That command never appeared until I got the cracked version of Quicktime.
When you first ran it, QuickTime would have come up with a "sales pitch" dialog claiming one of the benefits of buying QuickTime Pro was to be able to play fullscreen. I believe that should be a standard feature, but apparently the QuickTime Pro $30 keys sell quite well.
typical Apple bonehead mistakes
People around here really do have issues with Apple don't they.
Quicktime program itself is really ugly and hard to use.
It has a nice brushed metal interface and a big play button. In "play these movie trailers for me" mode that's what it does.
The hard stuff comes when you start to use it for recompressing codecs or cut & paste video editing, which are harder concepts in themselves, brushed metal or not, but QuickTime actually does them very well. Anyway, it won Apple an Emmy for contributions to film editing, so it can't be as bad as you say.
You're probably just used to the design philosophy of WMP which does things differently.
This post has been moderated all over the place. When I first looked at it, it had -1 Flamebait, no doubt from the MS supporters who troll the forums. Now it has +4 Funny.
But it's a simple statement of fact, it's what Microsoft has indeed done for the past 20 years.
Why not Insightful? Are moderators getting too young these days to remember?
Your reply is excellent, but when I came to this... whoa! Unless you know something I think this is quite misleading.
By all accounts, modern iTunes is a mix of Carbon, Cocoa, and QuickTime. The QuickTime API has been ported to Windows, but historically speaking Carbon consists of about 70% of the original Macintosh APIs, which have then been extended for modern OS X capabilities.
Carbon is in effect the procedural, lower level API interface to Mac OS X. The API you use when you aren't using Cocoa.
But for porting it to Windows, to say Apple had ported Carbon is misleading. What they probably have done is ported part of Cocoa's WebKit to render the iTunes store pages, and are possibly using QuickTime's API calls for the sound playback. I'm pretty sure the rest would be calling native Win32 APIs.
However, since a lot of the Win32 APIs are eerily similar to the original Macintosh, it might be truer to say that Microsoft ported Carbon when they first ripped off the Mac!
Ok, repeat after me. It is a mass media oriented movie adaptation of a non visual original that appealed only to a niche market.
Ok, repeat after me: Douglas Adams himself lobbied the studios for years to get HHGTG made as a movie... Read the Salmon of Doubt (posthumously published writings) if you don't believe me.
HHGTG was made as a radio series, books, TV series (is TV not visual now?), more books, interactive fiction game, and even had its own TOWEL!
The mass marketing started back in the 70s, and DNA had no problem with it.
And the way they dumbed down that motherf****r down really gave me the f****ng ****s!
(Mind you, I wouldn't mind someone going medieval on Eisner's ass. The guy's a bozo and shouldn't be in charge of a company as important to US culture as Disney.)
A little reading on Adams will tell you that every time some new H2G2 thing comes out is meant to contradict at least a little bit with everything else.
Exactly! And a fan would tell you that that is because Earth lies on a fault line between parallel dimensions. After all, our galactic zipcode is ZZ9 plural Z alpha...
And the way they dumbed down that motherf****r down really gave me the f****ng ****s!
(Mind you, I wouldn't mind someone going medieval on Eisner's ass. They guy's a bozo and shouldn't be in charge of a company as important to US culture as Disney.)
To suggest that PocketPCs are intrinsically superior to equivalent Palm models is hilarious.
I concur with this statement. I currently have an iPAQ 2210 but my previous 3 handhelds were Palms. I've found the iPAQ takes approximately twice as many taps to achieve the same result.
The Pocket PC interface is clunky, as if the "designers" (if you can call a bunch of guys with a set of crayons that) tried to cram the best of Windows into a handheld device and in so doing approximate the competition, rather than thinking from the ground up what makes effective interaction.
Looking intently towards a Tungsten T5 to return to sanity...
Those snobby brits... Any tenuous connection to their fading culture and they're all over it!
On a completely relevant note, I have a whole playlist of P G Wodehouse audiobooks on my iPod.
Inspired, I'm going to start my own search engine called AskWooster. It will search for send its agents, called Gussie Finknottle, Tuppy Glossup and Bingo Little, out to seek for interesting stuff and return 3 cats, a fish and a size 14 top hat.
Whoosh...! The sound of all this going completely over the heads of the/. crowd.
NeXT built Dell's first web store for them (for the princely sum of $100,000 I believe, though now I doubt Michael Dell would even buy a car worth less than that).
Of course, once NeXT was subsumed by Apple, the WebObjects store had to be replaced for political reasons, at a much higher cost.
Did Copland failing actually help Apple succeed?
on
NeXTSTEP To Mac OS X
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
If the Copland project (aka the real Mac OS 8) hadn't floundered like a beached whale, it wouldn't have left Apple in the desperate position of needing to buy a new OS foundation.
That means, they wouldn't have had to buy either Be or NeXT, which would have meant no Mr Steve Jobs. Even the non-fanboy audience here wouldn't question that it was his vision guiding Apple into an undisputed innovator in the "OS-with-power-AND-style" and "digital lifestyle" arenas (despite having negligible marketshare) that has truly saved Apple from extinction (for the moment).
If Copland HAD worked out, Apple might have kicked around for a few years as a viable alternative to Windows 95/98/NT for loyal Apple supporters, but ultimately the onset of very cheap PC hardware and a genuinely superior NT-based OS would have pummeled them into powder.
(BTW, hold the flames: I'm saying NT was superior to the nuKernel of Copland, not to modern Mac OS X, which I'm sure hands NT's ass to it on a plate when it comes to things like multitasking.)
I think it's more to do with declines in cinema attendance. By the time a movie is on DVD, people aren't going to see it at the cinema anyway, and the industry still profits from DVD rentals..
The lawsuits will probably be targeting the "0-day releases."
I've been guilty of downloading things like this, but mainly because I'm in Australia and some films aren't released for a month or two after the US/UK release date.
When there's a buzz created by the global internet, it feels like we're being treated poorly by being made to wait so long.
I'd always thought they set up shop in California for the same reason they didn't go to Seattle: more rain free days than any other part of the country.
Now that you mention it, if filesharing had been around in the 60s and 70s, all those classic episodes that the BBC deleted because it wanted the shelf space would have been preserved.
And in more modern times, given the travesty performed by Directors tinkering with their films (that means you GL), maybe it should be allowed for filesharers to preserve culture for future generations...
Has anyone considered that Apple actually made it rather easy to do this?
Had they been the real evil corporation that Apple-haters tend to want to cast them as, they could quite easily have arranged for something like byte scrambling to take place as the music tracks transferred from iTunes to the iPod.
Then, getting the data back to the computer from an iPod would have been a lot harder.
It reminds me of the early days of DVD players:
Hollywood insisted that DVD manufacturers install region coding to get a license.
Manufacturers did so, but realized sales outside Region 1 would be hampered due to far fewer titles available.
Manufacturers made it rather easy to disable region coding, to the extent that a salesman could do it on the way to a cash register.
Result: region coding only a minor nuisance to those who had the desire to bypass it.
Actually, Mac OS X would be the cross-bred time-travelers from the 29th century with technology light years ahead of the 21st-24th century schmucks who still think digital watches and 2D interfaces are a pretty neat idea.
am I the only person in the world who knows just where I put everything on my computer?
No, not just you, there's also the people who sort their book library by Dewey decimals, have cataloged everything they've ever recorded onto videotape, and enter all the fields on iTunes tracks.
On second thoughts, yes, it is just you, you anal-retentive freak!:)
Spotlight is not an app, it is a collection of technologies which make it possible for 3rd party apps to support searching.
At the same time, the 1st party (Apple) will be demonstrating how it's done by building search into all the system's own apps, eg, searching for the control panel which changes the desktop pattern within the control panels area. Yes, I know I'm calling them control panels when they're actually system preferences because most posters sound like they haven't used Mac OS X.)
This doesn't mean 3rd parties shouldn't attempt to compete at searching, quite the reverse: Spotlight is FOR 3rd party developers who want to do searching..
So not only would Google Desktop not be in competition with Spotlight, it could actually use its hooks into the OS to create something very powerful indeed.
Slashdot Mirror
That command never appeared until I got the cracked version of Quicktime.
When you first ran it, QuickTime would have come up with a "sales pitch" dialog claiming one of the benefits of buying QuickTime Pro was to be able to play fullscreen. I believe that should be a standard feature, but apparently the QuickTime Pro $30 keys sell quite well.
typical Apple bonehead mistakes
People around here really do have issues with Apple don't they.
Quicktime program itself is really ugly and hard to use.
It has a nice brushed metal interface and a big play button. In "play these movie trailers for me" mode that's what it does.
The hard stuff comes when you start to use it for recompressing codecs or cut & paste video editing, which are harder concepts in themselves, brushed metal or not, but QuickTime actually does them very well. Anyway, it won Apple an Emmy for contributions to film editing, so it can't be as bad as you say.
You're probably just used to the design philosophy of WMP which does things differently.
This post has been moderated all over the place. When I first looked at it, it had -1 Flamebait, no doubt from the MS supporters who troll the forums. Now it has +4 Funny.
But it's a simple statement of fact, it's what Microsoft has indeed done for the past 20 years.
Why not Insightful? Are moderators getting too young these days to remember?
of the woodwork every time an iPod is mentioned.
It's like, "I'm going to load up the BFG and have me a piece of those fanboys. Yeah!"
The funny thing is, most of you use and like Microsoft products, the biggest whore on the planet.
I still have yet to use iTunes, to be perfectly honest I would rather stream music in from the internet
iTunes can tune into Radio stations too: iTunes tutorial page
and they had already ported Carbon to Windows.
Your reply is excellent, but when I came to this... whoa! Unless you know something I think this is quite misleading.
By all accounts, modern iTunes is a mix of Carbon, Cocoa, and QuickTime. The QuickTime API has been ported to Windows, but historically speaking Carbon consists of about 70% of the original Macintosh APIs, which have then been extended for modern OS X capabilities.
Carbon is in effect the procedural, lower level API interface to Mac OS X. The API you use when you aren't using Cocoa.
But for porting it to Windows, to say Apple had ported Carbon is misleading. What they probably have done is ported part of Cocoa's WebKit to render the iTunes store pages, and are possibly using QuickTime's API calls for the sound playback. I'm pretty sure the rest would be calling native Win32 APIs.
However, since a lot of the Win32 APIs are eerily similar to the original Macintosh, it might be truer to say that Microsoft ported Carbon when they first ripped off the Mac!
Ok, repeat after me. It is a mass media oriented movie adaptation of a non visual original that appealed only to a niche market.
Ok, repeat after me: Douglas Adams himself lobbied the studios for years to get HHGTG made as a movie... Read the Salmon of Doubt (posthumously published writings) if you don't believe me.
HHGTG was made as a radio series, books, TV series (is TV not visual now?), more books, interactive fiction game, and even had its own TOWEL!
The mass marketing started back in the 70s, and DNA had no problem with it.
Disney "made" Pulp Fiction.
And the way they dumbed down that motherf****r down really gave me the f****ng ****s!
(Mind you, I wouldn't mind someone going medieval on Eisner's ass. The guy's a bozo and shouldn't be in charge of a company as important to US culture as Disney.)
A little reading on Adams will tell you that every time some new H2G2 thing comes out is meant to contradict at least a little bit with everything else.
Exactly! And a fan would tell you that that is because Earth lies on a fault line between parallel dimensions. After all, our galactic zipcode is ZZ9 plural Z alpha...
(Zaphod: "What do all the Zs mean?")
Disney "made" Pulp Fiction.
And the way they dumbed down that motherf****r down really gave me the f****ng ****s!
(Mind you, I wouldn't mind someone going medieval on Eisner's ass. They guy's a bozo and shouldn't be in charge of a company as important to US culture as Disney.)
What's Palm doing on this front? NOTHING!
Palm made an announcement last year when the Bluetooth based Navman was released for the Palm.
To suggest that PocketPCs are intrinsically superior to equivalent Palm models is hilarious.
I concur with this statement. I currently have an iPAQ 2210 but my previous 3 handhelds were Palms. I've found the iPAQ takes approximately twice as many taps to achieve the same result.
The Pocket PC interface is clunky, as if the "designers" (if you can call a bunch of guys with a set of crayons that) tried to cram the best of Windows into a handheld device and in so doing approximate the competition, rather than thinking from the ground up what makes effective interaction.
Looking intently towards a Tungsten T5 to return to sanity...
Those snobby brits... Any tenuous connection to their fading culture and they're all over it!
On a completely relevant note, I have a whole playlist of P G Wodehouse audiobooks on my iPod.
Inspired, I'm going to start my own search engine called AskWooster. It will search for send its agents, called Gussie Finknottle, Tuppy Glossup and Bingo Little, out to seek for interesting stuff and return 3 cats, a fish and a size 14 top hat.
Whoosh...! The sound of all this going completely over the heads of the /. crowd.
NeXT built Dell's first web store for them (for the princely sum of $100,000 I believe, though now I doubt Michael Dell would even buy a car worth less than that).
Of course, once NeXT was subsumed by Apple, the WebObjects store had to be replaced for political reasons, at a much higher cost.
If the Copland project (aka the real Mac OS 8) hadn't floundered like a beached whale, it wouldn't have left Apple in the desperate position of needing to buy a new OS foundation.
That means, they wouldn't have had to buy either Be or NeXT, which would have meant no Mr Steve Jobs. Even the non-fanboy audience here wouldn't question that it was his vision guiding Apple into an undisputed innovator in the "OS-with-power-AND-style" and "digital lifestyle" arenas (despite having negligible marketshare) that has truly saved Apple from extinction (for the moment).
If Copland HAD worked out, Apple might have kicked around for a few years as a viable alternative to Windows 95/98/NT for loyal Apple supporters, but ultimately the onset of very cheap PC hardware and a genuinely superior NT-based OS would have pummeled them into powder.
(BTW, hold the flames: I'm saying NT was superior to the nuKernel of Copland, not to modern Mac OS X, which I'm sure hands NT's ass to it on a plate when it comes to things like multitasking.)So... as I see it, Copland's failure saved Apple!
No, for that you'll need the "Hell Simulator."
Since the editors seem to have momentarily forgotten:
I think it's more to do with declines in cinema attendance. By the time a movie is on DVD, people aren't going to see it at the cinema anyway, and the industry still profits from DVD rentals..
The lawsuits will probably be targeting the "0-day releases."
I've been guilty of downloading things like this, but mainly because I'm in Australia and some films aren't released for a month or two after the US/UK release date.
When there's a buzz created by the global internet, it feels like we're being treated poorly by being made to wait so long.
I'd always thought they set up shop in California for the same reason they didn't go to Seattle: more rain free days than any other part of the country.
Now that you mention it, if filesharing had been around in the 60s and 70s, all those classic episodes that the BBC deleted because it wanted the shelf space would have been preserved.
And in more modern times, given the travesty performed by Directors tinkering with their films (that means you GL), maybe it should be allowed for filesharers to preserve culture for future generations...
Has anyone considered that Apple actually made it rather easy to do this?
Had they been the real evil corporation that Apple-haters tend to want to cast them as, they could quite easily have arranged for something like byte scrambling to take place as the music tracks transferred from iTunes to the iPod.
Then, getting the data back to the computer from an iPod would have been a lot harder.
It reminds me of the early days of DVD players:
Does this mean OS X users are really _really_ oblivious to being despised? Yes.
Actually, Mac OS X would be the cross-bred time-travelers from the 29th century with technology light years ahead of the 21st-24th century schmucks who still think digital watches and 2D interfaces are a pretty neat idea.
am I the only person in the world who knows just where I put everything on my computer?
No, not just you, there's also the people who sort their book library by Dewey decimals, have cataloged everything they've ever recorded onto videotape, and enter all the fields on iTunes tracks.
On second thoughts, yes, it is just you, you anal-retentive freak! :)
Spotlight is not an app, it is a collection of technologies which make it possible for 3rd party apps to support searching.
At the same time, the 1st party (Apple) will be demonstrating how it's done by building search into all the system's own apps, eg, searching for the control panel which changes the desktop pattern within the control panels area. Yes, I know I'm calling them control panels when they're actually system preferences because most posters sound like they haven't used Mac OS X.)
This doesn't mean 3rd parties shouldn't attempt to compete at searching, quite the reverse: Spotlight is FOR 3rd party developers who want to do searching..
So not only would Google Desktop not be in competition with Spotlight, it could actually use its hooks into the OS to create something very powerful indeed.
I guess Google must not know that Linux has now outpaced desktop installs vs Mac's..
Apart from the fact that stat was falsified, they are VERY different users.
Most Linux users are capable of writing Google for themselves, or at least know how to grep search anything they want.
Mac users are probably the ones who would appreciate Google's finesse the most.