Jayomat
Apr 10, 10:09 AM
Hi guys,
I realize that this is a Mac forum, so chances are good that everyone here is happy with their decision to switch from Windows to Mac. But since there's no sub-forum on a Windows forum called "I tried a Mac but didn't like it" I'll ask here. :)
As someone that has used Windows since before Windows (DOS) and has never used a Mac, what might I NOT like about it?
What might be uncomfortable or difficult?
What major learning curves should I expect? Etc., etc...
I'm sure you get what I'm asking here ;) so please share whatever info you can.
Thanks in advance!
If you are happy with windows stick with it. if you don't "have" to switch because you need a specifitc application, just don't do it. It's not "THAT MUCH" better as everyone wants to make you believe. I still like to use my macbook though ;)
You might not like the lack of customization, the need to drag and drop to move files (most cases), windows resizing, the dock, finder in general, graphics performance, lack of games, lack of professional software other than audio/video etc... the list goes on...
I realize that this is a Mac forum, so chances are good that everyone here is happy with their decision to switch from Windows to Mac. But since there's no sub-forum on a Windows forum called "I tried a Mac but didn't like it" I'll ask here. :)
As someone that has used Windows since before Windows (DOS) and has never used a Mac, what might I NOT like about it?
What might be uncomfortable or difficult?
What major learning curves should I expect? Etc., etc...
I'm sure you get what I'm asking here ;) so please share whatever info you can.
Thanks in advance!
If you are happy with windows stick with it. if you don't "have" to switch because you need a specifitc application, just don't do it. It's not "THAT MUCH" better as everyone wants to make you believe. I still like to use my macbook though ;)
You might not like the lack of customization, the need to drag and drop to move files (most cases), windows resizing, the dock, finder in general, graphics performance, lack of games, lack of professional software other than audio/video etc... the list goes on...
peharri
Sep 24, 05:18 PM
Mac Mini? I suspect that's exactly what Apple wants to drive sales of.
I know, they need to be cheaper.
Well, my view is that the $300 iTV will not work if it needs $600 worth of computer attached to it, especially if the sole role of the computer is as some kind of file server. Even more especially (!) if the $600 computer doesn't come with that much storage anyway, and the even even even more if viewing content on your TV means going into the bedroom to download the program onto the computer, and then walking back into the livingroom to watch it.
Now a $200 server might make some sense, but ultimately I can't help but think anything that adds to the start-up cost of the iTV will sink it.
Ultimately, I'm of the opinion Apple isn't suicidal. It does intend the iTV to be desirable. It plans to use it to ensure the iTS remains relevent. It plans to expand, not retract, its online media business. It doesn't consider the Mac to be so important it needs to be pushed to the detriment of the rest of the business. It is worried about the post-iPod future. It does need to find a way of selling online movie downloads to sceptical studio executives. For all of these reasons and more, I'm finding the notion Apple would release a $300 TV adapter and announce it at a movies download event a little... well, does it make sense to you?
You know who's fault this is? It's Apple's. If they hadn't done that stupid "Fun products" presentation back in February, with those stupid leather iPod cases and the overpriced speaker system, I think people would be a whole lot more positive!
I know, they need to be cheaper.
Well, my view is that the $300 iTV will not work if it needs $600 worth of computer attached to it, especially if the sole role of the computer is as some kind of file server. Even more especially (!) if the $600 computer doesn't come with that much storage anyway, and the even even even more if viewing content on your TV means going into the bedroom to download the program onto the computer, and then walking back into the livingroom to watch it.
Now a $200 server might make some sense, but ultimately I can't help but think anything that adds to the start-up cost of the iTV will sink it.
Ultimately, I'm of the opinion Apple isn't suicidal. It does intend the iTV to be desirable. It plans to use it to ensure the iTS remains relevent. It plans to expand, not retract, its online media business. It doesn't consider the Mac to be so important it needs to be pushed to the detriment of the rest of the business. It is worried about the post-iPod future. It does need to find a way of selling online movie downloads to sceptical studio executives. For all of these reasons and more, I'm finding the notion Apple would release a $300 TV adapter and announce it at a movies download event a little... well, does it make sense to you?
You know who's fault this is? It's Apple's. If they hadn't done that stupid "Fun products" presentation back in February, with those stupid leather iPod cases and the overpriced speaker system, I think people would be a whole lot more positive!
Cromulent
Mar 27, 04:56 PM
Although that's true, it doesn't show that homosexuality is a healthy quality to have.
It's funny how social attitudes change. In Christian Rome it was considered perfectly normal for men to have (male) child partners (although this seems to be coming back into fashion in the Catholic church).
In Sparta homosexuality was encouraged because it was thought that spending too much time with women would weaken and feminise the male warriors.
In other city states in ancient Greece homosexuality was also considered the norm.
It's funny how social attitudes change. In Christian Rome it was considered perfectly normal for men to have (male) child partners (although this seems to be coming back into fashion in the Catholic church).
In Sparta homosexuality was encouraged because it was thought that spending too much time with women would weaken and feminise the male warriors.
In other city states in ancient Greece homosexuality was also considered the norm.
ShavenYak
Sep 20, 01:19 PM
?? TiVo will provide you a PVR that burns DVDs, has a tuner and hard drive, and wirelessly connects to your macintosh and plays your photo library and itunes for $300 plus you have to buy a usb network reciever for like $25.
So it's basically the same thing except for the videos which of course didn't exist when tivo adopted the technology, and since they'll play your photos they'll probalby adopt the videos too. I think I'll just hold out for my TiVo to do the same thing PLUS be a PVR and DVD burner.
TiVo will also charge you $12.95 every month (or $299 every two years) for the rest of your life for the privilege of using their box. Look at that - you can buy the newest, latest-n-greatest iTV every two years (if Apple adds functionality that often) for the price of TiVo's service fees. And then probably sell the old one on eBay for enough money to buy the next version of OS X. Besides, if you want HDTV, the TiVo solution is $800. Plus fees. Plus a USB wireless receiver. And you still can't play music or video from the iTunes Store.
Don't get me wrong, I think TiVo's technology is great... but, I'm already paying $ every month to my cable company who sends me TV listings, and numerous sites on the Internet have free TV listings; at least some basic level of TiVo functionality should be free as well (yes, I know about the TiVo Basic or whatever they called it in some of the DVD-burning TiVos - that wasn't good enough). I'd much rather have TiVo than this crappy Scientific Atlanta DVR that Charter provides. But it costs less to rent than the TiVo service fee, and I'd still need to pay Charter to rent two CableCards if I replaced it with a TiVo. Which would suck, since I'd have just emptied my checking account to buy the TiVo in the first place.
My dream is for Apple to buy TiVo. Last I checked, Apple's cash on hand was more than TiVo's market cap.
So it's basically the same thing except for the videos which of course didn't exist when tivo adopted the technology, and since they'll play your photos they'll probalby adopt the videos too. I think I'll just hold out for my TiVo to do the same thing PLUS be a PVR and DVD burner.
TiVo will also charge you $12.95 every month (or $299 every two years) for the rest of your life for the privilege of using their box. Look at that - you can buy the newest, latest-n-greatest iTV every two years (if Apple adds functionality that often) for the price of TiVo's service fees. And then probably sell the old one on eBay for enough money to buy the next version of OS X. Besides, if you want HDTV, the TiVo solution is $800. Plus fees. Plus a USB wireless receiver. And you still can't play music or video from the iTunes Store.
Don't get me wrong, I think TiVo's technology is great... but, I'm already paying $ every month to my cable company who sends me TV listings, and numerous sites on the Internet have free TV listings; at least some basic level of TiVo functionality should be free as well (yes, I know about the TiVo Basic or whatever they called it in some of the DVD-burning TiVos - that wasn't good enough). I'd much rather have TiVo than this crappy Scientific Atlanta DVR that Charter provides. But it costs less to rent than the TiVo service fee, and I'd still need to pay Charter to rent two CableCards if I replaced it with a TiVo. Which would suck, since I'd have just emptied my checking account to buy the TiVo in the first place.
My dream is for Apple to buy TiVo. Last I checked, Apple's cash on hand was more than TiVo's market cap.
fivepoint
Mar 16, 01:32 PM
That chart isn't going to fool anyone with a brain. All it shows is what is currently implemented. It says nothing about the potential contributions of all sources, how much they cost per watt, how much pollution they produce or whether or not they are renewable. It's a colorful red herring and you know it.
For one thing, there's no need for you to try to be a shill for the nuclear, oil, gas and coal industry - they already have well-financed lobbying operations and huge political influence. They'll get on fine without your "help". For another, it goes without saying that fossil fuels and nuclear are going to be used until they are gone. The energy demands are too great to do othwerise.
But they are called "non-renewable" energy sources for a reason, and they all pose major pollution problems that we are still struggling with. There is absolutely no good reason not to aggressively pursue the development and adoption of renewable energy sources as soon as is practical. Some day they will produce the bulk of the world's energy out of necessity if nothing else.
So in other words, without non-renewable energy, human civilization falls? That's a ridiculous stance.
The things we hope are reality and things that actually are reality often times greatly differ. People sing the praises of wind and solar, but the honest to God truth is that they can't compete. Not even close. It takes THOUSANDS of giant windmills to produce what one tiny nuclear power plant can. Can we put those in your back yard? Or how about off of your state's coast? How about solar... how long exactly does it take for a solar cell to pay for itself? The chart shows that despite heavy federal subsidies that such alternatives are STILL wholly incapable of doing the job we'd need them to do without nuclear, coal, oil, natural gas, etc. The ONLY one that has proven it's worth is hydro. That that was created out of pure invention, not a government subsidy.
Let the free market determine which technologies win. Stop wasting our money on advancing idiotic technologies which haven't been able to prove themselves after 20+ years of subsidies. If there's wealth to be earned by developing such a technology, it will be developed.
Oh come on! You know what the answer to that will be. Panic wins every time as it makes better TV. :rolleyes:
Potassium Iodide tablets (retail $10 bottle) going for $500 on eBay. People are so stupid sometimes...
Yes, people have much potential for stupdity. They also have much potential to accomplish great things. Even (especially) without government holding their hands.
How's that going to work? People have to be fed too...
You're operating under a few false assumptions. First, bio fuels do not have to compete with food at all. Switch grass, moss, algae digesters, etc... its a quickly evolving world. Second, a great deal of our food price is wrapped up into transportation of said food. Third, using corn for fuel doesn't mean people go hungry, it only means that the price of corn goes up. Consequently prices of other goods might go up or down. What we probably agree on is that ethanol, etc. should not be subsidized.
For one thing, there's no need for you to try to be a shill for the nuclear, oil, gas and coal industry - they already have well-financed lobbying operations and huge political influence. They'll get on fine without your "help". For another, it goes without saying that fossil fuels and nuclear are going to be used until they are gone. The energy demands are too great to do othwerise.
But they are called "non-renewable" energy sources for a reason, and they all pose major pollution problems that we are still struggling with. There is absolutely no good reason not to aggressively pursue the development and adoption of renewable energy sources as soon as is practical. Some day they will produce the bulk of the world's energy out of necessity if nothing else.
So in other words, without non-renewable energy, human civilization falls? That's a ridiculous stance.
The things we hope are reality and things that actually are reality often times greatly differ. People sing the praises of wind and solar, but the honest to God truth is that they can't compete. Not even close. It takes THOUSANDS of giant windmills to produce what one tiny nuclear power plant can. Can we put those in your back yard? Or how about off of your state's coast? How about solar... how long exactly does it take for a solar cell to pay for itself? The chart shows that despite heavy federal subsidies that such alternatives are STILL wholly incapable of doing the job we'd need them to do without nuclear, coal, oil, natural gas, etc. The ONLY one that has proven it's worth is hydro. That that was created out of pure invention, not a government subsidy.
Let the free market determine which technologies win. Stop wasting our money on advancing idiotic technologies which haven't been able to prove themselves after 20+ years of subsidies. If there's wealth to be earned by developing such a technology, it will be developed.
Oh come on! You know what the answer to that will be. Panic wins every time as it makes better TV. :rolleyes:
Potassium Iodide tablets (retail $10 bottle) going for $500 on eBay. People are so stupid sometimes...
Yes, people have much potential for stupdity. They also have much potential to accomplish great things. Even (especially) without government holding their hands.
How's that going to work? People have to be fed too...
You're operating under a few false assumptions. First, bio fuels do not have to compete with food at all. Switch grass, moss, algae digesters, etc... its a quickly evolving world. Second, a great deal of our food price is wrapped up into transportation of said food. Third, using corn for fuel doesn't mean people go hungry, it only means that the price of corn goes up. Consequently prices of other goods might go up or down. What we probably agree on is that ethanol, etc. should not be subsidized.
Iconoclysm
Apr 20, 08:12 PM
You mean just like unix operating systems have "so many" viruses and it's a completely open source environment? In fact OSX is based on BSD unix. LOL
Yeah, because they hold the largest marketshare, right?
Yeah, because they hold the largest marketshare, right?
Torrijos
Apr 13, 07:56 AM
People don't even realize the amount of work necessary to bring a project like this to term.
I really hope all this goodness is going to trickle down the rest of Apple's software offering, from OS components to the rest of the Pro apps, through iApps (the iWork suite is in dire need of a refresh, Numbers has tons of bugs and slows to a crawl with complex projects).
I really hope all this goodness is going to trickle down the rest of Apple's software offering, from OS components to the rest of the Pro apps, through iApps (the iWork suite is in dire need of a refresh, Numbers has tons of bugs and slows to a crawl with complex projects).
brap
Mar 20, 09:54 PM
It's more than a copyright/fair use issue.
...
You AGREED not to bypass or attempt to circumvent DRM, not to redistribute the files in any unauthorized manner, and to use iTunes alone to interface with the iTMS. And not just agreed passively, but EXPLICITLY agreed to those terms, and now you are breaking your word. How is that not morally wrong?
...
<snip>
I do agree that it is effectively the break of a promise. Hell, it's the breaking of a contract... which is certainly quite wrong. But what if you believe the original terms and conditions to be morally wrong in themselves?
Yes, yes, I know. Don't use the software, but people do, and people will. In the scheme of things, considering all alternatives, I really can't see such strong objection. For reasons noted in my first post, the software will likely only be picked up by a small number of tech-savvy, yet honest users - and that's the thing. This is a very small market, quite unlikely to be distributing these songs over p2p - which is (correct me if I'm wrong) the main reason for DRM in the first place?
Trying to stay pragmatic here without advocating anarchy. It's not working.
...
You AGREED not to bypass or attempt to circumvent DRM, not to redistribute the files in any unauthorized manner, and to use iTunes alone to interface with the iTMS. And not just agreed passively, but EXPLICITLY agreed to those terms, and now you are breaking your word. How is that not morally wrong?
...
<snip>
I do agree that it is effectively the break of a promise. Hell, it's the breaking of a contract... which is certainly quite wrong. But what if you believe the original terms and conditions to be morally wrong in themselves?
Yes, yes, I know. Don't use the software, but people do, and people will. In the scheme of things, considering all alternatives, I really can't see such strong objection. For reasons noted in my first post, the software will likely only be picked up by a small number of tech-savvy, yet honest users - and that's the thing. This is a very small market, quite unlikely to be distributing these songs over p2p - which is (correct me if I'm wrong) the main reason for DRM in the first place?
Trying to stay pragmatic here without advocating anarchy. It's not working.
Liquorpuki
Mar 13, 09:56 PM
They were talking talking about a 100 square mile solar plant. Take this PopSci link (http://www.popsci.com/environment/article/2009-06/solar-power) for example. A 20 acre site produces 5 Megawatts. One square mile (640 acres) would provide 160 Megawatts. Ten square miles would provide 16000 Megawatts (16 Gigawatts). The link says the country will need 20 Gigawats by 2050. The worst possible accident in this case does not result in thousands of square miles being permanently (as far as this generation is concerned) contaminated.
In contrast Japan Disaster May Set Back Nuclear Power Industry (http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2011-03-14-quakenuclear14_ST_N.htm). As far as I know, solar farms don't "melt down" at least not in a way that might effect the entire population of a U.S. state. I understand the nuclear reactors are built to hold in the radiation when things go wrong, but what if they don't and what a mess afterwards.
You need to separate capacity from demand. Capacity is just the maximum power a station can theoretically produce. In practice, most of these renewable stations never reach that max. I've checked the stats at my utility's wind farm and that thing is usually around 9% of capacity. Considering a wind farm costs 4 times as much money as a natural gas generator to build for the same capacity, efficiency-wise, the station is a joke.
What's more important is demand - being able to produce enough energy when we need it. This is where solar and wind fall short. They don't generate when we want them to, they only generate when mother nature wants them to. It would be fine if grid energy storage (IE batteries) technology was developed enough to be able to store enough energy to power a service area through an entire winter (in the case of solar). But last I checked, current grid energy storage batteries can only store a charge for 8-12 hours before they start losing charge on their own. They're also the size of buildings, fail after 10 years, and cost a ton of money.
This is why a lot of utilities have gone to nuclear to replace coal and why here in the US, we still rely on coal to provide roughly 50% of our electricity and most of our base load. There are few options.
In contrast Japan Disaster May Set Back Nuclear Power Industry (http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2011-03-14-quakenuclear14_ST_N.htm). As far as I know, solar farms don't "melt down" at least not in a way that might effect the entire population of a U.S. state. I understand the nuclear reactors are built to hold in the radiation when things go wrong, but what if they don't and what a mess afterwards.
You need to separate capacity from demand. Capacity is just the maximum power a station can theoretically produce. In practice, most of these renewable stations never reach that max. I've checked the stats at my utility's wind farm and that thing is usually around 9% of capacity. Considering a wind farm costs 4 times as much money as a natural gas generator to build for the same capacity, efficiency-wise, the station is a joke.
What's more important is demand - being able to produce enough energy when we need it. This is where solar and wind fall short. They don't generate when we want them to, they only generate when mother nature wants them to. It would be fine if grid energy storage (IE batteries) technology was developed enough to be able to store enough energy to power a service area through an entire winter (in the case of solar). But last I checked, current grid energy storage batteries can only store a charge for 8-12 hours before they start losing charge on their own. They're also the size of buildings, fail after 10 years, and cost a ton of money.
This is why a lot of utilities have gone to nuclear to replace coal and why here in the US, we still rely on coal to provide roughly 50% of our electricity and most of our base load. There are few options.
vniow
Oct 9, 12:57 AM
Originally posted by Abercrombieboy
I don't understand you guys, you say that Windows XP is now stable and maybe you are right, and you say that PC's are faster and the hardware is the same quality for less money.
carmelo anthony tattoos on his
carmelo anthony tattoos left
carmelo anthony wallpaper 2011
carmelo anthony tattoos on
Carmelo Anthony Death In
Carmelo Anthony Tattoos/Denver
Carmelo Anthony Tattoos
Carmelo Anthony tattoo right
Carmelo Anthony Biography
I don't understand you guys, you say that Windows XP is now stable and maybe you are right, and you say that PC's are faster and the hardware is the same quality for less money.
840quadra
Apr 28, 07:30 AM
Actually iPad sales were most likely down due to people waiting in expectation of the new model, and that new model not having enough units to satisfy demand.
Regardless, it still was strong sales for Apple, and other manufacturers. Good sign in this economy right now to be honest.
Regardless, it still was strong sales for Apple, and other manufacturers. Good sign in this economy right now to be honest.
Kalmia
Sep 20, 01:06 AM
TV show recording would be REALLY nice, but it's probably wishful thinking, considering it could potentially cut into profits from iTunes. Still, one can dream...
In addition, I would really love a movie rental option, though that's probably even more farfetched. It would save us a TON of money on late fees, though.
My main concern is how big of a hole this is going to leave in my wallet. I guess it's still pretty early to be speculating, given that we don't know much about it. So I should probably try not to get my hopes up in the meantime. :p
~Kalmia
In addition, I would really love a movie rental option, though that's probably even more farfetched. It would save us a TON of money on late fees, though.
My main concern is how big of a hole this is going to leave in my wallet. I guess it's still pretty early to be speculating, given that we don't know much about it. So I should probably try not to get my hopes up in the meantime. :p
~Kalmia
I'mAMac
Aug 29, 02:55 PM
The post I was replying to said that there were 100x the cars today, which is 100% false. That the population has nearly doubled since then is true.
I actually can't find any data from 1966, but the numbers from 1968 are very similar.
Not sure about nuking the Middle East, though.... :)
lol kidding about nuking it. and yes stem cells are a different story i dont know which post I read.
I actually can't find any data from 1966, but the numbers from 1968 are very similar.
Not sure about nuking the Middle East, though.... :)
lol kidding about nuking it. and yes stem cells are a different story i dont know which post I read.
Sounds Good
Apr 5, 09:36 PM
Dragging your Applications folder to the right hand side of the Dock as a stack shows every single application you have installed on the computer, just like the Start Menu.
What if I just want my top 10 favorites? In Windows I just drag the icon (of whatever I want) to the Start button, then drop it into the list of my favorites (I'm not sure of the actual term for this). Can this be done on a Mac?
Since I open the same 10 or 12 programs or folders or files many times throughout the day, every day, this is pretty important to me. It would absolutely mess up my work flow to lose this feature.
What if I just want my top 10 favorites? In Windows I just drag the icon (of whatever I want) to the Start button, then drop it into the list of my favorites (I'm not sure of the actual term for this). Can this be done on a Mac?
Since I open the same 10 or 12 programs or folders or files many times throughout the day, every day, this is pretty important to me. It would absolutely mess up my work flow to lose this feature.
Icaras
Apr 9, 12:43 AM
That's a complete joke, surely? There's no way you can compare console gaming, in basically a home arcade, to swiping your fingers around on a 3.5" screen. No way. I am a gamer, and always will be.
Gaming on the iPhone is good for 2-minute bursts, such as when sitting on the toilet. It's not a great games device. Most of the games are cheap with no replay value.
Say that about games like Final Fantasy III, Aralon, or even NOVA 2. Try finishing any of these games while on one sitting at the toilet. :eek:
You're right about prematurely comparing iOS to console gaming though. However, I feel iOS absolutely competes with handheld devices by Sony and Nintendo.
I feel the quality is there for many games and growing. I think it would be foolish to dismiss gaming on iOS when there is obvious growth and a healthy consumer market happening at the App Store.
Gaming on the iPhone is good for 2-minute bursts, such as when sitting on the toilet. It's not a great games device. Most of the games are cheap with no replay value.
Say that about games like Final Fantasy III, Aralon, or even NOVA 2. Try finishing any of these games while on one sitting at the toilet. :eek:
You're right about prematurely comparing iOS to console gaming though. However, I feel iOS absolutely competes with handheld devices by Sony and Nintendo.
I feel the quality is there for many games and growing. I think it would be foolish to dismiss gaming on iOS when there is obvious growth and a healthy consumer market happening at the App Store.
Mac'nCheese
Apr 22, 09:09 PM
"such a small difference"? Clearly you haven't studied theology
I should have clarified this more, I guess. To me, once you follow one of the major religions, you are making such a distinction in your belief system that the ideals that separate the different sects of that religion seem almost ridiculous. Once you decided to become (or just continue down the road your parents put you on...) a follower of Christ, you have made such a distinction between yourself and those who are not (Jews, Muslims, Etc.); does the decision to then believe in the Catholic Church over any other Christian church and the differences between those churches even come close to the differences you have between other people who don't follow Christ? I laugh when I hear a person scoff at someone's belief that the pope is god's chosen leader but yet they still have no problem with believing in Jesus being his son. This is in my eyes...I certainly know that there are tons of differences between the churches, I just find them almost silly....
I should have clarified this more, I guess. To me, once you follow one of the major religions, you are making such a distinction in your belief system that the ideals that separate the different sects of that religion seem almost ridiculous. Once you decided to become (or just continue down the road your parents put you on...) a follower of Christ, you have made such a distinction between yourself and those who are not (Jews, Muslims, Etc.); does the decision to then believe in the Catholic Church over any other Christian church and the differences between those churches even come close to the differences you have between other people who don't follow Christ? I laugh when I hear a person scoff at someone's belief that the pope is god's chosen leader but yet they still have no problem with believing in Jesus being his son. This is in my eyes...I certainly know that there are tons of differences between the churches, I just find them almost silly....
Sounds Good
Apr 6, 07:56 AM
Okay... thanks, guys. To be honest, it looks like there are more differences than I thought there would be -- so I'm glad I asked.
Like I said, I've got some thinkin' to do. :)
Like I said, I've got some thinkin' to do. :)
portishead
Apr 12, 10:45 PM
ROTFL!! Sorry, I couldn't help but laugh! Start burnin' them bridges early, son!!
Looks cool, but I'm on the fence about it all. It's chump change and probably a fun tool to play with. I don't see it replacing some of the larger suites. It's 'pro' editing for the masses but I'm sure many will keep their Adobe and AVID tools around for more orgranized productions.
Cheers!
It's probably not going to cause massive amounts of people to switch I agree. It's hard to say a lot after this presentation. It's definitely got some awesome features. We'll have to wait and see if it's ready for a full workflow from ingest to export.
Looks cool, but I'm on the fence about it all. It's chump change and probably a fun tool to play with. I don't see it replacing some of the larger suites. It's 'pro' editing for the masses but I'm sure many will keep their Adobe and AVID tools around for more orgranized productions.
Cheers!
It's probably not going to cause massive amounts of people to switch I agree. It's hard to say a lot after this presentation. It's definitely got some awesome features. We'll have to wait and see if it's ready for a full workflow from ingest to export.
Edge100
Apr 15, 11:26 AM
Errr. Yes I do. :confused:
That's why I called him out on it.
He supressed the part that really matters.
Sorry, getting tough to keep track of who I'm quoting here. ;)
That's why I called him out on it.
He supressed the part that really matters.
Sorry, getting tough to keep track of who I'm quoting here. ;)
R.Perez
Mar 13, 06:52 PM
Did you even read the article you posted? The stored solar energy is drained after 8 hours. Which means if you have a day where the sun is obstructed, your city will black out.
did you actually read my post? Centralized solar would just be one part.
did you actually read my post? Centralized solar would just be one part.
Blue Velvet
Mar 26, 02:37 PM
Ciaociao
If only.
If only.
skunk
Apr 23, 04:09 PM
The Bible, as you may or may not know, is the basis for Christianity, and the Old Testament is the basis for Judaism.No, the basis of Christianity is the Old and New Testaments.
levitynyc
Apr 8, 10:38 PM
Why doesnt Apple allow you to plug a controller in the 30 pin adaptor? Wouldnt that be the best of both worlds?
Bill McEnaney
Mar 28, 12:17 PM
He wouldn't have to: he wears his dogma on his sleeve.
Even if I'm dogmatic, I'm still distinct from my dogmatism. Being-dogmatic may be a property I have, but I'm not identical with that property.
Even if I'm dogmatic, I'm still distinct from my dogmatism. Being-dogmatic may be a property I have, but I'm not identical with that property.
No comments:
Post a Comment