DakotaGuy
Aug 11, 02:51 PM
In terms of the global mobile market, it is.
The network coverage in America is just awful too. Until I moved to England, I thought that mobile communications were generally problematic. Now I realize that American cellular service just sucks. Even in NYC.
See now that is something I never understood, how the cell service can be so poor in a place like NYC, yet I was making calls on my CDMA phone in the middle of Wyoming this summer. In fact, there are few places in very unpopulated midwest and west that you can't get a decent signal at least with a CDMA phone. People that come here with GSM are out of luck anywhere except metro areas.
The network coverage in America is just awful too. Until I moved to England, I thought that mobile communications were generally problematic. Now I realize that American cellular service just sucks. Even in NYC.
See now that is something I never understood, how the cell service can be so poor in a place like NYC, yet I was making calls on my CDMA phone in the middle of Wyoming this summer. In fact, there are few places in very unpopulated midwest and west that you can't get a decent signal at least with a CDMA phone. People that come here with GSM are out of luck anywhere except metro areas.
skunk
Mar 22, 06:24 PM
As others have pointed out, killing a peaceful protester (or non-involved innocent civilian for that matter) is never justified....nor is raiding hospitals, demolishing mosques, cutting off water, electricity and gas to a besieged city.
Sorry, who were we talking about?
Weird flashback moment there....
Sorry, who were we talking about?
Weird flashback moment there....
Popeye206
Apr 6, 04:45 PM
Dude, you forgot to use your android fan-filter. :p
This is why the xoom won't sell as well as the ipad. It needs to offer a low-end introductory model.
Andy Ihnatko wrote if an ipad competitor were to have a weekend retreat about the goals of their tablet, then a sub $500 price wouldn't be a bad place to start. Granted, that can't be its only feature, because Dell has proven that a cheap price won't bring them in droves. However, if that's the starting point and then the manufacturer adds the requisite features, the tablet might do well.
I don't think price is the issue. It's more complex than that.
First, have you actually played with or used a Xoom? Technically, very nice and cool. Consumer-wise, confusing and weird. Even the demo apps on the thing were not all that great and a couple actually made it look bad.
The iPad is sooooo much easier and smoother. So much more consumer friendly and appealing.
Second, iPad is the standard. The iPad, like the iPhone, is the standard for tablets and consumers tend to migrate to "the standard". Why? It's safe.
Third... Momentum. Consumers see iPads selling like crazy. So, the more they sell, the more people want them. Everyone wants to follow the crowd... just like Lemmings.
iPad = Low risk. It's easy to see that if you Buy an iPad, you're buying a device that is going to be there for a while. Buying a Xoom is risky, unproven and if you buy one, you might have just bought a dead end product. Just like Samsung has already proven with the Tab 1.0. The iPad is a safe purchase.
So, it's more than USB port and processors that is going to knock Apple off the Tablet thrown. Other Tablet makers are going to need to hit many aspects of the consumer to sway them away.
Xoom.... I say Fail.
BTW... the Xoom at the Best Buy here is broken... been that way for two weeks now according to the sales guy.
This is why the xoom won't sell as well as the ipad. It needs to offer a low-end introductory model.
Andy Ihnatko wrote if an ipad competitor were to have a weekend retreat about the goals of their tablet, then a sub $500 price wouldn't be a bad place to start. Granted, that can't be its only feature, because Dell has proven that a cheap price won't bring them in droves. However, if that's the starting point and then the manufacturer adds the requisite features, the tablet might do well.
I don't think price is the issue. It's more complex than that.
First, have you actually played with or used a Xoom? Technically, very nice and cool. Consumer-wise, confusing and weird. Even the demo apps on the thing were not all that great and a couple actually made it look bad.
The iPad is sooooo much easier and smoother. So much more consumer friendly and appealing.
Second, iPad is the standard. The iPad, like the iPhone, is the standard for tablets and consumers tend to migrate to "the standard". Why? It's safe.
Third... Momentum. Consumers see iPads selling like crazy. So, the more they sell, the more people want them. Everyone wants to follow the crowd... just like Lemmings.
iPad = Low risk. It's easy to see that if you Buy an iPad, you're buying a device that is going to be there for a while. Buying a Xoom is risky, unproven and if you buy one, you might have just bought a dead end product. Just like Samsung has already proven with the Tab 1.0. The iPad is a safe purchase.
So, it's more than USB port and processors that is going to knock Apple off the Tablet thrown. Other Tablet makers are going to need to hit many aspects of the consumer to sway them away.
Xoom.... I say Fail.
BTW... the Xoom at the Best Buy here is broken... been that way for two weeks now according to the sales guy.
jmgregory1
Mar 22, 04:01 PM
I can assure that doubling the 256MB of the first iPad is not enough for people that need a lot of multitask, like me.
I don't need to own an iPad 2.
The competitors have 1GB RAM, iPad 2 has 512MB.
It's simple: Apple is always behind hardware-wise because they like to priorize esthetics and appearance (besides the "so wonderful OS" ad). It's been this way for Macs, it seems to be the same way for iPads.
Android phones are selling more than iPhone.
iPhone has started a market, competitors are improving it.
iPad has started a market, competitors are improving it.
If you just can't recognize how multitask works better with 1GB RAM and true background apps (QNX, Honeycomb), then you deserve to use a limited thing like an iPad.
I've only bought the first iPad because there were no competitors at that time (and I hate netbooks), but now things are different. To be honest, A LOT different.
People said that the iPhone was going to be the best phone out there, but the market is showing something different.
People say the iPad is the best tablet out there, but it seems that the market is going to show something different.
There are 2 sides: Apple fanboys and realistic people.
I like products, not brands.
This is a simple look at a complex process. Adding more ram may be good in a system that doesn't control app usage well, but it's something completely different when the system can control for app processes. If you have a product that works perfectly well with a certain spec, is there a need to add more of a certain thing? What benefit does it offer? Apple is a smart company - why build more cost into hardware if you can make your software make up any potential shortcomings in hardware?
Of course the competition has to market its products as being different in some way compared to Apple and convince you, the buying public, that it means something to have double this or less of that.
Frankly, I think these companies should be trying to come up with the next thing - instead of just trying to compete against the iPad - but they won't do that. They'll wait until Apple releases the next new thing and just copy that. It's pitiful really.
I don't need to own an iPad 2.
The competitors have 1GB RAM, iPad 2 has 512MB.
It's simple: Apple is always behind hardware-wise because they like to priorize esthetics and appearance (besides the "so wonderful OS" ad). It's been this way for Macs, it seems to be the same way for iPads.
Android phones are selling more than iPhone.
iPhone has started a market, competitors are improving it.
iPad has started a market, competitors are improving it.
If you just can't recognize how multitask works better with 1GB RAM and true background apps (QNX, Honeycomb), then you deserve to use a limited thing like an iPad.
I've only bought the first iPad because there were no competitors at that time (and I hate netbooks), but now things are different. To be honest, A LOT different.
People said that the iPhone was going to be the best phone out there, but the market is showing something different.
People say the iPad is the best tablet out there, but it seems that the market is going to show something different.
There are 2 sides: Apple fanboys and realistic people.
I like products, not brands.
This is a simple look at a complex process. Adding more ram may be good in a system that doesn't control app usage well, but it's something completely different when the system can control for app processes. If you have a product that works perfectly well with a certain spec, is there a need to add more of a certain thing? What benefit does it offer? Apple is a smart company - why build more cost into hardware if you can make your software make up any potential shortcomings in hardware?
Of course the competition has to market its products as being different in some way compared to Apple and convince you, the buying public, that it means something to have double this or less of that.
Frankly, I think these companies should be trying to come up with the next thing - instead of just trying to compete against the iPad - but they won't do that. They'll wait until Apple releases the next new thing and just copy that. It's pitiful really.
KnightWRX
Apr 27, 09:59 AM
This was my point.
Wait, I don't get it. You're telling me there's tons of more stuff to care about while trying to tell someone else that if he doesn't care, he shouldn't comment.
I really don't get your point. Nor do I find the "there's more important stuff to care about" argument valid in any kind of way.
Wait, I don't get it. You're telling me there's tons of more stuff to care about while trying to tell someone else that if he doesn't care, he shouldn't comment.
I really don't get your point. Nor do I find the "there's more important stuff to care about" argument valid in any kind of way.
orthodoc
Nov 28, 08:22 PM
Actually, they do. They also got paid on every blank tape sold when cassettes were big. I think it is crazy for everyone to think that the music industry is greedy when it getting squeezed out of all of their revenue streams. So, Apple makes hundreds of millions off of their back on the itunes site, and a billion off of iPod sales, and they cannot share in the wealth?
It doesn't cost the consumer any more, why wouldn't you want the people who actually make the music you are listening to get compensated?
This debate is stale. People want something for nothing.
Getting squeezed out of a revenue stream is just part of being in business. Either adapt or go away. Nothing entitles them to a portion of the iPod sales. They make their money off of the sale of the actual music they produce. Should they get a portion of each computer sold as well? After all, the computer is used to both download and play the music. Dumb argument.
It doesn't cost the consumer any more, why wouldn't you want the people who actually make the music you are listening to get compensated?
This debate is stale. People want something for nothing.
Getting squeezed out of a revenue stream is just part of being in business. Either adapt or go away. Nothing entitles them to a portion of the iPod sales. They make their money off of the sale of the actual music they produce. Should they get a portion of each computer sold as well? After all, the computer is used to both download and play the music. Dumb argument.
skippy-fluff
Aug 25, 05:06 PM
The battery recall validator also rejected my battery, which is clearly in the range advertised on the web site. When I called the support lines yesterday, they didn't even try to take the call. Today I got through, and I got told by "Rachel" that there were a small number of batteries in the ranges that were manufactured by someone other than Sony. She couldn't tell me who, and when I asked for further information, she escalated the call.
The next guy, whose name I didn't catch, basically said the same thing. When I explained that I would like something from Apple indicating that the public listing on the recall didn't apply to me, he said that sometime in the future (unstated) this will get updated on the website. Since my primary reason for wanting it is to avoid potential airline troubles, that wasn't too great answer. His next suggestion, to print the validation failure, was funny, but not very practical. I fly about once a week, and I've already seen the dell guys being asked not to work on the plane. I don't want to be in that club, so I was pretty insistent that they write something down.
I asked them to send me something (even by fax) that simply said that my battery was not subject to recall, despite the fact it fell into the consumer product safety commission recalled range and Apple announced range (still up, with no amendment, by at https://support.apple.com/ibook_powerbook/batteryexchange/index.html). He could not.
I next got sent to Kelly, in customer service, whose attitude was about the least customer-service related of any of them. She tried to read out the web site to me, and got very frustrated when I pointed out that it did not say what she wanted it to say. It does not say that there are batteries in the ranges that are fine. It says at least twice that if you have a battery in the range you should send for a replacement and not use it. I pointed out to her that the trouble ticket I'd opened covered the ground nicely, and that all I wanted was a statement of the result: "Apple's support staff has worked with this customer and has established that the battery Serial No. XXXX is not subject to the recall on Sony-produced batteries". Or whatever language they like.
She agreed that this was truth, but said she could not provide any documentation. She also declined to escalate further.
Given that the validator has said no to people who should have gotten yes, relying on it as the last word is a bad idea. Get a real person on the phone. But even then, be prepared for frustration if you would like
anything but an oral assurance that the battery you have is good.
The next guy, whose name I didn't catch, basically said the same thing. When I explained that I would like something from Apple indicating that the public listing on the recall didn't apply to me, he said that sometime in the future (unstated) this will get updated on the website. Since my primary reason for wanting it is to avoid potential airline troubles, that wasn't too great answer. His next suggestion, to print the validation failure, was funny, but not very practical. I fly about once a week, and I've already seen the dell guys being asked not to work on the plane. I don't want to be in that club, so I was pretty insistent that they write something down.
I asked them to send me something (even by fax) that simply said that my battery was not subject to recall, despite the fact it fell into the consumer product safety commission recalled range and Apple announced range (still up, with no amendment, by at https://support.apple.com/ibook_powerbook/batteryexchange/index.html). He could not.
I next got sent to Kelly, in customer service, whose attitude was about the least customer-service related of any of them. She tried to read out the web site to me, and got very frustrated when I pointed out that it did not say what she wanted it to say. It does not say that there are batteries in the ranges that are fine. It says at least twice that if you have a battery in the range you should send for a replacement and not use it. I pointed out to her that the trouble ticket I'd opened covered the ground nicely, and that all I wanted was a statement of the result: "Apple's support staff has worked with this customer and has established that the battery Serial No. XXXX is not subject to the recall on Sony-produced batteries". Or whatever language they like.
She agreed that this was truth, but said she could not provide any documentation. She also declined to escalate further.
Given that the validator has said no to people who should have gotten yes, relying on it as the last word is a bad idea. Get a real person on the phone. But even then, be prepared for frustration if you would like
anything but an oral assurance that the battery you have is good.
Multimedia
Aug 27, 09:33 PM
I think im gonna wait and buy in 2007 with leopard and iLife 07 :rolleyes:I don't think I will be able to wait another 8 months. Waiting for C2D was brutal enough. But I'm gonna try and hold out for a refurb C2 Mac Pro or MB or MBP.
thunng8
Apr 9, 05:13 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8G4 Safari/6533.18.5)
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8G4 Safari/6533.18.5)
But in the case of the Sb quad core the figure seems to be in excess of 50%, not 20%
CPU isnt the only component drawing power. AMD 6750M has higher TDP compared to 330M as well
I have already mentioned that the 40w difference measured was when it was running cinebench which does not tax the gpu at all. Gpu tdp should not be a big factor.
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8G4 Safari/6533.18.5)
But in the case of the Sb quad core the figure seems to be in excess of 50%, not 20%
CPU isnt the only component drawing power. AMD 6750M has higher TDP compared to 330M as well
I have already mentioned that the 40w difference measured was when it was running cinebench which does not tax the gpu at all. Gpu tdp should not be a big factor.
Eraserhead
Aug 27, 03:13 PM
I havn't been here long, but I don't get it. :confused:
One reason Apple switched to Intel was because they couldn't get a G5 in a notebook, they kept saying they would do this for ages so a joke that powerbook G5's coming out Tuesday emerged. This *hilarious* joke has come back for an encore now we are all Intel chips which are quicker than the G5, especially as no-one knows exactly which Tuesday (28th August / 5th September / 12th September) the Merom MB/MBP will arrive.
One reason Apple switched to Intel was because they couldn't get a G5 in a notebook, they kept saying they would do this for ages so a joke that powerbook G5's coming out Tuesday emerged. This *hilarious* joke has come back for an encore now we are all Intel chips which are quicker than the G5, especially as no-one knows exactly which Tuesday (28th August / 5th September / 12th September) the Merom MB/MBP will arrive.
BeefUK
Aug 27, 05:40 AM
Just looked at the shpping dates for the Core 2 Duo's listed on the dell site. There's an estimated shipping date of 11th September, so maybe the 5th is a more releastic release date for Apple's merom upgrade, whatever form it may come in.
Recently Apple's made new products avaliable to buy immediately they are announced. So looks like a little more waiting.
I'm hoping for a Macbook with Core 2 Duo 2GHz!!
Recently Apple's made new products avaliable to buy immediately they are announced. So looks like a little more waiting.
I'm hoping for a Macbook with Core 2 Duo 2GHz!!
THX1139
Aug 21, 12:40 PM
That's great info. Would you please tell us:
1. How fast that is compared to what Mac model-speed you are currently using?
2. IE Were you impressed or not so impressed with how fast-slow it rendered?
3. What kind of speed were you expecting?
I'm no expert, but my guess is that the lack of RAM may have been the culprit. Need more independent tests like this from other FCP users. Thanks a lot. :)
1. Since I'm currently using a G4 titanium powerbook, the Macpro screams in comparrison!! :eek: (Don't ask why I'm using such an old machine...it's a long story).
2. Yes, I was impressed with the render. It was the timeline playback of uncompressed footage that sucked.
3. I was happy with the render speed. I was expecting the rendered footage to play back without dropping frames.
You're correct to assume ram might help. Hard disk speed is another factor because the CPU has to read the data from disk. If the disk can't keep up, then FCP is forced to drop frames. I'm not sure if upgrading to ATI card is going to help or not, as I doubt that FCP utilizes the GPU to any extent.
I'm thinking that anyone who plans to use the Woodcrest to handle uncompressed footage (especially HD), is going to need a breakout box or a raid setup. The way is see it, stock Woodcrest isn't going to cut it for high end compositing. Although, most video editors don't work in uncompressed so that may not be a problem for them, and besides, they usually have a raid setup.
I'm anxious to get a Woodcrest so that I can test it with more ram. I'll definitely go with a raid or 10K drive for the occasional time I need to work with uncompressed footage.
1. How fast that is compared to what Mac model-speed you are currently using?
2. IE Were you impressed or not so impressed with how fast-slow it rendered?
3. What kind of speed were you expecting?
I'm no expert, but my guess is that the lack of RAM may have been the culprit. Need more independent tests like this from other FCP users. Thanks a lot. :)
1. Since I'm currently using a G4 titanium powerbook, the Macpro screams in comparrison!! :eek: (Don't ask why I'm using such an old machine...it's a long story).
2. Yes, I was impressed with the render. It was the timeline playback of uncompressed footage that sucked.
3. I was happy with the render speed. I was expecting the rendered footage to play back without dropping frames.
You're correct to assume ram might help. Hard disk speed is another factor because the CPU has to read the data from disk. If the disk can't keep up, then FCP is forced to drop frames. I'm not sure if upgrading to ATI card is going to help or not, as I doubt that FCP utilizes the GPU to any extent.
I'm thinking that anyone who plans to use the Woodcrest to handle uncompressed footage (especially HD), is going to need a breakout box or a raid setup. The way is see it, stock Woodcrest isn't going to cut it for high end compositing. Although, most video editors don't work in uncompressed so that may not be a problem for them, and besides, they usually have a raid setup.
I'm anxious to get a Woodcrest so that I can test it with more ram. I'll definitely go with a raid or 10K drive for the occasional time I need to work with uncompressed footage.
Ivabign
Apr 6, 03:58 PM
Nice...I'm glad to have a more rare piece of hardware. I love mine and have no issues, it'll only get better over time.Reminds me of the days of the RAZR, that's what the iPhone and iPad have become.
Honda sells a TON more cars than BMW by a huge factor...I'd rather drive a BMW, I guess you're all happy with the Hondas :)
I think if you were told you could only use unpaved roads in your BMW - you'd beat a path to your Honda dealer.
Honda sells a TON more cars than BMW by a huge factor...I'd rather drive a BMW, I guess you're all happy with the Hondas :)
I think if you were told you could only use unpaved roads in your BMW - you'd beat a path to your Honda dealer.
iliketyla
Mar 31, 02:39 PM
I've been wanting to say this for a very long time. Google's OS has no advantage over iOS. You could even say it has a disadvantage. Having to create a vanilla code base that needs to function on multiple pieces of hardware is complex, more complexity creates weaker system.
But here's my point. The ONLY ONLY reason why Android market share is anywhere near what it is today is because of the Buy One Get One options at most phone retailers. iOS has NEVER done that and hopefully never will. If you didn't care about the phone or service but needed two "Newer Smart Phones" one for you and one for your wife, why not go with the "Blah Blah" model from Verizon where if I buy one today I get the second for free (two year agreement and activation fees required).
Market share means nothing. This platform is doomed unless Google reins it in and get control over it. If they do, providers will be less willing to work with them, if they don't, by by Android.
My Two Cents.
-LanPhantom
From my own personal experience, I know very few people that have Android phones that took advantage of the BOGO deal.
I personally bought this Android phone because I read reviews, and it was the best lower end phone, and I can't justify spending an enormous amount of money on something I'll upgrade in a year.
I used an iPhone 3GS for a year, and I don't miss it.
It's a very nice phone, but the features that I can use on Android more than make up for any advantages the iPhone had.
Once again, this is just MY opinion, but I figured I'd throw it out there.
But here's my point. The ONLY ONLY reason why Android market share is anywhere near what it is today is because of the Buy One Get One options at most phone retailers. iOS has NEVER done that and hopefully never will. If you didn't care about the phone or service but needed two "Newer Smart Phones" one for you and one for your wife, why not go with the "Blah Blah" model from Verizon where if I buy one today I get the second for free (two year agreement and activation fees required).
Market share means nothing. This platform is doomed unless Google reins it in and get control over it. If they do, providers will be less willing to work with them, if they don't, by by Android.
My Two Cents.
-LanPhantom
From my own personal experience, I know very few people that have Android phones that took advantage of the BOGO deal.
I personally bought this Android phone because I read reviews, and it was the best lower end phone, and I can't justify spending an enormous amount of money on something I'll upgrade in a year.
I used an iPhone 3GS for a year, and I don't miss it.
It's a very nice phone, but the features that I can use on Android more than make up for any advantages the iPhone had.
Once again, this is just MY opinion, but I figured I'd throw it out there.
Mattsasa
Apr 6, 03:08 PM
The Xoom is a great tablet. I'm willing to bet that the majority of you who have discredited it haven't even used it. And it DOES have 3.0 Honeycomb, which IS made for tablets. The iPad 2 is still a better tablet, but is it not possible some of the iPad 2's sales have come from just the Apple name? People will buy an Apple product even if it didn't have a feature.
people will buy a xoom just because its not made by apple.
people will buy a xoom just because its not made by apple.
Westside guy
Mar 22, 01:05 PM
Ugh. When and if I buy a tablet, I don't intend to limit my consideration to just the iPad - but displaying pre-release hardware that doesn't even function yet is just silly. That's a Microsoft-ish move - it may excite the tech press, but customers aren't going to care unless they can see the darn thing run!
I must admit I'm a bit put off by what appears to be a consistent unwillingness by hardware manufacturers to provide software upgrades for their existing Android devices.
I must admit I'm a bit put off by what appears to be a consistent unwillingness by hardware manufacturers to provide software upgrades for their existing Android devices.
cult hero
Mar 26, 03:59 PM
Details found here :
http://www.h-online.com/open/news/item/Apple-removes-Samba-from-Mac-OS-X-10-7-Server-1215179.html
Gist of it :
- less features than Samba
- no more Active Directory Services
- Just file sharing now.
Samba developers have also noted that the true motive behind this move might not be the GPLv3 per say, but a more global move away from the GPL. Is Apple moving to close the source on more and more of OS X ?
Anyway, Samba v4 could have given them all the "features" they implemented and much more. Their own in-house version won't necessarily be better just because it's written by Apple. The Samba team does a great job with what Microsoft puts out as documentation (if you can even call it that).
Note that from the article, this change only impacts OS X Server. The client was already an in-house solution.
Ick. None of that is good news. Although their current implementation of Samba is old anyway. Things aren't going to get worse... they're just not going to get any better. That's a bummer.
Looks like I'll continue using Linux for my domain controllers then. (Not that I take issue with this.)
Personally, I think it's GPL3. Apple isn't the only company reacting negatively to it. Who knows though? I certainly don't.
On the upside that means Apple won't advertise that their server will work as a domain controller anymore which they do now despite the fact that nowhere do they say, "Hey, only old NT4 style domains that don't work for modern Windows clients."
http://www.h-online.com/open/news/item/Apple-removes-Samba-from-Mac-OS-X-10-7-Server-1215179.html
Gist of it :
- less features than Samba
- no more Active Directory Services
- Just file sharing now.
Samba developers have also noted that the true motive behind this move might not be the GPLv3 per say, but a more global move away from the GPL. Is Apple moving to close the source on more and more of OS X ?
Anyway, Samba v4 could have given them all the "features" they implemented and much more. Their own in-house version won't necessarily be better just because it's written by Apple. The Samba team does a great job with what Microsoft puts out as documentation (if you can even call it that).
Note that from the article, this change only impacts OS X Server. The client was already an in-house solution.
Ick. None of that is good news. Although their current implementation of Samba is old anyway. Things aren't going to get worse... they're just not going to get any better. That's a bummer.
Looks like I'll continue using Linux for my domain controllers then. (Not that I take issue with this.)
Personally, I think it's GPL3. Apple isn't the only company reacting negatively to it. Who knows though? I certainly don't.
On the upside that means Apple won't advertise that their server will work as a domain controller anymore which they do now despite the fact that nowhere do they say, "Hey, only old NT4 style domains that don't work for modern Windows clients."
SevenInchScrew
Sep 1, 11:38 AM
Time will tell i suppose, but it just doesnt make sense for them to gimp standard cars for no reason.
I think "gimping" the Standard™ cars is the wrong way to look at it. To me, it looks like they just chose to spend A LOT of effort modeling the Premium™ cars, and then just reuse what they had from before for the Standard™ cars.
Ideally, we would have 1,000 Premium™ cars, but that would either take a staff of about 500 people, or we'd be waiting for GT5 until 2015. Compromises had to be made. They could have done all 1,000 cars at an average detail level, or they could do a handful of them VERY high-res, and reuse some older cars. They obviously chose the 2nd option.
I think "gimping" the Standard™ cars is the wrong way to look at it. To me, it looks like they just chose to spend A LOT of effort modeling the Premium™ cars, and then just reuse what they had from before for the Standard™ cars.
Ideally, we would have 1,000 Premium™ cars, but that would either take a staff of about 500 people, or we'd be waiting for GT5 until 2015. Compromises had to be made. They could have done all 1,000 cars at an average detail level, or they could do a handful of them VERY high-res, and reuse some older cars. They obviously chose the 2nd option.
a.gomez
Apr 6, 02:37 PM
It'll be 100,001 when it comes out in the UK when mine gets delivered..... Roll on Saturday!:D
100,002
my cousin got his from Costco last night - he was waiting for the Wi-Fi only one
100,002
my cousin got his from Costco last night - he was waiting for the Wi-Fi only one
skunk
Apr 27, 03:10 PM
I'd be fascinated to know exactly what you did to "discover" those layers, 5P. I have Photoshop and Illustrator too. Guess what? One layer. Nothing selectable. At least one of us is talking complete bollocks.
bedifferent
Apr 5, 07:50 PM
Interestingly this contradicts the information my friend on the design team hinted towards. I know the release is imminent so time will tell.
LordJohnWhorfin
Aug 26, 09:05 PM
Most credit cards have very good customer assistance departments and will assist you in dealing with uncooperative vendors.
A while back I bought an iBook for my mom directly from Apple, set it up, and just a few days before leaving to deliver it (she lives in Europe) the damn thing died (it would no longer charge). Called AppleCare, went to the Apple store, talked to the "genius" (a real jackass, but that's another story) and essentially they wouldn't give me a refund because it was a "built to order" machine or exchange it for a new computer because I hadn't bought it at the local Apple store (I bought it online though the developer program).
I called Visa, explained the story, they said you have to try to resolve the issue with the vendor first, I described what I had done and how uncooperative Apple had been. They said they'd call Apple themselves; an hour letter I got an apologetic call from Apple and an RMA number. I shipped my computer back to Apple by FedEx at their expense, and got full credit. They even restored my hardware discount :)
So yeah, as another poster said, the squeaky wheel does get the grease...
A while back I bought an iBook for my mom directly from Apple, set it up, and just a few days before leaving to deliver it (she lives in Europe) the damn thing died (it would no longer charge). Called AppleCare, went to the Apple store, talked to the "genius" (a real jackass, but that's another story) and essentially they wouldn't give me a refund because it was a "built to order" machine or exchange it for a new computer because I hadn't bought it at the local Apple store (I bought it online though the developer program).
I called Visa, explained the story, they said you have to try to resolve the issue with the vendor first, I described what I had done and how uncooperative Apple had been. They said they'd call Apple themselves; an hour letter I got an apologetic call from Apple and an RMA number. I shipped my computer back to Apple by FedEx at their expense, and got full credit. They even restored my hardware discount :)
So yeah, as another poster said, the squeaky wheel does get the grease...
akdj
Apr 6, 11:01 AM
Have any of you been able to use Sandy Bridge hardware h.264 on the MBP for your AVC files?
I understand that there is an issue with 24p (it's 24.000 hz not 23.976 hz as it should be) which will be corrected with Ivey Bridge, but 30p/60p/60i should work fine. I'm assuming that this feature will show up in Lion, but probably isn't yet supported in SL.
Yes...using the new MBP, 17" SB 2.2 with FCP. Works fine, regardless of frame rate...however, there are a gazillion different "flavors" of AVC and h.264. I shoot HVX/HPX/EX1 and Canon 5d2/7d cams...all either at 24p/30p/60p. And obviously not AVC...however, h.264 I have plenty of experience with... Never had an issue with ANY FR, and this MBP is zippy as hell! Comparable to my '08 Mac Pro 3ghz/8 core machine for times on rendering and compression and exporting. Love this machine and I'm anxiously awaiting the new iMac/Mac Pro updates. I almost bought the 2010 Mac Pro 12 core...but I wanted to wait out the FCP news this year, so held off. If my new MBP is indicative of the performance boost we can expect with the new Mac pro....regardless of whether they use Sandy or Ivy bridge....it's going to be a phenomenal improvement. Big. Huge. Step up!!!
A lot of pros have already left Mac, but I have been holding out. However, this is the last straw. If the new FCP disappoints I will be jumping ship, buying a high-end PC and switching to Avid or Premiere. I just can't stand the frustrations anymore of watching every consumer itoy get upgraded, and then the Pro stuff getting shafted.
The time is now. The new FCP had better have something equivalent to Mercury Playback, optimization for RED footage, different HD codecs, real-time playback, 64 bit, multi-core usage, etc. If it's a dumbed-down consumer product I will be absolutely livid.
This is Bowl *****!!! Come on man....I see these claims with absolutely NO, ZERO proof to back it up...Links? Pics? Video???? IF anything, MORE people have joined the FCP camp...because more people than EVER are buying Macs! Even though Adobe and Avid are cross platform, the affordability of FCP is a real bonus. Everyone I know that uses FCP and has been using FCP has ZERO interest in flipping. Unless you have an extreme PC...Adobe makes no sense (unless you are using the Quadro nVidia cards in a Mac Pro). Sure, the Merc engine increases performance for a few transitions and filters....but rendering is still necessary in MOST cases! Today's speed of the new Macs....MBP, iMacs, Mac Pros...makes the transition from AVC, XDCam, DVCPro, etc to Pro-Res, is actually a very speedy process. Even Canon stepped up last spring with a plug in to increase transcode speeds almost a 1,000% (used to take a minute or two to transform...now done in 10 seconds or less!!!). Once in Pro Res, editing is an absolute breeze...a cake walk, easy as pie:) Especially if you have a recent generation Mac from the last couple of years.
Now...that said, absolutely, I totally agree improvements can be made. As mentioned many times....media management and better integration between other programs in the suite. However, being a long time FCP user, I'm "used" to the export/share option and don't find it too difficult.
Motion is the program I would like to see take a big step forward. I am also a heavy Adobe user and have the entire CS5 Production bundle...but NOT for Premier...I solely use PhotoShop and After Effects. AE has been my go to animated title compositor. Motion, while decent...is certainly behind the eight ball in comparison to Avid and AE for these tasks.
However...most, if not ALL of the pros I know that have been using FCP continue to do so....and there are more motion pictures, BIG ones...this year, edited on FCP than I can remember in years past. Pulling this BS out of your arse is crap. The iToy phenomenon, in my very humble opinion will actually HELP the Pro Apps...as Apple is making more money than EVER!!! This will afford them the expertise they need to develop the pro apps...more so than they've ever been able to do in the past. Keep in mind...for these iToys to be great, they need content....and again, IMHO...I think Apple knows this, and would be happy if every app, movie, song, etc...that resides in iTunes, Mac Store, App Store, etc....was created WITH their soft/hardware as well. Again, just my opinion....Apple won't shoot themselves and the entire creative community in the foot....just when they've becoming the HIGHEST gaining computer sales platform in the world!!! They're selling more computers (MB, MBP, MBair, MP, iMacs) then EVER...and I attribute that somewhat to the excellent user experience so many folks have had with their "iToys". You gotta figure some of those folks will be "Pro" creative guys. And enticed they will be (my Yoda impersonation) by the hardware and software that Apple offers....so if anything, there is Growth in the Pro sector...hardware and software both. NOT a mass exodus. Again...if you truly have proof that "All those Pros have already left Mac"...I'm all ears. If anything, they've made significant gains. Hence the reason AVID has DECREASED their pricing from the astronomical rates it used to cost...and the proprietary rigs you had to have to run the program.
Sorry for the rant. But what you've stated is absolutely NOT true my friend. Period. And THAT is a fact! If you're deciding whether or not to stick with FCP, cool...fine to make that point. Don't make up BS about other "Pros" and their Post Workflow. Other than the BBC switching to Premier, I can think of NO other real, true professionals that have abandoned FCP because it's lacking. It's still a VERY powerful program. Getting older, several places to shine it up, but it still does the job and does it well.
J
I understand that there is an issue with 24p (it's 24.000 hz not 23.976 hz as it should be) which will be corrected with Ivey Bridge, but 30p/60p/60i should work fine. I'm assuming that this feature will show up in Lion, but probably isn't yet supported in SL.
Yes...using the new MBP, 17" SB 2.2 with FCP. Works fine, regardless of frame rate...however, there are a gazillion different "flavors" of AVC and h.264. I shoot HVX/HPX/EX1 and Canon 5d2/7d cams...all either at 24p/30p/60p. And obviously not AVC...however, h.264 I have plenty of experience with... Never had an issue with ANY FR, and this MBP is zippy as hell! Comparable to my '08 Mac Pro 3ghz/8 core machine for times on rendering and compression and exporting. Love this machine and I'm anxiously awaiting the new iMac/Mac Pro updates. I almost bought the 2010 Mac Pro 12 core...but I wanted to wait out the FCP news this year, so held off. If my new MBP is indicative of the performance boost we can expect with the new Mac pro....regardless of whether they use Sandy or Ivy bridge....it's going to be a phenomenal improvement. Big. Huge. Step up!!!
A lot of pros have already left Mac, but I have been holding out. However, this is the last straw. If the new FCP disappoints I will be jumping ship, buying a high-end PC and switching to Avid or Premiere. I just can't stand the frustrations anymore of watching every consumer itoy get upgraded, and then the Pro stuff getting shafted.
The time is now. The new FCP had better have something equivalent to Mercury Playback, optimization for RED footage, different HD codecs, real-time playback, 64 bit, multi-core usage, etc. If it's a dumbed-down consumer product I will be absolutely livid.
This is Bowl *****!!! Come on man....I see these claims with absolutely NO, ZERO proof to back it up...Links? Pics? Video???? IF anything, MORE people have joined the FCP camp...because more people than EVER are buying Macs! Even though Adobe and Avid are cross platform, the affordability of FCP is a real bonus. Everyone I know that uses FCP and has been using FCP has ZERO interest in flipping. Unless you have an extreme PC...Adobe makes no sense (unless you are using the Quadro nVidia cards in a Mac Pro). Sure, the Merc engine increases performance for a few transitions and filters....but rendering is still necessary in MOST cases! Today's speed of the new Macs....MBP, iMacs, Mac Pros...makes the transition from AVC, XDCam, DVCPro, etc to Pro-Res, is actually a very speedy process. Even Canon stepped up last spring with a plug in to increase transcode speeds almost a 1,000% (used to take a minute or two to transform...now done in 10 seconds or less!!!). Once in Pro Res, editing is an absolute breeze...a cake walk, easy as pie:) Especially if you have a recent generation Mac from the last couple of years.
Now...that said, absolutely, I totally agree improvements can be made. As mentioned many times....media management and better integration between other programs in the suite. However, being a long time FCP user, I'm "used" to the export/share option and don't find it too difficult.
Motion is the program I would like to see take a big step forward. I am also a heavy Adobe user and have the entire CS5 Production bundle...but NOT for Premier...I solely use PhotoShop and After Effects. AE has been my go to animated title compositor. Motion, while decent...is certainly behind the eight ball in comparison to Avid and AE for these tasks.
However...most, if not ALL of the pros I know that have been using FCP continue to do so....and there are more motion pictures, BIG ones...this year, edited on FCP than I can remember in years past. Pulling this BS out of your arse is crap. The iToy phenomenon, in my very humble opinion will actually HELP the Pro Apps...as Apple is making more money than EVER!!! This will afford them the expertise they need to develop the pro apps...more so than they've ever been able to do in the past. Keep in mind...for these iToys to be great, they need content....and again, IMHO...I think Apple knows this, and would be happy if every app, movie, song, etc...that resides in iTunes, Mac Store, App Store, etc....was created WITH their soft/hardware as well. Again, just my opinion....Apple won't shoot themselves and the entire creative community in the foot....just when they've becoming the HIGHEST gaining computer sales platform in the world!!! They're selling more computers (MB, MBP, MBair, MP, iMacs) then EVER...and I attribute that somewhat to the excellent user experience so many folks have had with their "iToys". You gotta figure some of those folks will be "Pro" creative guys. And enticed they will be (my Yoda impersonation) by the hardware and software that Apple offers....so if anything, there is Growth in the Pro sector...hardware and software both. NOT a mass exodus. Again...if you truly have proof that "All those Pros have already left Mac"...I'm all ears. If anything, they've made significant gains. Hence the reason AVID has DECREASED their pricing from the astronomical rates it used to cost...and the proprietary rigs you had to have to run the program.
Sorry for the rant. But what you've stated is absolutely NOT true my friend. Period. And THAT is a fact! If you're deciding whether or not to stick with FCP, cool...fine to make that point. Don't make up BS about other "Pros" and their Post Workflow. Other than the BBC switching to Premier, I can think of NO other real, true professionals that have abandoned FCP because it's lacking. It's still a VERY powerful program. Getting older, several places to shine it up, but it still does the job and does it well.
J
guzhogi
Sep 13, 08:53 AM
A bit pointless given that no software utilises the extra cores yet. But nice to know, I guess.
I'm still getting used to having two cores in my laptop!
This is a bit of a chicken and the egg problem. Hardware companies don't want to release multicore hardware b/c no software is out to support it and software people don't want to ship multiprocessor software b/c no multiproc hardware is out. Since there are a few multiproc computers out now, some software companies might start multithreading their apps, most people probably don't have it them yet.
Also, some apps won't really benefit from being multithreaded. Take a basic calculator. Why would you really need it to take advantage of multiproc computers? It isn't that processor heavy to do 2+2. AV software, like iTunes, Final Cut Pro, etc., could greatly benefit from multiproc systems. One core can do the audio while the other does the video for FC or iTunes could use one core for playing music and the other for ripping.
Something I'd like to see is to have AV stuff offloaded to the sound or graphics card to speed it up. I've heard of a company called Aspex Semiconductors (www.aspex-semi.com) that designs PCI cards that speed up MPEG encoding. Might be nice for video pros.
I'm still getting used to having two cores in my laptop!
This is a bit of a chicken and the egg problem. Hardware companies don't want to release multicore hardware b/c no software is out to support it and software people don't want to ship multiprocessor software b/c no multiproc hardware is out. Since there are a few multiproc computers out now, some software companies might start multithreading their apps, most people probably don't have it them yet.
Also, some apps won't really benefit from being multithreaded. Take a basic calculator. Why would you really need it to take advantage of multiproc computers? It isn't that processor heavy to do 2+2. AV software, like iTunes, Final Cut Pro, etc., could greatly benefit from multiproc systems. One core can do the audio while the other does the video for FC or iTunes could use one core for playing music and the other for ripping.
Something I'd like to see is to have AV stuff offloaded to the sound or graphics card to speed it up. I've heard of a company called Aspex Semiconductors (www.aspex-semi.com) that designs PCI cards that speed up MPEG encoding. Might be nice for video pros.
