There is not a Shoutcast-branded encoder available for the Mac. Only the server (i.e. "reflector") is available for Mac, although QuickTime Streaming Server also does this.
QuickTime broadcaster can do audio-only streaming.
I own a G4/350 sawtooth, the first-generation AGP G4's. The Sonnet dual-processor upgrade is not compatible with my machine, because the Uni-N ASIC on my motherboard does not have the required firmware to run dual processors. So to my knowledge, my machine capped at 500 MHz, and that's not great by today's standards.
With this new upgrade, suddenly the market value of my G4/350 is improved significantly. It's upgradeable to a GHz, and faster as new processors come on the market, according to PowerLogix.
I am very curious to see benchmarks on this stuff. For example I wonder how well a 1 GHz upgrade to my system with a 100 MHz system bus would stand up against a current G4/933 with a 133 MHz bus. (It would be unfair to pit it against a current shipping GHz machine as they have two processors).
I will also still be stuck with ATA/66 (it's ATA/100 in the new models I think), 2x AGP (vs. 4x in the new models). In the my field (music) I don't believe the ATA and AGP are a big issue, and I don't know if a 33% bus speed increase will translate to a big performance improvement.
I'll be keeping an eye on Bare Feats, an awesome Mac benchmarking site that answers a lot of those little nagging questions about performance.
There are plenty of high capacity MP3 players out there (Nomad, Terapin etc.) and a few medium capacity ones too (e.g. NEX II which is IBM Microdrive compatible).
Sure, it looks nice enough but when you can get a player with 20Gb of storage for less money, I can't see the attraction.
Hmmm, you're right. It's a music player that you wear. So sound quality, size and looks certainly wouldn't be an issue.
It's a lifestyle device, so I couldn't see any reason why durability, intuitiveness and ease-of-use would be motivating factors.
You transfer tons of data to it from your computer, so I can't see why anybody would be swayed by the FireWire connection.
You're right! iPod is no big deal! Count me in for a Pimptek MTMP3-2001, it's got an extra 10 gigs! More ugly buttons too! I need my MP3 player to hold more than two weeks' worth of music. If the specs are there... if it looks better on paper... it must be!
The lack of a version of Final Cut Pro for Intel platforms has seriously annoyed me for a while.... Limiting one of the best video editing packages to ~10% of the possible market is missing a big oppurtunity.
"Market share" is irrelevant here. Somebody in need of a pro video edit solution will be looking at hardware and software at the same time. So Apple wants to not only sell them FCP but also a system. Yes, professionals who need the functionality of Final Cut Pro will buy a G4 just to run it, and as far as Apple is concerned, the Wintel video people can either buy a Mac or drool over it.
To bring this back on topic, Apple has achieved the same status with the iPod. There is still no better all-around solution. Yes there are players with more storage, but nothing has the same combination of speed, software integration, size, sound quality (everybody seems to forget that!) and UI elegance of the iPod. People are already aware of this.
People in the know are also be aware that Apple is quite free to make updates to the iPod with no regard for whether it breaks functionality with third-party software!
Once again Apple comes out smelling like a rose. Yes you can hook an iPod up to your PC using this clever software hack and a FireWire card. The software is still not iTunes, so ultimately the user will have a different, likely inferior, experience to that which was initially designed into this stuff. The Apple solution looks simple, quick and sexy, while the Wintel solution looks clumsy by comparison. This is exactly the image Apple wants to portray right now: PC's are about megabytes, megahertz, slots, ports, chipsets and upgrades, while Macs are about music, video, internet, photography, graphics and productivity. Price and raw specs be damned - just look at their new "switch" campaign!
You have not tried iPhoto, iMovie, iDVD and iTunes. If you had, you would realize Mac OS X is a competely different animal from previous OS efforts from Apple, and would not be arguing about using Conflict Catcher to fix machines.
So, let me ask you: which applications on the PC let you download images from your digital camera, sort them into albums, publish to a web page and order hardcover books as effectively as iPhoto?
Which PC apps do DV capture, edit, and dump as seamlessly as iMovie (i.e. all within one working environment)?
Which PC DVD authoring apps make it simple for consumers to create beautiful, tasteful DVDs, with software integration as effective as that of iDVD and iMovie?
Which PC music player / playlist management / CD-ripping and burning app automatically synchronizes its own playlists with your personal hard disk-based MP3 player at FireWire speeds?
The iApps are elegant, powerful and bundled for free with the Mac. They have their own unique features which are not found on any other computer, at any price. Please tell me which PC apps are "just as good".
People who read charts like that should stay away from Macs. You're missing the point entirely.
What the chart fails to mention is which one runs Photoshop and Excel. Which one requires the fewest steps to encode a CD to MP3. Which one has a flat panel display you can just nudge up out of your way. Which one is fastest from pulling it out of the box to editing your home videos. Which one has the best color synchronization.
Really, do you really think that the people in the Apple ads care about local communication latencies in microseconds, or memory latencies in nanoseconds. If you care about this stuff, please run Linux, and stop bringing up irrelevant facts to argue against the Mac's most important merit: useability. Above all else - speed, price, variety of software titles etc., which system makes your life easier, as opposed to which is better as an end unto itself.
That's ridiculous. Open Source software, as good as it may be, will not be used for mission-critical applications such as air traffic control in the foreseeable future, because there is little or no accountability.
Think about it: the software fails, two planes crash into each other. Who's respsonsible? There is no direct line of accountability.
hahaha that's kinda scary - i guess you're right... but i'm just a canadian creative guy / mac junkie, and i just keep watching in awe as apple keeps on introducing new stuff / improving existing stuff:
XServe QT 6 Broadcaster FC Pro 3 hi-res Cinema HD 23" display hi-res PowerBook G4 Quartz Extreme "Rendezvous" S-video out on iBook
I know it's geeky, but I just find all these product introductions and enhancements exciting.
Welcome to the Public Preview of QuickTime Broadcaster, Apple's live encoding software that lets you produce professional-quality live events for online delivery--quickly, easily and affordably.
QuickTime Broadcaster takes full advantage of QuickTime, the most powerful digital media technology on the Internet. The combination QuickTime Broadcaster, QuickTime Streaming Server 4 and QuickTime 6 provides the industry's first end-to-end MPEG-4-based Internet broadcasting system. Whether you are a novice or a professional, QuickTime Broadcaster is designed to meet your needs.
Wow, Apple's coming out with some cool stuff lately!:)
A file encoding scheme is protectable by patent. This makes file formats proprietary for as long as their patents are effective.
To me this seems fair. If I create a file format and want it to be adopted as a standard, I will make it public domain or else adopt a liberal licensing scheme.
On the other hand if I stand to make money from this file format, then I have to guard it much more closely - but then risk missing out on industry adoption.
I don't see anything wrong with this system.
Well I think the article is intended to be thought-provoking, but there is definitely some sensationalism - I certainly don't think that by putting my old defective TV out at the curb that I'm contributing to the child labour system.
Obviously somebody is picking up this scrap. Somebody else in China accepts it.
I fail to understand, though, how this process can possibly be profitable for anybody! Even to paying somebody 5 cents an hour to pick copper coils off circuit boards would probably yield less profit from raw copper than I would be paying for labour!
Semiconductors pulled from PC boards have no value because they are far too unreliable to be re-used in production.
Since the 1980's, there is too little solder used on circuit boards to be of any value.
Big transformers are worth money, but it is impossible to visually tell how they are wound, so there would be a great deal of trial and error in just getting the damn things to work in anything.
Switches and pots also have reliability issues, and even switches in perfect condition generally have size issues that prevent them from being used in anything.
Computer cases contain a significant amount of recoverable metals, but they are large and heavy, so there would be little point in shipping them overseas when you could make more money by recycling them here in North America. After all somebody in China would have to make money from this, as well as somebody in North America...
Is it just me or does this just whole thing seem like an impossible business model?
I'm wondering if Apple has gotten everything worked out with Core Audio, and if Jaguar will be the release that makes it possible for major audio software makers to finally start releasing OS X ports.
As I understand it, audio and MIDI are there in 10.1 but not yet robust enough for the pro apps. Any info on this?
Re:I'm dying to know what a spring loaded...
on
Jaguar Reviewed
·
· Score: 1
Spring-loaded folders were in the classic Mac OS since 8.0 or 8.5, I believe.
Essentially, you can drag an item on top of a folder and hold it there, and after a moment the folder will open up and reveal its contents. You can continue to drill down through folders in this manner, and when you release the mouse button, all those open windows you left behind just close up, leaving you where you dropped your file.
It has also been nicknamed "drag-and-drill".
Once you use it a few times, you take it for granted, and a lot of people were disappointed to find this feature absent in Mac OS X.
You need an extra body. Software that collects documentation of so many different types (text, handwritten stuff, source, graphics) is cumbersome -- how could it not be?
File folders are these incredible paper-like modules that fit into drawers in cabinets. Get a file clerk and put him (or her) to work. He should have knowledge, or at least an inclination to learn about the type of work you're doing. This is a great place to hire a student!
Also maintain a shared network directory for each project. Let people go hog wild saving stuff in there.
Allow each of your projects to have a master electronic file, and a master file folder.
If you can't afford an extra employee, then delegate one of your programmers etc. to sit out on certain projects to act as the scribe.
It's really important that you keep detailed notes of what you do and why you did it the way you did. There's nothing worse than having to revisit a 3-year old project and having to restart from scratch. Don't you think somebody should be responsible for that??
Apple is the name of a company, not a product, so they should be reasonably safe from a court decision that says that federal trademark laws can't protect generic product names.
When you think about it, Windows as the name of an OS is pretty moronic anyway. The name "Windows" implies liberation of your user interface from arcane conventions like command prompts, by bringing you a new, graphical way to look at your software.
This made a lot of sense up until around Windows 3.0, when it began to take the shape of an actual OS rather than just a graphical way of running your DOS programs.
Calling the OS 'Windows' now is dumb because it still refers to that single vague UI concept, even though Windows itself has become much more. It would be kind of like Dell trying to trademark the word "Tower" as a line of computers, or Ford trying to use "Wheels" as a line of cars.
Essentially all modern GUIs use windows in one form or another . The first mainstream implementation was of course Macintosh, but it carried not only to Windows but to GEOS (for Commodore 8-bit and later to Intel), Amiga, Atari ST ("GEM"), NeXT, X, BeOS, others... ?
Microsoft might just have some trouble here. Besides, MS has come out and said they have no trouble with the development of Lindows, just with the brand confusion that the name might cause.
The bigger they are, the harder they fall.
Re:It all depends on your reason ...
on
Penguin2Apple
·
· Score: 1
Sure, you have the source code to Darwin, but what if you want to audit Aqua?
That's exactly the point. If you are the type who would want to audit aqua, then you should instead install Linux and audit Gnome. I've got music to write, emails to answer and bills to pay. I'm not a programmer, but I'm also not an idiot.
You are not insightful.
on
Penguin2Apple
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
Here's where you miss the boat:
I am certain that if all OSS developers turned their attention to making a Quartz for Linux, it could be done. But, that's not the case because we're dealing with two different offerings altogether. So, it's stupid to run out and say "Mac OS X is going to beat down Linux" or just that "it's better" and people should "move over to it".
So you're saying then, that if the OSS community created a functional equivalent of Quartz, which they have not, then Linux as a desktop OS would be just as good as Mac OS X. Therefore Linux is just as good as Mac OS X.
Oops! Quartz doesn't exist for Linux. Mac OS X has a one-year jump on it (longer if you count the public beta). Yes it could be done, but it's not there, so if you want Quartz, you have to run Mac OS X. Period!
When you look at Linux, BSD, Solaris, or whatever versus Darwin, you see pretty much the same thing.
To the consumer, Darwin is a kernel while Linux / BSD / Solaris are distributions, which include window managers and desktop environments. None of them compare to Mac OS X. Sorry... you can argue paltry little tidbits like multiple desktops and 3-button mouse support....
As I look down at my OS X dock I see 31 apps that I use regularly. Plus my Apache web server and ftpd are always running while my laptop is on.
I would like to know: apart from costing less, is there a compelling advantage to running a Pentium/Athlon - based system with Linux versus a PPC system with Mac OS X? With all the benchmarks I see posted, I don't think either hardware platform is trouncing the other in performance. More open-source tools exist for Linux, but Mac OS X is more user-friendly, with more commercial apps. And so far I have seen very little open-source software surpass proprietary software in terms of usability. Don't get me wrong, I wish it could. I want open-source to be the way software as we know it exists. But by the time it does, your hardware (and mine) will be obsolete.
So in the meantime I've got work to do, and I'm not a programmer. This is why I own 3 Mac OS X machines (and two older Macs).
This reminds me of the early 1980's when I went to a computer store in a mall (computer stores were different then)...
...in this place you could sit down and play around with the computer you were thinking about buying. I already owned a Vic-20, and I came in with a cassette and just casully sat there saving all those 3 K programs to cassettes. When I was done, I popped my cassette in my pocket and walked out.
The irony of the story is that the specs have changed, the dollar value has changed, but my 'cassette story' is not/. worthy - just like walking into a store with a portable hard drive.
The only good that can come of the amount of attention this story has received is that it educates a lot of people who would otherwise have been unaware just what a useful and versatile piece of hardware the iPod is.
I have often thought that those case mods are butt ugly. If I had a G4 tower in my kids' room I could imagine defacing it with something as gaudy as that, but there is a certain subtlety lacking from all the graphics they make available.
Why not decorate them up to maybe look a little more artistic, or at least tasteful? It seems to me that these are the brightest, most overstated graphics that could be used for this.
And it's a shame, because I think the idea of dressing up a G4 tower is really cool... the amazing part is that of the 30-ish designs available I can't tolerate even one of them.
Hmmmm I was just being silly, but on re-reading my post I can see why it was modded down... I use FireWire every day on each of my 3 Macs - usually in the much understated 'Target Disk Mode', occasionally for video, and I *wish* I had an iPod.
I've also heard it rumoured that every PPC Emulator will be packaged with translucent plastic panels, glue-on faux-firewire ports (whoever really uses them anyway), and luxo-style monitor swing arms.
But the most important part (and this was supposed to be a surprise left until the trade show) is a special TSR that automatically locks up your system before you ever have to look at another blue screen of death. Yessss! Now that's progress!
Slashdot Mirror
QuickTime broadcaster can do audio-only streaming.
With this new upgrade, suddenly the market value of my G4/350 is improved significantly. It's upgradeable to a GHz, and faster as new processors come on the market, according to PowerLogix.
I am very curious to see benchmarks on this stuff. For example I wonder how well a 1 GHz upgrade to my system with a 100 MHz system bus would stand up against a current G4/933 with a 133 MHz bus. (It would be unfair to pit it against a current shipping GHz machine as they have two processors).
I will also still be stuck with ATA/66 (it's ATA/100 in the new models I think), 2x AGP (vs. 4x in the new models). In the my field (music) I don't believe the ATA and AGP are a big issue, and I don't know if a 33% bus speed increase will translate to a big performance improvement.
I'll be keeping an eye on Bare Feats, an awesome Mac benchmarking site that answers a lot of those little nagging questions about performance.
Hmmm, you're right. It's a music player that you wear. So sound quality, size and looks certainly wouldn't be an issue.
It's a lifestyle device, so I couldn't see any reason why durability, intuitiveness and ease-of-use would be motivating factors.
You transfer tons of data to it from your computer, so I can't see why anybody would be swayed by the FireWire connection. You're right! iPod is no big deal! Count me in for a Pimptek MTMP3-2001, it's got an extra 10 gigs! More ugly buttons too! I need my MP3 player to hold more than two weeks' worth of music. If the specs are there... if it looks better on paper... it must be!
"Market share" is irrelevant here. Somebody in need of a pro video edit solution will be looking at hardware and software at the same time. So Apple wants to not only sell them FCP but also a system. Yes, professionals who need the functionality of Final Cut Pro will buy a G4 just to run it, and as far as Apple is concerned, the Wintel video people can either buy a Mac or drool over it.
To bring this back on topic, Apple has achieved the same status with the iPod. There is still no better all-around solution. Yes there are players with more storage, but nothing has the same combination of speed, software integration, size, sound quality (everybody seems to forget that!) and UI elegance of the iPod. People are already aware of this.
People in the know are also be aware that Apple is quite free to make updates to the iPod with no regard for whether it breaks functionality with third-party software!
Once again Apple comes out smelling like a rose. Yes you can hook an iPod up to your PC using this clever software hack and a FireWire card. The software is still not iTunes, so ultimately the user will have a different, likely inferior, experience to that which was initially designed into this stuff. The Apple solution looks simple, quick and sexy, while the Wintel solution looks clumsy by comparison. This is exactly the image Apple wants to portray right now: PC's are about megabytes, megahertz, slots, ports, chipsets and upgrades, while Macs are about music, video, internet, photography, graphics and productivity. Price and raw specs be damned - just look at their new "switch" campaign!
You have not tried iPhoto, iMovie, iDVD and iTunes. If you had, you would realize Mac OS X is a competely different animal from previous OS efforts from Apple, and would not be arguing about using Conflict Catcher to fix machines.
So, let me ask you: which applications on the PC let you download images from your digital camera, sort them into albums, publish to a web page and order hardcover books as effectively as iPhoto?
Which PC apps do DV capture, edit, and dump as seamlessly as iMovie (i.e. all within one working environment)?
Which PC DVD authoring apps make it simple for consumers to create beautiful, tasteful DVDs, with software integration as effective as that of iDVD and iMovie?
Which PC music player / playlist management / CD-ripping and burning app automatically synchronizes its own playlists with your personal hard disk-based MP3 player at FireWire speeds?
The iApps are elegant, powerful and bundled for free with the Mac. They have their own unique features which are not found on any other computer, at any price. Please tell me which PC apps are "just as good".
People who read charts like that should stay away from Macs. You're missing the point entirely. What the chart fails to mention is which one runs Photoshop and Excel. Which one requires the fewest steps to encode a CD to MP3. Which one has a flat panel display you can just nudge up out of your way. Which one is fastest from pulling it out of the box to editing your home videos. Which one has the best color synchronization. Really, do you really think that the people in the Apple ads care about local communication latencies in microseconds, or memory latencies in nanoseconds. If you care about this stuff, please run Linux, and stop bringing up irrelevant facts to argue against the Mac's most important merit: useability. Above all else - speed, price, variety of software titles etc., which system makes your life easier, as opposed to which is better as an end unto itself.
Even worse, a search for "OSX Crash" would yield "I have used OSX for months and never had a crash".
That's ridiculous. Open Source software, as good as it may be, will not be used for mission-critical applications such as air traffic control in the foreseeable future, because there is little or no accountability.
Think about it: the software fails, two planes crash into each other. Who's respsonsible? There is no direct line of accountability.
hahaha that's kinda scary - i guess you're right... but i'm just a canadian creative guy / mac junkie, and i just keep watching in awe as apple keeps on introducing new stuff / improving existing stuff:
XServe
QT 6 Broadcaster
FC Pro 3
hi-res Cinema HD 23" display
hi-res PowerBook G4
Quartz Extreme
"Rendezvous"
S-video out on iBook
I know it's geeky, but I just find all these product introductions and enhancements exciting.
Quote from the site:
Wow, Apple's coming out with some cool stuff lately! :)
- Steve
A file encoding scheme is protectable by patent. This makes file formats proprietary for as long as their patents are effective. To me this seems fair. If I create a file format and want it to be adopted as a standard, I will make it public domain or else adopt a liberal licensing scheme. On the other hand if I stand to make money from this file format, then I have to guard it much more closely - but then risk missing out on industry adoption. I don't see anything wrong with this system.
Well I think the article is intended to be thought-provoking, but there is definitely some sensationalism - I certainly don't think that by putting my old defective TV out at the curb that I'm contributing to the child labour system.
Obviously somebody is picking up this scrap. Somebody else in China accepts it.
I fail to understand, though, how this process can possibly be profitable for anybody! Even to paying somebody 5 cents an hour to pick copper coils off circuit boards would probably yield less profit from raw copper than I would be paying for labour!
Semiconductors pulled from PC boards have no value because they are far too unreliable to be re-used in production.
Since the 1980's, there is too little solder used on circuit boards to be of any value.
Big transformers are worth money, but it is impossible to visually tell how they are wound, so there would be a great deal of trial and error in just getting the damn things to work in anything.
Switches and pots also have reliability issues, and even switches in perfect condition generally have size issues that prevent them from being used in anything.
Computer cases contain a significant amount of recoverable metals, but they are large and heavy, so there would be little point in shipping them overseas when you could make more money by recycling them here in North America. After all somebody in China would have to make money from this, as well as somebody in North America...
Is it just me or does this just whole thing seem like an impossible business model?
1. Yes I'm very happy with the quality of my iBook/500/Combo Drive.
2. If your drive is a burner and it won't burn CD's, I find it very hard to believe that Apple would say it's "within spec". I think you're trolling.
3. What does Mac OS X have to do with anything?
You forgot to mention the ADB caps lock key issue!
I'm wondering if Apple has gotten everything worked out with Core Audio, and if Jaguar will be the release that makes it possible for major audio software makers to finally start releasing OS X ports.
As I understand it, audio and MIDI are there in 10.1 but not yet robust enough for the pro apps. Any info on this?
Spring-loaded folders were in the classic Mac OS since 8.0 or 8.5, I believe.
Essentially, you can drag an item on top of a folder and hold it there, and after a moment the folder will open up and reveal its contents. You can continue to drill down through folders in this manner, and when you release the mouse button, all those open windows you left behind just close up, leaving you where you dropped your file.
It has also been nicknamed "drag-and-drill".
Once you use it a few times, you take it for granted, and a lot of people were disappointed to find this feature absent in Mac OS X.
You need an extra body. Software that collects documentation of so many different types (text, handwritten stuff, source, graphics) is cumbersome -- how could it not be?
File folders are these incredible paper-like modules that fit into drawers in cabinets. Get a file clerk and put him (or her) to work. He should have knowledge, or at least an inclination to learn about the type of work you're doing. This is a great place to hire a student!
Also maintain a shared network directory for each project. Let people go hog wild saving stuff in there.
Allow each of your projects to have a master electronic file, and a master file folder.
If you can't afford an extra employee, then delegate one of your programmers etc. to sit out on certain projects to act as the scribe.
It's really important that you keep detailed notes of what you do and why you did it the way you did. There's nothing worse than having to revisit a 3-year old project and having to restart from scratch. Don't you think somebody should be responsible for that??
Race car drivers need pit crews!
When you think about it, Windows as the name of an OS is pretty moronic anyway. The name "Windows" implies liberation of your user interface from arcane conventions like command prompts, by bringing you a new, graphical way to look at your software.
This made a lot of sense up until around Windows 3.0, when it began to take the shape of an actual OS rather than just a graphical way of running your DOS programs.
Calling the OS 'Windows' now is dumb because it still refers to that single vague UI concept, even though Windows itself has become much more. It would be kind of like Dell trying to trademark the word "Tower" as a line of computers, or Ford trying to use "Wheels" as a line of cars.
Essentially all modern GUIs use windows in one form or another . The first mainstream implementation was of course Macintosh, but it carried not only to Windows but to GEOS (for Commodore 8-bit and later to Intel), Amiga, Atari ST ("GEM"), NeXT, X, BeOS, others... ?
Microsoft might just have some trouble here. Besides, MS has come out and said they have no trouble with the development of Lindows, just with the brand confusion that the name might cause.
The bigger they are, the harder they fall.
That's exactly the point. If you are the type who would want to audit aqua, then you should instead install Linux and audit Gnome. I've got music to write, emails to answer and bills to pay. I'm not a programmer, but I'm also not an idiot.
So you're saying then, that if the OSS community created a functional equivalent of Quartz, which they have not, then Linux as a desktop OS would be just as good as Mac OS X. Therefore Linux is just as good as Mac OS X.
Oops! Quartz doesn't exist for Linux. Mac OS X has a one-year jump on it (longer if you count the public beta). Yes it could be done, but it's not there, so if you want Quartz, you have to run Mac OS X. Period!
To the consumer, Darwin is a kernel while Linux / BSD / Solaris are distributions, which include window managers and desktop environments. None of them compare to Mac OS X. Sorry... you can argue paltry little tidbits like multiple desktops and 3-button mouse support....As I look down at my OS X dock I see 31 apps that I use regularly. Plus my Apache web server and ftpd are always running while my laptop is on.
I would like to know: apart from costing less, is there a compelling advantage to running a Pentium/Athlon - based system with Linux versus a PPC system with Mac OS X? With all the benchmarks I see posted, I don't think either hardware platform is trouncing the other in performance. More open-source tools exist for Linux, but Mac OS X is more user-friendly, with more commercial apps. And so far I have seen very little open-source software surpass proprietary software in terms of usability. Don't get me wrong, I wish it could. I want open-source to be the way software as we know it exists. But by the time it does, your hardware (and mine) will be obsolete.
So in the meantime I've got work to do, and I'm not a programmer. This is why I own 3 Mac OS X machines (and two older Macs).
Very informative links for sure, and I think they're quite on-topic
This reminds me of the early 1980's when I went to a computer store in a mall (computer stores were different then)...
/. worthy - just like walking into a store with a portable hard drive.
...in this place you could sit down and play around with the computer you were thinking about buying. I already owned a Vic-20, and I came in with a cassette and just casully sat there saving all those 3 K programs to cassettes. When I was done, I popped my cassette in my pocket and walked out.
The irony of the story is that the specs have changed, the dollar value has changed, but my 'cassette story' is not
The only good that can come of the amount of attention this story has received is that it educates a lot of people who would otherwise have been unaware just what a useful and versatile piece of hardware the iPod is.
I have often thought that those case mods are butt ugly. If I had a G4 tower in my kids' room I could imagine defacing it with something as gaudy as that, but there is a certain subtlety lacking from all the graphics they make available.
Why not decorate them up to maybe look a little more artistic, or at least tasteful? It seems to me that these are the brightest, most overstated graphics that could be used for this.
And it's a shame, because I think the idea of dressing up a G4 tower is really cool... the amazing part is that of the 30-ish designs available I can't tolerate even one of them.
Hmmmm I was just being silly, but on re-reading my post I can see why it was modded down... I use FireWire every day on each of my 3 Macs - usually in the much understated 'Target Disk Mode', occasionally for video, and I *wish* I had an iPod.
I've also heard it rumoured that every PPC Emulator will be packaged with translucent plastic panels, glue-on faux-firewire ports (whoever really uses them anyway), and luxo-style monitor swing arms. But the most important part (and this was supposed to be a surprise left until the trade show) is a special TSR that automatically locks up your system before you ever have to look at another blue screen of death. Yessss! Now that's progress!