Only place i ever saw a table for what the codes meant was in the someones mac bible, and yes there was variation in the mac's but they still had complete control and had the option/opportunity/ability to test and verify every configuration.
I didn't cherry-pick anything. I just clicked the first or second link that came up. I think your tinfoil hat is restricting the bloodflow to your brain. The "bomb" was ONLY available AFTER MacOS was up and running. Not so the "Sad Mac", which ONLY happened during POST, and had NOTHING to do with the OS, since there wasn't one yet.
A Sad Mac screen was ALWAYS a HARDWARE failure. COMPLETELY DIfferent animal. And I think I've only seen ONE of those "in real life" since 1983... If you've seen more than that, you had a Mac with a hardware issue, period.
It is YOU that is either cherry-picking, or ignorant. I'd vote the latter.
As for the availability of the "Bomb IDs", they are/were readily available on the internet, at your local User Group (remember those?), etc. In fact, in astonishing example of "continuing support", Apple STILL publishes a list of the System Error IDs, and their explanations, as well as a series of support pages regarding the "Sad Mac" Codes, and their explanations! It wasn't until later that Apple had the ROM space to put in explanations (like in the example I provided), instead of just "ID= -39", etc.
The Sad Mac codes were a bit more arcane; but seen so seldom that they almost always meant a trip to the repair shop, anyway...
Wouldn't that "restricted range of hardware" also apply to those who obeyed the Hardware Compatibilty List for NT? I seem to remember something about that... I have pesonally seen BSODs on many NT-based systems that did not stray one iota from the HCL. Now what?
remember that a BSOD on a Windows system was every bit as catastrophic (entire system was taken down) as on Macs of the day, and it took MS until XP SP2 before they got their BSOD problem under control.
As someone who supported Windows and Mac computers for businesses in the late 90s and early 2000s, Windows NT4 and 2000 were generally superior to MacOS at the time. On a well managed system, BSOD happened, but not very often, and anyway that's not the only grounds to compare them.
Macs had lots of problems at the time. Security was virtually non-existent. You had to constantly futz with virtual memory, changing settings depending on which application you were running. Sometimes managing virtual memory was trial and error, just changing the settings and praying to the computer gods that things would work. Preference files would constantly get corrupted, mysteriously, causing applications to crash. Meanwhile Windows offered a relatively secure and stable multi-user system with real network authentication. The driver support wasn't always great, but if you got well-supported hardware, setup wasn't too bad and the system ran smoothly.
Neither platform was the model of stability in those days.
However, you show your ignorance of MacOS when you use the term "Virtual Memory" in the context of MacOS. MacOS had no Virtual Memory system, per se. What you were adjusting with the Application Memory Size was primarily the Heap Space that was allowed, since the system wouldn't crash on loading Program Segments; but didn't take kindly to suddenly running out of heap/stack space.
As for security settings; you're right. Windows NT, coming from the designer of Vax VMS (IIRC), most certainly had a much more "enterprise-y" security bent. But I worked for a consultancy that managed dozens, if not hundreds, of Macs in university settings, and they had zero problems getting the Macs to work in those environments, or with the security of same. And some of these systems were in fairly sensitive applications, too. Never heard of a single security problem with the Macs. Just an anecdote, I know; but that's all you were offering as "proof", yourself.
Macs were never Lisas they were two completely different machines. The Lisa you used was the one rebranded a Macintosh XL in the hope it would sell.
Lighten up. I was making a joke on myself, on how long I've been using Apple GUI-based computers. The place I worked for at the time (1983) actually did have a Lisa that was rebranded a Macintosh XL, as did a friend of mine. So I know all about that history, thanks.
Oh, right. Because THIS is so much more informative to even experienced Windows USERS than THIS is to even experienced Mac users.
Both error messages sucked. I'm just saying I have seen a LOT more BSODs than "Bombs", but the inverse is true of the number-of-hours logged on each of the platforms.
And it is a myth about Macs having very little hardware differences. Even within models, production revs often brought hardware changes. True, it isn't like every fly-by-night making a Winmodem card; but there is actually a lot more variation in Mac hardware than you would think.
No selective memory. On OS X from 10.0.0 to 10.5.8 (I have no Intel Macs) I have PERSONALLY run the following hardware:
350 MHz Slot Load iMac, 300 MHz Clamshell iBook, 500 MHz Dual USB iBook, 1.8 GHz DP G5 tower (what I am writing this post on), and a 1.42 GHz eMac. Out of all of those systems, and all of those versions of OS X, I have received the following KPs:
Once on the iMac, due to the "sketchy scanner driver" I mentioned previously.
Once on the G5 tower (right after I got it and stuffed some badly-spec'ed RAM in it).
Other than that, I can't think of a single time I've PERSONALLY had a KP on either my Macs, or the half dozen or so that I "support" for friends and paying clients.
How can something be 100% stable and have 2 kernel panics?
First off, I'm not sure I said 100% stable.
Second, two KPs in almost 13 years is pretty damned few.
Third, one of those two KPs was due to incorrectly-spec'ed RAM on my (or Corsair's) part.
Good for you. I have had Windows crash MANY times "just because". In my experience, it doesn't always have to be a third-party driver with Windows. Af least not before Windows XP SP2. I haven't seen a BSOD or RSOD since then. But neither have I seen a KP on OS X...
allwinners of the world are cranking out epads and apple is doing nothing to sue them for they have no money.
what's ridiculous is that it's only competition that forces companies to iterate new ideas into products instead of selling the same shit year after year. if apple could actually sue anyone making tablets successfully then they would stop buying inventions to integrate to their products.
There has been no serious competition for the iPad since it's launch over 3 years ago; and I can't see one single feature that Apple has added to the iPad "in response" to a competitor. In response to user feedback, yes, and because Apple doesn't NEED "competition" to "pressure them to innovate". But NOT because the competition adds an SD card slot (which I would personally like), or a Micro USB connector.
While I agree with your premise that competition typically moves-along innovation, Apple has never paid much attention to the competition.
Here's the thing: nobody except Apple fanbois give a fuck if there's an iPad mini and it eats the Nexus 7's lunch. As long as there's competing hardware, Android has succeeded. As long as I can buy something that isn't a goddamn Apple walled garden that requires paying a specific company for the privilege of developing software for my own hardware, I'm happy.
Apple, however, knows that their model of ridiculous margins and rent-seeking behavior isn't sustainable if there's stiff competition. That's why Apple is terrified of allowing any serious competition to hit the shelves.
If no one cares about Apple, then why do their stories generate, hands-down, the most traffic on/, ?
And as I have posted previously, if Apple's margins are so high on the iPad, then why can't ANYone steal their lunch money on price/performance?
After Apple lost the "Microsoft coppied our GUI" case, their desktop GUI remained unchanged for 10 years. System 7 through 9 were basically identical..... they couldn't even multitask properly (used cooperative multitasking which led to misbehaving programs refusing to give-up the CPU & freezing the system). Apple said they would stop innovating their GUI if competitors simply copied their ideas, and that's essentially what happened.
The GUI look-and-feel that has more-or-less been unchanged since MacOS System 1.0, even through OS X, is not a sign of lack-of-innovation. Rather it is part of the consistency that makes users happy.
The LAST thing users want is change in the look-and-feel of their computer's OS.
This is what Apple has always understood, and what Microsoft is about to (doubtfully) learn with Metro.
The instabilities of MacOS are greatly over reported. I have been using Macs since they were Lisas, and crashes of my Macs were always much less often than the Windows 3.1, 95 and 98 systems I administered and used as well.
And all the time you complain about "no innovation" as far as "stability" goes under MacOS (Classic), remember that a BSOD on a Windows system was every bit as catastrophic (entire system was taken down) as on Macs of the day, and it took MS until XP SP2 before they got their BSOD problem under control. By that time (what was that, like 2003 for XP SP2?), Apple was already shipping OS X 10.3 (Panther), which was 100% stable. In fact, I have used OS X since 10.0.0, and I have only had TWO Kernel Panics. One was in 2001, caused by a sketchy third-party scanner driver that was obviously playing around too deep in the Kernel; and the second was in 2005, when I purchased some incorrectly-spec'ed RAM.
I say it's pretty good when Kernel Panics are so infrequent that you can remember each of the system-wide OS failures in over a decade of use.
Even though in doing so, they actually may increase the sales of Samsung tablets. Some percentage of people who wouldn't have given a non-Apple-tablet a second glance may now decide "Hey, if Apple is 'worried' enough to sue over this, it must be pretty good."
However, Apple really has no choice. If they don't sue, then that would be the "green light" for the "Allwinners" of the world to come in and just crank out $40 blister-pack 'ePads', absolutely indistinguishable-from-iPad (until you actually tried to use them!) tablets.
Not only would that eat into Apple's sales/profits, but it would eventually (and wrongly) leak into the consumer mindset that ALL tablets are shit. And that could make the iPad market dry up as quickly as it was created.
Doesn't that make the point though? If you need to rely extensively on third-party software to make up for features missing in the new release, which were present in the old release, it's not difficult to argue that the new software is no longer the professional tool it was in previous incarnations. That these features are in other professional tools from Avid and Adobe just kind of cements it, yeah?
I'm sure you can think of other instances where Apple has misunderstood the professional market in some of their other products. I know I can think of few myself.
Apple may have not perfectly analyzed the features that FCP 7 users were using the most; but I don't agree that it is the crime of the century, when those features are either promptly returned to the product, and/or readily and cost-effectively (and $10 total is pretty cost-effective) replaced by third-party tools.
Few software products undergo such a massive paradigm and UI shift from one version to the next as the difference between FCP 7 and FCP X. They really aren't the same animal. But, not only has Apple taken care of most of the "missing features" already, I didn't hear you bitching about all the features that were ADDED or IMPROVED, e.g. "Audition", and SIXTY-FOUR-ANGLE multicam editing, and a spectacular built-in Keyer, and workflow IMPROVEMENTS that were made, like, oh, I dunno, TRACKLESS EDITING, BACKGROUND RENDERING, PROJECT BACKUPS, and the ability to EDIT WHILE IMPORTING. No, you want to bitch about 3 things that affected some greatly, and others not at all.
The app working correctly should not be dependent on where I keep my media.
You are only partially correct.
The app "working correctly" DOES require that it work within the frameworks and other APIs of the OS in which it is resident. This dev. was whining about the fact that he was too lazy to modify his code, period.
Sometimes change requires change. Deal with it.
BTW, MPlayerX sucked a big ol' hairy root, anyway. It will not be missed.
Will we always make choices that are better? Only time will tell.
And therein lies the rub. This particular "experiment" needs about 100 years' more research before it's EVEN ready to THINK ABOUT becoming something you want Joe Sixpack and Jane Ritalin-Addict to have casual access to.
You know, just because science figures out something that could make our lives better doesn't mean that it will be misused. To automatically refute advances in medicine puts you squarely in the realm of the Luddite. Someone like you was saying that soap is an unhealthy and unholy invention a couple thousand years ago.
Ahem. I don't know about "unholy"; but it seems like at least the use of somesoaps IS DECIDEDLY UNHEALTHY.
Sorry. You just walked into that one and shut the door behind yourself.
For the record: I am anything BUT a luddite. But I also have a nose for bad science. And this is the epitome of just that.
Hey, just because you want to replace "/usb1" or "g:" with several clicks, that's your prerogative. I love my keyboard shortcuts -- they're infinitely faster than moving my hand to the mouse to position the cursor over some small line of text somewhere on my high resolution display.
...And, conversely, just because you want to feel superior every time you type in some 1,000 character CLI incantation, doesn't mean that 99.995% of the computer-using public agrees with you.
You can drag and drop files into a Terminal window and it'll type the path for you. So you don't even have to type a path there (though honestly, if you're in terminal it's probably easier to type the path than to find the file and drag it)
Thanks. I always forget that.
It's really amazing how much better "Terminal" is than, say "Command Prompt" in a Windows system. I mean REALLY!!! You can't even do a cut or paste to/from the "DOS Emulator"??? And don't get me started about the retarded need for "Quotation Marks" in pathnames (HOW long has Windows supported Joliet???), or in inability to use UNC Paths (that have existed for HOW long, now???)
So I really wouldn't be surprised if this next refresh is probably the last for the pro line, Apple doesn't really need them and they cost Apple more than any other division on hardware. Its just good business sense to bail out of a niche that doesn't bring in the sales and the Apple pros simply don't move like the Macbooks and iMacs.
First off, do you REALLY think the Pro line isn't profitable for Apple? Have you seen the list prices for Mac Pros? If you listen to the Linux fanbois, they could build TEN systems with TWICE THE SPECS for these prices (but I digress...);-)
And then there's this little email from Tim Cook, that seems to affirmatively put to bed your meme...
One of the biggest complaints was the lack of multi-camera editing. I'm not that familiar with video editing, but that doesn't sound like a workflow issue to me. The same goes for the lack of RED camera support, which is apparently quite popular with filmmakers.
One particularly damning problem was the inability to import projects from the previous version of the software. Again, not really a workflow issue.
The inability to assign audio tracks I suppose is a workflow issue, though it doesn't appear that any sensible alternative is provided by the software. Of course, "updating" your workflow isn't helpful if that workflow doesn't jive with your other applications. As I understand it, FCPX doesn't support OMF transfers which appears to be a common feature. Given that solutions to many of the missing features in FCPX include the use of third-party software, this kind of omission, well, makes the software somewhat less than professional.
I don't know enough about video editing or the software to give a through critique -- all I can do is report on the problems. That FCPX was anything but a professional tool seems to be the consensus.
All of those were legitimate gripes. However I believe ALL of themhave been, or are currently being, addressed, either by Apple, or by others. In one case (FCP 7 import), the 3rd party plugin/add-on is a whopping $10, and in the case of the other, more expensive one (AAF export), there is now a FREE solution.
Yup, the solution to every problem Apple developers face is, as always, bend over a little further.
So, of course you'd rather the Linuxtards have a field day about how "OS X doesn't even support sandboxing", right? Or, not put any incentive behind developers learning and using the sandboxing API?
Apple has moved and moved and moved the "drop dead date" for enforcement of sandboxing. And they don't even make it mandatory unless you want to sell your warez in the Mac Apple Store.
So now the devs that continually bitched about how restrictive Apple's "Walled Garden" is, are bitching that they are only able to sell their products the same way they have before?
I might mention one thing you're missing, the price of new technologies often decreases sharply. We may have a generation of wealthy uber-babies but with them leading the way as early adopters, the next generation could be quite a bit more pleasant for everyone.
Now, tell me truthfully that you don't want a generation of wealthy that lacks sociopathy and mental illness. Imagine the good that could be done (Or rather, the bad that wouldn't be done.)
The REAL problem is that we are contemplating this about a hundred or so years too soon. Check back when we really HAVE decoded human DNA; which is not today. Right now. we are NOWHERE close to that; but we're already talking about not only screwing with the genetically-modified-humans (GMH) lives, but, by releasing these GHM into the population (where they will more than likely breed), we can have VERY unintended consequences that affect the entire species.
And, oh yes: As soon as a company gets a PATENT on a particular DNA modification, what happens with the poor, didn't-ask-for-it-anyway GMH when he/she WANTS to breed? Do we suddenly have the equivalent of the Monsanto Soybean lawsuits, ENJOINING the GMH from "violating Patents" by actually HAVING CHILDREN?!?
Think it won't happen? Think again.
Nope. This is NOT the Star Trek universe. And, if you will remember, THEY didn't even allow this level of genetic manipulation, even though they obviously COULD. There's a lesson to be learned from that.
Slashdot Mirror
You cherry picked with the bomb, a comparable error screen would be
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Sad_mac.png
Only place i ever saw a table for what the codes meant was in the someones mac bible, and yes there was variation in the mac's but they still had complete control and had the option/opportunity/ability to test and verify every configuration.
I didn't cherry-pick anything. I just clicked the first or second link that came up. I think your tinfoil hat is restricting the bloodflow to your brain. The "bomb" was ONLY available AFTER MacOS was up and running. Not so the "Sad Mac", which ONLY happened during POST, and had NOTHING to do with the OS, since there wasn't one yet.
A Sad Mac screen was ALWAYS a HARDWARE failure. COMPLETELY DIfferent animal. And I think I've only seen ONE of those "in real life" since 1983... If you've seen more than that, you had a Mac with a hardware issue, period.
It is YOU that is either cherry-picking, or ignorant. I'd vote the latter.
As for the availability of the "Bomb IDs", they are/were readily available on the internet, at your local User Group (remember those?), etc. In fact, in astonishing example of "continuing support", Apple STILL publishes a list of the System Error IDs, and their explanations, as well as a series of support pages regarding the "Sad Mac" Codes, and their explanations! It wasn't until later that Apple had the ROM space to put in explanations (like in the example I provided), instead of just "ID= -39", etc.
The Sad Mac codes were a bit more arcane; but seen so seldom that they almost always meant a trip to the repair shop, anyway...
Wouldn't that "restricted range of hardware" also apply to those who obeyed the Hardware Compatibilty List for NT? I seem to remember something about that... I have pesonally seen BSODs on many NT-based systems that did not stray one iota from the HCL. Now what?
remember that a BSOD on a Windows system was every bit as catastrophic (entire system was taken down) as on Macs of the day, and it took MS until XP SP2 before they got their BSOD problem under control.
As someone who supported Windows and Mac computers for businesses in the late 90s and early 2000s, Windows NT4 and 2000 were generally superior to MacOS at the time. On a well managed system, BSOD happened, but not very often, and anyway that's not the only grounds to compare them.
Macs had lots of problems at the time. Security was virtually non-existent. You had to constantly futz with virtual memory, changing settings depending on which application you were running. Sometimes managing virtual memory was trial and error, just changing the settings and praying to the computer gods that things would work. Preference files would constantly get corrupted, mysteriously, causing applications to crash. Meanwhile Windows offered a relatively secure and stable multi-user system with real network authentication. The driver support wasn't always great, but if you got well-supported hardware, setup wasn't too bad and the system ran smoothly.
Neither platform was the model of stability in those days.
However, you show your ignorance of MacOS when you use the term "Virtual Memory" in the context of MacOS. MacOS had no Virtual Memory system, per se. What you were adjusting with the Application Memory Size was primarily the Heap Space that was allowed, since the system wouldn't crash on loading Program Segments; but didn't take kindly to suddenly running out of heap/stack space.
As for security settings; you're right. Windows NT, coming from the designer of Vax VMS (IIRC), most certainly had a much more "enterprise-y" security bent. But I worked for a consultancy that managed dozens, if not hundreds, of Macs in university settings, and they had zero problems getting the Macs to work in those environments, or with the security of same. And some of these systems were in fairly sensitive applications, too. Never heard of a single security problem with the Macs. Just an anecdote, I know; but that's all you were offering as "proof", yourself.
Macs were never Lisas they were two completely different machines. The Lisa you used was the one rebranded a Macintosh XL in the hope it would sell.
Lighten up. I was making a joke on myself, on how long I've been using Apple GUI-based computers. The place I worked for at the time (1983) actually did have a Lisa that was rebranded a Macintosh XL, as did a friend of mine. So I know all about that history, thanks.
Oh, right. Because THIS is so much more informative to even experienced Windows USERS than THIS is to even experienced Mac users.
Both error messages sucked. I'm just saying I have seen a LOT more BSODs than "Bombs", but the inverse is true of the number-of-hours logged on each of the platforms.
And it is a myth about Macs having very little hardware differences. Even within models, production revs often brought hardware changes. True, it isn't like every fly-by-night making a Winmodem card; but there is actually a lot more variation in Mac hardware than you would think.
I say it's pretty good when Kernel Panics are so infrequent that you can remember each of the system-wide OS failures in over a decade of use.
An issue with selective memory perhaps?
705,000 hits for "Kernel Panic OS X"
No selective memory. On OS X from 10.0.0 to 10.5.8 (I have no Intel Macs) I have PERSONALLY run the following hardware: 350 MHz Slot Load iMac, 300 MHz Clamshell iBook, 500 MHz Dual USB iBook, 1.8 GHz DP G5 tower (what I am writing this post on), and a 1.42 GHz eMac. Out of all of those systems, and all of those versions of OS X, I have received the following KPs:
Once on the iMac, due to the "sketchy scanner driver" I mentioned previously.
Once on the G5 tower (right after I got it and stuffed some badly-spec'ed RAM in it).
Other than that, I can't think of a single time I've PERSONALLY had a KP on either my Macs, or the half dozen or so that I "support" for friends and paying clients.
How can something be 100% stable and have 2 kernel panics?
First off, I'm not sure I said 100% stable.
Second, two KPs in almost 13 years is pretty damned few.
Third, one of those two KPs was due to incorrectly-spec'ed RAM on my (or Corsair's) part.
Good for you. I have had Windows crash MANY times "just because". In my experience, it doesn't always have to be a third-party driver with Windows. Af least not before Windows XP SP2. I haven't seen a BSOD or RSOD since then. But neither have I seen a KP on OS X...
allwinners of the world are cranking out epads and apple is doing nothing to sue them for they have no money.
what's ridiculous is that it's only competition that forces companies to iterate new ideas into products instead of selling the same shit year after year. if apple could actually sue anyone making tablets successfully then they would stop buying inventions to integrate to their products.
There has been no serious competition for the iPad since it's launch over 3 years ago; and I can't see one single feature that Apple has added to the iPad "in response" to a competitor. In response to user feedback, yes, and because Apple doesn't NEED "competition" to "pressure them to innovate". But NOT because the competition adds an SD card slot (which I would personally like), or a Micro USB connector.
While I agree with your premise that competition typically moves-along innovation, Apple has never paid much attention to the competition.
And the harm in that would be what?
You're joking, right?
The iPad is doing a good job at planting the idea in people's minds that tablets are overpriced toys for kids.
I guess that's why something like 85 percent of hospitals are testing or piloting iPads, and 94% of Fortune 500 companies and 70% of the Global 500 companies already use, or are looking into, iPads?
Yep. Seems like people have it in their minds that the iPad is a toy...
Idiot.
Here's the thing: nobody except Apple fanbois give a fuck if there's an iPad mini and it eats the Nexus 7's lunch. As long as there's competing hardware, Android has succeeded. As long as I can buy something that isn't a goddamn Apple walled garden that requires paying a specific company for the privilege of developing software for my own hardware, I'm happy.
Apple, however, knows that their model of ridiculous margins and rent-seeking behavior isn't sustainable if there's stiff competition. That's why Apple is terrified of allowing any serious competition to hit the shelves.
If no one cares about Apple, then why do their stories generate, hands-down, the most traffic on /, ?
And as I have posted previously, if Apple's margins are so high on the iPad, then why can't ANYone steal their lunch money on price/performance?
After Apple lost the "Microsoft coppied our GUI" case, their desktop GUI remained unchanged for 10 years. System 7 through 9 were basically identical..... they couldn't even multitask properly (used cooperative multitasking which led to misbehaving programs refusing to give-up the CPU & freezing the system). Apple said they would stop innovating their GUI if competitors simply copied their ideas, and that's essentially what happened.
The GUI look-and-feel that has more-or-less been unchanged since MacOS System 1.0, even through OS X, is not a sign of lack-of-innovation. Rather it is part of the consistency that makes users happy.
The LAST thing users want is change in the look-and-feel of their computer's OS.
This is what Apple has always understood, and what Microsoft is about to (doubtfully) learn with Metro.
The instabilities of MacOS are greatly over reported. I have been using Macs since they were Lisas, and crashes of my Macs were always much less often than the Windows 3.1, 95 and 98 systems I administered and used as well.
And all the time you complain about "no innovation" as far as "stability" goes under MacOS (Classic), remember that a BSOD on a Windows system was every bit as catastrophic (entire system was taken down) as on Macs of the day, and it took MS until XP SP2 before they got their BSOD problem under control. By that time (what was that, like 2003 for XP SP2?), Apple was already shipping OS X 10.3 (Panther), which was 100% stable. In fact, I have used OS X since 10.0.0, and I have only had TWO Kernel Panics. One was in 2001, caused by a sketchy third-party scanner driver that was obviously playing around too deep in the Kernel; and the second was in 2005, when I purchased some incorrectly-spec'ed RAM.
I say it's pretty good when Kernel Panics are so infrequent that you can remember each of the system-wide OS failures in over a decade of use.
Apple pretty much HAS to sue Samsung.
Even though in doing so, they actually may increase the sales of Samsung tablets. Some percentage of people who wouldn't have given a non-Apple-tablet a second glance may now decide "Hey, if Apple is 'worried' enough to sue over this, it must be pretty good."
However, Apple really has no choice. If they don't sue, then that would be the "green light" for the "Allwinners" of the world to come in and just crank out $40 blister-pack 'ePads', absolutely indistinguishable-from-iPad (until you actually tried to use them!) tablets.
Not only would that eat into Apple's sales/profits, but it would eventually (and wrongly) leak into the consumer mindset that ALL tablets are shit. And that could make the iPad market dry up as quickly as it was created.
You think there's a lesson to be learned from fiction? It's fiction. It doesn't demonstrate anything.
No, but it can observe and comment. In fact, that's really what Science Fiction is all about.
Doesn't that make the point though? If you need to rely extensively on third-party software to make up for features missing in the new release, which were present in the old release, it's not difficult to argue that the new software is no longer the professional tool it was in previous incarnations. That these features are in other professional tools from Avid and Adobe just kind of cements it, yeah?
I'm sure you can think of other instances where Apple has misunderstood the professional market in some of their other products. I know I can think of few myself.
Apple may have not perfectly analyzed the features that FCP 7 users were using the most; but I don't agree that it is the crime of the century, when those features are either promptly returned to the product, and/or readily and cost-effectively (and $10 total is pretty cost-effective) replaced by third-party tools.
Few software products undergo such a massive paradigm and UI shift from one version to the next as the difference between FCP 7 and FCP X. They really aren't the same animal. But, not only has Apple taken care of most of the "missing features" already, I didn't hear you bitching about all the features that were ADDED or IMPROVED, e.g. "Audition", and SIXTY-FOUR-ANGLE multicam editing, and a spectacular built-in Keyer, and workflow IMPROVEMENTS that were made, like, oh, I dunno, TRACKLESS EDITING, BACKGROUND RENDERING, PROJECT BACKUPS, and the ability to EDIT WHILE IMPORTING. No, you want to bitch about 3 things that affected some greatly, and others not at all.
But the proof is in the pudding, and it seems that FCP X is teaching some old (but big) dogs new tricks.
What makes you say that? What makes you think that it isn't the worst of intentions that is sold to us with a lie?
I suppose that is also possible, true.
The app working correctly should not be dependent on where I keep my media.
You are only partially correct.
The app "working correctly" DOES require that it work within the frameworks and other APIs of the OS in which it is resident. This dev. was whining about the fact that he was too lazy to modify his code, period.
Sometimes change requires change. Deal with it.
BTW, MPlayerX sucked a big ol' hairy root, anyway. It will not be missed.
Will we always make choices that are better? Only time will tell.
And therein lies the rub. This particular "experiment" needs about 100 years' more research before it's EVEN ready to THINK ABOUT becoming something you want Joe Sixpack and Jane Ritalin-Addict to have casual access to.
You know, just because science figures out something that could make our lives better doesn't mean that it will be misused. To automatically refute advances in medicine puts you squarely in the realm of the Luddite. Someone like you was saying that soap is an unhealthy and unholy invention a couple thousand years ago.
Ahem. I don't know about "unholy"; but it seems like at least the use of some soaps IS DECIDEDLY UNHEALTHY.
Sorry. You just walked into that one and shut the door behind yourself.
For the record: I am anything BUT a luddite. But I also have a nose for bad science. And this is the epitome of just that.
We are DEVO!
Sorry, couldn't resist.
Hey, just because you want to replace "/usb1" or "g:" with several clicks, that's your prerogative. I love my keyboard shortcuts -- they're infinitely faster than moving my hand to the mouse to position the cursor over some small line of text somewhere on my high resolution display.
...And, conversely, just because you want to feel superior every time you type in some 1,000 character CLI incantation, doesn't mean that 99.995% of the computer-using public agrees with you.
Um, some of those "Professionals" work for Apple. Do you really think they don't know what "Pros" need?
The point is not that they do not know, but that they do not care.
Not according to Tim Cook.
You can drag and drop files into a Terminal window and it'll type the path for you. So you don't even have to type a path there (though honestly, if you're in terminal it's probably easier to type the path than to find the file and drag it)
Thanks. I always forget that.
It's really amazing how much better "Terminal" is than, say "Command Prompt" in a Windows system. I mean REALLY!!! You can't even do a cut or paste to/from the "DOS Emulator"??? And don't get me started about the retarded need for "Quotation Marks" in pathnames (HOW long has Windows supported Joliet???), or in inability to use UNC Paths (that have existed for HOW long, now???)
So I really wouldn't be surprised if this next refresh is probably the last for the pro line, Apple doesn't really need them and they cost Apple more than any other division on hardware. Its just good business sense to bail out of a niche that doesn't bring in the sales and the Apple pros simply don't move like the Macbooks and iMacs.
First off, do you REALLY think the Pro line isn't profitable for Apple? Have you seen the list prices for Mac Pros? If you listen to the Linux fanbois, they could build TEN systems with TWICE THE SPECS for these prices (but I digress...) ;-)
And then there's this little email from Tim Cook, that seems to affirmatively put to bed your meme...
One of the biggest complaints was the lack of multi-camera editing. I'm not that familiar with video editing, but that doesn't sound like a workflow issue to me. The same goes for the lack of RED camera support, which is apparently quite popular with filmmakers.
One particularly damning problem was the inability to import projects from the previous version of the software. Again, not really a workflow issue.
The inability to assign audio tracks I suppose is a workflow issue, though it doesn't appear that any sensible alternative is provided by the software. Of course, "updating" your workflow isn't helpful if that workflow doesn't jive with your other applications. As I understand it, FCPX doesn't support OMF transfers which appears to be a common feature. Given that solutions to many of the missing features in FCPX include the use of third-party software, this kind of omission, well, makes the software somewhat less than professional.
I don't know enough about video editing or the software to give a through critique -- all I can do is report on the problems. That FCPX was anything but a professional tool seems to be the consensus.
All of those were legitimate gripes. However I believe ALL of them have been, or are currently being, addressed, either by Apple, or by others. In one case (FCP 7 import), the 3rd party plugin/add-on is a whopping $10, and in the case of the other, more expensive one (AAF export), there is now a FREE solution.
Yup, the solution to every problem Apple developers face is, as always, bend over a little further.
So, of course you'd rather the Linuxtards have a field day about how "OS X doesn't even support sandboxing", right? Or, not put any incentive behind developers learning and using the sandboxing API?
Apple has moved and moved and moved the "drop dead date" for enforcement of sandboxing. And they don't even make it mandatory unless you want to sell your warez in the Mac Apple Store.
So now the devs that continually bitched about how restrictive Apple's "Walled Garden" is, are bitching that they are only able to sell their products the same way they have before?
I might mention one thing you're missing, the price of new technologies often decreases sharply. We may have a generation of wealthy uber-babies but with them leading the way as early adopters, the next generation could be quite a bit more pleasant for everyone.
Now, tell me truthfully that you don't want a generation of wealthy that lacks sociopathy and mental illness. Imagine the good that could be done (Or rather, the bad that wouldn't be done.)
The REAL problem is that we are contemplating this about a hundred or so years too soon. Check back when we really HAVE decoded human DNA; which is not today. Right now. we are NOWHERE close to that; but we're already talking about not only screwing with the genetically-modified-humans (GMH) lives, but, by releasing these GHM into the population (where they will more than likely breed), we can have VERY unintended consequences that affect the entire species.
And, oh yes: As soon as a company gets a PATENT on a particular DNA modification, what happens with the poor, didn't-ask-for-it-anyway GMH when he/she WANTS to breed? Do we suddenly have the equivalent of the Monsanto Soybean lawsuits, ENJOINING the GMH from "violating Patents" by actually HAVING CHILDREN?!?
Think it won't happen? Think again.
Nope. This is NOT the Star Trek universe. And, if you will remember, THEY didn't even allow this level of genetic manipulation, even though they obviously COULD. There's a lesson to be learned from that.