)
I post this to
Besides, there will always be special cases when a particular application will require a different approach. I am referring to desktop productivity, while your batch renaming requirement seems more like system administration to me. (And you could have tried one of many shareware file browsing and/or batch-renaming utilities which even then were plentiful for the Mac).
As a creative professional dealing with lots of graphics and audio files, I felt more in touch with my stuff with OS 9 than I do with OS X. I found my files and launched them faster. I grabbed big handfulls of files (often by just positioning them to be close together in a window and rubber-band selecting the ones I want) and then dragged them into a different folder.
Let's say you have a dozen files in a folder, mixed in with other files, and they all have completely different names. I want to move the files "Picasso", "Monet" and "Matisse" into a folder one level up called "painted works", and I want to move "Devo", "Smashing Pumpkins" and "Beethoven" into a folder called "music". I want to leave all of the remaining files (some logos and my downloaded Elvis songs) in the folder I currently have. How would you do this quickly with a "symbolic command interface"?
This is stuff that desktop power-users need to be able to do with their eyes closed. Using Mac OS 9 I could do all that in about 5 seconds and carry on a conversation with somebody at the same time.
Pardon me, could you be a little more vague?
Also, In the very first (mock?) screen shot, Mr. Sircusa will have to blame something other than his photoshop skills for this omission! That "Library" folder icon's appearance hasn't changed in any way to indicate that it is open in another window elsewhere on the screen. To me, that's a very big deal, especially in the context of his article, which emphasises the importance of a "connection" between a folder and its Finder window.
Apart from that, I agree with most of the article, and I think John puts into words what so many Mac users have difficulty explaining.
I know I should probably be posting this on Ars, but I don't have an account there, and historically John S. has always checked the /. responses to his articles. John if you're reading I'd like to know what you think.
Empty trash dialog: In OS 9 when you chose empty trash the dialog would tell you how many items it contains and how much space it takes up. In OS X we get nothing more than an "are you sure" warning.
Once you know the address, you use a map to find the house. And after you've travelled there a few times, you "know the way" to the house. You may forget street names, but you still know where to turn.
This is the kind of natural interaction with your files Sircusa is referring to. If you think in terms of path names you largely defeat the purpose of having a GUI in the first place. This is what non-Mac users just "don't get" when we refer to ease of use, because it's not easily explained.
To really appreciate Sircusa's article you have to have used the Classic Mac OS Finder, in a productive environment, for some time. To me there is not a more natural way to handle your files and folders. I don't think it's possible for it to be explained any better than it has been explained on Ars, and if you still disagree, you really have to experience it first-hand.
To this date there is no better user interface for general-purpose file navigation and administration than the classic Mac OS Finder.
A single-processor G4 machine gains little, if any speed by using DDR memory, so at present that should not be a deciding factor for you.
The 15" Ti book does accomodate more memory and has a PC card slot, but it is getting a little long in the tooth now that the newer aluminum enclosures seem to be preferred by the mobile Mac community. (The 15" Titanium PB has a painted covering which tends to flake or chip off after a while).
If you like the smaller footprint and can deal with the single RAM slot, go with the 12", it's a great laptop. If you need a bigger screen and don't want/can't afford the "lunch tray" 17-inch, you might do well to wait and see if the rumors are true: a revised 15" model is reported to be in the pipes, which will have a larger (15.4") display, an aluminum enclosure, DDR, and airport extreme. This is, of course, speculation.
Personally I'm still jazzed with my virtually flawless 500 MHz iBook (G3), and will be for some time.
J. Frank Parnell
: Radiation, yes indeed! You hear the most outrageous lies about it. Half-baked goggle-boxed do-gooders telling everybody it's bad for you. Pernicious nonsense! Everybody could stand a hundred chest X-rays a year. Ought to have 'em too. When they canceled the project it almost did me in. One day my mind was ready to burst. The next day nothing swept away. But I showed them. I had a lobotomy in the end.
Otto:
Lobotomy. Isn't that for loonies?
J. Frank Parnell:
Not at all. A friend of mine had one. Designer of the neutron bomb. Ever hear of the neutron bomb? Destroys people. Leaves buildings standing. And it fits in a suit case. It's so small no one knows it's there until blamo. Eyes melt skin explodes everybody dead. It's so immoral working on the thing can drive you mad. That's what happened to this friend of mine. So he had a lobotomy. Now he's well again.
Otto:
What kind of car does your friend drive?
J. Frank Parnell:
Chevy Malibu.
Otto:
This is really a nice old car. Why don't you let me drive?
J. Frank Parnell:
What do you mean?
Otto:
Well I don't know. I mean ah!. Don't you feel funny.?
J. Frank Parnell:
Why should I feel funny? The two hemispheres are fundamentally at odds. Hemisphere, Hemisphere. You know it's strange. I do feel-
Off the top of my head I can think of the shorter pipeline and AltiVec. But, should the G4 have an "edge"? Who really cares?
Years ago, the Mac platform had the edge in performance and clock speed thanks to Power Computing's "Power Tower Pro 200". At that time nobody was whining that Windows has to switch to PPC in order to remain viable.
The "honest answer", the most relevant thing I can add to this, is that the PPC architecture and the Pentium architecture tend to leapfrog each other every few years, and right now it looks like PPC is losing by a small margin.
I'm not holding my breath, but IBM's 970 and other iterations of the "Power 4" line may well tip the scales slightly in the other direction. For a little while, at least.
Before Steve Jobs re-joined Apple he was interviewed in Rolling Stone (I think, or maybe it was Spin), and when asked how he felt about Apple's move to PowerPC architecture his response was that he was happy for Apple, because now they've got a Pentium of their own. Of course he was with NeXT at the time, but the point is that Apple, Motorola and Intel really don't care that much who is making faster machines, as long as they're marketable as being as fast as they can be.
Battling over processor speed is just what Intel/AMD/Motorola/IBM would like us to be doing, because of the few of us who are really qualified to say which architecture is faster, an even smaller percentage of those people realize just how moot the point is.
A slight Wintel performance edge is not going to have thousands of Mac users rushing over to the other side. And it isn't performance that makes Windows users switch to Mac.
Please do me a favour and don't get a Mac, because you might like it, and we Mac zealots rely on the fact that Mac-haters are weenies like you.
Nitpicking aside, 3G is definitely cool technology, but I'll wait until I see thousands of people trying to suck data at those kinds of speeds all from the same tower site before I become too impressed.
Isn't Time-Warner, AOL's parent company, a member of the RIAA?
Didn't the RIAA refuse to allow Napster to proceed when they proposed a nearly identical business model?
Man, this stinks.
MS would be DUMB to drop VPC for Mac.
Think about it: a Windows licence is a Windows licence. MS makes nothing from the hardware. So regardless of whether you've spent $250 on a pieced-together jalopy of an i386-compatible clone or $2500 on a tricked-out Mac, you are still eligible for a copy of Windows.
Following this train of thought, it is in Microsoft's best interests to have VPC for Mac work very, very well, because it expands the installed base of Windows users and makes more money in licences for MS. And it (ugh) ensures the software market that they only need to write a Windows app to have it compatible on every home desktop.
MS's best move would be to improve Mac VPC's performance but not to improve its integration with Mac OS. In fact if I were MS I would probably create a Mac-hardware-bootable VPC that doesn't work with Mac OS.
It's sad, I agree, but it's a more realistic speculation than VPC for Mac just being discontinued. That would only be a detriment to Windows marketshare.
I find that accessing ftp sites using the "connect to..." option is slow, and will only allow me to download (no uploads).
I can't find any documentation anywhere about the OS X Finder's ftp functionality and what I should and should not be able to do. Any advice would be much appreciated.
BTW I have not yet installed 10.2.4 (I'm not at my own machine right now), but if anybody could offer me any insight into this I'd be most grateful.
Sorry, but iDisagree.
Well I have updated my iMovie and taken the new one for a whirl...
I was initially excited to hear about the resizeable window, because the previous (full screen) iMovie just looked stupid at resolutions above 1024 x 768. Big voids of space between the three main elements (the timeline, the bin, the viewer) just made using higher screen resolutions a pain, so I would always scale down my screen just to run iMovie.
I figured the resizeable window would be great, but when I make it fill my screen, the viewer gets bigger while the clip bin and the timeline don't expand at all. I would really like to see it expand so that you could see more thumbnails without having to scroll, but instead you just get a GIANT preview screen.
I find the single-window nature of iMovie to be very limiting. I know, I know, it's a consumer app, it's supposed to be very simple for very simple people, but I was always under the impression power is supposed to lurk behind the simplicity for those who need it.
If Apple is going to keep iMovie all in one window, they should make the panes between the screen elements moveable as well, so that I can have a bigger bin when I need it, and then make it small at my whim so I can watch a bigger preview.