Bill McEnaney
Apr 24, 11:30 PM
Well, only if you insist that yours is the ONLY What about the denominations that say "Here's what WE believe, but if someone believes something else, that's fine?"
That depends on what "that's fine" means. I don't want to coerce anyone into believing what I believe. Others are welcome to argue for what they believe when they agree with me and when they disagree with me. If you know that I'm mistaken about something, I you to show me that I'm mistaken about it because after you do that, I'll replace my false belief with the corresponding truth that you proved. But if "that's fine" implies relativism about truth, that implication is not fine, because relativism about truth, or at least some versions of it, are self-contradictory and every self-contradiction is always false.
Many atheists deny that God exists. Maybe they're right, but their denial implies that theism is either true or else false. If those atheists say that theism is nonsense, what do they mean by "nonsense?" If they mean that theism is neither true nor false, then they imply their denial is neither true nor false, since theism is the belief that at least one God exists, and "There is no God" is the denial of theism. By the law of the excluded middle, every proposition is either true or false, but not both.
That depends on what "that's fine" means. I don't want to coerce anyone into believing what I believe. Others are welcome to argue for what they believe when they agree with me and when they disagree with me. If you know that I'm mistaken about something, I you to show me that I'm mistaken about it because after you do that, I'll replace my false belief with the corresponding truth that you proved. But if "that's fine" implies relativism about truth, that implication is not fine, because relativism about truth, or at least some versions of it, are self-contradictory and every self-contradiction is always false.
Many atheists deny that God exists. Maybe they're right, but their denial implies that theism is either true or else false. If those atheists say that theism is nonsense, what do they mean by "nonsense?" If they mean that theism is neither true nor false, then they imply their denial is neither true nor false, since theism is the belief that at least one God exists, and "There is no God" is the denial of theism. By the law of the excluded middle, every proposition is either true or false, but not both.
latergator116
Mar 21, 06:44 AM
My comments were about the people who wrote the software, not those that just use it. It's the PyMusique programmers that may face legal troubles, while those who merely use the software may or may not face consequences (I suspect that the worse for them might be termination of their iTunes account, in which case they won't have to worry any longer about iTunes DRM).
Thanks for clearing that up, but I still don't undertsand why the creator(s) of PhMusique sohuld face legal charges. What have they done illegaly?
Thanks for clearing that up, but I still don't undertsand why the creator(s) of PhMusique sohuld face legal charges. What have they done illegaly?
shawnce
Oct 25, 11:53 PM
Do either IBM or Motorola have a quad-core chip on the horizon? IBM has been shipping 8 core POWER5 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/POWER5) in a single MCM with 36 MiBs of L3 cache for a couple of years now. IBM (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_POWER) has a long history with these types of things. ...of course they cost far more then what Intel is putting out in the near future.
MatthewThomas
Apr 13, 12:23 AM
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) Mobile/8G4)
I was in the supermeet audience this evening and can personally arrest that this is in no way iMovie pro. It is much much more powerful and object oriented than the current fcp and places special emphasis on media management, which the current fcp lacks sorely. The interface and parent/child relational timeline is spectacular and is quite unique in its capabilities.
I was in the supermeet audience this evening and can personally arrest that this is in no way iMovie pro. It is much much more powerful and object oriented than the current fcp and places special emphasis on media management, which the current fcp lacks sorely. The interface and parent/child relational timeline is spectacular and is quite unique in its capabilities.
mdntcallr
Sep 12, 03:26 PM
While this certainly is a nice interface to a entertainment system.
this certainly isnt a full function media center.
Why no computer with all of this functionality? this is kinda like front row, but not much extra?
Why can't we buy a mid sized tower (in stereo size) which can have HDMI 1080p output? with blu-ray drive built in?
hey just asking. i know blu-ray is just getting started, but i'd like apple to be on it from the get go.
this certainly isnt a full function media center.
Why no computer with all of this functionality? this is kinda like front row, but not much extra?
Why can't we buy a mid sized tower (in stereo size) which can have HDMI 1080p output? with blu-ray drive built in?
hey just asking. i know blu-ray is just getting started, but i'd like apple to be on it from the get go.
nagromme
Aug 29, 11:58 AM
A lot of people seem to believe Greenpeace has fabricated their data. (Which would be pretty stupid since it can be checked!) But if so, why not put Dell at the bottom for publicity purposes? That makes more sense than Acer if this is all lies instead of research.
And I don't see people offering their OWN research :rolleyes: People are just saying Greenpeace is lying because they WANT it to be lies.
I sympathize. I want Apple AND the rest to be at the top of the scale. I want it all to be lies.
But wanting something is not enough to change reality.
Luckily, there IS something that can change reality: ACTUAL change. THAT is what will make the Greenpeace-phobes right: when Apple and the others change to become what you wish they already were. We all wish it, and I believe it will happen. Recognizing the problems is an unpleasant but necessary step on the way.
And I don't see people offering their OWN research :rolleyes: People are just saying Greenpeace is lying because they WANT it to be lies.
I sympathize. I want Apple AND the rest to be at the top of the scale. I want it all to be lies.
But wanting something is not enough to change reality.
Luckily, there IS something that can change reality: ACTUAL change. THAT is what will make the Greenpeace-phobes right: when Apple and the others change to become what you wish they already were. We all wish it, and I believe it will happen. Recognizing the problems is an unpleasant but necessary step on the way.
arn
Sep 20, 12:50 AM
ya, seems unlikely the hard drive is for DVR functionality [as someone pointed out, there are no video inputs ont the device]... but the hard drive could prove useful in other ways.
It brings an interesting thoughts though how it complements the DVR. Wonder if Apple has thought about licensing the streaming componenet of it to Tivo, for example. It seems like it might be nice if Tivo could play protected itunes content on your home network.
Or on the flip side, Apple could license Tivo in a box of their own.
arn
It brings an interesting thoughts though how it complements the DVR. Wonder if Apple has thought about licensing the streaming componenet of it to Tivo, for example. It seems like it might be nice if Tivo could play protected itunes content on your home network.
Or on the flip side, Apple could license Tivo in a box of their own.
arn
matticus008
Mar 21, 02:45 AM
Where are you seeing a difference between digital copyrights and any other kind of copyright in U.S. law? There is no such difference, and current law and current case law says that purchases of copyrighted works are in fact purchases. They are not licenses.
They are purchases of usage rights, not of ownership of the intellectual property contained therein. Review the cases more carefully. If you don't want to call it a license, fine. But it's not ownership of the song. It's ownership of your limited-use copy of that song.
No, you've got it in reverse. The Supreme Court of the United States specifically said that anything not disallowed is allowed. That was (among other places) the betamax case that I referenced.
You seem to be conflating the DMCA with copyright. The DMCA is not about copyright. It's about breaking digital restrictions. The DMCA did not turn purchases into licenses. Things that were purchases before the DMCA are still purchases today.
Yes, the Supreme Court said that, but in reference to all laws, not just copyright laws. Anything not forbidden by law is permissable. What this does is break other laws, as well as the distribution component of the copyright law. The DMCA is about digital copyright law, whether it has other purposes or not. It governs your rights with regard to copyrighted digital works. Your purchase of the CD did not and still does not give you ownership of the digital content of that CD, only ownership of the physical disc itself.
This is a poor analogy. The real analogy would be that you have purchased the car, but now law requires that you not open the door without permission from the manufacturer.
When you rent a car, the rental agency can at any time require that you return the car and stop using it. The iTunes music store has no right to do this. CD manufacturers have no right to do this.
Not true. If you misuse your copy of any copyrighted work, you can be required to surrender your copy of the work and desist immediately. The law does not require you to do anything special with material you OWN. But you don't own the music. The analogy stands.
Music purchases were purchases before the DMCA and they are purchases after the DMCA. There are more restrictions after the DMCA, but the restrictions are placed on the locks, not on what is behind the locks. The music that you bought is still yours; but you aren't allowed to open the locks.
Exactly right about the restrictions placed on the locks, but exactly wrong about the content behind them. You did not own it before the DMCA, and you do not own it now.
Your analogy with "so that anyone can use it" also misrepresents the DMCA: the better analogy is that you can't even open the locks so that *you* can use it.
No, not at all. The DMCA has issues that need to be addressed, but it does not prohibit your fair use of material.
In the sense that you have described it above, books are digital. Books can be copied with no loss and then the original sold. Books are, according to the Supreme Court, purchases, not licenses. Book manufacturers are not even allowed to place EULAs on their books and pretend that it is a license. There is no different law about music. It's all copyright.
Again, read the court cases more carefully. You have rights to do as you please with the physical book. You do not have rights to the content of the books. You never did, and the Supreme Court has never granted you this permission. With your digital file, there is nothing physical that you own and control, only the intellectual property which is owned SOLELY by the copyright holder. Books are purchases of a physical, bound paper product containing the intellectual property of another individual. The Supreme Court has supported this since the implementation of IP law in the 19th century.
Are you claiming that playing my CDs on my iPod is illegal? The file has been modified in ways that it was not originally intended: they were uncompressed digital audio files meant for playback on a CD player. Now they're compressed digital audio played back on an iPod.
It's not illegal by copyright law to put your unprotected music on an iPod. You are not modifying the intellectual property of the owner. You are taking it from what you own (the physical disc) and putting it on something else you own (the iPod hard disk).
That is completely outside of what the manufacturer intended that I use that CD for. I don't believe that's illegal; the U.S. courts don't believe that it's illegal. Apple certainly doesn't believe that it's illegal. The RIAA would like it to be illegal but isn't arguing that any more. Do you believe that it is illegal?
One more time. The copyright law governs the material, your purchase covers the disc. You can do whatever you want with the disc, but you don't have the same freedom with the data on that disc. No one is stopping you from breaking the CD or selling it or doing whatever you want. You are not allowed to take control of the intellectual property that is not yours (the songs). Show ME a case that demonstrates otherwise from the past 50 years. Older cases are not applicable, and I'm being generous with the 50 year window as well given the wealth of more recent cases, all of which support IP rights and consumer ownership of the media but not the content.
They are purchases of usage rights, not of ownership of the intellectual property contained therein. Review the cases more carefully. If you don't want to call it a license, fine. But it's not ownership of the song. It's ownership of your limited-use copy of that song.
No, you've got it in reverse. The Supreme Court of the United States specifically said that anything not disallowed is allowed. That was (among other places) the betamax case that I referenced.
You seem to be conflating the DMCA with copyright. The DMCA is not about copyright. It's about breaking digital restrictions. The DMCA did not turn purchases into licenses. Things that were purchases before the DMCA are still purchases today.
Yes, the Supreme Court said that, but in reference to all laws, not just copyright laws. Anything not forbidden by law is permissable. What this does is break other laws, as well as the distribution component of the copyright law. The DMCA is about digital copyright law, whether it has other purposes or not. It governs your rights with regard to copyrighted digital works. Your purchase of the CD did not and still does not give you ownership of the digital content of that CD, only ownership of the physical disc itself.
This is a poor analogy. The real analogy would be that you have purchased the car, but now law requires that you not open the door without permission from the manufacturer.
When you rent a car, the rental agency can at any time require that you return the car and stop using it. The iTunes music store has no right to do this. CD manufacturers have no right to do this.
Not true. If you misuse your copy of any copyrighted work, you can be required to surrender your copy of the work and desist immediately. The law does not require you to do anything special with material you OWN. But you don't own the music. The analogy stands.
Music purchases were purchases before the DMCA and they are purchases after the DMCA. There are more restrictions after the DMCA, but the restrictions are placed on the locks, not on what is behind the locks. The music that you bought is still yours; but you aren't allowed to open the locks.
Exactly right about the restrictions placed on the locks, but exactly wrong about the content behind them. You did not own it before the DMCA, and you do not own it now.
Your analogy with "so that anyone can use it" also misrepresents the DMCA: the better analogy is that you can't even open the locks so that *you* can use it.
No, not at all. The DMCA has issues that need to be addressed, but it does not prohibit your fair use of material.
In the sense that you have described it above, books are digital. Books can be copied with no loss and then the original sold. Books are, according to the Supreme Court, purchases, not licenses. Book manufacturers are not even allowed to place EULAs on their books and pretend that it is a license. There is no different law about music. It's all copyright.
Again, read the court cases more carefully. You have rights to do as you please with the physical book. You do not have rights to the content of the books. You never did, and the Supreme Court has never granted you this permission. With your digital file, there is nothing physical that you own and control, only the intellectual property which is owned SOLELY by the copyright holder. Books are purchases of a physical, bound paper product containing the intellectual property of another individual. The Supreme Court has supported this since the implementation of IP law in the 19th century.
Are you claiming that playing my CDs on my iPod is illegal? The file has been modified in ways that it was not originally intended: they were uncompressed digital audio files meant for playback on a CD player. Now they're compressed digital audio played back on an iPod.
It's not illegal by copyright law to put your unprotected music on an iPod. You are not modifying the intellectual property of the owner. You are taking it from what you own (the physical disc) and putting it on something else you own (the iPod hard disk).
That is completely outside of what the manufacturer intended that I use that CD for. I don't believe that's illegal; the U.S. courts don't believe that it's illegal. Apple certainly doesn't believe that it's illegal. The RIAA would like it to be illegal but isn't arguing that any more. Do you believe that it is illegal?
One more time. The copyright law governs the material, your purchase covers the disc. You can do whatever you want with the disc, but you don't have the same freedom with the data on that disc. No one is stopping you from breaking the CD or selling it or doing whatever you want. You are not allowed to take control of the intellectual property that is not yours (the songs). Show ME a case that demonstrates otherwise from the past 50 years. Older cases are not applicable, and I'm being generous with the 50 year window as well given the wealth of more recent cases, all of which support IP rights and consumer ownership of the media but not the content.
Multimedia
Oct 11, 08:23 AM
I was one click away from buying a refurb 2.66 Mac Pro last evening and decided to wait until next month to see what Apple brings to the table. I've sold off my Quicksilver, Pismo, G4 AL 'book, and G4 Mini and picked up a MBP and MB now all I need is a new tower and my Intel transition is complete. Aside from the lack of UB CS2 apps it's been a great transition.
Now I have to get rid of two 21" Viewsonic CRTs and upgrade my displays. I was able to check out the Dell 24" display and it's pretty sweet, but on Friday Costco will have the Viewsonic 22" LCDs on sale for $300 each. For the less than the price of a 24" I could pick up two 22" LCDs. Granted they are lower resolution, but I think the extra monitor makes up for that missing real estate. Any feedback on this is appreciated.Wow. I can't beleive they are in refurb after only two months and also the one month old C2D iMacs are all there as well. But I'm holding out for the 8-core no matter what. They should be priced same as the 3GHz Quad Xeon according to published price lists.
Please explain more about what will be for sale Friday at Costco for $300. Link, model number and resolution please? I'm not currently a member but could join if worth it. Is it the VX2235wm 1680x1050 (http://www.viewsonic.com/products/desktopdisplays/lcddisplays/xseries/vx2235wm/)? That's a far cry from 1920 x 1200 for around $700 from Dell. While you may save money at Costco, you get what you pay for. Native HD resolution capable is one of my priorities.
Now I have to get rid of two 21" Viewsonic CRTs and upgrade my displays. I was able to check out the Dell 24" display and it's pretty sweet, but on Friday Costco will have the Viewsonic 22" LCDs on sale for $300 each. For the less than the price of a 24" I could pick up two 22" LCDs. Granted they are lower resolution, but I think the extra monitor makes up for that missing real estate. Any feedback on this is appreciated.Wow. I can't beleive they are in refurb after only two months and also the one month old C2D iMacs are all there as well. But I'm holding out for the 8-core no matter what. They should be priced same as the 3GHz Quad Xeon according to published price lists.
Please explain more about what will be for sale Friday at Costco for $300. Link, model number and resolution please? I'm not currently a member but could join if worth it. Is it the VX2235wm 1680x1050 (http://www.viewsonic.com/products/desktopdisplays/lcddisplays/xseries/vx2235wm/)? That's a far cry from 1920 x 1200 for around $700 from Dell. While you may save money at Costco, you get what you pay for. Native HD resolution capable is one of my priorities.
dante@sisna.com
Oct 29, 02:44 AM
I don't want to seem judgemental, but the last thing I ever plan on doing is selling my G5 Quad. I mean like I will have my G5 Quad until I DIE. Why would you do that? It runs classic. It runs Adobe native. It is pretty fast for email and word processing. ;) And it runs dead silent. It's the perfect backup for when the Mac Pro goes down. At the very least it makes for a great HDTV player and recorder with EyeTV 500 or Hybrid attached.
AMEN Multimedia!!!
Amen.
I will NEVER sell my Quad G5 -- it is an AMAZING Unit. Simply awesome.
I will buy all the new Apple Mac Pro toys -- buy I will always have the Quad G5. Always. It is a legendary machine.
AMEN Multimedia!!!
Amen.
I will NEVER sell my Quad G5 -- it is an AMAZING Unit. Simply awesome.
I will buy all the new Apple Mac Pro toys -- buy I will always have the Quad G5. Always. It is a legendary machine.
Mac'nCheese
Apr 23, 09:21 PM
Maybe because the majority of atheists tend to have an attitude of more "religion sucks, I'm atheist" whereas religious people do not have an "atheism sucks, I'm theistic" attitude for the most part.
.
Wow. I see it completely the other way. The religious people look at the atheists as lost souls, sinners, who need to be saved. They want their beliefs to be the basis for our laws. They need to have god thrown in our faces, on our money, in our pledges, in our courtrooms, etc. etc. And this is in the land of the free where separation of church and state is supposed to be one our most basic rights!
Don't believe me, check any poll about who people in the United States trust or who they would vote for. Atheists are always at the bottom of both lists!
.
Wow. I see it completely the other way. The religious people look at the atheists as lost souls, sinners, who need to be saved. They want their beliefs to be the basis for our laws. They need to have god thrown in our faces, on our money, in our pledges, in our courtrooms, etc. etc. And this is in the land of the free where separation of church and state is supposed to be one our most basic rights!
Don't believe me, check any poll about who people in the United States trust or who they would vote for. Atheists are always at the bottom of both lists!
PhantomPumpkin
Apr 21, 09:15 AM
Oh yes, being elitist by proclaiming to be tech savvy.
For starters the correct way to look at it is that Apple users don't HAVE to be tech savvy.
It all works beautifully the way Apple created it, with almost no learning curve. Unpack your device from the box, hook it up and watch the magic unfold.
I also don't see that I need a badge of being tech savvy. It's like me driving my car and not caring or needing to know how things work.
Do I care about compression, valves, spark plug, clutch etc. ?
I am also sure that there are an equal amount of dumb PC users as there are Apple users.
Only thing we don't know is if the question:
"My cup holder doesn't give my cup back"
(She was talking about a CD drive tray being jammed)
was from an Apple or PC user first:-)
I'd agree with you. Look at the craigslist computer forum and you'll see a high number of non-tech savvy folk. He's just making a gross generalization or taking a small % and extrapolating it to the whole, both of which are flawed.
On a side note, my cup holder is flipped. Everytime I put my drink on it, it spills right off. How do you keep your cup parallel to your desk on yours?
For starters the correct way to look at it is that Apple users don't HAVE to be tech savvy.
It all works beautifully the way Apple created it, with almost no learning curve. Unpack your device from the box, hook it up and watch the magic unfold.
I also don't see that I need a badge of being tech savvy. It's like me driving my car and not caring or needing to know how things work.
Do I care about compression, valves, spark plug, clutch etc. ?
I am also sure that there are an equal amount of dumb PC users as there are Apple users.
Only thing we don't know is if the question:
"My cup holder doesn't give my cup back"
(She was talking about a CD drive tray being jammed)
was from an Apple or PC user first:-)
I'd agree with you. Look at the craigslist computer forum and you'll see a high number of non-tech savvy folk. He's just making a gross generalization or taking a small % and extrapolating it to the whole, both of which are flawed.
On a side note, my cup holder is flipped. Everytime I put my drink on it, it spills right off. How do you keep your cup parallel to your desk on yours?
edifyingGerbil
Apr 22, 07:58 PM
This makeup of this forum's members intrigues mean slightly. Why are most of the posters here Atheists? Is it part of the Mac using demographic, the Internet in general's demographic, or are Atheists just the most interested in Politics, Religon, and Social Issues?
Didn't you know? Aside from owning Apple products it's also quite trendy being an atheist. They think they don't need to back up their points with Reason or facts so it's a kind of intellectual laziness which compels most people.
I'm not saying that I'm a devout Christian or anything of the sort, I'm agnostic, but it's based on Reason.
Didn't you know? Aside from owning Apple products it's also quite trendy being an atheist. They think they don't need to back up their points with Reason or facts so it's a kind of intellectual laziness which compels most people.
I'm not saying that I'm a devout Christian or anything of the sort, I'm agnostic, but it's based on Reason.
joemama
Sep 20, 09:21 PM
Is that legal? If it's not - even if it's blurry - Apple won't do it.
-Clive
Umm, it's called a VCR. Do you remember when that was considered illegal when it first came out? Or the cassette tape?
Secondly, if Apple allows you to do that, then you wouldn't buy content from the iTS. That's not what Apple wants.
-Clive
We all know that is Apple's business model right now. What everyone is saying is it is not going to work for the average Joe-American family.
Think about who pays the bills right now and imagine this scenario:
Child:"Hey, dad, can I buy that last 3 episodes of Lost on Itunes?"
Dad:"You mean the same ones that were on the last 3 weeks?..for free?!?"
Child:"Yes, I want to put them on my iPod."
Dad:"The same ones that are already on our DVR that I pay $10 extra a month to have? I think not, my child."
-Clive
Umm, it's called a VCR. Do you remember when that was considered illegal when it first came out? Or the cassette tape?
Secondly, if Apple allows you to do that, then you wouldn't buy content from the iTS. That's not what Apple wants.
-Clive
We all know that is Apple's business model right now. What everyone is saying is it is not going to work for the average Joe-American family.
Think about who pays the bills right now and imagine this scenario:
Child:"Hey, dad, can I buy that last 3 episodes of Lost on Itunes?"
Dad:"You mean the same ones that were on the last 3 weeks?..for free?!?"
Child:"Yes, I want to put them on my iPod."
Dad:"The same ones that are already on our DVR that I pay $10 extra a month to have? I think not, my child."
sinsin07
Apr 8, 11:57 PM
These people are fleeing the "yellow light of death” on PS3 or "red ring of death' on 360. The consoles are so poorly made that broken PS3's seldomly fetch $50 on eBay.
Justin Bieber gives Selena
justin bieber and selena gomez
Justin Bieber and Selena Gomez
justin bieber and selena gomez
balamw
Feb 11, 07:56 PM
Calendar that automatically synch with Google calendar. No extra fees for Mobile Me..and works absolutely perfectly! Unlike Mobile Me..which I had.
Same for Gmail..instant notification!
If you don't need to access an Exchange server, you can do this with Google Sync on the iPhone.
http://www.google.com/support/mobile/bin/answer.py?answer=138740&topic=14252
EDIT: I'm not keeping track, but did they ever get around to fixing the memory storage on the droid so you can have more than 256 MB of apps? The microSD is kind of useless if you can't you know use it.
B
Same for Gmail..instant notification!
If you don't need to access an Exchange server, you can do this with Google Sync on the iPhone.
http://www.google.com/support/mobile/bin/answer.py?answer=138740&topic=14252
EDIT: I'm not keeping track, but did they ever get around to fixing the memory storage on the droid so you can have more than 256 MB of apps? The microSD is kind of useless if you can't you know use it.
B
DemSpursBro
Apr 11, 08:21 AM
I love building my own rig every year and it keeps me current with the ever evolving computer technology.
Just out of curiosity, why do you build one each year?
Just out of curiosity, why do you build one each year?
�algiris
May 2, 09:15 AM
Bigger, most Windows PC have anti-virus, can you say the same for Macs?
One thing Macs need anti-virus is to scan mails for Windows viruses, so that those doesn't to you PC. That is all.
One thing Macs need anti-virus is to scan mails for Windows viruses, so that those doesn't to you PC. That is all.
ATD
Sep 26, 05:41 PM
Yep. :( I know of a peep on the OS X Maya forum that ended up buying the full version. I don't have the money for that sort of thing, so I'm not going to buy until the RenderMan Plug-in supports whatever 64-bit version of Maya is released in the future. Then I'll also be upgrading Maya. :)
***
You can download the eval copy to try it out.
<]=)
Glad I didn't shell out the money thinking it was. 64 bit Maya is going to be nice, I'm think its coming when OSX 10.5 hits. I got Maya 8 but have not loaded it yet.
BTW, I go to the OSX Maya forum once in while and have seen your name there. Is DD the one that got the full version?
***
You can download the eval copy to try it out.
<]=)
Glad I didn't shell out the money thinking it was. 64 bit Maya is going to be nice, I'm think its coming when OSX 10.5 hits. I got Maya 8 but have not loaded it yet.
BTW, I go to the OSX Maya forum once in while and have seen your name there. Is DD the one that got the full version?
bombjack
Apr 27, 06:19 AM
I switched to Mac 3 years ago and I have never looked back. most of the annoyences has been covered already, but none of them are a real showstopper.
The biggest annoyence with OS X is the lack of a good music handler. I just hate iTunes. It's the biggest bloatware on the market if you ask me. Please, don't start a flame war about this, it's my opinion, and based on how I handle/listen to music. It might work for you.
Regarding the (in)famous "x" to quit programs: This might be the biggest conceptual difference between Windows and Mac. Windows is, well, windows based. Program, user interface etc are all contained in one window. Mac on the other hand is based on programs, interacting with the user using windows. It takes some time to get used to. The best way I believe, is to avoid the buttons and use command-h to hide and command-q to quit programs. This way, alt-tab works as in Windows. Using the "minimize" button is confusing when you want the window back. you can alt-tab to the program but the window will still be minimized
The biggest annoyence with OS X is the lack of a good music handler. I just hate iTunes. It's the biggest bloatware on the market if you ask me. Please, don't start a flame war about this, it's my opinion, and based on how I handle/listen to music. It might work for you.
Regarding the (in)famous "x" to quit programs: This might be the biggest conceptual difference between Windows and Mac. Windows is, well, windows based. Program, user interface etc are all contained in one window. Mac on the other hand is based on programs, interacting with the user using windows. It takes some time to get used to. The best way I believe, is to avoid the buttons and use command-h to hide and command-q to quit programs. This way, alt-tab works as in Windows. Using the "minimize" button is confusing when you want the window back. you can alt-tab to the program but the window will still be minimized
MacsRgr8
Sep 20, 06:10 AM
Maybe the HD has a slimmed down version of Mac OS X installed on it, making it necessary to be in there, and it's very likely for caching purposes too.
Wish it did have a DVD-player in it, so that it could replace any ol' DVD player hooked up to the TV aswell. With the iTV you still need one.
That's pretty much what I did with my Mac mini Core Duo.... I have a LCD TV hooked up to the mini via DVI. I use Front Row to watch all my favorite movies I have downladed, and VLC for some HD content. And I use the mini's DVD player for wathcing these. It's great!
Wish it did have a DVD-player in it, so that it could replace any ol' DVD player hooked up to the TV aswell. With the iTV you still need one.
That's pretty much what I did with my Mac mini Core Duo.... I have a LCD TV hooked up to the mini via DVI. I use Front Row to watch all my favorite movies I have downladed, and VLC for some HD content. And I use the mini's DVD player for wathcing these. It's great!
P-Worm
Sep 20, 07:13 AM
Is it possible that the cable ports on the back can be used for both input AND output? I don't see why not.
P-Worm
P-Worm
WalkingDED
Mar 18, 11:21 AM
I actually paid for MyWi and I only use it to tether my iPad. I use it instead of (not in addition to) my iPhone and only when wifi is not available.
javajedi
Oct 11, 12:26 PM
What you are saying makes a lot of sense. Now that I think about, I too recall reading this somewhere.
Now that we know the real truth about the "better standard FPU", I thought it was time to shed some light on non vectorized G4 integer processing.
It still does 200,000,000 calculations, but this time I'm multiplying ints.
Motorola 7455 G4@800Mhz: 9 seconds (Native)
IBM 750FX G3@700Mhz: 7 seconds (Native)
Intel P4@2600Mhz 2 seconds (Java)
PowerPC 7455 integer processing is consierabley better than floating point (obviously less work doing ints), but still less per cycle than the Pentium 4.
Very intresting the G4 looses both floating point and integer to the IBM chip, at a 100MHz clock disadvantage.
I'm still waiting to see that "better standard FPU" in the G4. It seems the G4 is absolutely useless unless you are fortunate to have vectorized (AltiVec) code.
Now that we know the real truth about the "better standard FPU", I thought it was time to shed some light on non vectorized G4 integer processing.
It still does 200,000,000 calculations, but this time I'm multiplying ints.
Motorola 7455 G4@800Mhz: 9 seconds (Native)
IBM 750FX G3@700Mhz: 7 seconds (Native)
Intel P4@2600Mhz 2 seconds (Java)
PowerPC 7455 integer processing is consierabley better than floating point (obviously less work doing ints), but still less per cycle than the Pentium 4.
Very intresting the G4 looses both floating point and integer to the IBM chip, at a 100MHz clock disadvantage.
I'm still waiting to see that "better standard FPU" in the G4. It seems the G4 is absolutely useless unless you are fortunate to have vectorized (AltiVec) code.
