I agree that it could support multiple data rates and probably will, but I haven't seen anything that confirms that it does. Remember that the sync software has the ability to automatically recompress.
The author of the article didn't give any indication that it would support multiple rates and based his conclusions on the device only supporting 48K. It's unreasonable to conclude that the device is unable to sound good just because it advertises 13,000 songs on 20GB which is ultimately what the article says. The only thing I agree with is that 20GB is 20GB regardless of the player that provides it.
No, the author argued that the sound quality would be unacceptable (sucks eggs) because the device used such a low data rate. Nowehere in the article did he acknowledge or suggest that the device could use data rates other than 48K and concluded that it would be close to the iPod "in much the same sense that Earth is 'close' to the sun". Perhaps you should all reread the article and not be so insulting in your replies.
I'm glad we're all in agreement on the multiple data rates, though. There's no reason to conclude at this point that the device can't sound good just because they advertise silly sound counts.
Why should an Apple computer, by virtue of being based on OSS, run faster than one that isn't based on open source software? That makes no sense. I don't buy "better" or "greater stability" either. Prior to Apple basing MacOS on an open source code base, people still believed their product to be superior. What makes superior software is superior code and it's quite possible to develop that (or lift it) from a closed source or open source process.
BSD has been superior for ages and makes a great platform to build on. That's true for a lot of open source software but it's no inherent guarantee that future open source software will be similarly good. The simple rationale that open code makes better software is a fallacy. Good programming makes better software and an open source model *may* encourage that to happen. In Apple's case, they took an existing, proven open source product that was already mature. They now employ some of the talented people responsible for it. No great risk there.
How many months at 1TB/month do you require access to online? After you are done with data can you discard it or do you need it archived? What is the cost of losing your data set at any given time? In what manner do you expect to access it (read/write mixture and sizes plus aggregate throughput and number of client connections). The answers to these questions could cause the cost of a solution to vary but a couple orders of magnitude.
But that doesn't mean that it's the only data rate supported. The product doesn't even exist yet.
Now, I don't doubt that the impressive battery life is due in large part to the small files. I also got only 6-7 hours from my 3G iPod because of the big mp3's but the Rio Karma does much better.
Grade school insults like "windows is shit"? You're right, I don't believe you but thanks for confirming your undeniable mac zealotry. I don't believe you know the first thing about the issues you talk about nor do I believe you have any experience with the machines you criticise. Your claim that Windows multitasking is "garbage" is preposterous. Just what "disk handling" have you ever had to "deal with" and what do you know about disks or filesystems anyway? Those things happen to be my profession and I'm quite familiar with them. Just because I'm not familiar enough with OS X to comment doesn't mean I haven't tried it. If only you would apply the same "lofty standards" to yourself by only commenting from actual experience.
If you are so confident of your claims that Windows can't run a dozen applications at the same time, why don't you suggest a specific test that I can run right now on my Windows machine that will grind it to a halt? Once I confirm that I'll go to Frye's and watch OS X perform the miracles you fantasize about. Computing is not magic and the core of a mac is predominantly the same as a PC. You might want to take your Jobs goggles off.
I think it's a little early to proclaim that Sony will only support 48K data rates in this device. The interesting thing is that you can feed the sync software high quality music and it will downconvert automagically for you. Theoretically that's exactly what you want assuming the quality is good and the application doesn't suck. It would be safer if the device was simply a USB/FW HDD and you could control everything yourself. Some of Sony's other new models do that (and support mp3 directly) but the iPod doesn't.
Sony may support ATRAC internally but it supports many formats in the sync software so your problem simply isn't one. No company stands for vendor lock-in more than Apple.
Of course, Apple uses their DRM to exclude competitors' devices from playing their files and Apple is one of the most aggressive enforcers of IP in the computer industry. Remember when you buy an Apple product you are supporting a bunch of litigous patent bastards.
Clearly subjective, but I don't think it's ugly. You could argue the iPod is ugly, too, I suppose. Don't like the way the supplied case scratches the display and the white is more trendy than classy.
Among a far wider audience Sony has a reputation for being the best of their kind. Apple's appeal is far more selective and the iPod can certainly be improved upon. I don't consider the iPod the best of its kind, although I though the 1G model was when it was current.
Did they figure out how to turn it off within 5 minutes?
Same could be said for a lot of mp3 jukeboxes out there. The iPod is good but could be better and Sony has the ID knowledge and experience to do it. Doesn't mean they will, though.
BTW, a device that discharges its own battery in 3 days of nonuse doesn't qualify for "just works". The 3G iPods do just that.
Curious that you respond with several paragraphs of mac zealotry then. You must have had the worst Windows box ever, just like a lot of other mac users' experiences. I myself never need to monitor Windows processes to kill the one "slowing me down" nor do I experience any slowdown having a dozen windows or applications open at once. You're imagining things. All these boxes use similar disk hardware, and though I don't know how well OS X works with disk I can say comfortably that Linux does not work better with IDE than Windows does. I don't think you've ever used XP as stupidly as you describe it. You can certainly do other things while a compile completes. Come on!
What process do you kill to compensate for that lame processor in that Powerbook that's slowing you down?
...and why do you claim that OSX is a more efficient multitasker? How much CPU does the task switcher consume? Does an idle task require CPU time?
You claim may be based on observations, but there's a lot of things besides a tasker than can effect things. Any task that is CPU-bound will run slower is it doesn't get CPU cycles. Likewise, an application will run just as fast regardless of how many idle tasks you have in the background. Applications will run slower if the disk subsystem bogs down and the memory/cache hardware in the system may effect things.
Curiously, until recently MacOS didn't even have a real multitasking system and now it has a "more efficient" one. Sure seems like mac zealotry to me.
More functionality != better. You have to benefit from it first.
Dedicated jukeboxes for cars are better because you don't have to connect and disconnect them constantly and they can be hidden away. In addition, they can have better UI's (although that doesn't mean that they do).
Not everyone gets their music from iTunes or desires the one-vendor lockin. If Apple would open up access then others may choose to participate and the fact that they don't is a strong signal to me that I never want to do business with them. I like my music accessible everywhere. As you say, more functionality == better and iTunes/AAC is not better.
Actually, they shop based on brand. Don't try and argue this. The iPod's a great example of what you say. Apple's made it a whole lot worse with each successive generation.
A phatbox solution (or other dedicated jukebox) is better because you don't want to install and remove it each time you use your car. If you are cheap then you can use your player for double duty, just don't call it better. The iPod is not designed to be docked in that fashion and a phatbox can be installed completely hidden. I prefer not to see such kludgy addons anywhere near the dash of my car.
A Lamborgini is not much more drivable than a Modena. That's crazy. Lamborgini's are Ferrari wannabe's, nothing more, and their owners frequently like to park them rather than drive them. A 911 Turbo may be more "drivable" than a Modena but it's a crass production car whereas the 360 is a pure track car. The Modena is incredibly refined and perfectly able as a daily driver.
The reason you don't drive a Modena every day is that it spoils you and ceases to be special. As an everyday "fun" driver, the Modena totally outclasses any BMW (and everything else). I know because I own one along with an M5. I love my M5 but I wouldn't be so stupid as to suggest that it's more fun to drive than the 360.
Now, if you *need* four seats and fun to drive why choose an M3? I guess it is a lot cheaper than an M5 and most Slashdotters seem to have amazingly low class taste in cars...
except that you have to install an aftermarket head unit with the Alpine while the BMW is OEM. These days, most cars discourage you from replacing the head unit. If you're going that far, there are already aftermarket solutions that provide jukebox capability and they don't require an iPod to do it.
Slashdot Mirror
I agree that it could support multiple data rates and probably will, but I haven't seen anything that confirms that it does. Remember that the sync software has the ability to automatically recompress.
The author of the article didn't give any indication that it would support multiple rates and based his conclusions on the device only supporting 48K. It's unreasonable to conclude that the device is unable to sound good just because it advertises 13,000 songs on 20GB which is ultimately what the article says. The only thing I agree with is that 20GB is 20GB regardless of the player that provides it.
No, the author argued that the sound quality would be unacceptable (sucks eggs) because the device used such a low data rate. Nowehere in the article did he acknowledge or suggest that the device could use data rates other than 48K and concluded that it would be close to the iPod "in much the same sense that Earth is 'close' to the sun". Perhaps you should all reread the article and not be so insulting in your replies.
I'm glad we're all in agreement on the multiple data rates, though. There's no reason to conclude at this point that the device can't sound good just because they advertise silly sound counts.
Why should an Apple computer, by virtue of being based on OSS, run faster than one that isn't based on open source software? That makes no sense. I don't buy "better" or "greater stability" either. Prior to Apple basing MacOS on an open source code base, people still believed their product to be superior. What makes superior software is superior code and it's quite possible to develop that (or lift it) from a closed source or open source process.
BSD has been superior for ages and makes a great platform to build on. That's true for a lot of open source software but it's no inherent guarantee that future open source software will be similarly good. The simple rationale that open code makes better software is a fallacy. Good programming makes better software and an open source model *may* encourage that to happen. In Apple's case, they took an existing, proven open source product that was already mature. They now employ some of the talented people responsible for it. No great risk there.
How many months at 1TB/month do you require access to online? After you are done with data can you discard it or do you need it archived? What is the cost of losing your data set at any given time? In what manner do you expect to access it (read/write mixture and sizes plus aggregate throughput and number of client connections). The answers to these questions could cause the cost of a solution to vary but a couple orders of magnitude.
But that doesn't mean that it's the only data rate supported. The product doesn't even exist yet.
Now, I don't doubt that the impressive battery life is due in large part to the small files. I also got only 6-7 hours from my 3G iPod because of the big mp3's but the Rio Karma does much better.
Grade school insults like "windows is shit"? You're right, I don't believe you but thanks for confirming your undeniable mac zealotry. I don't believe you know the first thing about the issues you talk about nor do I believe you have any experience with the machines you criticise. Your claim that Windows multitasking is "garbage" is preposterous. Just what "disk handling" have you ever had to "deal with" and what do you know about disks or filesystems anyway? Those things happen to be my profession and I'm quite familiar with them. Just because I'm not familiar enough with OS X to comment doesn't mean I haven't tried it. If only you would apply the same "lofty standards" to yourself by only commenting from actual experience.
If you are so confident of your claims that Windows can't run a dozen applications at the same time, why don't you suggest a specific test that I can run right now on my Windows machine that will grind it to a halt? Once I confirm that I'll go to Frye's and watch OS X perform the miracles you fantasize about. Computing is not magic and the core of a mac is predominantly the same as a PC. You might want to take your Jobs goggles off.
I think it's a little early to proclaim that Sony will only support 48K data rates in this device. The interesting thing is that you can feed the sync software high quality music and it will downconvert automagically for you. Theoretically that's exactly what you want assuming the quality is good and the application doesn't suck. It would be safer if the device was simply a USB/FW HDD and you could control everything yourself. Some of Sony's other new models do that (and support mp3 directly) but the iPod doesn't.
Apple wasn't early to market with the iPod.
Sony may support ATRAC internally but it supports many formats in the sync software so your problem simply isn't one. No company stands for vendor lock-in more than Apple.
Of course, Apple uses their DRM to exclude competitors' devices from playing their files and Apple is one of the most aggressive enforcers of IP in the computer industry. Remember when you buy an Apple product you are supporting a bunch of litigous patent bastards.
Clearly subjective, but I don't think it's ugly. You could argue the iPod is ugly, too, I suppose. Don't like the way the supplied case scratches the display and the white is more trendy than classy.
Among a far wider audience Sony has a reputation for being the best of their kind. Apple's appeal is far more selective and the iPod can certainly be improved upon. I don't consider the iPod the best of its kind, although I though the 1G model was when it was current.
This is done transparently by the sync software. Users have to do nothing for this and many won't even be aware of it.
Did they figure out how to turn it off within 5 minutes?
Same could be said for a lot of mp3 jukeboxes out there. The iPod is good but could be better and Sony has the ID knowledge and experience to do it. Doesn't mean they will, though.
BTW, a device that discharges its own battery in 3 days of nonuse doesn't qualify for "just works". The 3G iPods do just that.
Curious that you respond with several paragraphs of mac zealotry then. You must have had the worst Windows box ever, just like a lot of other mac users' experiences. I myself never need to monitor Windows processes to kill the one "slowing me down" nor do I experience any slowdown having a dozen windows or applications open at once. You're imagining things. All these boxes use similar disk hardware, and though I don't know how well OS X works with disk I can say comfortably that Linux does not work better with IDE than Windows does. I don't think you've ever used XP as stupidly as you describe it. You can certainly do other things while a compile completes. Come on!
What process do you kill to compensate for that lame processor in that Powerbook that's slowing you down?
...and why do you claim that OSX is a more efficient multitasker? How much CPU does the task switcher consume? Does an idle task require CPU time?
You claim may be based on observations, but there's a lot of things besides a tasker than can effect things. Any task that is CPU-bound will run slower is it doesn't get CPU cycles. Likewise, an application will run just as fast regardless of how many idle tasks you have in the background. Applications will run slower if the disk subsystem bogs down and the memory/cache hardware in the system may effect things.
Curiously, until recently MacOS didn't even have a real multitasking system and now it has a "more efficient" one. Sure seems like mac zealotry to me.
Yes, except that people use the word because they think it's clever. "Boxes" works fine.
More functionality != better. You have to benefit from it first.
Dedicated jukeboxes for cars are better because you don't have to connect and disconnect them constantly and they can be hidden away. In addition, they can have better UI's (although that doesn't mean that they do).
Not everyone gets their music from iTunes or desires the one-vendor lockin. If Apple would open up access then others may choose to participate and the fact that they don't is a strong signal to me that I never want to do business with them. I like my music accessible everywhere. As you say, more functionality == better and iTunes/AAC is not better.
Sure you can. Just wait 'til MS steals the idea for multitasking from Apple, though. Those Apple engineers are such geniouses!
Anyone who says "boxen" should be ignored.
You sound so knowledgable. Don't you mean playa's?
Actually, they shop based on brand. Don't try and argue this. The iPod's a great example of what you say. Apple's made it a whole lot worse with each successive generation.
Thank God it doesn't. No iTunes is a big plus.
A phatbox solution (or other dedicated jukebox) is better because you don't want to install and remove it each time you use your car. If you are cheap then you can use your player for double duty, just don't call it better. The iPod is not designed to be docked in that fashion and a phatbox can be installed completely hidden. I prefer not to see such kludgy addons anywhere near the dash of my car.
A Lamborgini is not much more drivable than a Modena. That's crazy. Lamborgini's are Ferrari wannabe's, nothing more, and their owners frequently like to park them rather than drive them. A 911 Turbo may be more "drivable" than a Modena but it's a crass production car whereas the 360 is a pure track car. The Modena is incredibly refined and perfectly able as a daily driver.
The reason you don't drive a Modena every day is that it spoils you and ceases to be special. As an everyday "fun" driver, the Modena totally outclasses any BMW (and everything else). I know because I own one along with an M5. I love my M5 but I wouldn't be so stupid as to suggest that it's more fun to drive than the 360.
Now, if you *need* four seats and fun to drive why choose an M3? I guess it is a lot cheaper than an M5 and most Slashdotters seem to have amazingly low class taste in cars...
except that you have to install an aftermarket head unit with the Alpine while the BMW is OEM. These days, most cars discourage you from replacing the head unit. If you're going that far, there are already aftermarket solutions that provide jukebox capability and they don't require an iPod to do it.
Yes, but is any card capable of driving these displays supported in X? I'd be very excited if there is but I doubt it seriously. Anyone know?
Don't know, but that pretty much sums it up.