StarDestroyer.Net BBS

You guys DO realise that there IS a market for high-end, retarded features smartphones, right? And THAT'S the market they're going for - NOT people who just want to make calls or luddites like Cov who think consumer electronics are evil? They're aiming (as is clear from price) for only the very top end consumers. If that isn't enough for them to make money, they've just done their sums wrong and they're idiots. If it IS enough for them to make money... who cares? Do people who like simple, cheap phones hate them for making a really expensive, feature packed phone? Why? More trendy Apple hate?

Shogoki wrote:Not referring to this model in particular, but this 90's device has everything i need, want, will pay for and, most importantly, will use, in a cell phone. If someone would make a modern small, cheap cell phone that does nothing but keep your directory and dial numbers i would pick that over the iPhone every day of the week and twice on sunday. Devices that half ass their entire feature list and cost a bundle are useless to me.

So why are you not complaining about this stupid, pointless Internet thing? I mean, we had BBSs, why bother making progress?

I'm getting the impression that people like Shogoki and Covenant don't like Apple stuff because Apple doesn't bend over backward to accommodate their fringe desires in consumer electronics. The designers at Apple have the temerity to make their hardware look good to the common person! OMG! A TECHNOLOGY COMPANY THAT MARKETS TO THE TECHNOLOGY ILLITERATE! WE CANNOT STAND FOR THIS!!!!!

But what I don't understand is this. I hear a lot of such people saying "I'd buy an iPod except ..." and then there's a list of hang-ups like "no Ogg Vorbis support" and "I can't write my own programs for it (even though I'm not a programmer; I'm just a guy who learned how to use make)". That means these people want iPods because of their design, since obviously the features are lacking for them. So what other reason is there?

I do realize this, Stark! I've made my position abundantly clear. I think it'll do well! I am also salivating at the idea of a multitouch tablet PC, even if it runs Mac software. I'd buy that shit without hesitation, so long as the price was reasonable. I may not need a smartphone, but I sure as tell want a Smartscreen Tablet Laptop, as it would completely upscale my workflow. Hell, they could make the entire thing out of transparent plastic, coat it in Mac icons, and make it talk to me in Steve Jobs' voice for all I care. I just want Apple to market one of these wonkerjunks to something I need.

Durandal wrote:

Covenant wrote:I'm not, but my employer has talked about getting it. I'm not sure why, I just finished lobotomizing whatever version of MacOS we're running currently, and having to disable half of the thing's crap all over again will drive me insane.

What the hell are you talking about?

I just assumed that, like most OS, Macs would put out a copy that usually worked but had a few bugs. And I really would rather not have to deal with bugs. I've heard that the version of Leopard they have right now is garbage, and that they really need to work on it for a bit.

Um ... Leopard isn't available yet. And the company which makes Mac OS X is Apple Inc, not "Macs".

I know that Leopard's not available yet. However, I've heard tell from agencies who say they've seen what it looks like, and that it wasn't looking so hot yet due to the delays in pipeline leaving it woefully unfinished. After seeing this article, I have no reason to believe that's just naysaying, and I'm wondering when it'll be ready to go. I don't want them to shove it out the door, as I may get stuck using it when it's released.

And really, I know that it's Apple who makes it.

As for the lobotomy, it's all the widgets and dock options and so on and so forth. All the special bells and whistles, I absolute hate 'em. A lot of the mac 'features' are really a pain. Nearly all the 'cool stuff' it does bothers me. Don't even get me started on how badly these things fuck up Maya unless you go in and turn them off, which may require me doing a big run-around to get acess permissions, and then having them stuck back on. So I see a lot of the benefits as just annoyances.

Also, I don't hate that they're accessible. I don't mind accessibility at all. I don't like some of the concessions and design choices they make while striving for accessibility. I use the damn OS at work, so all my stuff needs to come through that pipeline, and I know how to make it do what I want it to do. I just don't enjoy using it, and really get frustrated with the direction it wants to take me. If it was my own personal Mac I could probably configure the thing any way I pleased so that it's as quiet and unobtrusive as my copy of Windows is, but a Mac's idiot-proofing makes this even harder when dealing with a work machine.

As for me not buying an iPod, durandal, I'll assure you that the reason I haven't bought one is not because I think it's a bad MP3 player. I think it's the best MP3 player. I just don't want an MP3 player, and the reason I dislike the iPod is the iTunes interface, MP4 encoding, and a few of the other design things.

Not to say that anyone does it better, because they don't. Nothing beats the iPod for the price or range of options. But it's just a gizmo I don't want.

Covenant wrote:I do realize this, Stark! I've made my position abundantly clear. I think it'll do well! I am also salivating at the idea of a multitouch tablet PC, even if it runs Mac software. I'd buy that shit without hesitation, so long as the price was reasonable. I may not need a smartphone, but I sure as tell want a Smartscreen Tablet Laptop, as it would completely upscale my workflow. Hell, they could make the entire thing out of transparent plastic, coat it in Mac icons, and make it talk to me in Steve Jobs' voice for all I care. I just want Apple to market one of these wonkerjunks to something I need.

I wasn't really directing it at you; I'm aware of you're strange ideas about consumer electronics. It's just bizarre to see people saying 'I just want a phone that makes calls' when talking about a high-end phone for a totally different market. Apple KNOWS you don't want one, and that DOESN'T MATTER because you're not the target market.

Durandal wrote:

Nephtys wrote:It means that an iPod 20 gig that costs me $299 but looks all slick and thin and whatever is by no means a better buy than a comparable Zen or other company's MP3 player that costs half as much. I've got a Zen 40Gig Jukebox that I bought for 90 bucks, and it works just fine.

And of course, everyone's just been so mesmerized by the iPod that they're willing to just spend 3x what they need to. No, there couldn't possibly be a legitimate reason to buy an iPod.

How much is the iPhone again? 500 dollars? for a mere 4 gig Mp3 player and cellphone hybrid? For that much, you could buy a top line standard MP3 player and quality cellphone.

And guess what? They'd still be different devices. Do you think that kind of integration just happens magically?

Yes, because all the best known brand items are automatically the best. Really, why shouldn't someone buy something that costs less, has more or less the same shape, and the same functionality? The only reason I can think of is the 'designer' status.

Well. The fact that a phone and MP3 player are two physically different items still doesn't really matter. They remain as a clear alternative to the device. What does matter though, is spending $500 on two seperate devices will get you equal or superior performance in both, possibly for less money too.

Covenant wrote:Not to say that anyone does it better, because they don't. Nothing beats the iPod for the price or range of options. But it's just a gizmo I don't want.

Um, companies such as Creative and Sandisk are offering players with better prices and functionality. For instance, Sandisk's e200 series can house a micro SD card for more storage, it can play video, act as a voice recorder, have a FM tuner, and the battery can be removed which the Nano can't do. The price difference between them is the 8GB Sandisk's model costs from $150-180 while the 8GB Nano is at $230-250. Even if you don't care about the features, the price difference for the same storage space is very profound.

If they did divert people from the Leopard team to the iPhone and did it in spite of delaying Leopard, it must be a damn good niche marketshare that they hope to get out of these smart phones.

Stark wrote:I wasn't really directing it at you; I'm aware of you're strange ideas about consumer electronics. It's just bizarre to see people saying 'I just want a phone that makes calls' when talking about a high-end phone for a totally different market. Apple KNOWS you don't want one, and that DOESN'T MATTER because you're not the target market.

Yeah, having a high end gizmo, like a high end car or high end TV, doesn't obsolete your shit unless you can't take the hit to your e-wang. My maya rig here that I use as my PC works great when compared to the Mac I use at work, despite being a much weaker machine overall. There's a lot to be said for customization and personal optimization. It's why computer lab computers suck, regardless of their OS.

And I'm glad my bizzare technology preferences are more amusing and perhaps pitiable than offensive. Once the weather gets nice, I'm going to juice up the rechargable batteries in my casette player and slap on some ancient headphones when I go for a jog.

What I'd really like is an MP3 player that only has like a gig of space, and fits inside the headphones or something. A gig of music is still a fairly decent amount, especially for a week of train rides or jogging. And by fitting into such a tiny space, it really makes it a lot more worth it to me to buy the thing. If it had wireless connection to my computer so I could download and customize my lists before I go, even better. I'm not a fan of iTunes or the MP4 schenanigans, but a specialized format would be okay, so long as they also allow for some backwards compatibility. I'm not aware if iTunes has the ability to turn an MP4 into an MP3, but the people who I've asked about it didn't know either. It's possible this isn't as big an issue, but I don't want to buy an iPod to find out.

Also, what's the deal with the iPod batteries? My brothers have had battery die issues on older models. Do they need to have their charge drained first, like a camera battery?

I didn't realize the Creative and Sandisk thingies had so many bells and whistles, and that's kinda exciting, since those are much more appealing to me.

Still, I'm just going to hold out for the mutlitouch tablet PC. They have got to make one. It'd be a crime against humanity not to.

Covenant wrote:I know that Leopard's not available yet. However, I've heard tell from agencies who say they've seen what it looks like, and that it wasn't looking so hot yet due to the delays in pipeline leaving it woefully unfinished. After seeing this article, I have no reason to believe that's just naysaying, and I'm wondering when it'll be ready to go. I don't want them to shove it out the door, as I may get stuck using it when it's released.

The public statement said October.

And really, I know that it's Apple who makes it.

Then say "Apple makes it" not "Mac makes it".

As for the lobotomy, it's all the widgets and dock options and so on and so forth. All the special bells and whistles, I absolute hate 'em. A lot of the mac 'features' are really a pain. Nearly all the 'cool stuff' it does bothers me.

What "Dock options"? The magnification? Do you have any idea how incredibly cheap that operation is? And sure, I turn it off, but really, it's a checkbox.

And I'll let you in on a little secret. You don't have to turn Dashboard off. Just don't invoke it and map it to a hot-key you'll never use.

Don't even get me started on how badly these things fuck up Maya unless you go in and turn them off, which may require me doing a big run-around to get acess permissions, and then having them stuck back on. So I see a lot of the benefits as just annoyances.

How does the Dock "fuck up Maya"? You're being extremely nebulous here.

Also, I don't hate that they're accessible. I don't mind accessibility at all. I don't like some of the concessions and design choices they make while striving for accessibility. I use the damn OS at work, so all my stuff needs to come through that pipeline, and I know how to make it do what I want it to do. I just don't enjoy using it, and really get frustrated with the direction it wants to take me. If it was my own personal Mac I could probably configure the thing any way I pleased so that it's as quiet and unobtrusive as my copy of Windows is, but a Mac's idiot-proofing makes this even harder when dealing with a work machine.

I've never run into a "quiet and unobtrusive" copy of Windows.

As for me not buying an iPod, durandal, I'll assure you that the reason I haven't bought one is not because I think it's a bad MP3 player. I think it's the best MP3 player. I just don't want an MP3 player, and the reason I dislike the iPod is the iTunes interface, MP4 encoding, and a few of the other design things.

What's wrong with MP4 encoding? You do realize you can encode to MP3 if you want, right?

Durandal wrote:The public statement said October.

Well good for them! Glad to hear they're putting in the proper development cycle.

Durandal wrote:Then say "Apple makes it" not "Mac makes it".

I'll try to remember in the future.

Durandal wrote:What "Dock options"? The magnification? Do you have any idea how incredibly cheap that operation is? And sure, I turn it off, but really, it's a checkbox.

And I'll let you in on a little secret. You don't have to turn Dashboard off. Just don't invoke it and map it to a hot-key you'll never use.

That's what I ended up doing--I just erased the middle-mouse-button widget thingie hotkey. The dock option that annoyed me was the popup magnification stuff in particular, and I had to go fish around for a way to turn that off. I'm annoyed that every time I sit down at a machine I haven't been able to customize, I need to change a bunch of options just to get access to the thing the way I want. This was never a problem in a room full of PC or SGI boxes running Maya.

I'm not worried about it's system performance cost, I'm just annoyed that it's there at all and gets in my way. I also don't like the way it handles minimized windows or minimized broswer pages. I'd rather have a text box that tells me exactly what it is at all times than a picture. It just seems silly, and I don't like it, especially since nearly all Maya windows are just gray boxes and I can't tell them apart until I mouse-over.

Another pet peeve are the mice. I'm going to try to see if I can buy a nice ergonomic mac mouse or something with high resolution sensors because the one I have access to is just unadulterated garbage. That's not Apple's fault though. I went into their settings and turned up the sensititvity, it's just not a very good piece of hardware.

Durandal wrote:How does the Dock "fuck up Maya"? You're being extremely nebulous here.

The OS has an odd way of handling the Maya windows. In the PC/Unix version, when I minimize a maya window, it hovers above my taskbar on the bottom, giving me a second row of easily read minimized windows that handle my graphs, or shaders, or render previews and so on. I might have a whole ton of windows up at once and want to work between them.

When I do that with the Mac version, they go sliding down (which is silly, can I disable the slide/squish effect?) into the bottom and display a little picture. I've microized the taskbar (a lovely option I wish my PC had) but even if it was bigger I wouldn't really be able to tell what the hell it was since they're all just gray boxes anyway. My PC one, though, has a text box that tells me what it is. This is a lot easier for hunting through.

And if I don't minimize it, or click off, or one of a few other things, it'll appear behind the main Maya window, which is a real pain in the butt, since now I gotta drag the main window all over the place to find it, since the system doesn't really recognize it as it's own window but also doesn't have the seperate taskbar thingie it has on a PC.

BTW, besides the + key, is there a way to automatially restick a thing to max size? When I maximize the window it goes fullscreen, but it doesn't stick, and it can get unaligned. This is really problematic.

I also really dislike the way it handles the file/edit/etc functions up at the top all the time. It really makes be bounce through a lot of windows, especially since I can't secondary-taskbar minimize a detached window of my menu. Ugh!

Maya's really not optimized for Macs.

Durandal wrote:I've never run into a "quiet and unobtrusive" copy of Windows.

Really? Well, mine is. It hardly ever makes itself known. It just runs my programs and stays quiet. That's what I like. No blinking lights, no bouncing icons, just all business. The version I'm using now has almost no bouncing items on the desktop and it's nearly completely configured the way I like it, so I rarely have to fight with the OS except when it comes to the window management. If I had a second monitor, this wouldn't be so bad. And now that I've gotten rid of the 3rd mousekey widget hotkey, I can actually use my third button again.

Durandal wrote:What's wrong with MP4 encoding? You do realize you can encode to MP3 if you want, right?

No, I didn't. I don't use an iPod, so I can only tell what the unwashed masses tell me of their machines. The MP4 encoding is annoying and ugly and just honestly unnecessary. I understand that apple may have good reasons for wanting a proprietary format, but I think it's pretty annoying, especially since I'm sometimes handed sound files to edit and the damn things are in MP4 formats and Aftereffects doesn't like those. I just think it's annoying that it does it at all. Why does it do that? Is it really important for it to make them into MP4's? And if not, since the other MP3 players don't, then... why? It's not a big deal, it's just another design choice that makes me less interested in dealing with their products.

To me it's not user friendly. It just seems to force me into using all Apple-created products, which I really don't want to be forced to do.

PS,

I just checked, and I can run my kickass ergonomic supermouse on a Mac if I get a third party driver. Assuming I am allowed to install this driver on the machines, that'll definately make my day go by easier. You can't imagine how much less frustrating the day would be if I didn't need to wrestle with this nonresponsive garbage macmouse.

Covenant wrote:That's what I ended up doing--I just erased the middle-mouse-button widget thingie hotkey. The dock option that annoyed me was the popup magnification stuff in particular, and I had to go fish around for a way to turn that off. I'm annoyed that every time I sit down at a machine I haven't been able to customize, I need to change a bunch of options just to get access to the thing the way I want. This was never a problem in a room full of PC or SGI boxes running Maya.

So you're annoyed that every time you sit down at a machine you haven't customized, it's not customized?

I'm not worried about it's system performance cost, I'm just annoyed that it's there at all and gets in my way. I also don't like the way it handles minimized windows or minimized broswer pages. I'd rather have a text box that tells me exactly what it is at all times than a picture. It just seems silly, and I don't like it, especially since nearly all Maya windows are just gray boxes and I can't tell them apart until I mouse-over.

Use Exposé.

Another pet peeve are the mice. I'm going to try to see if I can buy a nice ergonomic mac mouse or something with high resolution sensors because the one I have access to is just unadulterated garbage. That's not Apple's fault though. I went into their settings and turned up the sensititvity, it's just not a very good piece of hardware.

So ... okay? Try USBOverdrive.

Durandal wrote:The OS has an odd way of handling the Maya windows. In the PC/Unix version, when I minimize a maya window, it hovers above my taskbar on the bottom, giving me a second row of easily read minimized windows that handle my graphs, or shaders, or render previews and so on. I might have a whole ton of windows up at once and want to work between them.

The very simple reason for that is that Mac OS X is not Windows or X11. Maya handles windows on OS X the way OS X handles windows, because that's what Mac users want. If Maya is running on Mac OS X, it should act like an OS X application.

BTW, besides the + key, is there a way to automatially restick a thing to max size? When I maximize the window it goes fullscreen, but it doesn't stick, and it can get unaligned. This is really problematic.

It depends on how the application developer implements the behavior.

I also really dislike the way it handles the file/edit/etc functions up at the top all the time. It really makes be bounce through a lot of windows, especially since I can't secondary-taskbar minimize a detached window of my menu. Ugh!

You don't like it because it's different. There are big advantages to having a global menubar.

Maya's really not optimized for Macs.

Optimization has nothing to do with it.

Durandal wrote:Really? Well, mine is. It hardly ever makes itself known. It just runs my programs and stays quiet. That's what I like. No blinking lights, no bouncing icons, just all business. The version I'm using now has almost no bouncing items on the desktop and it's nearly completely configured the way I like it, so I rarely have to fight with the OS except when it comes to the window management. If I had a second monitor, this wouldn't be so bad. And now that I've gotten rid of the 3rd mousekey widget hotkey, I can actually use my third button again.

Compared the out-of-the-box experience with Mac OS X to your typical Wintel vendor. Mac OS X just comes up and lets you start doing stuff. Windows will spam you with all sorts of free trial offer nonsense.

Durandal wrote:No, I didn't. I don't use an iPod, so I can only tell what the unwashed masses tell me of their machines. The MP4 encoding is annoying and ugly and just honestly unnecessary. I understand that apple may have good reasons for wanting a proprietary format, but I think it's pretty annoying, especially since I'm sometimes handed sound files to edit and the damn things are in MP4 formats and Aftereffects doesn't like those.

MPEG-4/AAC IS NOT A PROPRIETARY FORMAT. IT IS AN OPEN STANDARD THAT ANYONE CAN LICENSE, AND FOR VOLUME LICENSES, IT IS CHEAPER THAN MP3. IT IS MEANT TO BE THE SUCCESSOR TO MP3. I TIRE OF REPEATING THIS BECAUSE PEOPLE LIKE YOU SPREAD FUD BASED ON THE BULLSHIT ASSUMPTION THAT APPLE USES PROPRIETARY FORMATS EXCLUSIVELY BECAUSE OF THE REPUTATION THEY DEVELOPED IN THE EARLY 90'S. STOP SPREADING BULLSHIT AND DO SOME FUCKING RESEARCH.

Well, to be fair, FairPlay is proprietary

phongn wrote:Well, to be fair, FairPlay is proprietary

Which is irrelevant to his comments about iTunes encoding imported CDs in AAC.

Durandal wrote:

phongn wrote:Well, to be fair, FairPlay is proprietary

Which is irrelevant to his comments about iTunes encoding imported CDs in AAC.

I never said imported CD's! I just said re-encoding MP3's. If it's cheaper, then great, but nothing else I have plays it so I just find it to be an annoyance. If it's an open format though, then I expect we'll see increased functionality for it in the future, at which time it'll stop being annoying.

I have no idea what reputation they developed in the 90's, so don't assume any deliberate misinformation on my part, or malice. It's not like I'm trying to convince you that Mac users are wrong to like their Mac. I'm just saying that for what I do, it's not ideal.

If a Mac user wants Maya to be handled badly just to keep it in-sync to the way it handles everything else, then fine, that's great for them. However, as a Maya user, I'd prefer it was handled the way it was handled on every other machine. It's not like Windows usually creates sub-program windows like it does for Maya. I like the specialized interface types, and resent the move to 'personalize' it for Mac users at the cost of my functionality.

It just seems to prioritize the OS's preferences over the program's preferences, and that's a big issue for a work machine that I don't have administrator control over. An uncustomized PC or SGI box will run Maya the same way, and cause no issues to the program, but the uncustomized Mac box will make it a lot more frustrating. How can I see that as anything else than a legitimate frustration? Appealing to the masses' preference isn't really a justification for it.

I'm not defending the idiocy of an out-of-box Windows machine, afterall. I described starting a new Windows version up and running as 'torturous' and such. I am painfully aware of the issues involving Microcrap's program controls. I'm just mad that the Mac's special 'features' nearly always end up as things I either do not need or need to disable.

I'll give expose a go when I head back in to work on Monday. I still say it's pretty backwards design to force me to open up another funky widget screen thing just to get the same functionality as I get from my boringass text boxes, but if it saves me the headache of searching around it won't be an issue. Same with the mouse. I'm not mad at apple specifically for designing crapasstic mice, I'm just angry that it's just one more thing I can't simply fix with a few little tweaks. It just adds to the unsatisfying experience of using a standard Mac rig as opposed to one of the faceless UNIX SGI machines I used to work at.

Nephtys wrote:Yes, because all the best known brand items are automatically the best. Really, why shouldn't someone buy something that costs less, has more or less the same shape, and the same functionality? The only reason I can think of is the 'designer' status.

That's the only reason you can think of? Just earlier, you pointed out "slick and thin" is a discountable attribute. Now you're saying it's just designer status? What the hell?

Even if you don't value a device's looks, the fact is that people are willing to pay more something that looks good. And that's before discussing your laughable claim that functionality is even remotely equivalent -- there's a fuckload of accessories out there that extend the iPod's functionality. Think about Firefox and all of its extensions.

Stark wrote:Yeah, I'm putting off replacing a Mac laptop until Leopard comes out. Oh well, like others I never really believed the 'real soon' release dates.

While you're probably flexible on your purchase, a lot of students entering university will probably be attracted to MacBooks. Apple does very well at aiming towards the student market, with discounts and rebates; last year, I recall a free (after rebate) Nano and Printer with the low-end MacBook.

I doubt the freshman population will hold off on their purchases just because Leopard is delayed. Apple might have just made a lot of money off of OS upgrades.

Elessar wrote:

Nephtys wrote:Yes, because all the best known brand items are automatically the best. Really, why shouldn't someone buy something that costs less, has more or less the same shape, and the same functionality? The only reason I can think of is the 'designer' status.

That's the only reason you can think of? Just earlier, you pointed out "slick and thin" is a discountable attribute. Now you're saying it's just designer status? What the hell?

Even if you don't value a device's looks, the fact is that people are willing to pay more something that looks good. And that's before discussing your laughable claim that functionality is even remotely equivalent -- there's a fuckload of accessories out there that extend the iPod's functionality. Think about Firefox and all of its extensions.

There's a lot other MP3 players of similar size and shape. And apperance really. I rather like the new minizens.

Tell me what accessories extend iPod functionality? As far as I can tell.

- A bunch of leather pockets you can put it in so it doesn't break
- 20-50% Overpriced brand name white earbuds
- Car tape player that every other MP3, Walkman and CD Player has
- Dock/Charger that's no different than plugging it into an adapter
- The 'iBox' which is a 300 dollar boom box with worse audio quality than a 100 dollar one you drop an ipod into, as opposed to just plugging a headphone adapter into a conventional speaker
- A bunch of stickers.

The only one of those that is not found on other players, for less money... happens to be the stickers. Those don't seem to increase functionality very much...

I know that Leopard's not available yet. However, I've heard tell from agencies who say they've seen what it looks like, and that it wasn't looking so hot yet due to the delays in pipeline leaving it woefully unfinished.

Are you absolutely retarded? Oh, wait, that's been established.

OF COURSE THEY ARE BUGGY; they are early builds. Further, we know for a fact that Apple is keeping many features in-house.

http://www.hipp-x.com/blog/?p=50

Read that and quit complaining.

Tiger builds pre-launch were buggy too.

phongn wrote:Well, to be fair, FairPlay is proprietary

Then don't use iTunes, and you will never, ever, see FairPlay.

First thing I do on a new iTunes installation is set the default encoder to MP3, and I never see anything but MP3s.

No, I didn't. I don't use an iPod, so I can only tell what the unwashed masses tell me of their machines. The MP4 encoding is annoying and ugly and just honestly unnecessary. I understand that apple may have good reasons for wanting a proprietary format, but I think it's pretty annoying, especially since I'm sometimes handed sound files to edit and the damn things are in MP4 formats and Aftereffects doesn't like those.

What the heck are you talking about?

Were you too stupid to change the default settings? What is annoying and ugly about MP4 encoding? Where are you EVER forced to encode in MP4?

I think the only AAC files on my iPod are the one CD I bought off of iTunes (and I immediately burned it to a CD and ripped it as MP3, too. In iTunes).

There's a lot other MP3 players of similar size and shape. And apperance really. I rather like the new minizens.

Just about everything I've seen is at least twice the thickness of the Nano.

Granted, the nano is where Apple's comparisons look the worst. You generally can get an opposing brand for cheaper at a higher capacity (although Apple's will be thinner and lighter and have a lot more accessories available). But if you compare hard drive players...

I honestly can't see why anyone would buy any other hard drive MP3 player other than an iPod. At retail, Creative, Apple, and Microsoft players are all the same price ($250), Apple's is the thinnest and lightest, and is the only one that actually has VIDEO CONTENT available since nobody sells movies that will play in players with Windows Media.

The Zen Vision M or whatever the current model is called is 30GB, $180 and plays Divx and Mpeg movies. Compared to the 30GB iPod video which does the same, is more or less the same shape/size, and costs $250.

Both have comparably similar interfaces. Both have a similar battery life. It doesn't have a glossy finish, so is less likely to smudge and hides scratches better. so... well. I'll take that ~30% savings and use it for something else.

Don't forget the iPod Shuffle. It's got no screen, a few buttons, 1 gig of memory and costs twice as much as similar flash-based miniplayers, which have screens. Golly, it's nice to know what track you're listening to.

Your reference to Tiger doesn't ring any bells to me, as I don't follow their stuff. I am completely, utterly unaware of a single Mac-related announcement or news item older than about two months ago. I said I heard it was looking crappy and going to need to be delayed. Lo and behold, it has been delayed. I didn't make a value judgement. What about that don't you get? Before you mash the reply button, read down, and you'll see why quoting that bit over and over doesn't make any sense. It's me being GLAD that they are pushing it back, rather than rushing it.

Anyway, I heard it wasn't looking good and wouldn't make it's cutoff. That turned out to be true. I'm not saying that Leopard is shit because it's not done yet, I was just saying that I'm glad they're not going to squeeze out a crappy product without a full production cycle.

I don't give a rat's ass if Leopard ever comes out. I just want to know that when it does, it's going to be finished, since my employer is likely to want to purchase it for the types of stations I work at.

Look at my quote in the full context. It was responding to Durandal who was responding to this block:

"I just assumed that, like most OS, Macs would put out a copy that usually worked but had a few bugs. And I really would rather not have to deal with bugs. I've heard that the version of Leopard they have right now is garbage, and that they really need to work on it for a bit."

Which was me expressing relief that the Mac OS would be unlike most OS releases and come out actually finished, and that it's pushback was a demonstration of an extended cleanup development cycle. C'mon guys, I hate the goddamn Macs, but stop dogpiling on the instance of me expressing satisfaction with the quality way they create their OS. It just shows you're reading out of context and leaping on stupid things that you're not actually reading.

Praxis wrote:What the heck are you talking about?

Were you too stupid to change the default settings? What is annoying and ugly about MP4 encoding? Where are you EVER forced to encode in MP4?

I think the only AAC files on my iPod are the one CD I bought off of iTunes (and I immediately burned it to a CD and ripped it as MP3, too. In iTunes).

I don't have an iPod, or use iTunes, so what you're saying has no bearing on what I'm talking about. If I'm given data to use, and it's in a format nothing else wants (MP4's) then it's just garbage to me. I'm never encoding anything using iTunes so I wouldn't know what the default is, being as the closest I've ever gotten to the program is explaining to someone why I need them to go back and convert them back into MP3's that the rest of the world can use. Why these are in MP4 by default I just cannot understand, it's certainly nowhere near an industry standard, or easier. I convert CD audio into whatever just fine as is without it, and don't require the hassle of iTunes.

So your rant's off-base. A lot of other people are too stupid to change the default setting, and end up shafting me when they hand me a data CD that has audio they want edited. I usually make it clear I need it in MP3 format, but people don't often realize that the MP4 encoding is going on at all, mostly because the encoding itself is rather invisible unless you point out to them what's going on.

This is all related to work. I don't use Macs, or have to deal with iTunes music or such outside of work. It's merely within the sphere of employment that I bump into these Apple-related wierdnesses and hate that most of the problems are inevitably traced back to some default, basic setting. That's the root of all of this frustration on my part.

If everyone else was smart enough to stop giving me discs full of MP4's that I can't use, then I'd be happy. However that's not the case, and the fact that not another goddamn program knows what the hell to do with an MP4 does somewhat decrease my excitement in seeing it as the default.

Nephtys wrote:The Zen Vision M or whatever the current model is called is 30GB, $180 and plays Divx and Mpeg movies. Compared to the 30GB iPod video which does the same, is more or less the same shape/size, and costs $250.

In brick-and-mortar stores it is still currently priced at $250, and the iPod is due for an update. But regardless, you still come up with the same things I mentioned.

The Vision M is still nearly twice as fat (18 mm vs 10 mm) and heavier as well.

Right before I hit submit, I thought I'd go and check Creative's website. What do you, know? Creative Zen Vision M is listed at $250 for 30 GB. *rolls eyes*

Covenant wrote:Your reference to Tiger doesn't ring any bells to me, as I don't follow their stuff. I am completely, utterly unaware of a single Mac-related announcement or news item older than about two months ago. I said I heard it was looking crappy and going to need to be delayed. Lo and behold, it has been delayed. I didn't make a value judgement. What about that don't you get? Before you mash the reply button, read down, and you'll see why quoting that bit over and over doesn't make any sense. It's me being GLAD that they are pushing it back, rather than rushing it.

Because, you idiot, Tiger is the CURRENT OPERATING SYSTEM. You are using it right now.

I won't pile on the next part of your post, as nothing is too wrong with it, so I just deleted it to save space.

Praxis wrote:What the heck are you talking about?

Were you too stupid to change the default settings? What is annoying and ugly about MP4 encoding? Where are you EVER forced to encode in MP4?

I think the only AAC files on my iPod are the one CD I bought off of iTunes (and I immediately burned it to a CD and ripped it as MP3, too. In iTunes).

I don't have an iPod, or use iTunes, so what you're saying has no bearing on what I'm talking about.

So you're choosing to argue over something that is completely untrue because you've never actually used the product?

Just concede that you're wrong and quit making excuses. What are you talking about? You claim Apple forces MP4 on users. They don't.

If I'm given data to use, and it's in a format nothing else wants (MP4's) then it's just garbage to me.

Then it's the fault of the user for sending you an MP4. iMovie can't open WMAs, I'm not bewailing Windows Media Player for encoding that by default, am I?

I'm never encoding anything using iTunes so I wouldn't know what the default is, being as the closest I've ever gotten to the program is explaining to someone why I need them to go back and convert them back into MP3's that the rest of the world can use. Why these are in MP4 by default I just cannot understand, it's certainly nowhere near an industry standard, or easier. I convert CD audio into whatever just fine as is without it, and don't require the hassle of iTunes.

Wow. You really are retarded, aren't you? I'm too sleepy to explain how stupid this post is, I'll go to bed and let Durandal do it.

So your rant's off-base. A lot of other people are too stupid to change the default setting, and end up shafting me when they hand me a data CD that has audio they want edited. I usually make it clear I need it in MP3 format, but people don't often realize that the MP4 encoding is going on at all, mostly because the encoding itself is rather invisible unless you point out to them what's going on.

People hand me WMA CDs all the time. You don't see me complaining. I just convert them to MP3 using iTunes.

If everyone else was smart enough to stop giving me discs full of MP4's that I can't use, then I'd be happy. However that's not the case, and the fact that not another goddamn program knows what the hell to do with an MP4 does somewhat decrease my excitement in seeing it as the default.

If everyone was smart enough to stop giving me discs full of WMA's that I can't use, then I'd be happy. However that's not the case, and the fact that not another goddamn program knows what the hell to do with an WMA does somewhat decrease my excitement in seeing it as the default.

Praxis wrote:

Nephtys wrote:The Zen Vision M or whatever the current model is called is 30GB, $180 and plays Divx and Mpeg movies. Compared to the 30GB iPod video which does the same, is more or less the same shape/size, and costs $250.

In brick-and-mortar stores it is still currently priced at $250, and the iPod is due for an update. But regardless, you still come up with the same things I mentioned.

The Vision M is still nearly twice as fat (18 mm vs 10 mm) and heavier as well.

Right before I hit submit, I thought I'd go and check Creative's website. What do you, know? Creative Zen Vision M is listed at $250 for 30 GB. *rolls eyes*

I ran google. The Zen Vision M came up as ~170 from it's vendors, and the ipod was still 240 from the same place. Whatever you say.

Honestly, I'm not sure we are using Tiger. I saw the install boxes, and they looked like the ones on the left and said OSX on them.



So we may not have that.

As for the rest, fine, iTunes doesn't force people to use MP4's, it just makes it the default. I withdraw previous statements that it was in any way a mac-specific file format. I was gravely mistaken! I guess people just don't realize, and don't change the default. That was my original source of frustration with it--I had to get access to a media library full of MP3 sfx files but they'd been compiled and organized via iTunes and I swear the person who did it turned them all into MP4's. It took forever to turn them all back and was a total nightmare.

As for windows media player, it's not like bashing that is going to rile me up. I think it's a piece of trash as well. It's not like Windows is all that good, it just doesn't have creative ways of slowing my day down, so it's the lesser of two evils at the moment. For cross-platform compatibility I'm usually using Quicktimes, which are nearly identical to the M4A's anyway, and my favorite apple import.

Related question, not flamebait, does the iPod read regular ol' MP3's, or does it convert them on-the-fly into MP4's? And, if so, can you tell it not to? Was I utterly misinformed when I was told you needed to upload music to your iPod via iTunes? And even if you are, can't you tell it just to make them regular MP3's, and have it play those? I don't see any reason why it shouldn't be able to.