cjkihlbom
Aug 15, 11:54 AM
I'm so glad I ordered the 3 Ghz, almost as fast as the Quad G5 in Photoshop is insane!
godrifle
Nov 29, 12:27 PM
... Is Ford going to start asking for a share of the groceries I haul in the trunk?
dethmaShine
Apr 12, 03:07 PM
What's the UK time?
thedarkhorse
Apr 11, 04:34 AM
Yes, its crap. The first version followed the basic principles of NLE but the new version is pathetic.
However, Randy came up with FCP for Macromedia so he has what it takes if Jobs and other consumer oriented guys can keep their ***** away from the mix.
I think the point is apple is trying to break the mold of traditional NLE editing. Many tools and terms we use in FCP and other NLEs are derived from linear tape editing from 20+ years ago. They are trying to push to the future of editing in a new direction and that may involve rethinking aspects of how we edit. Whether it's going to work or not I guess we'll have to see...
However, Randy came up with FCP for Macromedia so he has what it takes if Jobs and other consumer oriented guys can keep their ***** away from the mix.
I think the point is apple is trying to break the mold of traditional NLE editing. Many tools and terms we use in FCP and other NLEs are derived from linear tape editing from 20+ years ago. They are trying to push to the future of editing in a new direction and that may involve rethinking aspects of how we edit. Whether it's going to work or not I guess we'll have to see...
Dorkington
Apr 29, 10:39 AM
1. You opened it in Illustrator, not InDesign.
2. After I opened it in Illustrator like you did it did reveal some interesting things. It seems that fields #20 and #22 are on individual layers.
Image (http://img163.imageshack.us/i/picture1hz.png/)
Uploaded with ImageShack.us (http://imageshack.us)
I am fairly confident that rather than pointing to a conspiracy, this simply shows that when scanned, the operator had enabled some sort of "auto-text" option that attempted to read and convert then embed the raw text info in the PDF, as to make the text "selectable" in preview programs.
It only worked on certain text, as is par for the course.
I wouldn't qualify myself as an expert, but this is pretty in line with the truth. It was likely scanned, OCR'd and composited for release. The original long form is likely inconsistent in quality at this point in time.
2. After I opened it in Illustrator like you did it did reveal some interesting things. It seems that fields #20 and #22 are on individual layers.
Image (http://img163.imageshack.us/i/picture1hz.png/)
Uploaded with ImageShack.us (http://imageshack.us)
I am fairly confident that rather than pointing to a conspiracy, this simply shows that when scanned, the operator had enabled some sort of "auto-text" option that attempted to read and convert then embed the raw text info in the PDF, as to make the text "selectable" in preview programs.
It only worked on certain text, as is par for the course.
I wouldn't qualify myself as an expert, but this is pretty in line with the truth. It was likely scanned, OCR'd and composited for release. The original long form is likely inconsistent in quality at this point in time.
dante@sisna.com
Aug 18, 04:40 AM
My goal is to buy a Quad G5 before the end of the year. I already have what is arguably the fastest 68k Mac (look at screen name for a clue) so I would like to also own the fastest PowerPC Mac Apple sold too.
Yes, I love my Quad G5 -- ROCK Solid. I agree with you.
And my MAC PRO 3.0 is on the way. But this Quad G5, still a great box -- highly recommend.
DJO
Yes, I love my Quad G5 -- ROCK Solid. I agree with you.
And my MAC PRO 3.0 is on the way. But this Quad G5, still a great box -- highly recommend.
DJO
jvmxtra
Apr 6, 04:03 PM
wait, theres other brands of tablets out there?
love it!!
love it!!
Porco
Nov 28, 10:41 PM
The full article is very funny.
"It would be a nice idea. We have a negotiation coming up not too far. I don't see why we wouldn't do that... but maybe not in the same way," he told the Reuters Media Summit, when asked if Universal would negotiate a royalty fee for the iPod that would be similar to Microsoft's Zune.
"The Zune (deal) was an amazingly interesting exercise, to end up with a piece of technology," he added.
"It would be a nice idea" if I got money for nothing too! And why am I tempted to read "an amazingly interesting exercise" as an amazingly interesting exercise ... he added, dollar signs flashing in his eyes like some real-life Scrooge McDuck' ?
And to end up with "a piece of technology"! Yes! wow! hahahahah, I bet Microsoft were astounded about that too.
As the various parodies of such behaviour online indicates, the whole thing would be hilarious if it wasn't so ... true.
Pirates will pirate unless you give them a compelling reason not to. Legitimate customers will stay that way unless they feel piracy is an action they are ethically comfortable with. This kind of garbage makes that happen.
So for every iPod that would possibly hold a good couple of hundred Universal tracks amongst the thousands on there, I'd guess this kind of thing completely turns us nerds towards piracy rather than CD purchases/legitimate downloads. Is that $1 per iPod really going to make them as much money as the $xx they have lost on CDs and downloads? I'd guess not. Even if only 1% of people buying iPods pirate Universal tracks instead of buying them because of this deal (if it happens), it would be a loser for Universal. And of course the only people not financially at a loss because of it will be people who buy tracks, not the pirates who are back in the black as soon as they soak up the $1 surcharge by illegally downloading a Universal album as soon as they get their iPod.
If Apple did have the misfortune to be made to accept this kind of thing (unlikely right now I'd think, but you never know after a couple of ad-laden Zune-ar years), they should add the $1 to the price of the iPod so people ask "why does it cost $201?" and they should tell people on their web-site exactly why as well, providing details of how to get in touch with Universal to express their thanks.
Sorry if I've repeated any points already made... it's a Universally idiotic idea.
"It would be a nice idea. We have a negotiation coming up not too far. I don't see why we wouldn't do that... but maybe not in the same way," he told the Reuters Media Summit, when asked if Universal would negotiate a royalty fee for the iPod that would be similar to Microsoft's Zune.
"The Zune (deal) was an amazingly interesting exercise, to end up with a piece of technology," he added.
"It would be a nice idea" if I got money for nothing too! And why am I tempted to read "an amazingly interesting exercise" as an amazingly interesting exercise ... he added, dollar signs flashing in his eyes like some real-life Scrooge McDuck' ?
And to end up with "a piece of technology"! Yes! wow! hahahahah, I bet Microsoft were astounded about that too.
As the various parodies of such behaviour online indicates, the whole thing would be hilarious if it wasn't so ... true.
Pirates will pirate unless you give them a compelling reason not to. Legitimate customers will stay that way unless they feel piracy is an action they are ethically comfortable with. This kind of garbage makes that happen.
So for every iPod that would possibly hold a good couple of hundred Universal tracks amongst the thousands on there, I'd guess this kind of thing completely turns us nerds towards piracy rather than CD purchases/legitimate downloads. Is that $1 per iPod really going to make them as much money as the $xx they have lost on CDs and downloads? I'd guess not. Even if only 1% of people buying iPods pirate Universal tracks instead of buying them because of this deal (if it happens), it would be a loser for Universal. And of course the only people not financially at a loss because of it will be people who buy tracks, not the pirates who are back in the black as soon as they soak up the $1 surcharge by illegally downloading a Universal album as soon as they get their iPod.
If Apple did have the misfortune to be made to accept this kind of thing (unlikely right now I'd think, but you never know after a couple of ad-laden Zune-ar years), they should add the $1 to the price of the iPod so people ask "why does it cost $201?" and they should tell people on their web-site exactly why as well, providing details of how to get in touch with Universal to express their thanks.
Sorry if I've repeated any points already made... it's a Universally idiotic idea.
phalseHUD
Apr 10, 01:58 PM
Interesting news, but the bit about booting competitors is downright disgusting.
Couldn't agree more, disgraceful to be honest. This part of Apple I cannot abide.
Couldn't agree more, disgraceful to be honest. This part of Apple I cannot abide.
DoFoT9
Aug 11, 07:42 PM
I mean, if we don't get to compare GT to NFS because of that, then surely you shouldn't compare GT to Forza for the same reason.
goes GT allow dragging/drifting ? :p
its kind of like comparing two different beasts imo.
goes GT allow dragging/drifting ? :p
its kind of like comparing two different beasts imo.
Multimedia
Aug 21, 05:43 AM
I stopped by the Apple store tonight to play with a Macpro. I'm getting ready to buy and thought I'd get some hands on experience to see how it performed with Finalcut Pro. I was especially interested in how it handles playback of uncompressed footage.
The store had a 2.6 hooked up to a 30"ACD. Everything on the machine was stock. I launched FCP and it appeared with a project already loaded (about 5 seconds). The project was a simple 20-30 second 720x480 NTSC clip of hockey game footage. I selected the clip and copied it to a new layer and threw a blend mode on it AND changed the speed to 85%. Next I copied and made another layer and changed the speed and offset it and changed the transparency to 80%. 3 layers total with the top two manipulated. I hit the render and it finished in about 30 seconds. :)
I know, not very scientific, but I just wanted to get a feel for how fast the Macpro would render manipulated footage. Anyhow, next I changed the output in project settings to "uncompressed" and hit render again. Again, it took less than a minute to render and the CPU usage in console was maxing out at only 42% per core.
Once the render completed, I hit the play button to see how the stock Macpro would handle playback of the uncompressed footage. It played for about 4 seconds then threw an error saying that frames were being dropped during playback. Not good. I was hoping that the Macpro would be able to play uncompressed footage from the timeline without 3rd party acceleration or setting up a raid. The error message suggested turning off RT effects (of which I did, but still had dropped frames) or get a faster drive. There was a couple other things the error suggested, but I can't remember at the moment. I wonder if having the ATI card would have made a difference? Not sure if FCP uses the GPU for playback, but I would think that should make a difference. Ram would probably help too. Anyone know what might be going on? Am I expecting too much out of this machine?
Sorry for sort of getting off topic. I thought this might be an appropriate area to post this; I wasn't feeling up to starting a new thread.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. :)
The store had a 2.6 hooked up to a 30"ACD. Everything on the machine was stock. I launched FCP and it appeared with a project already loaded (about 5 seconds). The project was a simple 20-30 second 720x480 NTSC clip of hockey game footage. I selected the clip and copied it to a new layer and threw a blend mode on it AND changed the speed to 85%. Next I copied and made another layer and changed the speed and offset it and changed the transparency to 80%. 3 layers total with the top two manipulated. I hit the render and it finished in about 30 seconds. :)
I know, not very scientific, but I just wanted to get a feel for how fast the Macpro would render manipulated footage. Anyhow, next I changed the output in project settings to "uncompressed" and hit render again. Again, it took less than a minute to render and the CPU usage in console was maxing out at only 42% per core.
Once the render completed, I hit the play button to see how the stock Macpro would handle playback of the uncompressed footage. It played for about 4 seconds then threw an error saying that frames were being dropped during playback. Not good. I was hoping that the Macpro would be able to play uncompressed footage from the timeline without 3rd party acceleration or setting up a raid. The error message suggested turning off RT effects (of which I did, but still had dropped frames) or get a faster drive. There was a couple other things the error suggested, but I can't remember at the moment. I wonder if having the ATI card would have made a difference? Not sure if FCP uses the GPU for playback, but I would think that should make a difference. Ram would probably help too. Anyone know what might be going on? Am I expecting too much out of this machine?
Sorry for sort of getting off topic. I thought this might be an appropriate area to post this; I wasn't feeling up to starting a new thread.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. :)
janstett
Sep 13, 01:37 PM
The OS takes advantage of the extra 4 cores already therefore its ahead of the technology curve, correct? Gee, no innovation here...please move along folks. :rolleyes:
As for using a Dell, sure they could've used that. Would Windows use the extra 4 cores? Highly doubtful. Microsoft has sketchy 64 bit support let alone dual core support; I'm not saying "impossible" but I haven't read jack squat about any version of Windows working well with quad cores. You think those fools (the same idiots who came up with Genuine Advantage) actually optimized their OS to run in an 8 core setup? Please pass along what you're smoking. :rolleyes:
Sorry to burst your reality distortion field, but see my previous post. I ran a dual processor Pentium II NT setup ten years ago and Windows handled it just fine THEN -- back when Apple barely supported it with a hack to its cooperatively-multitasked OS and required specially written applications with special library support.
BTW my 2 year old Smithfield handles 4 processors fine (Dual Core Pentium Extreme with hyperthreading = 4 cores).
The only limit with Windows is they keep the low end XP home to 2 processors on the same die. There is probably an architectural limit on both OSX and XP and if it's not 8 it's 16. It's probably 8.
As for using a Dell, sure they could've used that. Would Windows use the extra 4 cores? Highly doubtful. Microsoft has sketchy 64 bit support let alone dual core support; I'm not saying "impossible" but I haven't read jack squat about any version of Windows working well with quad cores. You think those fools (the same idiots who came up with Genuine Advantage) actually optimized their OS to run in an 8 core setup? Please pass along what you're smoking. :rolleyes:
Sorry to burst your reality distortion field, but see my previous post. I ran a dual processor Pentium II NT setup ten years ago and Windows handled it just fine THEN -- back when Apple barely supported it with a hack to its cooperatively-multitasked OS and required specially written applications with special library support.
BTW my 2 year old Smithfield handles 4 processors fine (Dual Core Pentium Extreme with hyperthreading = 4 cores).
The only limit with Windows is they keep the low end XP home to 2 processors on the same die. There is probably an architectural limit on both OSX and XP and if it's not 8 it's 16. It's probably 8.
mccldwll
Apr 19, 08:38 PM
Apple better not win this case and anyone who thinks that they should are a fool.
And anyone who writes "are a fool" is a dolt.
And anyone who writes "are a fool" is a dolt.
logandzwon
Apr 19, 02:36 PM
Couldn't Samsung just claim that the Galaxy S line is an evolution of the Samsung F700? Pretty strong argument for samsung.
They could. Except, "Jobs unveiled the iPhone to the public on January 9, 2007 at Macworld 2007" according to Wikipedia. F700 after that; http://www.google.com/search?q=samsung+F700+announced
They could. Except, "Jobs unveiled the iPhone to the public on January 9, 2007 at Macworld 2007" according to Wikipedia. F700 after that; http://www.google.com/search?q=samsung+F700+announced
KnightWRX
Apr 20, 02:11 PM
Of course, had the case been deemed totally unfounded by Apple Legal and their bunch of advisors, it wouldn't have been brought to court at all.
At the same time, if there is any chance that the case has some merit, a company will sue for sure, if points 1 and 2 above are not considered to do more damage than good.
There is probably some merit to some of the claims, so are probably more ambitious and some are probably completely sure to get thrown out. The thing is, the more claims they throw in there the better they have a footing for eventual settlement negotiations.
Just like you never open with your lowest price, you never open with only the claims you are 100% sure are going to win. ;)
At the same time, if there is any chance that the case has some merit, a company will sue for sure, if points 1 and 2 above are not considered to do more damage than good.
There is probably some merit to some of the claims, so are probably more ambitious and some are probably completely sure to get thrown out. The thing is, the more claims they throw in there the better they have a footing for eventual settlement negotiations.
Just like you never open with your lowest price, you never open with only the claims you are 100% sure are going to win. ;)
appleguy123
Feb 28, 08:34 PM
I said "Both cases are untreatable."
Very sorry.
I have dyslexia, so I read sentences in my head, not words. When the words fit, my brain just makes that model of what it thinks the text said.
Sorry for getting mad. :o
Very sorry.
I have dyslexia, so I read sentences in my head, not words. When the words fit, my brain just makes that model of what it thinks the text said.
Sorry for getting mad. :o
cohen777
Apr 6, 07:53 AM
Let me be clear - FCS needs a robust blu-ray authoring feature. We don't live in a wireless world where you can transmit video free over the air. We still put disks in a player to watch and also preserve our video memories.
Not having a good blu-ray authoring feature is a huge problem for Final Cut Studio. Not only does it impact professional wedding video-graphers, but ordinary people who want to put their video on a disk to send to people. I can't just put my video on netflix to have a friend watch it on his ROKU.
Not having a good blu-ray authoring feature is a huge problem for Final Cut Studio. Not only does it impact professional wedding video-graphers, but ordinary people who want to put their video on a disk to send to people. I can't just put my video on netflix to have a friend watch it on his ROKU.
.jpg "lack and white wallpaper")
gkarris
Nov 29, 10:39 AM
In the 70's:
Universal makes "Battlestar Galactica", and "Buck Rogers in the 25th Century", fun Sci-Fi shows.
In the 90's and early 00's:
USA Networks launches the Scifi Channel. They get great shows such as "Stargate SG-1" and "Farscape". USA Network has some great shows as well, "Monk", "The Dead Zone", "Peacemakers"
That was then....
This is now...
NBC has nothing but crap and gets jeleous of cable networks such as USA.
NBC/Universal buys USA Networks.
NBC/Universal cancels the last season of "Farscape", and the new western, "Peacemakers". They attempt to cancel "Monk" and "The Dead Zone", but to no avail. They also attempt to cancel "Stargate SG-1" and replace it with "Stargate Atlantis", this fails too.
NBC/Universal "retells" "Battlestar Galactica" - sorry, it's all about skin and a drunk Col. Tigh - junk.
NBC/Universal now is "cleaning up" the Scifi Channel by putting on on its own shows, "Eureka" (it is good though).
NBC/Universal is cancelling "Stargate SG-1", at a con, one of its actors did mention that "Universal did let it go on for another 5 seasons".
NBC/Universal's #1 show on the Sci-Fi channel is Wrestling....
Universal is good for what again???
(note: I might have my timing off, like the Farscape cancellation, but I think Scifi might have seen it coming with that series cancellation).
Universal makes "Battlestar Galactica", and "Buck Rogers in the 25th Century", fun Sci-Fi shows.
In the 90's and early 00's:
USA Networks launches the Scifi Channel. They get great shows such as "Stargate SG-1" and "Farscape". USA Network has some great shows as well, "Monk", "The Dead Zone", "Peacemakers"
That was then....
This is now...
NBC has nothing but crap and gets jeleous of cable networks such as USA.
NBC/Universal buys USA Networks.
NBC/Universal cancels the last season of "Farscape", and the new western, "Peacemakers". They attempt to cancel "Monk" and "The Dead Zone", but to no avail. They also attempt to cancel "Stargate SG-1" and replace it with "Stargate Atlantis", this fails too.
NBC/Universal "retells" "Battlestar Galactica" - sorry, it's all about skin and a drunk Col. Tigh - junk.
NBC/Universal now is "cleaning up" the Scifi Channel by putting on on its own shows, "Eureka" (it is good though).
NBC/Universal is cancelling "Stargate SG-1", at a con, one of its actors did mention that "Universal did let it go on for another 5 seasons".
NBC/Universal's #1 show on the Sci-Fi channel is Wrestling....
Universal is good for what again???
(note: I might have my timing off, like the Farscape cancellation, but I think Scifi might have seen it coming with that series cancellation).
myemosoul
Jun 22, 03:27 PM
Ronbo,
I am in Southwest NJ by Philadelphia, Gloucester county.
I am in Southwest NJ by Philadelphia, Gloucester county.
fatfish
Aug 7, 09:49 PM
I've seen many posts calling for a unified mail, address and calender app, this is so please Apple take no notice, I want seperate apps.
Simplicity is what makes Apple software what it is. I would however wish to see tighter integration, such as exists between itunes, iphoto, iDVD, iMovie, Garageband and iWeb.
I would also like to see the address book integrated with pages. (but that's another topic)
Simplicity is what makes Apple software what it is. I would however wish to see tighter integration, such as exists between itunes, iphoto, iDVD, iMovie, Garageband and iWeb.
I would also like to see the address book integrated with pages. (but that's another topic)
DeVizardofOZ
Aug 26, 04:34 AM
Now apple is switching to Intel, They don't have that expirience that they had with the "old" powermacs...
...When the APPLE management decided to go with the INTEL platform, I considered that an intelligent decision, even though I think they should have kept the door open to AMD (maybe they have internally). At the same time they knew the possible problems, and should have done their soft- as well as hardware-homework, like R&D. Now it seems they do what MS has been doing for the past decades with their problem stricken OS's... let the poor consumer do it for them... Very bad policy!
I will buy a MBP, but will wait until things get better. By doing so I probably will get the benefit of an new formfactor, the MEROM, a faster FSB, maybe even a higher resolution on the 17"... We'll see.
...When the APPLE management decided to go with the INTEL platform, I considered that an intelligent decision, even though I think they should have kept the door open to AMD (maybe they have internally). At the same time they knew the possible problems, and should have done their soft- as well as hardware-homework, like R&D. Now it seems they do what MS has been doing for the past decades with their problem stricken OS's... let the poor consumer do it for them... Very bad policy!
I will buy a MBP, but will wait until things get better. By doing so I probably will get the benefit of an new formfactor, the MEROM, a faster FSB, maybe even a higher resolution on the 17"... We'll see.
Benjy91
Mar 26, 12:39 PM
Windows 7 is available in six editions, and three of those (bolded) are available through normal retail channels.
- Windows 7 Starter
- Windows 7 Home Basic
- Windows 7 Home Premium
- Windows 7 Professional
- Windows 7 Enterprise
- Windows 7 Ultimate
You also need to decide on the architecture before purchase, unlike OS X.
If you count those (they are packaged in different boxes after all), this brings the number up to 11. Starter doesn't come in a 64-bit edition.
Finally, this of course doesn't include the server editions of the Windows 7 kernel.
The only versions of Windows 7 Ive seen available at retail are Home Premium, Proffessional and Ultimate.
Starter and Home basic only come bundled with Netbooks.
And if you're choosing which version of Windows you want for home use, why would Enterprise and Server versions even come into it?
So if you're looking to pick up Windows 7 for your PC, the only serious choices are Home Premium, Professional and Ultimate, and is it really that confusing to compare a feature list of 3 versions and decide which features you need?
- Windows 7 Starter
- Windows 7 Home Basic
- Windows 7 Home Premium
- Windows 7 Professional
- Windows 7 Enterprise
- Windows 7 Ultimate
You also need to decide on the architecture before purchase, unlike OS X.
If you count those (they are packaged in different boxes after all), this brings the number up to 11. Starter doesn't come in a 64-bit edition.
Finally, this of course doesn't include the server editions of the Windows 7 kernel.
The only versions of Windows 7 Ive seen available at retail are Home Premium, Proffessional and Ultimate.
Starter and Home basic only come bundled with Netbooks.
And if you're choosing which version of Windows you want for home use, why would Enterprise and Server versions even come into it?
So if you're looking to pick up Windows 7 for your PC, the only serious choices are Home Premium, Professional and Ultimate, and is it really that confusing to compare a feature list of 3 versions and decide which features you need?
dernhelm
Mar 31, 05:46 PM
There they go, building their own little walled garden...
aohus
Apr 19, 01:52 PM
wow @ post 2.
apple will have a hard time fighting this in court.
apple will have a hard time fighting this in court.
No comments:
Post a Comment