"In addition to booting Windows XP at blazing speeds, the included version of Mac OS X for Intel takes "as little as 10 seconds" to boot to the Desktop from when the Apple logo first displays on screen."
Are they saying that the included version of Mac OS X boots Windows XP at blazing speeds (in Virtual PC or something)? If not, why would Windows perform any different than on another PC with the same specs? There really isn't anything there that would make Windows boot faster than expected, besides the fact that it was probably a clean install which will always give you a faster boot time.
I was under the impression that Intel Macs wouldn't be able to run Windows, at least not without some sort of workaround. Or are they leaving the developer machines open to install both OSes?
For connecting to the internet, do you really need anything faster? I don't know of any ISP that gives you more than 11Mbps.
If you're doing a wireless LAN setup (or if you have a T1 connection or something), by all means get a faster router. For most people though 802.11b will be plenty fast and will be less expensive.
If that were a true statement, than I would disagree. Sony didn't actually drop anything. An article in a Japanese electonics magazine made a reference to router functionality that was being tested in the early design stages of the PS3 and then dropped. It was never in the final spec and it wasn't in the demo models shown at E3. Those had 3 gigabit ethernet ports that can act as a switch and that functionality is still going into the PS3.
Either way, the article is inaccurate so take it all with a grain of salt.
Exactly. People forget that when Nintendo owned the market, the video game industry as a whole was pretty much a niche market. It was a very big niche market, but far from the mainstream indsustry we have now.
Sony came in and expanded the market, which is great, but I don't think Nintendo has fallen as far as some people would have you believe.
Apparently the router functionality was something they tried during the design stages, but was never in the final spec.
The PS3 currently has 3 Gigabit Ethernet ports and can act as a switching hub. That functionality is still present and could be used to connect the PS3 to other devices, such as HD cable/satellite boxes, external storage, etc. Specific plans for the ports have not been announced though.
I can't understand why Sony would want to withdraw WiFi from the PS3 spec, though. If it is a technical issue, then you can bet they will come back later with an add-on WiFi dongle.
Just to clarify, Sony isn't dropping standard WiFi support from the PS3, just the *built-in* wireless router, which they dropped for cost reasons. According to the latest info, they will be losing almost $100 on each PS3 sold*, so if they can cut a few bucks out here and there it will make a big difference over the millions of units sold.
Honestly I'm glad to see something like this get dropped and not backwards compatibility or some other, more useful feature. Sure it would be an added bonus, but a lot of people already have WiFi setups, and for those that don't they can get one for very cheap. A couple weeks ago Best Buy had an 802.11b Linksys Wireless router on sale for $5.00 (after rebates). By the time the PS3 comes out you'll be able to get one for next to nothing, even when they're not on sale.
Right now, all Adobe really has going for them is PDF
Yeah, it's not like photoshop is a valuable asset or anything.
Not to mention After Effects, Illustrator, InDesign (which seems to be gaining on Quark), or Premiere Pro (only on the PC now, but still one of the top professional video editing packages).
Each of those products is either the industry standard for what it does, or is one of the top alternatives.
I'd say they have a lot more going for them than just PDF
If flash was used to really implement 1) as you purport I would agree, but 99% of the stuff out there is to add animation to the navigation (example : most official game site those day) and other gimmick, and frankly up until now, a dozen web page with a few picture isn't taking you 1200K as far as I know. Plain old html is the easiest to navigate, and read and load.
Plain Old English is also the easiest to understand. Look into it.
Who in the right mind would allow random Flash applications access to their camera and microphone? What use would this have?
No one should allow "random" sites to have access to their camera or microphone. But that doesn't mean that it has no legitamate use.
With Macromedia Breeze, you can have live seminars, online meetings or training sessions with anyone who has the Flash player installed.
Seems pretty useful to me. I agree that for most public website content, the microphone and camera have no real use, but that's why Flash denies access by default. It's there if you need it, but you're not vulnerable by default.
It's not uncommon for majors to pay $150,000 per SONG to put out a CD.
I'll agree that major labels have spent upwards of $2-3 million (and more) on a 10-15 track CD, but saying it's "not uncommon" is exaggerating it a bit. Also, most of that money is excess and has nothing to do with how the recording sounds: food, drinks, luxury apartments near the studio for the artist to live in while they record, etc. Also when you have that kind of money to spend, you don't have to stay as focused and can end up wasting a lot of studio time just because you can. Again, this has nothing to do with getting a quality sound.
I'd say a more common budget for a major label album is in the $250,000-500,000 for the whole album.
Anyone who says you have to spend $150,000 on one song is wasting your money.
Don't be stupid. If a label offers you a contract take it. If your career goes anywhere, you can renegotiate a better contract after the terms of the first have been completed.
That seems to be the advice you hear from a lot of different people. I've been through one record deal already and have talked to a *lot* of other bands in the same position, and it rarely works out like that.
Also, in most cases a major label deal guarantees *one* album but locks you in for *seven*, all at the sole discretion of the label. That's a long time to wait for a renegitiation. There are bands that have been around for 10-15 years and still haven't released seven albums.
Just out of curiosity do you have any experience in the music industry? Specifically with signing record contracts, releasing and promoting albums and renegotiating contracts?
Thousands of good bands have totally fallen apart because of the way the label handled them. Not because they weren't good or there wasn't an audience for their music, but because labels want immediate success and try to put all their eggs in one basket. They spend ridiculous amounts of money up front so when it doesn't work right away the bands are tossed out with nothing but whatever's left from their advance. That might last you another few months, but what then?
I guess what I'm saying is, it's not always as simple as what you're making it out to be. Obviously a young band isn't going to get the best deal. I'm not saying to turn down every record deal just on principle. But make sure the label at least beleives in what you do and is willing to put their money where their mouth is.
You might not be able to get a good royalty rate right away, but try to get 2 albums guaranteed or a certain amount of money for promotion/tour support. At the very least get whatever you can up front, because no matter what they say, they want to give you as little money as possible. The last thing you want is to be broke 6 months later and begging the label for more money so you can pay your bills while you're out on the road.
If you just take any deal that is thrown in front of you, you're just asking to get screwed. I've seen it plenty of times. I know at least 4-5 bands that signed major label deals. One of them had their album shelved (ie: it never got released) and they got dropped. The rest got such little support that the records never sold enough to satify the label, the bands all got dropped and everyone went their separate ways.
And in almost all the cases, if they had released the album on a smaller label and had a better deal, they would have been considered successful with the amount of albums that they sold and would've actually made some money.
Sure it's a much harder road to follow. But do you really want to put the future of your band in the hands of some company that is gonna toss you out whenever they feel like it? For some people it's worth the risk. At one point it was for me. But we got tossed out just like everyone else. Luckily we all have confidence in what we do and decided it was worth pushing forward.
I think with the technology we have today its possible to put your band in a position to be able to negotiate the right deal up front. It's gonna be hard, but it will be worth it in the long run.
Don't even try to get signed until you have some kind of following. Sell you music online and at shows. Give it away on P2P networks if you have to. If its good eventually the fans will come. Once you have a decent fanbase, even if it's in one area, you at least have something to bargain with. Labels love numbers. If you can sell 10,000 CDs regionally, even if it takes you a couple of years, you're gonna be in a much better position to get the right deal from a major label.
If you go just with a demo and nothing else, you really don't have anything. Sure the demo might be amazing. But labels don't really care if something is good anymore. They'd rather you show up with a demo that sucks, but you sold 25,000 copies of it. If it sells they'll get behind it.
Also, some way for Google to pick up that huge amounts of *real* people hated the link they clicked on from a Google search, would allow Google to move that link down in the results. So maybe people could not only bookmark sites, on Google's bookmark service, but attach emotion to them somehow.
That's a great idea.
Unfortunately it would be manipulated about 100,000X more than any other current Google ranking feature.
I just search for my keywords and than click on "This link sucks" or whatever on everyone elses links. *Everyone* would be doing this and thus render any data gathered to be meaningless.
Obviously, you could put limits on what people are allowed to do (like the moderation rules here), but it would still be taken advantage of and would probably screw up the results more than it would really help.
Re:Macs are almost perfect machines
on
Return of the Mac
·
· Score: 1
Talking about the hardware, Macs are what everyone would desire from a computer (especially laptops). Instant start up with "Sleep" function , battery that lasts at least 3 hours, a really good warranty, latest technology available (firewire, bt, 11g, etc.), and the list goes on..
My laptop does all of that and more... and it's not a Mac.
I'm not saying it's better but if that's what's supposed to convince me to switch, I don't see much difference.
And to be totally honest, I have seen several people have problems with the "Sleep" function -- not sleeping right away, not waking up, etc. -- while I haven't had any problems at all. I know, that doesn't really prove anything, I'm just saying, from my experience, those aren't really the best selling points of a Mac laptop.
I had a friend who recently upgraded to a new laptop. His old one was ancient. He knew all the things I did on my computer. He got another PC and constantly asks me how he can do what I am doing (in a port of the same app). I have to tell him he has to buy a Mac. The functionality just isn't there in the PC version because it's built into Mac OS X.
What was he trying to do?
I'm sure there are some things built into OSX that aren't in Windows, but that doesn't mean that you *have* to get a Mac to be able to do them.
Its funny how when things are built into Windows (or any other OS or application) it's called "bloat" and "unfair competition" but in a Mac it's always "functionality".
Re:Top 5 : What's Next At Apple
on
What's Next At Apple
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
As for the Safari vs Firefox debate - I think Safari clearly wins on one point, if no other... that it is scriptable, and that scripting language is the one I can also use to script iTunes.
What percentage of the Mac user base actually uses Applescript with Safari on a regular basis? I just don't see how that is the dealbreaker in the Safari vs Firefox debate.
Obviously for you it makes a huge difference, but for most people that's not even useful. If anything Firefox wins because it's a lot easier to download and install extensions than it is to learn Applescript (for most people anyway). And they can probably do a lot of the same things you're doing with Applescript. For the general user, it would appear that Firefox can do more, if only because they don't know how to use Applescript (and probably don't want to) and just assume that the functionality isn't there.
Apple doesn't offer a $500 WalMart PC, it's true...oh wait, scratch that (and don't gripe: you already *have* a mouse, monitor and keyboard).
I do, sure, but what about someone who doesn't own a computer at all? I think it's great that Apple has finally come out with a relatively cheap desktop option, but you still can't compare it evenly to a sub-$500 PC that comes with a monitor and keyboard/mouse. Besides I think the market for the $500 WalMart PC is somewhat different than the market for the Mac Mini. There's definitely crossover, but I don't really see them as direct competitors.
And as far as high-end desktops go, there's still some difference there. You need to have some basic knowledge on building your own system to really save money...
About a year ago, I built a machine comparable to a G5 for like 2/3 the price (at the time). The point is I think its still more than just a perception that Apples are more expensive.
Slashdot Mirror
I found that whole statement to be be confusing:
"In addition to booting Windows XP at blazing speeds, the included version of Mac OS X for Intel takes "as little as 10 seconds" to boot to the Desktop from when the Apple logo first displays on screen."
Are they saying that the included version of Mac OS X boots Windows XP at blazing speeds (in Virtual PC or something)? If not, why would Windows perform any different than on another PC with the same specs? There really isn't anything there that would make Windows boot faster than expected, besides the fact that it was probably a clean install which will always give you a faster boot time.
I was under the impression that Intel Macs wouldn't be able to run Windows, at least not without some sort of workaround. Or are they leaving the developer machines open to install both OSes?
For connecting to the internet, do you really need anything faster? I don't know of any ISP that gives you more than 11Mbps.
If you're doing a wireless LAN setup (or if you have a T1 connection or something), by all means get a faster router. For most people though 802.11b will be plenty fast and will be less expensive.
If that were a true statement, than I would disagree. Sony didn't actually drop anything. An article in a Japanese electonics magazine made a reference to router functionality that was being tested in the early design stages of the PS3 and then dropped. It was never in the final spec and it wasn't in the demo models shown at E3. Those had 3 gigabit ethernet ports that can act as a switch and that functionality is still going into the PS3.
Either way, the article is inaccurate so take it all with a grain of salt.
Exactly. People forget that when Nintendo owned the market, the video game industry as a whole was pretty much a niche market. It was a very big niche market, but far from the mainstream indsustry we have now.
Sony came in and expanded the market, which is great, but I don't think Nintendo has fallen as far as some people would have you believe.
OK, just found some updated info.
Apparently the router functionality was something they tried during the design stages, but was never in the final spec.
The PS3 currently has 3 Gigabit Ethernet ports and can act as a switching hub. That functionality is still present and could be used to connect the PS3 to other devices, such as HD cable/satellite boxes, external storage, etc. Specific plans for the ports have not been announced though.
Here is an IGN article from yesterday: PS3 Router Functions Revisited
I can't understand why Sony would want to withdraw WiFi from the PS3 spec, though. If it is a technical issue, then you can bet they will come back later with an add-on WiFi dongle.
Just to clarify, Sony isn't dropping standard WiFi support from the PS3, just the *built-in* wireless router, which they dropped for cost reasons. According to the latest info, they will be losing almost $100 on each PS3 sold*, so if they can cut a few bucks out here and there it will make a big difference over the millions of units sold.
Honestly I'm glad to see something like this get dropped and not backwards compatibility or some other, more useful feature. Sure it would be an added bonus, but a lot of people already have WiFi setups, and for those that don't they can get one for very cheap. A couple weeks ago Best Buy had an 802.11b Linksys Wireless router on sale for $5.00 (after rebates). By the time the PS3 comes out you'll be able to get one for next to nothing, even when they're not on sale.
* PS3 to sell for $399, cost $494 to make
So? If you don't like it, then don't buy it, and spare the rest of us your juvenile whining.
Amen to that.
Right now, all Adobe really has going for them is PDF
Yeah, it's not like photoshop is a valuable asset or anything.
Not to mention After Effects, Illustrator, InDesign (which seems to be gaining on Quark), or Premiere Pro (only on the PC now, but still one of the top professional video editing packages).
Each of those products is either the industry standard for what it does, or is one of the top alternatives.
I'd say they have a lot more going for them than just PDF
If you haven't found a use for Actionscript yet, I doubt this will make any difference for you.
If flash was used to really implement 1) as you purport I would agree, but 99% of the stuff out there is to add animation to the navigation (example : most official game site those day) and other gimmick, and frankly up until now, a dozen web page with a few picture isn't taking you 1200K as far as I know. Plain old html is the easiest to navigate, and read and load.
Plain Old English is also the easiest to understand. Look into it.
Who in the right mind would allow random Flash applications access to their camera and microphone? What use would this have?
No one should allow "random" sites to have access to their camera or microphone. But that doesn't mean that it has no legitamate use.
With Macromedia Breeze, you can have live seminars, online meetings or training sessions with anyone who has the Flash player installed.
Seems pretty useful to me. I agree that for most public website content, the microphone and camera have no real use, but that's why Flash denies access by default. It's there if you need it, but you're not vulnerable by default.
It's not uncommon for majors to pay $150,000 per SONG to put out a CD.
I'll agree that major labels have spent upwards of $2-3 million (and more) on a 10-15 track CD, but saying it's "not uncommon" is exaggerating it a bit. Also, most of that money is excess and has nothing to do with how the recording sounds: food, drinks, luxury apartments near the studio for the artist to live in while they record, etc. Also when you have that kind of money to spend, you don't have to stay as focused and can end up wasting a lot of studio time just because you can. Again, this has nothing to do with getting a quality sound.I'd say a more common budget for a major label album is in the $250,000-500,000 for the whole album.
Anyone who says you have to spend $150,000 on one song is wasting your money.
It's interesting how true that is these days. Actually not such a bad idea. If you music is good and the video is funny, it could really work.
Register with the US copyright office. It's not expensive. Its $30 to register a whole album worth of music and lyrics.
http://www.copyright.gov/register/sound.html
There you will find Form SR (Sound Recording) and instructions on how to register.
Don't be stupid. If a label offers you a contract take it. If your career goes anywhere, you can renegotiate a better contract after the terms of the first have been completed.
That seems to be the advice you hear from a lot of different people. I've been through one record deal already and have talked to a *lot* of other bands in the same position, and it rarely works out like that.
Also, in most cases a major label deal guarantees *one* album but locks you in for *seven*, all at the sole discretion of the label. That's a long time to wait for a renegitiation. There are bands that have been around for 10-15 years and still haven't released seven albums.
Just out of curiosity do you have any experience in the music industry? Specifically with signing record contracts, releasing and promoting albums and renegotiating contracts?
Thousands of good bands have totally fallen apart because of the way the label handled them. Not because they weren't good or there wasn't an audience for their music, but because labels want immediate success and try to put all their eggs in one basket. They spend ridiculous amounts of money up front so when it doesn't work right away the bands are tossed out with nothing but whatever's left from their advance. That might last you another few months, but what then?
I guess what I'm saying is, it's not always as simple as what you're making it out to be. Obviously a young band isn't going to get the best deal. I'm not saying to turn down every record deal just on principle. But make sure the label at least beleives in what you do and is willing to put their money where their mouth is. You might not be able to get a good royalty rate right away, but try to get 2 albums guaranteed or a certain amount of money for promotion/tour support. At the very least get whatever you can up front, because no matter what they say, they want to give you as little money as possible. The last thing you want is to be broke 6 months later and begging the label for more money so you can pay your bills while you're out on the road. If you just take any deal that is thrown in front of you, you're just asking to get screwed. I've seen it plenty of times. I know at least 4-5 bands that signed major label deals. One of them had their album shelved (ie: it never got released) and they got dropped. The rest got such little support that the records never sold enough to satify the label, the bands all got dropped and everyone went their separate ways.And in almost all the cases, if they had released the album on a smaller label and had a better deal, they would have been considered successful with the amount of albums that they sold and would've actually made some money.
Sure it's a much harder road to follow. But do you really want to put the future of your band in the hands of some company that is gonna toss you out whenever they feel like it? For some people it's worth the risk. At one point it was for me. But we got tossed out just like everyone else. Luckily we all have confidence in what we do and decided it was worth pushing forward.
I think with the technology we have today its possible to put your band in a position to be able to negotiate the right deal up front. It's gonna be hard, but it will be worth it in the long run.
Don't even try to get signed until you have some kind of following. Sell you music online and at shows. Give it away on P2P networks if you have to. If its good eventually the fans will come. Once you have a decent fanbase, even if it's in one area, you at least have something to bargain with. Labels love numbers. If you can sell 10,000 CDs regionally, even if it takes you a couple of years, you're gonna be in a much better position to get the right deal from a major label.
If you go just with a demo and nothing else, you really don't have anything. Sure the demo might be amazing. But labels don't really care if something is good anymore. They'd rather you show up with a demo that sucks, but you sold 25,000 copies of it. If it sells they'll get behind it.
Also, some way for Google to pick up that huge amounts of *real* people hated the link they clicked on from a Google search, would allow Google to move that link down in the results. So maybe people could not only bookmark sites, on Google's bookmark service, but attach emotion to them somehow.
That's a great idea.
Unfortunately it would be manipulated about 100,000X more than any other current Google ranking feature.
I just search for my keywords and than click on "This link sucks" or whatever on everyone elses links. *Everyone* would be doing this and thus render any data gathered to be meaningless.
Obviously, you could put limits on what people are allowed to do (like the moderation rules here), but it would still be taken advantage of and would probably screw up the results more than it would really help.
Talking about the hardware, Macs are what everyone would desire from a computer (especially laptops). Instant start up with "Sleep" function , battery that lasts at least 3 hours, a really good warranty, latest technology available (firewire, bt, 11g, etc.), and the list goes on..
My laptop does all of that and more... and it's not a Mac.
I'm not saying it's better but if that's what's supposed to convince me to switch, I don't see much difference.
And to be totally honest, I have seen several people have problems with the "Sleep" function -- not sleeping right away, not waking up, etc. -- while I haven't had any problems at all. I know, that doesn't really prove anything, I'm just saying, from my experience, those aren't really the best selling points of a Mac laptop.
I had a friend who recently upgraded to a new laptop. His old one was ancient. He knew all the things I did on my computer. He got another PC and constantly asks me how he can do what I am doing (in a port of the same app). I have to tell him he has to buy a Mac. The functionality just isn't there in the PC version because it's built into Mac OS X.
What was he trying to do?
I'm sure there are some things built into OSX that aren't in Windows, but that doesn't mean that you *have* to get a Mac to be able to do them.
Its funny how when things are built into Windows (or any other OS or application) it's called "bloat" and "unfair competition" but in a Mac it's always "functionality".
As for the Safari vs Firefox debate - I think Safari clearly wins on one point, if no other... that it is scriptable, and that scripting language is the one I can also use to script iTunes.
What percentage of the Mac user base actually uses Applescript with Safari on a regular basis? I just don't see how that is the dealbreaker in the Safari vs Firefox debate.
Obviously for you it makes a huge difference, but for most people that's not even useful. If anything Firefox wins because it's a lot easier to download and install extensions than it is to learn Applescript (for most people anyway). And they can probably do a lot of the same things you're doing with Applescript. For the general user, it would appear that Firefox can do more, if only because they don't know how to use Applescript (and probably don't want to) and just assume that the functionality isn't there.
Exactly.
If there was an iFlix Movie Store (or whatever) I think they'd have a much easier time convincing the studios that a PVR and a vPod are good ideas.
For the longest time, Mac-heads used "PowerBook" to mean "laptop" the way some people use "Kleenex" to mean "facial tissue."
That doesn't make it any less annoying.
What songs does he actually profit from? Are these albums actually selling enough that he is collecting any significant royalties?
Apple doesn't offer a $500 WalMart PC, it's true...oh wait, scratch that (and don't gripe: you already *have* a mouse, monitor and keyboard).
I do, sure, but what about someone who doesn't own a computer at all? I think it's great that Apple has finally come out with a relatively cheap desktop option, but you still can't compare it evenly to a sub-$500 PC that comes with a monitor and keyboard/mouse. Besides I think the market for the $500 WalMart PC is somewhat different than the market for the Mac Mini. There's definitely crossover, but I don't really see them as direct competitors.
And as far as high-end desktops go, there's still some difference there. You need to have some basic knowledge on building your own system to really save money...
About a year ago, I built a machine comparable to a G5 for like 2/3 the price (at the time). The point is I think its still more than just a perception that Apples are more expensive.
Parent is so not a troll.
+5 Funny, Insightful
Way to be coherent.
What is it you're trying to say again?