You don't really need to replace AppleScript with python, per se. The ability to call Apple Events is within the ability of many scripting languages on the Mac. You can also call AppleScripts from anything that can run a program via the command line, and you can send out command line tasks through Applescripts. It's a pretty useful technique to mix Applescripts with shell scripts based on their relative strength. And, yes, Applescript has the ability to do things easily in its language that other languages can't do as easily, and those things were designed to work well with the sort of tasks that mac scripters would need.
The main problem is that the dictionaries for the various applications's Apple Events are geared towards Applescript (if, indeed, they are geared towards anything at all. Most dictionaries thoroughly suck). If you want to make the calls from another language, you kind of have to figure out how the event calls work, but that's not a significantly more difficult task than in AppleScript, for reasons labelled above.
The trickiest thing to do in Python instead of AppleScript would be making a Cocoa Application with it. AppleScript has AppleScript Studio, which will let you make a full, ableit slow, Cocoa Application, with logic being done in Applescript. You can include and call Objective C and Java Methods from these scripts, so if you wanted to use existing code and/or optimize some often run code, you could do that without too much trouble. It also gives you access to the entire OS framework within AppleScript, so you could make Rendezvous aware services without having to know much about Objective-C. I suspect you could use Python or Perl this way, but it might be some work getting it set up.
From a practical perspective, I like to use whatever is handiest at the time. So, for example, if you needed to get a list of files from a web site, you could easily do
set theString to do shell script "curl -l -s ftp://username:password@someftp.com/ | grep 'unique identifier string'"
That could just as easily have been a one-line perl script or even a call to a script. The trickiest about passing generic scripts as a text block is making sure the text is quoted properly, but I'll leave that as an exercise to the reader.
As far as going the other way around, and calling apple events from a shell script, I forget how to do this. There are libraries for Perl and Python that will let you do it, and you just use those functions or methods to call the Apple Events and pass the proper parameters. Here's an example for MacPerl. In any case, Google is a good tool for finding that sort of information.
As long as the TOS doesn't change to disallow the transfer of ownership, he should be fine.
Well, the first potential problem is whether reselling a song constitutes a "commercial" act, or a "personal" act. Here's the Content Usage Rules from iTMS Terms of Sale.
CONTENT USAGE RULES
Your use of the Products is conditioned upon your prior acceptance of the terms of this Agreement.
You shall be authorized to use the Product only for personal, non-commercial use.
You shall be authorized to use the Product on three Apple authorized computers.
You shall be entitled to burn and export Products solely for personal, non-commercial use.
Any burning or exporting capabilities are solely an accommodation to you and shall not constitute a grant or waiver (or other limitation or implication) of any rights of the copyright owners of any content, sound recording, underlying musical composition or artwork embodied in any Product.
You agree that you will not attempt to, or encourage or assist any other person to, circumvent or modify any software required for use of the Service or any of the Usage Rules.
The delivery of a Product does not transfer to you any commercial or promotional use rights in the Product.
Refer to Terms of Sale for more detailed information on Usage Rules.
And there are other tidbits in there that could at least make his life interesting from a litigation perspective.
My first thought is Willow, for the Morphing. Willow is the film that pioneered morphing technology, though Terminator 2 really brought it home.
The digital limb removal from Forrest Gump was quite good, and really started that particular niche, as I recall.
Starship Troopers was the first to have a very, very large number of critters moving in Full 3D. And getting the motion right on six legged critters is not so easy.
Aladdin was the first movie I remember to have the mixed 3D/2D, especially the flying carpet, which was a texturemapped object.
You should do some checking around for early uses on Nonlinear Digital Editing, which has allowed lots of fancy editing, such as Fight Club, with the funky edits and transitions and such. Don't know what the earliest examples of that sort of thing are, though.
If you're going strictly film, then Toy Story was the first full-length. However, for sheer bulk with 3D, Reboot was on the scene about a year before.
Hooray for instant feedback. It's been generally considered that sucky movies did well because the average person has no taste in movies. Now maybe, just maybe, they'll discover it's just because the average person can't see beyond the hype. Consequently, maybe the sudios will try to make films to do well because of their own merits rather than because of the instant influx of hype they can generate.
And yeah, blah blah head in the sand, blah blah fight the symptom not the disease, but that only goes on for so long. Paradigm shifts are always like that, and ignoring reality can only go on so long. And I mean that in the Thoman Kuhn, Structure of the Scientific Revolution meaning, not the bastardized business meaning.
If you're just going to cross your eyes anyway, drop all the cumbersome cellophane goggles and overlays and crap, and simply look at two images side by side.
Well, yeah. The problem with random dot stereography or just unfocusing your eyes is that it's hard. With random dots, once you have it, then the eyes have something to grab onto, but if you lose your concentration, the brain uses the other 20 methods of determining what your plane of focus should be and snaps you back to reality.
The purpose behind the celophane system is so that you don't have to concentrate in order to get the 3D. As far as your brain can tell, the objects are the proper distance away. Also, you completely different images projected to your eyes via separate lcd screens or what have you. As long as the brain thinks they're similar enough, though, and they overlay in whatever space they're perceived to be, they'll still be seen as the same image. And by completely different, I obviously don't mean, for example, a porcupine and a abstract impressionist painting. I mean that they are separate images, not images overlaid onto each other.
when your left eye is looking at the right half of the screen, your right eye is looking there, too!!
Well, the point is that, with the distance between you and the laptop, you shouldn't be looking at just one half of the screen, you should be looking at the screen as a whole.
Also, I'm not convinced that placing a polarizer over half the screen wouldn't just turn that half of the screen totally black (as shown in figure 2 of the paper).
That is, in fact, the entire purpose of the celophane. To rotate the light by 45 degrees so it won't be blocked by the polarization.
It does seem cumbersome, but that's an implementation detail. It could be cleverly modified to be a handly pop-up screen mechanism that neatly slips over the laptop, presuming the demand were there. Cutting the laptop's resolution in half is a bit of a disappointment, but might be okay with the 17" powerbook.
See, this is what doesn't help. Not your stance, which is all fine and good in the scheme of things. Hooray for standards and all that.
What doesn't help is that it's, "Oh, I'll buy when it has Ogg Vorbis." "Did I say 'Ogg Vorbis'? I meant Ogg Vorbis when it's not a proprietary implementation."
Reminds me of, "Oh, I'll buy music when I can buy it online, track by track, and for a low price." "Good lord, $1.00 a track? No no no! I meant $0.50 per track. Yeah. I'll just keep Kazaa running. And besides, it's on a Mac, which is proprietary even if it's, you know, kind of free, but not free the way I like it, so I'll just keep not buying anything."
I mean, why would anyone want to go for this market? They'll probably complain when they release new models of hardware that do more than the old models, especially if they won't give away the software to do the new stuff on the old models. I mean, what could they be thinking?
And that is why so few companies support Ogg Vorbis. Not because it's hard to do, not because it's expensive, not even because it's for such a small market. They don't support Ogg Vorbis because it's for a group of people who, by and large, will never be happy when they're buying a product.
Quickly! To the Stores! Or to the Online Merchant of Your Choice!
Since this is exactly what you've been calling for, I expect this thing to outsell the iPod in a week or two. I mean, Ogg Vorbis is the super format that's been the only thing keeping a legion of geeks from buying an MP3 player, right? Go hang a salami...I mean, hang Interface and Availablity, it's all about the Ogg.
Mind you, if this doesn't sell like hotcakes, well, Vorbis won't have been quite the driving market force that you'd been preaching, will it? So you might want to by 5, just in case. Don't worry, if the market's there, you'll be able to sell them on ebay, sometimes for more than you'd bought them for. If the iPod is any benchmark, that is.
Maynard has designed and contructed all the models for this project in spite of the fact that he is legally blind and nearly deaf.
Actually, legally blind isn't as bad as you're thinking. When someone says they're blind, it generally means that they can't see. When they say they're legally blind, that generally means that they can't see without some amazingly thick glasses. I had a roommate (Hi, Jon) who is legally blind. He reads, drives, and whatever else he needs to do. He just wears his glasses if he wants to see.
Researchers say this could lead to a better understanding of chemical reactions and could have impact far beyond the computer industry.
I mean, I know we're computer geeks and all, but did researchers really first think, "Wow, this is going to impact the computer industry for sure!"? Or perhaps did they think of, for example, medicine, where chemical reactions are common during the practice, rather than during manufacturing stage, which is the only time chemical reactions in a liquid are really going to matter.
No, in fact Reason #2 is the absolute best reason of the three. It takes a lot of money to test. Whereas Microsoft can, get this, sell new copies to windows on older machines, Apple cannot sell the ipod update for older ipods. In fact, they would have to spend the money testing in order to give the product away. This is the opposite of making money, and it doesn't make a lot of sense.
Also, and I know I'm clearly in the minority here, but I don't believe that Windows is actually a rock solid OS that works solidly on every piece of hardware out there. Therefore, I believe that they are not spending as much money on testing as they otherwise might. They are certainly not testing to make Windows and the other applications as solid as the iPod is.
I think it's more likely that you are with the majority of the software industry in thinking that shallow testing on a lot of devices is better than deep testing. Testing is expensive, and Apple wants to do it right. But there's no good reason to double the expense just to give away a free product.
=Brian
P.S. I was being sarcastic about me being in the minority believing that Windows is bug-ridden. You see, Microsoft is famous for buggy and security-hole ridden software, and my saying that I'm the only person who believes that is a bit of, as they say, a lie, in order to make a humorous point. I only mention because a lot of sarcasm has already been missed on this thread, and I feel that perhaps I should be clear about my feelings on the subject.
As with everything, it depends
on
Using MovableType?
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
It really depends on what the purpose of the weblog is, what you expect to convey, how you need to display it, etc. Since you've provided us with few indications of what you're thinking (other than a large number of users), it's hard to say for sure.
From a geek standpoint, one of the best weblogging programs that I've used is blosxom. It's by Rael Dornfest, who edited the Google Hacks book, among others. I use it for my web sites, and it's a very simple, powerful, and flexible tool. Depending on how you need to use it, this may be a good way to go.
I have not used Moveable Type, so I can't comment on that. But I've had good experiences with blosxom.
That doesn't follow. It seems more likely that people would rather complain about the problem than fix it. I mean, I know it seems unlikely, people whining, but it does happen, even on slashdot.
That's because the entire web process was denied them, thus they were prevented from getting information and placing orders in the same way as sighted people. It's possibly to do an airline website that is accessible by the blind, and if you plan for it, it's not that hard. Denying an entire website to someone is much like denying an entire building to someone. Sure, they can call the residents and/or workers of the building, but they can't necessarily perform all the functions that they would otherwise. It's all a matter of degree.
Wow, there are a lot of foolish comments being modded up early. The idea behind this is that blind people need access to the same service as the non-blind. That doesn't mean you are required to make email addresses readable to the blind, per se, but it does require you to have a method of sending email (or verifying a code or what have you) that the blind can access as well. So, in the case of email, you could provide an email form instead of a mailto link. In the case of paypal's "read this number" to verify that a human is part of the process, you could have a phone number that people can talk to a real operator.
However, if your service relies upon discriminating practices in order to survive, then you are quite simply wrong. Note, I have no close friends or relatives who are in need of these laws, but I do believe it to be wrong to discriminate. Put in a little effort, people, it's not that hard.
A lot of people have mentioned that all they have to do is change the name. This is agree with, as it's simple enough and not that big a deal. Besides, it'll be be maybe fun for the whole 30 seconds that it'll take them to come up with a new one.
The reason that you pick a name closely associated with the original project is so people know what you are at a glance. A better way to get the word out on your product is marketing and PR. Since I had never heard of FreeCraft before this, they apparently just got some free publicity. So I'd say they were lucky.
Also, you knowm and I know that they're guaranteed to get another story when they actually do change their name. If they're clever, they'll make some sort of special release about it so that they can take advantage of it. Then maybe people will play the game, if it's worth playing.
That's the nice thing about the predictability of the slashdot editorial process. It's very easy to generate free press if you want it.
You don't even need to run it headless, just don't do anything in the GUI. I have a dual-processor XServe that runs with no blue lights unless someone's accessing something, and a couple blue lights on one processor if they are. That's logged in, with the monitor on, and top running continuously in a terminal window. I'll be adding various services to it that'll increase the processor load, and yeah, running, for example, a matrix-style screen saver will eat up a decent amount of the processing power, but windows just sitting there and not being moved about use no processing power.
Now, using it as a server and a workstation at the same time might use some of the spare cycles doing pretty graphics, but if you're going to do that, you deserve what you get.
Now to add extra processes until I can get the server nice and properly loaded.
Though true that this is how many design houses work, I can say that it's unnecessary. My publication had been working on quark for its entire Electronic Life, and we converted over to InDesign for X. There was grumbling at first, but nobody would consider going back to Quark now. It took about 2 weeks to get back up to speed on an 80-100 page weekly publication. It was an easy, easy transition.
The questions that will really define Quark's continued success in the marketplace are: 1) Will it work; 2) if it doesn't, is Quark still going to act like they're the only game in town. If 1 is no (likely) and 2 is yes (also likely), then Quark is going to lose a lot of people. I mean, when is the last time you saw a.0 version of Quark actually work?
Me, I'm happy with having been using InDesign for OS X for the past 8 or so months, and I can't wait for the next version.
What, lower prices? I doubt that. I mean, I think you're going out on a limb there. Gamers, see, they are usually better off if they pay more money. Honestly, you'd think you didn't hear the outpouring of dissent when all the console prices lowered. The game companies, they're trying to ruin us, I tell you!
See, I can't say I'd agree with the guess. I mean, it's not like apple hasn't upgraded the firmware in the past with new features and such. My guess from being in similar situations is that there's enough different between the two ipods that they would have to maintain separate code bases in order to maintain the functionality. When that happens, you can either double the number of programmers (I say simplisticly), or you can abandon the old code base.
But I saw a review of the ipod that made the same guess, and I say that it's a foolish guess. But then, I'm only guessing as well.
Slashdot Mirror
The main problem is that the dictionaries for the various applications's Apple Events are geared towards Applescript (if, indeed, they are geared towards anything at all. Most dictionaries thoroughly suck). If you want to make the calls from another language, you kind of have to figure out how the event calls work, but that's not a significantly more difficult task than in AppleScript, for reasons labelled above.
The trickiest thing to do in Python instead of AppleScript would be making a Cocoa Application with it. AppleScript has AppleScript Studio, which will let you make a full, ableit slow, Cocoa Application, with logic being done in Applescript. You can include and call Objective C and Java Methods from these scripts, so if you wanted to use existing code and/or optimize some often run code, you could do that without too much trouble. It also gives you access to the entire OS framework within AppleScript, so you could make Rendezvous aware services without having to know much about Objective-C. I suspect you could use Python or Perl this way, but it might be some work getting it set up.
From a practical perspective, I like to use whatever is handiest at the time. So, for example, if you needed to get a list of files from a web site, you could easily doThat could just as easily have been a one-line perl script or even a call to a script. The trickiest about passing generic scripts as a text block is making sure the text is quoted properly, but I'll leave that as an exercise to the reader.
As far as going the other way around, and calling apple events from a shell script, I forget how to do this. There are libraries for Perl and Python that will let you do it, and you just use those functions or methods to call the Apple Events and pass the proper parameters. Here's an example for MacPerl. In any case, Google is a good tool for finding that sort of information.
=Brian
Well, the first potential problem is whether reselling a song constitutes a "commercial" act, or a "personal" act. Here's the Content Usage Rules from iTMS Terms of Sale.
And there are other tidbits in there that could at least make his life interesting from a litigation perspective.
=Brian
That's 15%. Presuming there's a phone for every man, woman, and child alive as of the 2000 census.
=Brian
I got an error on my area code when I tried to register.
I knew it! Even the Canadians don't know it's a different country!
=Brian
That's true. I had forgotten the order of those.
My first thought is Willow, for the Morphing. Willow is the film that pioneered morphing technology, though Terminator 2 really brought it home.
The digital limb removal from Forrest Gump was quite good, and really started that particular niche, as I recall.
Starship Troopers was the first to have a very, very large number of critters moving in Full 3D. And getting the motion right on six legged critters is not so easy.
Aladdin was the first movie I remember to have the mixed 3D/2D, especially the flying carpet, which was a texturemapped object.
You should do some checking around for early uses on Nonlinear Digital Editing, which has allowed lots of fancy editing, such as Fight Club, with the funky edits and transitions and such. Don't know what the earliest examples of that sort of thing are, though.
If you're going strictly film, then Toy Story was the first full-length. However, for sheer bulk with 3D, Reboot was on the scene about a year before.
And that's all that comes to the top of my head.
=Brian
Hooray for instant feedback. It's been generally considered that sucky movies did well because the average person has no taste in movies. Now maybe, just maybe, they'll discover it's just because the average person can't see beyond the hype. Consequently, maybe the sudios will try to make films to do well because of their own merits rather than because of the instant influx of hype they can generate.
And yeah, blah blah head in the sand, blah blah fight the symptom not the disease, but that only goes on for so long. Paradigm shifts are always like that, and ignoring reality can only go on so long. And I mean that in the Thoman Kuhn, Structure of the Scientific Revolution meaning, not the bastardized business meaning.
=Brian
Well, yeah. The problem with random dot stereography or just unfocusing your eyes is that it's hard. With random dots, once you have it, then the eyes have something to grab onto, but if you lose your concentration, the brain uses the other 20 methods of determining what your plane of focus should be and snaps you back to reality.
The purpose behind the celophane system is so that you don't have to concentrate in order to get the 3D. As far as your brain can tell, the objects are the proper distance away. Also, you completely different images projected to your eyes via separate lcd screens or what have you. As long as the brain thinks they're similar enough, though, and they overlay in whatever space they're perceived to be, they'll still be seen as the same image. And by completely different, I obviously don't mean, for example, a porcupine and a abstract impressionist painting. I mean that they are separate images, not images overlaid onto each other.
when your left eye is looking at the right half of the screen, your right eye is looking there, too!!
Well, the point is that, with the distance between you and the laptop, you shouldn't be looking at just one half of the screen, you should be looking at the screen as a whole.
Also, I'm not convinced that placing a polarizer over half the screen wouldn't just turn that half of the screen totally black (as shown in figure 2 of the paper).
That is, in fact, the entire purpose of the celophane. To rotate the light by 45 degrees so it won't be blocked by the polarization.
It does seem cumbersome, but that's an implementation detail. It could be cleverly modified to be a handly pop-up screen mechanism that neatly slips over the laptop, presuming the demand were there. Cutting the laptop's resolution in half is a bit of a disappointment, but might be okay with the 17" powerbook.
=Brian
See, this is what doesn't help. Not your stance, which is all fine and good in the scheme of things. Hooray for standards and all that.
What doesn't help is that it's, "Oh, I'll buy when it has Ogg Vorbis." "Did I say 'Ogg Vorbis'? I meant Ogg Vorbis when it's not a proprietary implementation."
Reminds me of, "Oh, I'll buy music when I can buy it online, track by track, and for a low price." "Good lord, $1.00 a track? No no no! I meant $0.50 per track. Yeah. I'll just keep Kazaa running. And besides, it's on a Mac, which is proprietary even if it's, you know, kind of free, but not free the way I like it, so I'll just keep not buying anything."
I mean, why would anyone want to go for this market? They'll probably complain when they release new models of hardware that do more than the old models, especially if they won't give away the software to do the new stuff on the old models. I mean, what could they be thinking?
And that is why so few companies support Ogg Vorbis. Not because it's hard to do, not because it's expensive, not even because it's for such a small market. They don't support Ogg Vorbis because it's for a group of people who, by and large, will never be happy when they're buying a product.
Well, exactly.
Quickly! To the Stores! Or to the Online Merchant of Your Choice!
Since this is exactly what you've been calling for, I expect this thing to outsell the iPod in a week or two. I mean, Ogg Vorbis is the super format that's been the only thing keeping a legion of geeks from buying an MP3 player, right? Go hang a salami...I mean, hang Interface and Availablity, it's all about the Ogg.
Mind you, if this doesn't sell like hotcakes, well, Vorbis won't have been quite the driving market force that you'd been preaching, will it? So you might want to by 5, just in case. Don't worry, if the market's there, you'll be able to sell them on ebay, sometimes for more than you'd bought them for. If the iPod is any benchmark, that is.
=Brian
Actually, legally blind isn't as bad as you're thinking. When someone says they're blind, it generally means that they can't see. When they say they're legally blind, that generally means that they can't see without some amazingly thick glasses. I had a roommate (Hi, Jon) who is legally blind. He reads, drives, and whatever else he needs to do. He just wears his glasses if he wants to see.
=Brian
I wanted to try this out....
*Ahem* You're new here, aren't you?
Thank you, I'll be here all week.
Seriously, though, yeah, I should have read the article. And if I had, I would have said:
Researchers say this could lead to a better understanding of chemical reactions and could have impact far beyond the computer industry.
Well, duh.
=Brian
I mean, I know we're computer geeks and all, but did researchers really first think, "Wow, this is going to impact the computer industry for sure!"? Or perhaps did they think of, for example, medicine, where chemical reactions are common during the practice, rather than during manufacturing stage, which is the only time chemical reactions in a liquid are really going to matter.
Brian
Also, and I know I'm clearly in the minority here, but I don't believe that Windows is actually a rock solid OS that works solidly on every piece of hardware out there. Therefore, I believe that they are not spending as much money on testing as they otherwise might. They are certainly not testing to make Windows and the other applications as solid as the iPod is.
I think it's more likely that you are with the majority of the software industry in thinking that shallow testing on a lot of devices is better than deep testing. Testing is expensive, and Apple wants to do it right. But there's no good reason to double the expense just to give away a free product.
=Brian
P.S. I was being sarcastic about me being in the minority believing that Windows is bug-ridden. You see, Microsoft is famous for buggy and security-hole ridden software, and my saying that I'm the only person who believes that is a bit of, as they say, a lie, in order to make a humorous point. I only mention because a lot of sarcasm has already been missed on this thread, and I feel that perhaps I should be clear about my feelings on the subject.
From a geek standpoint, one of the best weblogging programs that I've used is blosxom. It's by Rael Dornfest, who edited the Google Hacks book, among others. I use it for my web sites, and it's a very simple, powerful, and flexible tool. Depending on how you need to use it, this may be a good way to go.
I have not used Moveable Type, so I can't comment on that. But I've had good experiences with blosxom.
=Brian
That doesn't follow. It seems more likely that people would rather complain about the problem than fix it. I mean, I know it seems unlikely, people whining, but it does happen, even on slashdot.
=Brian
That's because the entire web process was denied them, thus they were prevented from getting information and placing orders in the same way as sighted people. It's possibly to do an airline website that is accessible by the blind, and if you plan for it, it's not that hard. Denying an entire website to someone is much like denying an entire building to someone. Sure, they can call the residents and/or workers of the building, but they can't necessarily perform all the functions that they would otherwise. It's all a matter of degree.
=Brian
Wow, there are a lot of foolish comments being modded up early. The idea behind this is that blind people need access to the same service as the non-blind. That doesn't mean you are required to make email addresses readable to the blind, per se, but it does require you to have a method of sending email (or verifying a code or what have you) that the blind can access as well. So, in the case of email, you could provide an email form instead of a mailto link. In the case of paypal's "read this number" to verify that a human is part of the process, you could have a phone number that people can talk to a real operator.
However, if your service relies upon discriminating practices in order to survive, then you are quite simply wrong. Note, I have no close friends or relatives who are in need of these laws, but I do believe it to be wrong to discriminate. Put in a little effort, people, it's not that hard.
=Brian
A lot of people have mentioned that all they have to do is change the name. This is agree with, as it's simple enough and not that big a deal. Besides, it'll be be maybe fun for the whole 30 seconds that it'll take them to come up with a new one.
The reason that you pick a name closely associated with the original project is so people know what you are at a glance. A better way to get the word out on your product is marketing and PR. Since I had never heard of FreeCraft before this, they apparently just got some free publicity. So I'd say they were lucky.
Also, you knowm and I know that they're guaranteed to get another story when they actually do change their name. If they're clever, they'll make some sort of special release about it so that they can take advantage of it. Then maybe people will play the game, if it's worth playing.
That's the nice thing about the predictability of the slashdot editorial process. It's very easy to generate free press if you want it.
=Brian
You don't even need to run it headless, just don't do anything in the GUI. I have a dual-processor XServe that runs with no blue lights unless someone's accessing something, and a couple blue lights on one processor if they are. That's logged in, with the monitor on, and top running continuously in a terminal window. I'll be adding various services to it that'll increase the processor load, and yeah, running, for example, a matrix-style screen saver will eat up a decent amount of the processing power, but windows just sitting there and not being moved about use no processing power.
Now, using it as a server and a workstation at the same time might use some of the spare cycles doing pretty graphics, but if you're going to do that, you deserve what you get.
Now to add extra processes until I can get the server nice and properly loaded.
I blame large plates. And a lack of exercise.
=Brian
Though true that this is how many design houses work, I can say that it's unnecessary. My publication had been working on quark for its entire Electronic Life, and we converted over to InDesign for X. There was grumbling at first, but nobody would consider going back to Quark now. It took about 2 weeks to get back up to speed on an 80-100 page weekly publication. It was an easy, easy transition.
.0 version of Quark actually work?
The questions that will really define Quark's continued success in the marketplace are: 1) Will it work; 2) if it doesn't, is Quark still going to act like they're the only game in town. If 1 is no (likely) and 2 is yes (also likely), then Quark is going to lose a lot of people. I mean, when is the last time you saw a
Me, I'm happy with having been using InDesign for OS X for the past 8 or so months, and I can't wait for the next version.
=Brian
What, lower prices? I doubt that. I mean, I think you're going out on a limb there. Gamers, see, they are usually better off if they pay more money. Honestly, you'd think you didn't hear the outpouring of dissent when all the console prices lowered. The game companies, they're trying to ruin us, I tell you!
=Brian
See, I can't say I'd agree with the guess. I mean, it's not like apple hasn't upgraded the firmware in the past with new features and such. My guess from being in similar situations is that there's enough different between the two ipods that they would have to maintain separate code bases in order to maintain the functionality. When that happens, you can either double the number of programmers (I say simplisticly), or you can abandon the old code base.
But I saw a review of the ipod that made the same guess, and I say that it's a foolish guess. But then, I'm only guessing as well.
=Brian