Sodner
Apr 21, 07:30 AM
So this site is for fanboys only?
No HATERS are welcome as well.
No HATERS are welcome as well.
lazyrighteye
Sep 20, 08:31 AM
Sounds like a very cool device.
lets hope for a 60" Apple tv/monitor is coming for release soon. this would power a home theater and be usable for much more
If this were the case (which would be cool), why not just cram an iTV into the monitor (which would be cooler)?
"Look ma, no... iTV box thingy (?)!"
lets hope for a 60" Apple tv/monitor is coming for release soon. this would power a home theater and be usable for much more
If this were the case (which would be cool), why not just cram an iTV into the monitor (which would be cooler)?
"Look ma, no... iTV box thingy (?)!"
Jcoz
Mar 18, 11:55 AM
I hate how these carriers work in the US.
If you give us a data allowance, that is what you give us - regardless of how we use it.
If you were giving us unlimited data, then I could understand why you would be charging for tethering. But that would go bad anyways.
I agree.
I completely understand the idea that unlimited data should have to pay for tethering, although I think there should just be a cap prior to additional charges like verizon does.
What I dont understand is how they think charging tiered data customers for tethering is fair.
If you give us a data allowance, that is what you give us - regardless of how we use it.
If you were giving us unlimited data, then I could understand why you would be charging for tethering. But that would go bad anyways.
I agree.
I completely understand the idea that unlimited data should have to pay for tethering, although I think there should just be a cap prior to additional charges like verizon does.
What I dont understand is how they think charging tiered data customers for tethering is fair.
skunk
Apr 26, 05:20 PM
Have we just passed through the looking glass? :confused:
deannnnn
Oct 7, 10:11 PM
You guys are all forgetting. The world is going to end in 2012 so it wont matter. :)
I hope the 4G iPhone is out in time!
I hope the 4G iPhone is out in time!
MagnusVonMagnum
May 3, 05:19 PM
so much for the no malware on macs myth :D
funny how the apple fanboys are getting all defensive :rolleyes:
Just look at the monster negative vote rating against anyone who ever criticizes Apple or anything remotely related (i.e. typical fanboy mass attack; they can't let blasphemy just go bye :D ). Frankly, I'm starting to think the lower the number on your post in most threads on such topics, the SMARTER you are. I know I usually give props to all the messages with the lowest scores since they are usually the only ones to tell the truth (kind of like listening to the Tea Party for advice; most are clueless fanatics and not much else).
I mean just look at the number for your post. You told the 100% gospel truth. There IS malware for the Mac (even if it's not very dangerous) and pointed out the truth that most fanboys on here are getting completely bent out of shape and acting immature with their sarcasm. You were at -20 right before I hit reply in a thread where the average number is +/-2.
If someone can find me a set of Macintosh 'fanboy free' forums (as in fanboy accounts are deleted once recognized as such, themselves being a form of spam IMO), I'd love to know about it. It'd eliminate 95% of the total worthless fluff. Just think how much extra time one would have to do other things instead of wading through a cesspool of useless junk every day. ;)
Why do Mac users get less infections? My belief is that the users may be of higher quality, ONLY because of the computers niche-like nature and most Mac users are dedicated, technologically knowledgable.
You must not get around much. Most Mac users I see everyday are technological neophytes. The Mac is designed to attract non-tech users so this shouldn't be a shock or anything. The difference I see is that most Mac users THINK they know 10-50x more than they actually do. Yes there are some very knowledgeable Mac users out there, but they are not in the majority by a long shot, IMO. The sheer volumes of drone-like fanboys on these forums ought to give you a clue just how bad it really is.
funny how the apple fanboys are getting all defensive :rolleyes:
Just look at the monster negative vote rating against anyone who ever criticizes Apple or anything remotely related (i.e. typical fanboy mass attack; they can't let blasphemy just go bye :D ). Frankly, I'm starting to think the lower the number on your post in most threads on such topics, the SMARTER you are. I know I usually give props to all the messages with the lowest scores since they are usually the only ones to tell the truth (kind of like listening to the Tea Party for advice; most are clueless fanatics and not much else).
I mean just look at the number for your post. You told the 100% gospel truth. There IS malware for the Mac (even if it's not very dangerous) and pointed out the truth that most fanboys on here are getting completely bent out of shape and acting immature with their sarcasm. You were at -20 right before I hit reply in a thread where the average number is +/-2.
If someone can find me a set of Macintosh 'fanboy free' forums (as in fanboy accounts are deleted once recognized as such, themselves being a form of spam IMO), I'd love to know about it. It'd eliminate 95% of the total worthless fluff. Just think how much extra time one would have to do other things instead of wading through a cesspool of useless junk every day. ;)
Why do Mac users get less infections? My belief is that the users may be of higher quality, ONLY because of the computers niche-like nature and most Mac users are dedicated, technologically knowledgable.
You must not get around much. Most Mac users I see everyday are technological neophytes. The Mac is designed to attract non-tech users so this shouldn't be a shock or anything. The difference I see is that most Mac users THINK they know 10-50x more than they actually do. Yes there are some very knowledgeable Mac users out there, but they are not in the majority by a long shot, IMO. The sheer volumes of drone-like fanboys on these forums ought to give you a clue just how bad it really is.
edifyingGerbil
Apr 22, 09:23 PM
Huh?? I'm the last person who usually defends Atheists around here (nothing against them) :), I'm Agnostic too, but regardless if I think they are out on a limb for my own personal reasons, using the scientific method, with no practical evidence of God is it really fair to accuse them of not thinking and being lazy?? Lol. It could be argued that believing there is no God for lack of evidence is stronger than believing in God based on faith (lack of proof).
No no, you're misreading me. The atheists I've spoken to, here in the UK and various European countries, tend to not back up their atheism with reasons of any sort. They just are.
I think faith is such a personal thing that the "proof" could be in their heads. Paul's conversion occurred on the road to Damascus, he had an epiphany from somewhere. It was proof to him but he couldn't explain it. A lot of theists and born again Christians claim to have these damascene revelations which change their lives etc etc.
All form of religious talk ends in aporia usually... At least religious debate that pertains to ontology of God. You can still argue aspects of different religions or beliefs.
No no, you're misreading me. The atheists I've spoken to, here in the UK and various European countries, tend to not back up their atheism with reasons of any sort. They just are.
I think faith is such a personal thing that the "proof" could be in their heads. Paul's conversion occurred on the road to Damascus, he had an epiphany from somewhere. It was proof to him but he couldn't explain it. A lot of theists and born again Christians claim to have these damascene revelations which change their lives etc etc.
All form of religious talk ends in aporia usually... At least religious debate that pertains to ontology of God. You can still argue aspects of different religions or beliefs.
arkitect
Apr 15, 11:22 AM
By hateful things, you're talking about people like the Westboro Baptist Church and their picket signs, right?
Certainly you don't mean, say, this from the Catechism of the Catholic Church:
2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. [They do not choose their homosexual condition; for most of them it is a trial.] This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God’s will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.
You may not agree with that, but if you find it "hateful", you've basically decided to check out of any possibility of rational argument.
So there is no big
BUT
?
Really?
;)
You are just being disingenuous. I think you just did not quote the part that says it is only OK with the Catholic church if gay men and women do not give physical expression to their gay "inclinations".
the difficulties they may encounter from their condition
Makes it sound like leprosy…
Certainly you don't mean, say, this from the Catechism of the Catholic Church:
2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. [They do not choose their homosexual condition; for most of them it is a trial.] This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God’s will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.
You may not agree with that, but if you find it "hateful", you've basically decided to check out of any possibility of rational argument.
So there is no big
BUT
?
Really?
;)
You are just being disingenuous. I think you just did not quote the part that says it is only OK with the Catholic church if gay men and women do not give physical expression to their gay "inclinations".
the difficulties they may encounter from their condition
Makes it sound like leprosy…
Stampyhead
Aug 29, 12:42 PM
When did you all gain the right to be so selfish, self-centred, and bigoted in your beliefs?
Funny, I thought all people had "the right" to believe anything they liked. When did you gain the right to be so imperious and condescending towards others just because their opinion doesn't agree with their own?
Anyway, I'm sure Apple and a whole load of other companies could do better in regards to environmental issues, but it always seemed to me that Apple was doing a pretty good job. I remember the iPod recycling program in their stores where you could bring in your old iPod and get 10% off a new one. I have also noticed that lately Apple has greatly reduced the amount of packaging on their products. Of course they still need to use styrofoam to keep the computers for getting damaged when they are shipped, but in some cases their packaging is almost half the size it used to be.
So although I'm sure they could do better, I think credit should be given where it is due.
Funny, I thought all people had "the right" to believe anything they liked. When did you gain the right to be so imperious and condescending towards others just because their opinion doesn't agree with their own?
Anyway, I'm sure Apple and a whole load of other companies could do better in regards to environmental issues, but it always seemed to me that Apple was doing a pretty good job. I remember the iPod recycling program in their stores where you could bring in your old iPod and get 10% off a new one. I have also noticed that lately Apple has greatly reduced the amount of packaging on their products. Of course they still need to use styrofoam to keep the computers for getting damaged when they are shipped, but in some cases their packaging is almost half the size it used to be.
So although I'm sure they could do better, I think credit should be given where it is due.
linuxcooldude
Apr 13, 02:09 PM
Well it was rumoured for some time and we all waited with baited breath but was Apple seriously going to end the pro app that started them off to stardom? Sadly yes they have. What genius decides to make a pro app accessible to the masses? We who use FCP have to make money from our business, so we need a little bit of smoke and mirrors to make our business needed, otherwise our clients will just get a 16 year old in off the street, download FCP (sorry imovie Pro or whatever they have decided to call it) and there you go we are out of work!
It seems you don't have faith in your own ability as if your trying to compete with an average 16 year old. Don't blame the tools alone.
The same thing was said when local garage bands were recording music from an average PC in the 80's. Most record labels won't go to a teenager to record a well known bands music.
It seems you don't have faith in your own ability as if your trying to compete with an average 16 year old. Don't blame the tools alone.
The same thing was said when local garage bands were recording music from an average PC in the 80's. Most record labels won't go to a teenager to record a well known bands music.
OneMike
May 2, 09:09 AM
significant, but you have to install
gugy
Jul 12, 01:55 AM
Why the obsession with Adobe? There are other companies out there as well.
Oh really.
Ok, tell me what's out there that can substitute on a professional level Photoshop, After Effects and Illustrator.
I am sure you don't work on the business, so you have no clue.
Oh really.
Ok, tell me what's out there that can substitute on a professional level Photoshop, After Effects and Illustrator.
I am sure you don't work on the business, so you have no clue.
Bill McEnaney
Mar 26, 03:19 AM
Care to elaborate?
To reply sarcastically about my post about Matthew 5:10-12, someone posted this :rolleyes: smily. To answer lightheartedly, I said that I liked that emoticon. I was not writing about anyone's face.
To reply sarcastically about my post about Matthew 5:10-12, someone posted this :rolleyes: smily. To answer lightheartedly, I said that I liked that emoticon. I was not writing about anyone's face.
firestarter
Mar 13, 03:58 PM
The obvious real answer is a globally connected power grid with generation all over the place so as night is not such an issue. Of course we'd need to agree on voltages, frequencies, cost etc.
Back to the original trigger for this whole thread... it's interesting that the Japanese are running rolling blackouts on the North East coast, because they can't even agree a mains electricity frequency standard for the country! :o
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/cb/Power_Grid_of_Japan.PNG
Remember also that grid losses are significant when transporting electricity over any distance, even at 400kv+
Back to the original trigger for this whole thread... it's interesting that the Japanese are running rolling blackouts on the North East coast, because they can't even agree a mains electricity frequency standard for the country! :o
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/cb/Power_Grid_of_Japan.PNG
Remember also that grid losses are significant when transporting electricity over any distance, even at 400kv+
campingsk8er
May 2, 09:23 AM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_2_7 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8E303 Safari/6533.18.5)
So much for apple computers not getting viruses
So much for apple computers not getting viruses
KnightWRX
May 2, 04:11 PM
No one is pointing fingers or bickering. I'm responding to your question. The only technical requirement that was satisfied is that the user had "Open "safe" files after downloading" selected. An app installer is not unsafe. Whether the app to be installed is safe or not is another matter, but the installer cannot harm your system or your user files, simply by launching. If you don't want apps... installers or otherwise... to launch after downloading, simply deselect that box.
Wait, the "Open Safe files" bit was for the zip archive, which runs it through Archive Utility. What then auto-executes an installer ? You're suggesting Safari somehow knows that the zip archive contains an installer and that it is indeed an installer and then executes it.
Do you have any proof of this ? I've been trying to get my hands on the zip archive itself to inspect it but no luck, as Google is now swamped with "news" about this thing that just rehashes what you just said.
Basically, the details you provide here are nothing I already don't know about the current situation, I am asking for more here. Not just "deselect" that box, but rather what else can be auto-executes and what else is considered "safe".
I don't use Safari, I'm not at risk, but I'd still like to know the details of this.
That's why I say you purposefully ignore my point. My point is let's dissect and understand this thing, not glance over it like the current news outlet, heck even Intego's description does. That's why I don't like Intego, they just spread FUD without ever explaining anything and mark everything as a "virus" (their Virus X-barrier says VIRUS FOUND! when it finds malware that isn't a virus...).
1. First, the file would need to be considered "safe" to be allowed to auto-download and auto-open, AND the browser would need to be set to allow this.
2. Then, like the case with the installer above, it would need to seek the user's permission to be installed. This again, required the complicity of the user, who would still need the administrator's password.
How can anything be considered safe in this scenario ? We have a compressed archive and an executable file. Both are rather unsafe. Especially the executable file. I don't care that it is an installer, no executable file is safe. What if the "installer" had some payload code on launch, before privilege escalation ?
This is what I'm interested in knowing, how is this thing packaged so that it gets auto-executed. You aren't answering my question either. I'm technical enough I think that I already understood what you and the Studios guy are "trying to explain to me", but you both fail to understand the underlying question :
Why is this thing auto-executing ? I know it's because Safari considers it safe since the user checked the safe box, that's in the article. I want to know why is an executable file being launched after a zip file was uncompressed and how does Safari know this is "safe" ?
Both of you are only repeating the same stuff that's in the media. I want the details, not the media overview. I want the archive itself if possible. Let's find it, dissect it, understand it. If Apple needs to modify some defaults, let's ask for that.
Wait, the "Open Safe files" bit was for the zip archive, which runs it through Archive Utility. What then auto-executes an installer ? You're suggesting Safari somehow knows that the zip archive contains an installer and that it is indeed an installer and then executes it.
Do you have any proof of this ? I've been trying to get my hands on the zip archive itself to inspect it but no luck, as Google is now swamped with "news" about this thing that just rehashes what you just said.
Basically, the details you provide here are nothing I already don't know about the current situation, I am asking for more here. Not just "deselect" that box, but rather what else can be auto-executes and what else is considered "safe".
I don't use Safari, I'm not at risk, but I'd still like to know the details of this.
That's why I say you purposefully ignore my point. My point is let's dissect and understand this thing, not glance over it like the current news outlet, heck even Intego's description does. That's why I don't like Intego, they just spread FUD without ever explaining anything and mark everything as a "virus" (their Virus X-barrier says VIRUS FOUND! when it finds malware that isn't a virus...).
1. First, the file would need to be considered "safe" to be allowed to auto-download and auto-open, AND the browser would need to be set to allow this.
2. Then, like the case with the installer above, it would need to seek the user's permission to be installed. This again, required the complicity of the user, who would still need the administrator's password.
How can anything be considered safe in this scenario ? We have a compressed archive and an executable file. Both are rather unsafe. Especially the executable file. I don't care that it is an installer, no executable file is safe. What if the "installer" had some payload code on launch, before privilege escalation ?
This is what I'm interested in knowing, how is this thing packaged so that it gets auto-executed. You aren't answering my question either. I'm technical enough I think that I already understood what you and the Studios guy are "trying to explain to me", but you both fail to understand the underlying question :
Why is this thing auto-executing ? I know it's because Safari considers it safe since the user checked the safe box, that's in the article. I want to know why is an executable file being launched after a zip file was uncompressed and how does Safari know this is "safe" ?
Both of you are only repeating the same stuff that's in the media. I want the details, not the media overview. I want the archive itself if possible. Let's find it, dissect it, understand it. If Apple needs to modify some defaults, let's ask for that.
DeathChill
Apr 21, 07:53 AM
Ouch, it must really have hurt Apple that Android *smartphones* outsold all Apple iOS *devices* worldwide in Q1 (40 million Android smartphones compared to 32 million iOS devices). So they now are making again strange comparisons that only cover *one* market and *phones* vs. *devices.
Any links for that claim?
Also, Apple doesn't make the charts; I don't get how it's strange to compare a platform to another platform. I think it's stranger to compare a single device to an entire platform.
Any links for that claim?
Also, Apple doesn't make the charts; I don't get how it's strange to compare a platform to another platform. I think it's stranger to compare a single device to an entire platform.
javajedi
Oct 10, 10:28 PM
Originally posted by ddtlm
javajedi:
Yes, the JVM is the deciding factor here. If the Java takes that damn long on a G4 but goes fast on a P4, can can rest assured that the JVM Apple is distributing sucks compared to whatever one the x86 machines are using.
There is no way in heck that the performance delta can be so large without a large difference in quality of JVM. G4's may be slower, but they are not as slow as those number indicate.
Like I've been saying, when you start to see 5x leads by the PCs you need to start asking questions about the fairness of the benchmark. The G4 is better than 1/5 the speed. There are very few things were a P4 can get better performance per clock than a G4.
BTW:
Your G3 results as bizzarre as well, because of the contrast between them and the G4 results. Do not take it as proof one way or the other of the G3 or other IBM chips being superior to the G4. What we have here are raw numbers that defy a simple explanations. We should ask why these numbers are popping up, rather than running off with them as if they were uttered by a great voice in the sky or somthing.
I should note that the 90 second and 72 second results I just recently posted are from my cocoa implementation, not java.. so the jvm is out of the picture now on the mac.
Do not take it as proof one way or the other of the G3 or other IBM chips being superior to the G4.
Don't worry, I don't make assumptions like that. And no, I don�t think this does defy simple explanations. I will say that, what we are starting to see here is evidence that the scalar units (integer and fpu) in the IBM 750FX (G3) are more efficient than those in the Motorola G4.
If this is true, then my program hit it right on the nail. Also if this is true, it means there exist theoretical situations when using non altivec code that it would be faster on one of these newer G3 chips.
Also what alex said about how tedious it was to make altivec code, I would agree there is some truth to this. When you vectorize code (either for the P4 or G4), if you don't watch your p's and q's you can actually slow *down* your code. Just because you use the nice and special vector registers on these G4 and Pentium 4 processors does not mean you gain 5 times the speed. You literally have to take your methods back to the drawing board. You will only get peak performance out of pipelined, fully vectorized code.
None the less, scalar operations on both G3/G4 are miserable compared to x86. The JVM is no longer the deciding factor in the performance delta. It's out of the equation on the Mac since the benchmark is now a 100% native cocoa application with c code and no longer java. Mean while on the x86, the benchmark remains java.
70-ish seconds navtive on a G3
90-ish seconds on a native on a G4
5.9-6-ish seconds running under JVM 1.4.1 on a P4
javajedi:
Yes, the JVM is the deciding factor here. If the Java takes that damn long on a G4 but goes fast on a P4, can can rest assured that the JVM Apple is distributing sucks compared to whatever one the x86 machines are using.
There is no way in heck that the performance delta can be so large without a large difference in quality of JVM. G4's may be slower, but they are not as slow as those number indicate.
Like I've been saying, when you start to see 5x leads by the PCs you need to start asking questions about the fairness of the benchmark. The G4 is better than 1/5 the speed. There are very few things were a P4 can get better performance per clock than a G4.
BTW:
Your G3 results as bizzarre as well, because of the contrast between them and the G4 results. Do not take it as proof one way or the other of the G3 or other IBM chips being superior to the G4. What we have here are raw numbers that defy a simple explanations. We should ask why these numbers are popping up, rather than running off with them as if they were uttered by a great voice in the sky or somthing.
I should note that the 90 second and 72 second results I just recently posted are from my cocoa implementation, not java.. so the jvm is out of the picture now on the mac.
Do not take it as proof one way or the other of the G3 or other IBM chips being superior to the G4.
Don't worry, I don't make assumptions like that. And no, I don�t think this does defy simple explanations. I will say that, what we are starting to see here is evidence that the scalar units (integer and fpu) in the IBM 750FX (G3) are more efficient than those in the Motorola G4.
If this is true, then my program hit it right on the nail. Also if this is true, it means there exist theoretical situations when using non altivec code that it would be faster on one of these newer G3 chips.
Also what alex said about how tedious it was to make altivec code, I would agree there is some truth to this. When you vectorize code (either for the P4 or G4), if you don't watch your p's and q's you can actually slow *down* your code. Just because you use the nice and special vector registers on these G4 and Pentium 4 processors does not mean you gain 5 times the speed. You literally have to take your methods back to the drawing board. You will only get peak performance out of pipelined, fully vectorized code.
None the less, scalar operations on both G3/G4 are miserable compared to x86. The JVM is no longer the deciding factor in the performance delta. It's out of the equation on the Mac since the benchmark is now a 100% native cocoa application with c code and no longer java. Mean while on the x86, the benchmark remains java.
70-ish seconds navtive on a G3
90-ish seconds on a native on a G4
5.9-6-ish seconds running under JVM 1.4.1 on a P4
jchung
Mar 18, 11:22 AM
I can't blame AT&T one bit for trying to protect their network. And as some have already said, those who are trying to game the system are hurting those of us who are being honest by bloating the network unnecessarily.
I can blame AT&T for this because they don't account for data usage properly.
See this thread on Apple's forums - http://discussions.apple.com/thread.jspa?threadID=2450738
If AT&T could account for data usage properly and show their customers what was using the data, then I would say ALMOST say its ok for AT&T to do this (other than the fact they just automatically sign you up instead of having you opt in).
I can blame AT&T for this because they don't account for data usage properly.
See this thread on Apple's forums - http://discussions.apple.com/thread.jspa?threadID=2450738
If AT&T could account for data usage properly and show their customers what was using the data, then I would say ALMOST say its ok for AT&T to do this (other than the fact they just automatically sign you up instead of having you opt in).
jk8311
Sep 12, 04:53 PM
As an IT consultant, I recommend for anyone who's thinking of using an Airport Express for audio or a Mac Mini for a living room computer (or now this new iTV that will come out next year) to just spend the money on getting a wired connection. Ultimately, wireless will not be at the quality it needs to be to handle this throughput CONSISTENTLY. I still get skips on my Airpot Express when streaming from iTunes. When I had my Mac Mini wireless and I tried using Front Row to watch movies from other computers (similar to what iTV is supposed to do) it had a real spotty connection sometimes. The consistency and reliability of a wired connection is yet to be paralleled with anything else.
currentinterest
Apr 21, 03:52 AM
And Google makes almost nothing from all those Android giveaways, while Apple rakes in 52% of all the profit made in the mobile phone market. I think they know what they are doing.
PghLondon
Apr 28, 11:38 AM
The launch of the iPad won't affect Apple's market share without the iPad included, which brings us back to Al's comment. ;)
"But� 3.5% mac market share which includes stupid iPads as computers is pretty dismal (laughable even). "
That was his original comment.
"But� 3.5% mac market share which includes stupid iPads as computers is pretty dismal (laughable even). "
That was his original comment.
leekohler
Apr 15, 10:29 AM
You have no business alleging that I hate myself. Got that?? I hope you do.
This post is not doing much to convince me.
What the hell makes you think that because I'm gay I have to be 100% supportive of every little part and piece of the lifestyle? I've learned to reconcile with myself and accept the good AND the bad. What's so difficult for you to accept about that?
It shouldn't matter to you what other people do. So why do you care?
Why do you have to jump at me -- like 99% of the other gays I know -- just because I had the audacity to speak my mind, and state that there are parts I disagree with? Get real!
Why? Because you did it first. You jumped after gay people in your post. We reacted. Get real. If you speak and attack people, they will react and respond with their own opinions. If you can't handle that, you're going to have a very difficult time in the future.
This post is not doing much to convince me.
What the hell makes you think that because I'm gay I have to be 100% supportive of every little part and piece of the lifestyle? I've learned to reconcile with myself and accept the good AND the bad. What's so difficult for you to accept about that?
It shouldn't matter to you what other people do. So why do you care?
Why do you have to jump at me -- like 99% of the other gays I know -- just because I had the audacity to speak my mind, and state that there are parts I disagree with? Get real!
Why? Because you did it first. You jumped after gay people in your post. We reacted. Get real. If you speak and attack people, they will react and respond with their own opinions. If you can't handle that, you're going to have a very difficult time in the future.
Millah
Apr 13, 02:23 AM
FCP has been plagued with FUNDAMENTAL problems since it's creation. And initial peaks seems to suggest that instead of building on it's basis and creating a stronger, leaner, more professional tool Apple has once again decided to ditch it's professional (and there must be a distinction) users for the prosumer crowd.
We aren't talking about those video hobbyists making montage reels of Johnny's 2011 soccer season, we are talking about those of us cutting high-profile commercials and films you see on television and in theaters. And this update has us worried that we've WASTED the last decade at the lunch table arguing with the Avid dinosaurs, "Oh I know FCP could be better in this respect and that respect, but, but, but just wait for FCP8 it's going to be SO much better." Now skip to FCPX. I wanted to see them release FCP8 for GOD'S SAKE! You can see where this is going, Shake anyone?
Many questions remain and yet it seems they have obviously sold their pro users down stream:
What of better TRIM? SOURCE RECORD TIMELINE EDITING? What about a COLLABORATIVE PROJECT ENVIRONMENT? SERVER BASED TECHNOLOGY? And MEDIA MANAGEMENT? Weakest parts of FCP I can tell you first hand, the lack of media management. It's an assistant’s nightmare. We deal with it on a daily basis.
Oh but it will sync the sound for you. Have you seen what it can do with iChat?
If none of this made any sense to you then you are probably not a pro-user, so I guess you're excited to get the new FCPX. But what you should really be saying to yourself is, "Isn't it so awesome they're releasing iMovie Pro in June!?"
I have heard PLENTY of true pros that do professional work for major studios that have praised this new Final Cut Pro, and I also saw an entire room full onf Final Cut Pro enthusiasts and professionals with their jaws on the floor. I guess you wouldn't consider one of the lead editors at Bunim/Murray to be "pro" enough huh?
Anytime Apple updates something or completely changes something to make it modern or a more attractive UI, you all piss and moan about how Apple is abandoning you and doesn't care about pros anymore. Get a tissue, no one cares. Most of the open minded pros who are open to change and welcome it saw something amazing in FCPX. People like you who will bitch even if Apple moved the window close toggles a fraction of an inch down the title bar (ie App Store) really need to accept the fact that things need to change at some point, and it's usually for the better.
We aren't talking about those video hobbyists making montage reels of Johnny's 2011 soccer season, we are talking about those of us cutting high-profile commercials and films you see on television and in theaters. And this update has us worried that we've WASTED the last decade at the lunch table arguing with the Avid dinosaurs, "Oh I know FCP could be better in this respect and that respect, but, but, but just wait for FCP8 it's going to be SO much better." Now skip to FCPX. I wanted to see them release FCP8 for GOD'S SAKE! You can see where this is going, Shake anyone?
Many questions remain and yet it seems they have obviously sold their pro users down stream:
What of better TRIM? SOURCE RECORD TIMELINE EDITING? What about a COLLABORATIVE PROJECT ENVIRONMENT? SERVER BASED TECHNOLOGY? And MEDIA MANAGEMENT? Weakest parts of FCP I can tell you first hand, the lack of media management. It's an assistant’s nightmare. We deal with it on a daily basis.
Oh but it will sync the sound for you. Have you seen what it can do with iChat?
If none of this made any sense to you then you are probably not a pro-user, so I guess you're excited to get the new FCPX. But what you should really be saying to yourself is, "Isn't it so awesome they're releasing iMovie Pro in June!?"
I have heard PLENTY of true pros that do professional work for major studios that have praised this new Final Cut Pro, and I also saw an entire room full onf Final Cut Pro enthusiasts and professionals with their jaws on the floor. I guess you wouldn't consider one of the lead editors at Bunim/Murray to be "pro" enough huh?
Anytime Apple updates something or completely changes something to make it modern or a more attractive UI, you all piss and moan about how Apple is abandoning you and doesn't care about pros anymore. Get a tissue, no one cares. Most of the open minded pros who are open to change and welcome it saw something amazing in FCPX. People like you who will bitch even if Apple moved the window close toggles a fraction of an inch down the title bar (ie App Store) really need to accept the fact that things need to change at some point, and it's usually for the better.
