I just wish Mozilla would take the settings from the network preferences, instead of having it's own.
Same with iChat. Apple Mail reads the proxy setting, but not the socks setting, which means I currently have to use Mozilla to read my mac.com mail account, and Apple Mail my work account (I could use Mozilla for both, but Apple Mail has some nice features).
Each app having it's own networking preferences makes it a pain for laptop (Powerbook, in my case). users who are switching networks all the time.
I've been using it for a few months now on my Powerbook G4/800/DVI, and it has crashed numerous times. And, no, I wasn't doing anything particularly complicated. I also haven't bothered to reinstall the OS - if 10.2 wasn't imminent, I may well consider it.
Also, the GUI sucks. Having a single menu at the top of one screen doesn't make sense when you have multiple screens (means you keep having to move the mouse all the way to the other screen to use the menus). Not allowing the window focus to follow the mouse, meaning you have to point and click to get window focus, sucks. AFAIKT, there's no way round it either - at least with Windows there are ways (TweakUI, or something) of making it work the way you want (not the way Apple thinks you want to work)!
And there are other things. Not least of which is Apple's reuluctance to allow tools like iDVD to work with 3rd party h/w (even if we pay for it).
My Mac experience has been far from impressive. It's been quite a money pit.
I was wondering why everyone was praising the GUI on OS X...like you say, it's nice for the first week or so, but the novelty wears off pretty quickly.
There are two main things I dislike:
1) click-for-focus - I have been working on computers for over a decade and never had to do this (was able to configure focus-follows-mouse or it was already that way).
2) resolution dependance - what is all this talk of resolution independance? When I increase the size of the framebuffer, all the icons get smaller. That is resolution *dependant*, not *independant*. The icons should remain the same size, but become smoother. Using high-resolution displays means I'm squinting to see the text and icons, and I end up having to put up with a lower resolution and lower quality text and icons. Also, when you have more than one screen, and they are different resolutions, the mouse keeps getting stuck at the edge of the larger one where it doesn't join the smaller one; if they were resolution independant, the top and bottoms of both screens would match!
3) (yes, I know I said 2) The menu bar always at the top of the screen. I wasn't sure about this when I started using OS X, and I've now decided it's a pain in the butt. Ever used more than one screen on your Mac? Even though your app's main window is on the second screen, the menu's are still on the primary screen. How brain dead is that?
4) can't remote display - it doesn't work with other systems which is a pain. I know OroborOSX does a fair job (especially since it's free), but it doesn't work perfectly (try x2x with another machine running X), and cut & paste doesn't work with Mac windows (unlike Citrix which works fine with Mac windows).
No. Mac OS X's GUI is a pain in the butt to use. I would consider a different one, if the apps I have would use it. But is there really a choice?
The things (GUI/Window Manager/whatever they are) seem to have been going backwards in functionality. NeWS seemed to have it right IMO; but that was replaced by X which lost the resolution independance (but gained remote display).
I beleive this, since, IINM, USB requires more of the CPU than Firewire and so require the user to have a better and, therefore, more expensive (?) CPU.
I have used an HP PhotoSmart S20 to scan negatives. I has done a good job, but it only has drivers for Windows, and I've given up on that now. The s/w that came with it (the driver?) automatically chopped up the scanned strips into individual shots, which helped dramatically. Still, since I don't use Windows anymore, it's sitting gathering dust.
(Anyone know of a driver for Mac OS X, or another scanner that automatically splits strips *and* has a driver for Mac OS X?).
Another thing...the ReplayTV4000 has a facility for showing a photo album on your TV (as well as recording shows etc). I haven't tried it, but it would appear to be the modern alternative to a photo album on the coffee table.
Does MPEG4 encoding have to be a multi-step process?
I don't see why they don't use the same style of compression that digital cable uses. If it's good enough to be used at the destination, why can't it, or something similar (perhaps the codec used for cable TV doesn't provide the necessary compression ratio), be used at the source.
Sure, it'll require changes to the hardware, which won't happen in time for this application (but it will be lasting years, right?), but it's not like you can't use a compressor in a continuous mode, rather than the 'record to file, compress file, transmit file, receive file, uncompress file, view file' mode. Perhaps you can't use MPEG4 in that mode; I don't know.
> They don't care about open source or Linux, just the performance that they will get from the machines
> They're only concerned about performance. The license fee shouldn't be a deciding factor unless the two systems are otherwise quite similar.
Indeed.
However, as others have pointed out, it should be made clear that there are many ways to measure 'performance'. Dell, and the poster's management, seem to imply that 'hits per day' is the way to measure performance. Another, is up time.
I wonder what the figures for 'hits per year' would be, taking into account that when a machine is down it has zero hits I'm sure there are many different metrics for performance which you could use to counter the 'hits per day' metric. Don't know if it'll be enough though.
Max.
[1] I don't suppose it'd make enough of a difference; but you can figure into it the additional down time required due to additional maintenance effort that might be required, and weight the down time in the calculations.
Of course it's important that the kernel developers get hold of these machines, but people seem to be missing the significance of the application developers also having access to MP machines. Applications can be developed easily enough on uniprocessor machines, but actual hardware is needed to make sure they take advantage of the multiple processors and bandwidth offerred by the big iron.
I think it's the fact that application developers can make applications to take advantage of MP that is the main focus of this effort, and the attraction for the big names.
> An SGI RealityMonster
> could still blow whatever sorry Linux
> configuration they had away.
An SGI RealityMonster would be a waste of money
since this application doesn't require graphics.
Of course, they might (!) need graphics for some
other part of the movie making process, in which
case they could kill two birds with one stone.
However, the fact that they can get away with
a low power solution such as the SGI 1200s means
that they don't need all the connection fabric of
a Reality Monster, so that would probably be a
waster of money too.
> I've used mini-discs for a few months but I > got sick of them quickly.
I've used them for years, and am not sick of them yet.
> Copying is mostly done with analog connections,
I use digital connection *all* the time. I believe digital is used far more than analog, but...
> so copying a 74 minute MD takes 74 minutes...
even with digital, 74 minites takes 74 minutes, unless you have a unit which copies faster. These units are new, relative to MD itself, but they're not that expensive - I was suprised. A lot of bookshelf systems can copy at double speed, and there are CD/MD units which can copy at 5X speed.
> This is why I switched to the Rio 500. It's got > a USB interface, so it only takes a minute or so > to copy a CDs worth of music.
Copy, sure, but how long does it take to encode that CD? Remember, an MD unit is actually encoding too. Maybe it's become faster than when I last tried it. I guess it depends on how fast your CPU and CDROM drive is.
Furthermore, unless I'm much mistaken, right now, you need a computer to do that copying. IMO, until they remove the computer from the equation, MP3 fail to be a success in the consumer marker, and will remain a gadget for geeks. I'm a geek, and if I had the patience to bother with encoding CDs through my computer, then I might be tempted by an MP3 unit, but I can't be bothered.
> Waste of time, and doesn't encourage keeping > your MDs up to date.
Fair enough. However, the high cost of the media encourages you to keep MP3s on a computer, rather than on the media, which makes me less inclined to listen to them. I prefer to keep MDs like I would a cassette or CD collection. I don't mind MP3 per say, but personally I prefer to keep my music on the media I'll be playing it on. If I have MP3, I can record them to MD quite easily. Of course, you often lose quality with MP3, compared to ATRAC, but I'm no audiophile, so I probably wouldn't notice.
> The problem I have with MiniDisks is the cost. > The media may be inexpensive, but the recorder > is just too much.(Last time I looked was about 6 > months ago)
Look again. A recorder can be had for a little over $100US these days, if you shop around.
http://www.minidisc.org/part_Whats_new.html
You can get a whole mini system for $100 if you get your timing right.
> CD-R is a good solution because > you can play them essentially anywhere.
A CD-R drive typically costs the same as a MD recorder, yet CD-R requires a computer to record the CD - hardly appropriate for a consumer product. Unless there's a stand alone unit of which I'm not aware.
Also, CD-R is hardly a portable format - it's not any better than CD - requires some care to avoid cratches etc.
Have you considered putting the computer is a sound-proof box? They used to use such things more for printers and the like, but I've seen them used for computers too. They often have especially quiet fans in them...
I haven't seen any for sale here in Silicon Valley - anyone have a source for them?
How cheap do you want them to be? MD audio disks cost under $2 (sure the data ones cost more like $11, but still not expensive), and MD audio units can be had for under $100 these days - and thats for a whole audio system, not just an MD; see :
> Second, if there's no data spec for the MD's, > and no real way to implement it--i.e. no "data > type field"--then they shouldn't put data on > there.
MD does have a data format, and has done for some time.
http://www.minidisc.org/md_data_table.html
They seem to store approx. 140MB on the 2.5" disk. Costs more than an audio MD (~$2) at ~$11.
There's also the MD Data2 discs which store 650MB (up to 20 minutes of MPEG2 video (10 minutes in HiQuality mode) as well as still photographs).
See the above page for info on the Sony MD Discam.
There are already image cameras based on it; see the Sony DSC-MD1 MD digital still camera.
> I think Minidiscs are just too expensive and > proprietary.
Blank MDs can be had for less than a couple of bucks these days, and plenty of companies manufacture them. Are they really more proprietary than CD or Compact Cassette - aren't they both Phillips products?
> Yeah, I have a tough time taking 15-20 pics on > my DCS-315 even with the 'long lasting' > batteries. What B.S.
As someone else pointed out, and I discovered with my DC280, use NiMH batteries. NiMH's keep their voltage at 1.2V a lot longer, and drop very quickly at the end of their life. Regular alkaline batteries' voltage (1.5V) tends to drop gradually, but they (can) last longer.
Slashdot Mirror
I just wish Mozilla would take the settings from the network preferences, instead of having it's own.
Same with iChat. Apple Mail reads the proxy setting, but not the socks setting, which means I currently have to use Mozilla to read my mac.com mail account, and Apple Mail my work account (I could use Mozilla for both, but Apple Mail has some nice features).
Each app having it's own networking preferences makes it a pain for laptop (Powerbook, in my case). users who are switching networks all the time.
Not there yet Apple.
Max.
I don't see why anyone would be confused.
Why would it pop up any menu at all? It won't need a user to select what type of disk it has in it since the s/w can detect it.
It's not a new type of disk they're introducing - it's a drive that can write to both types of disk.
I currently have a DVD-R/RW drive and mistakenly purchased some DVD+RW disks. So, they won't work with my drive and I spent money for nothing.
If I had one of these new drives, I would still be able to use them.
That's the only difference, but it's a big one and very significant, I think.
Am I mistaken?
Max.
I've been using it for a few months now on my Powerbook G4/800/DVI, and it has crashed numerous times. And, no, I wasn't doing anything particularly complicated. I also haven't bothered to reinstall the OS - if 10.2 wasn't imminent, I may well consider it.
Also, the GUI sucks. Having a single menu at the top of one screen doesn't make sense when you have multiple screens (means you keep having to move the mouse all the way to the other screen to use the menus). Not allowing the window focus to follow the mouse, meaning you have to point and click to get window focus, sucks. AFAIKT, there's no way round it either - at least with Windows there are ways (TweakUI, or something) of making it work the way you want (not the way Apple thinks you want to work)!
And there are other things. Not least of which is Apple's reuluctance to allow tools like iDVD to work with 3rd party h/w (even if we pay for it).
My Mac experience has been far from impressive. It's been quite a money pit.
I was wondering why everyone was praising the GUI on OS X...like you say, it's nice for the first week or so, but the novelty wears off pretty quickly.
:
There are two main things I dislike
1) click-for-focus - I have been working on computers for over a decade and never had to do this (was able to configure focus-follows-mouse or it was already that way).
2) resolution dependance - what is all this talk of resolution independance? When I increase the size of the framebuffer, all the icons get smaller. That is resolution *dependant*, not *independant*. The icons should remain the same size, but become smoother. Using high-resolution displays means I'm squinting to see the text and icons, and I end up having to put up with a lower resolution and lower quality text and icons. Also, when you have more than one screen, and they are different resolutions, the mouse keeps getting stuck at the edge of the larger one where it doesn't join the smaller one; if they were resolution independant, the top and bottoms of both screens would match!
3) (yes, I know I said 2) The menu bar always at the top of the screen. I wasn't sure about this when I started using OS X, and I've now decided it's a pain in the butt. Ever used more than one screen on your Mac? Even though your app's main window is on the second screen, the menu's are still on the primary screen. How brain dead is that?
4) can't remote display - it doesn't work with other systems which is a pain. I know OroborOSX does a fair job (especially since it's free), but it doesn't work perfectly (try x2x with another machine running X), and cut & paste doesn't work with Mac windows (unlike Citrix which works fine with Mac windows).
No. Mac OS X's GUI is a pain in the butt to use. I would consider a different one, if the apps I have would use it. But is there really a choice?
The things (GUI/Window Manager/whatever they are) seem to have been going backwards in functionality. NeWS seemed to have it right IMO; but that was replaced by X which lost the resolution independance (but gained remote display).
> What next - a bill to disallow modifying your PC ?
Don't users of Microsoft OSes already have a Bill trying to do this?
> Intel backed
I beleive this, since, IINM, USB requires more of the CPU than Firewire and so require the user to have a better and, therefore, more expensive (?) CPU.
Max.
I have used an HP PhotoSmart S20 to scan negatives. I has done a good job, but it only has drivers for Windows, and I've given up on that now. The s/w that came with it (the driver?) automatically chopped up the scanned strips into individual shots, which helped dramatically. Still, since I don't use Windows anymore, it's sitting gathering dust.
(Anyone know of a driver for Mac OS X, or another scanner that automatically splits strips *and* has a driver for Mac OS X?).
Another thing...the ReplayTV4000 has a facility for showing a photo album on your TV (as well as recording shows etc). I haven't tried it, but it would appear to be the modern alternative to a photo album on the coffee table.
Max.
> I don't know anybody who calls them that...
I call them that sometimes.
Does MPEG4 encoding have to be a multi-step process?
I don't see why they don't use the same style of compression that digital cable uses. If it's good enough to be used at the destination, why can't it, or something similar (perhaps the codec used for cable TV doesn't provide the necessary compression ratio), be used at the source.
Sure, it'll require changes to the hardware, which won't happen in time for this application (but it will be lasting years, right?), but it's not like you can't use a compressor in a continuous mode, rather than the 'record to file, compress file, transmit file, receive file, uncompress file, view file' mode. Perhaps you can't use MPEG4 in that mode; I don't know.
Max.
> Outlook, on the other hand, is not a backdoor
Indeed. Isn't Outlook more of a 'front door'?
'Open door' might be more accurate.
Max.
can run quite effectively on small machines and
large machines...why can't linux be made to?
> From the original question:
> They don't care about open source or Linux, just the performance that they will get from the machines
> They're only concerned about performance. The license fee shouldn't be a deciding factor unless the two systems are otherwise quite similar.
Indeed.
However, as others have pointed out, it should be made clear that there are many ways to measure 'performance'. Dell, and the poster's management, seem to imply that 'hits per day' is the way to measure performance. Another, is up time.
I wonder what the figures for 'hits per year' would be, taking into account that when a machine is down it has zero hits I'm sure there are many different metrics for performance which you could use to counter the 'hits per day' metric. Don't know if it'll be enough though.
Max.
[1] I don't suppose it'd make enough of a difference; but you can figure into it the additional down time required due to additional maintenance effort that might be required, and weight the down time in the calculations.
If the naken guy wins, he could moon the whole
planet when he get up there.
Of course it's important that the kernel developers get hold of these machines, but people seem to be missing the significance of the application developers also having access to MP machines. Applications can be developed easily enough on uniprocessor machines, but actual hardware is needed to make sure they take advantage of the multiple processors and bandwidth offerred by the big iron.
I think it's the fact that application developers can make applications to take advantage of MP that is the main focus of this effort, and the attraction for the big names.
> Perhaps SGI isn't supporting Linux even, I
> cannot remember, however
SGI does support linux...
> An SGI RealityMonster
> could still blow whatever sorry Linux
> configuration they had away.
An SGI RealityMonster would be a waste of money
since this application doesn't require graphics.
Of course, they might (!) need graphics for some
other part of the movie making process, in which
case they could kill two birds with one stone.
However, the fact that they can get away with
a low power solution such as the SGI 1200s means
that they don't need all the connection fabric of
a Reality Monster, so that would probably be a
waster of money too.
> I've used mini-discs for a few months but I
> got sick of them quickly.
I've used them for years, and am not sick of
them yet.
> Copying is mostly done with analog connections,
I use digital connection *all* the time. I believe
digital is used far more than analog, but...
> so copying a 74 minute MD takes 74 minutes...
even with digital, 74 minites takes 74 minutes,
unless you have a unit which copies faster.
These units are new, relative to MD itself, but
they're not that expensive - I was suprised.
A lot of bookshelf systems can copy at double speed,
and there are CD/MD units which can copy
at 5X speed.
> This is why I switched to the Rio 500. It's got
> a USB interface, so it only takes a minute or so
> to copy a CDs worth of music.
Copy, sure, but how long does it take to encode
that CD? Remember, an MD unit is actually encoding
too. Maybe it's become faster than when I last
tried it. I guess it depends on how fast your CPU
and CDROM drive is.
Furthermore, unless I'm much mistaken, right now,
you need a computer to do that copying. IMO, until
they remove the computer from the equation, MP3
fail to be a success in the consumer marker, and
will remain a gadget for geeks. I'm a geek, and
if I had the patience to bother with encoding
CDs through my computer, then I might be tempted
by an MP3 unit, but I can't be bothered.
> Waste of time, and doesn't encourage keeping
> your MDs up to date.
Fair enough. However, the high cost of the media
encourages you to keep MP3s on a computer, rather
than on the media, which makes me less inclined to
listen to them. I prefer to keep MDs like I would
a cassette or CD collection. I don't mind MP3 per
say, but personally I prefer to keep my music on
the media I'll be playing it on. If I have MP3, I
can record them to MD quite easily. Of course,
you often lose quality with MP3, compared to
ATRAC, but I'm no audiophile, so I probably
wouldn't notice.
All a matter of personal preference, I guess.
> The problem I have with MiniDisks is the cost.
> The media may be inexpensive, but the recorder
> is just too much.(Last time I looked was about 6
> months ago)
Look again. A recorder can be had for a little
over $100US these days, if you shop around.
http://www.minidisc.org/part_Whats_new.html
You can get a whole mini system for $100 if you
get your timing right.
> CD-R is a good solution because
> you can play them essentially anywhere.
A CD-R drive typically costs the same as a MD
recorder, yet CD-R requires a computer to record
the CD - hardly appropriate for a consumer
product. Unless there's a stand alone unit of
which I'm not aware.
Also, CD-R is hardly a portable format - it's not
any better than CD - requires some care to avoid
cratches etc.
Have you considered putting the computer is a
sound-proof box? They used to use such things
more for printers and the like, but I've seen
them used for computers too. They often have
especially quiet fans in them...
I haven't seen any for sale here in Silicon Valley
- anyone have a source for them?
> Minidisc...there's the shock problem again.
Shock problem? You can get portable minidisc
recorders that record audio with no problems with
shock. Why would it be any different for a
camera?
> would come down in price significantly
How cheap do you want them to be? MD audio disks
cost under $2 (sure the data ones cost more like
$11, but still not expensive), and MD audio units
can be had for under $100 these days - and thats
for a whole audio system, not just an MD; see :
http://www.minidisc.org/
> Second, if there's no data spec for the MD's,
> and no real way to implement it--i.e. no "data
> type field"--then they shouldn't put data on
> there.
MD does have a data format, and has done for some
time.
http://www.minidisc.org/md_data_table.html
They seem to store approx. 140MB on the 2.5" disk.
Costs more than an audio MD (~$2) at ~$11.
There's also the MD Data2 discs which store 650MB
(up to 20 minutes of MPEG2 video (10 minutes in
HiQuality mode) as well as still photographs).
See the above page for info on the Sony MD Discam.
There are already image cameras based on it; see
the Sony DSC-MD1 MD digital still camera.
> I think Minidiscs are just too expensive and
> proprietary.
Blank MDs can be had for less than a couple of
bucks these days, and plenty of companies
manufacture them. Are they really more proprietary than CD or Compact Cassette - aren't they both Phillips products?
> Yeah, I have a tough time taking 15-20 pics on
> my DCS-315 even with the 'long lasting'
> batteries. What B.S.
As someone else pointed out, and I discovered
with my DC280, use NiMH batteries. NiMH's keep their voltage at 1.2V a lot longer, and drop very quickly at the end of their life. Regular alkaline batteries' voltage (1.5V) tends to drop gradually, but they (can) last longer.