OrangeWhoopass.com Forums
General Discussion => Talk Zone => Topic started by: tophfar on January 02, 2008, 03:31:26 am
-
Find three other people and run, dont walk, and buy Rock Band. It is made of pure awesome.
-
Find three other people and run, dont walk, and buy Rock Band. It is made of pure awesome.
We had a great time with it at a New Years Eve party. Includes Dont Fear the Reaper with the singer playing cowbell! FWIW, not that it matters to me because I suck with the guitar, but I'm told its Difficult is not on par with GH's Difficult.
-
From what I could see, the guitar part was just as hard. There wasn't any song on a level of "Devil Went Down to Georgia" as far as hardness, but it gave my GH expert friend some fits at first.
The drums are pretty tough to get into, but the vocals and bass parts are fun.
-
...but it gave my GH expert friend some fits at first.
The one on the right? (http://kotaku.com/assets/resources/2007/11/SPGH.jpg)
-
Oh, and if you have a PS3, don't expect to use the Guitar Hero guitar with Rock Band. Activision, the publisher for Guitar Hero, refuses to let its guitar work with Rock Band unless EA pays them. Which is kinda like Logitech refusing to let its mouse work with Photoshop until Adobe pays them. I'm boycotting Activision until they knock off this anti-consumer behavior.
Either way, you won't be able to play Rock Band with all 4 players (guitar, bass, drums, and mic) on PS3 because they don't sell the guitar separately from the whole kit.
Find three other people and run, dont walk, and buy Rock Band. It is made of pure awesome.
-
The drums are pretty tough to get into, but the vocals and bass parts are fun.
If you aren't a drummer (which i'm so very not), then the drums can be pretty challenging. But it was my favorite part of the game. After playing guitar (real and videogame versions), it was a really fun diversion, and really teaches you why good drummers are hard to find.
-
I have a very difficult time with this game and I've played bass for 12 years. I feel like an idiot in fact.
-
I have a very difficult time with this game and I've played bass for 12 years. I feel like an idiot in fact.
Same here. I played bass in a band for many years, toured a little around the Texas area and when I pick up guitar hero to have fun, I feel stupid. That's because I never had to "think" about what I was playing like I do in these games.
Also buttons... who has buttons on their guitar/bass?
-
If you aren't a drummer (which i'm so very not), then the drums can be pretty challenging. But it was my favorite part of the game. After playing guitar (real and videogame versions), it was a really fun diversion, and really teaches you why good drummers are hard to find.
Even for a drummer (which I am) they're not easy in DH because the pads shift what they represent, there is no bass drum beater to bounce off the head as would a real drum and the reading layout (as with GH) doesnt represent rhythem very well. If they'd just flip the bar 90 degrees and present the music as you would read it, these games could benefit a young generation of musicians greatly.
-
Also buttons... who has buttons on their guitar/bass?
Five buttons and only four fingers. Not that it matters in my case, I never get out of easy mode.
I can't see how anyone could play the expert setting. The notes zoom by so fast...
-
I can't see how anyone could play the expert setting. The notes zoom by so fast...
It helps to be about 15 yrs old.
-
Even for a drummer (which I am) they're not easy in DH because the pads shift what they represent, there is no bass drum beater to bounce off the head as would a real drum and the reading layout (as with GH) doesnt represent rhythem very well. If they'd just flip the bar 90 degrees and present the music as you would read it, these games could benefit a young generation of musicians greatly.
It's the coordination between my various limbs that defied me to no end. Trying to keep up with the kick pedal, will working one pad in some beat, with the other hand alternatively doing rolls or hitting the "hi-hat"/"crash" or what not.
Granted, I don't make the mistake of thinking it is actually teaching someone to be a drummer. But those skills, it seems to me, would transition to an actual drum set much more so than the guitar.
As for the guitars, I dont have much problem of not thinking of the buttons as "buttons", you just have a 5 fret guitar with one string. and poof you dont even realize you are pressing buttons any more, just reading a sideways tab.
being comfortable moving on a fretboard is the only thing that i've seen transition from an actual guitar to GH. Alot of people i know get lost when they have to move to that 5th button, but moving one position on a fretboard should be trivial to most guitar players. And then you can run alot of those chord combinations as power/bar chords and just slide up and down the neck. The solos are tricky because of the limitations of "5 frets/1 string", the scales as such sometimes can be rather random.
so while they are definitely not musical instruments of any sort, they do a great job of providing that illusion, and are just so much fun.
-
It's the coordination between my various limbs that defied me to no end. Trying to keep up with the kick pedal, will working one pad in some beat, with the other hand alternatively doing rolls or hitting the "hi-hat"/"crash" or what not.
Now throw in the left foot, develop full independance of all four limbs, move each of them around to different locations and use different techniques where appropriate ... welcome to drumming! Practice for 20 years, feel decent about your ability, then watch Mike Portnoy for maybe 10 seconds to realize you dont know shit. It's a true love/hate relationship I have with my set...
-
It helps to be about 15 yrs old.
Or about 9 years old:
http://view.break.com/422526
-
I wonder if Rock Band/Guitar Hero will inspire a whole new generation of musicians. Rock and roll needs a shot in the arm these days...a lotta fantastic bands out there but everything seems so fragmented. I doubt we'll ever see a band as popular as U2 or Guns N Roses ever again...
Same here. I played bass in a band for many years, toured a little around the Texas area and when I pick up guitar hero to have fun, I feel stupid. That's because I never had to "think" about what I was playing like I do in these games.
Also buttons... who has buttons on their guitar/bass?
-
Same here. I played bass in a band for many years, toured a little around the Texas area and when I pick up guitar hero to have fun, I feel stupid. That's because I never had to "think" about what I was playing like I do in these games.
Also buttons... who has buttons on their guitar/bass?
The 5 buttons/4 fingers thing throws me off. Hell you're considered good if you can use all 4 fingers playing a real bass so how do you play something with 5 buttons? The first time I played Guitar Hero was at a party and someone said "Hey, you can play guitar you should be good at this!". I gave it a whirl and the song I picked was Cowboys From Hell which I used to play often. Man did I look stupid.
-
Or about 9 years old:
http://view.break.com/422526
Holy shit, I never would have believed it if I hadn't seen it. 95% of the notes?
Just.... wow.
-
Or about 9 years old:
http://view.break.com/422526
Real guitars are for old people.
-
Oh, and if you have a PS3, don't expect to use the Guitar Hero guitar with Rock Band.
That's strange because I know for a fact that you can use GH guitars on the XBox360 version. We got tired of the Rock Band guitar after about 5 songs and plugged in the GH ones and used those the rest of the time.
-
Or about 9 years old:
http://view.break.com/422526
I got worn out just watching. That's amazing.
-
Or about 9 years old:
http://view.break.com/422526
it helps if you use seven fingers.
-
it helps if you use seven fingers.
he's just fret tapping (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kb1wuBFfALs&feature=related). but yes, it helps.
-
I wonder if Rock Band/Guitar Hero will inspire a whole new generation of musicians.
Well, it did for me at least. I've never played an instrument, but after a few weeks of GH III, I was eager to give my gf's guitar a shot. The skills don't quite translate, unfortunately...
I picked up Rock Band this afternoon and can't wait to have some friends over this weekend to go at it...
-
got it a month or so ago and its fun ... the guitars and bass are nothing like guitars and bass they are like Simon says and Tetris ... but still fun ... I mean who thought they would be authentic anyway?
however I think the "drums" are actually pretty instructive ... seriously ... with a few tweaks to the set up it could be used as an incredible learning tool ... nothing beats the real thing but considering we are talking about a game ... I mean I have played drums for a number of years (granted I am still only mediocre by anyone standards but certainly decent enough to play that and bass regularly live) and with that said I am absolutely certain I left playing that game a better drummer ... it has quieted by kick to a degree and caused me to be more deliberate with it ... plus overall really fun game
-
Or about 9 years old:
http://view.break.com/422526
i got tired while playing that song on easy..
also, rock band would be cool but im too poor to by it, maybe someone on our dorm floor will get it.
-
Or about 9 years old:
http://view.break.com/422526
LOL...holy crap, I didn't even see all the notes come down, and he's hitting 'em.
-
Just finished a 5-hour session of Rock Band with some friends. It's a good thing I can't afford a 360 right now.
ETA: although it looks like a Wii version is in the works (unofficially). That would be most excellent.
-
Wii Sucks - balls
-
Wii Sucks - balls
Does not.
-
Wii Sucks - balls
disagree...
-
Wii Sucks - balls
Thanks for raising the level of discourse. Could you throw in a "your mom" joke while you're at it?
-
Wii Sucks - balls
I already know what you're going to say.
"Kiddie console kiddie games gimmick controller no hi-def no home media no hard drive no Halo"
Hopefully you won't have to post a response now.
-
Oh, another warning for PS3 users- instead of using the built-in wireless on the PS3, the PS3 Rock Band wireless guitar has its own USB wireless dongle. It uses the 2.4Ghz spectrum and it could interfere with your wireless home phone, wireless internet, etc. At my place, I have to unplug my wireless access point when I play Rock Band.
I haven't tried setting my wireless access point to use a different frequency but that's a possibility.
-
I haven't tried setting my wireless access point to use a different frequency but that's a possibility.
You are probably running an 802.11g network like the vast majority of people. Unfortunately, all wireless-G networking devices in the United States use the same frequency/channel (channel 6, 2.437Ghz). You can only change the channel if you set your router up in wireless-B mode, which is much slower (11mbps vs. 54mbps/108mbps). You may be able to download a third-party firmware for your router that lets you change the frequency for wireless-G, but that is obviously a use-at-your-own-risk venture and likely voids any warranty or tech support from the manufacturer. You could pretty easily
I don't know for sure, but you might look into the new 802.11n wireless protocol to see if it allows you to change the operating frequency. Plenty of the common manufacturers (Netgear, Linksys, DLink, Belkin, etc.) now make wireless-N products. There is some risk involved, however, because the 802.11n standard has not yet been finalized. As a result, there are different implementations of the current "draft" protocol. When one of those protocols is finally chosen as the 802.11n, your router may or may not be compliant. That won't stop it from working, but any future 802.11n products may be incompatible with your equipment. (kinda similar to HD-DVD vs. BluRay)
Stupid, stupid decision by EA to use that instead of the PS3's built-in wireless, which I assume is Bluetooth. Unplugging my wireless router would be an unacceptable prerequisite to play a video game with online capability.
-
All 802.11g wireless networking devices in the United States use the same frequency/channel (channel 6, 2.437Ghz). You can only change the channel if you set your router up in 802.11b mode, which much slower (11mbps vs. 54mbps). Even then the frequency change would be minimal (2.4xxGhz).
Stupid, stupid decision by EA to use that instead of the PS3's built-in wireless, which I assume is Bluetooth. Unplugging my wireless router would be an unacceptable prerequisite.
That's typical EA for you.
-
Yes, I'm disappointed as well but luckily for me I have all my networking stuff behind the TV which means the PS3 gets a wired connection and the Airport Express is easy to unplug.
I think it was a financial decision for EA...it sucks, clearly the Xbox360 version is the version to own, but I got a PS3 for Xmas so what am I gonna do?
Plus, wireless Rock Band guitars are coming to the Xbox 360 and I'll bet they have the exact same design flaw.
You are probably running an 802.11g network like the vast majority of people. Unfortunately, all wireless-G networking devices in the United States use the same frequency/channel (channel 6, 2.437Ghz). You can only change the channel if you set your router up in wireless-B mode, which is much slower (11mbps vs. 54mbps/108mbps). You may be able to download a third-party firmware for your router that lets you change the frequency for wireless-G, but that is obviously a use-at-your-own-risk venture and likely voids any warranty or tech support from the manufacturer. You could pretty easily
I don't know for sure, but you might look into the new 802.11n wireless protocol to see if it allows you to change the operating frequency. Plenty of the common manufacturers (Netgear, Linksys, DLink, Belkin, etc.) now make wireless-N products. There is some risk involved, however, because the 802.11n standard has not yet been finalized. As a result, there are different implementations of the current "draft" protocol. When one of those protocols is finally chosen as the 802.11n, your router may or may not be compliant. That won't stop it from working, but any future 802.11n products may be incompatible with your equipment. (kinda similar to HD-DVD vs. BluRay)
Stupid, stupid decision by EA to use that instead of the PS3's built-in wireless, which I assume is Bluetooth. Unplugging my wireless router would be an unacceptable prerequisite to play a video game with online capability.
-
You are probably running an 802.11g network like the vast majority of people. Unfortunately, all wireless-G networking devices in the United States use the same frequency/channel (channel 6, 2.437Ghz). You can only change the channel if you set your router up in wireless-B mode, which is much slower (11mbps vs. 54mbps/108mbps). You may be able to download a third-party firmware for your router that lets you change the frequency for wireless-G, but that is obviously a use-at-your-own-risk venture and likely voids any warranty or tech support from the manufacturer. You could pretty easily
I don't know for sure, but you might look into the new 802.11n wireless protocol to see if it allows you to change the operating frequency. Plenty of the common manufacturers (Netgear, Linksys, DLink, Belkin, etc.) now make wireless-N products. There is some risk involved, however, because the 802.11n standard has not yet been finalized. As a result, there are different implementations of the current "draft" protocol. When one of those protocols is finally chosen as the 802.11n, your router may or may not be compliant. That won't stop it from working, but any future 802.11n products may be incompatible with your equipment. (kinda similar to HD-DVD vs. BluRay)
Stupid, stupid decision by EA to use that instead of the PS3's built-in wireless, which I assume is Bluetooth. Unplugging my wireless router would be an unacceptable prerequisite to play a video game with online capability.
All Macs and the Airport (WiFi) base-stations run 802.11n. You can change channels on them. Once again, Mac clobbers PC!!!
-
All Macs and the Airport (WiFi) base-stations run 802.11n. You can change channels on them. Once again, Mac clobbers PC!!!
I never imagined Steve Jobs was British...Clever ruse!
-
All Macs and the Airport (WiFi) base-stations run 802.11n. You can change channels on them. Once again, Mac clobbers PC!!!
Good God. This is as childish as "Wii sucks".
1. 802.11n is not specific to Mac/Airport.
2. 802.11n products started hitting shelves at least a year before Airport Extreme. The difference is that, like any other Apple product, Mac users are more than willing to pay $50-100 more for the same damn technology because Apple obviously must have invented wireless networking and a Mac surely won't work with a Linksys router.
3. All Macs and Airport base stations run Apple's implementation of 802.11n, which may or may not be the final 802.11n standard. If I bought a Mac and Airport station with Apple-N, and then the 802.11n standard ends up being something different, I would be pretty pissed.
-
Good God. This is as childish as "Wii sucks".
1. 802.11n is not specific to Mac/Airport.
2. 802.11n products started hitting shelves at least a year before Airport Extreme. The difference is that, like any other Apple product, Mac users are more than willing to pay $50-100 more for the same damn technology because Apple obviously must have invented wireless networking and a Mac surely won't work with a Linksys router.
3. All Macs and Airport base stations run Apple's implementation of 802.11n, which may or may not be the final 802.11n standard. If I bought a Mac and Airport station with Apple-N, and then the 802.11n standard ends up being something different, I would be pretty pissed.
Never claimed it was proprietary. I simply pointed out that "n" is standard across the Mac range.
It's an upgrade or an add-on for a PC, and then you buy a router from another manufacturer and then you have endless set-up and compatibility problems and then you smash the whole fucking lot to pieces with a ball-peen hammer.
-
It's an upgrade or an add-on for a PC, and then you buy a router from another manufacturer and then you have endless set-up and compatibility problems and then you smash the whole fucking lot to pieces with a ball-peen hammer.
this is a rather large mis-characterization of networking in general wireless or not. Networking is not some intrinsic property of mac's, nor are they some sort of afterthought on PC's.
Just because Apple has chosen to prepackage an implementation of a draft of 802.11n, which must be pointed out, has not been certified as "final" by IEEE, does not confer some innate superiority.
-
All Macs and the Airport (WiFi) base-stations run 802.11n. You can change channels on them. Once again, Mac clobbers PC!!!
Never claimed it was proprietary. I simply pointed out that "n" is standard across the Mac range.
It's an upgrade or an add-on for a PC, and then you buy a router from another manufacturer and then you have endless set-up and compatibility problems and then you smash the whole fucking lot to pieces with a ball-peen hammer.
As another Apple evangelist, I have to take exception to this one. Every generation of Airport base station (b,g, and n) has been insanely overpriced, and remained so long after the rest of the industry dropped prices on their already-cheaper routers. From the 1st generation of Airport, I've been using Netgear routers, which have always played well with my Macs, had more options, and cost a whole lot less.
-
this is a rather large mis-characterization of networking in general wireless or not. Networking is not some intrinsic property of mac's, nor are they some sort of afterthought on PC's.
Just because Apple has chosen to prepackage an implementation of a draft of 802.11n, which must be pointed out, has not been certified as "final" by IEEE, does not confer some innate superiority.
Jealous?
-
Jealous?
Oh just green with it.
-
As another Apple evangelist, I have to take exception to this one. Every generation of Airport base station (b,g, and n) has been insanely overpriced, and remained so long after the rest of the industry dropped prices on their already-cheaper routers. From the 1st generation of Airport, I've been using Netgear routers, which have always played well with my Macs, had more options, and cost a whole lot less.
You mean, your Macs have played well with your Netgear routers. I had endless trouble getting my Dell to hook up to my Linksys router while Mrs Limey's old iMac DVD picked it up without any confusion. Later, her new flat-panel iMac started networking straight away without so much as a "by your leave". Apple has a simple download to upgrade recent Macs to "n", so I did this for her iMac when I got the Airport Extreme. Funny, but my PC didn't have any trouble with the Apple router.
I've had exactly the same experience at a friend's house, for whom I was setting up a non-Mac router to work with his wife's PC and his new iMac. I had exactly the same trouble with the PC, so at least I now had half a clue how as to how to go about getting it up. Still took me a while, though. Then I took his iMac out of the box, plugged it in and got funny looks when I pissed myself laughing as the little WiFi "wave" logo simply appeared in the corner of the screen.
Yes, Apple stuff is more expensive. Considerably so in some cases. But my life is considerably easier having my, and more importantly, my wife's, computer running smoothly, that I gladly pay the premium. Not everyone agrees with this philosophy, and that's fine. But Apple's market share is growing in a growing market (over 7% now) so there is a flight to quality in certain circles. The dog's dinner that is Vista can't have hurt.
-
You mean, your Macs have played well with your Netgear routers...
No, I really mean the Netgear routers. I like their administration a lot - it's easy, robust and has always been configurable from a Mac. I've had to deal with Linksys and D-link routers that absolutely hated my Macs, but the Netgear routers I've used have been great with everything I've thrown at them. And really, the original Airport base station was nothing more than a $60 Lucent WaveLAN wireless card with a 56K modem jammed into a $300 plastic UFO. The Airport card was the exact same Lucent card, again branded as Apple's and sold at a 100% markup.
I love Apple's stuff. I'm just pointing out that simply because Apple sells something doesn't necessarily make it superior, or even an actual Apple-designed product. I absolutely got more out of my $50 home router than I did out of the $300 graphite base station I had at the office. You'll get no argument from me about the ease of getting a Mac onto a network vs. Windows, but the superiority just doesn't extend to the hardware side of the equation.
-
Please, let's keep this on topic!
I left the Ludwig drumsticks that came with Rock Band at my friend's place.
Now I'm going to have to go and buy some REAL drum sticks. What brand do you suggest? If I buy the same ones that are in the Rock Band package all the assholes at Guitar Center will know I'm not a real drummer! Sure I play real guitar (for about 4 months now) but I couldn't stand the humiliation!
WHAT IS A NEUROTIC FAKE BAND PLAYER LIKE MYSELF TO DO?
You mean, your Macs have played well with your Netgear routers. I had endless trouble getting my Dell to hook up to my Linksys router while Mrs Limey's old iMac DVD picked it up without any confusion. Later, her new flat-panel iMac started networking straight away without so much as a "by your leave". Apple has a simple download to upgrade recent Macs to "n", so I did this for her iMac when I got the Airport Extreme. Funny, but my PC didn't have any trouble with the Apple router.
I've had exactly the same experience at a friend's house, for whom I was setting up a non-Mac router to work with his wife's PC and his new iMac. I had exactly the same trouble with the PC, so at least I now had half a clue how as to how to go about getting it up. Still took me a while, though. Then I took his iMac out of the box, plugged it in and got funny looks when I pissed myself laughing as the little WiFi "wave" logo simply appeared in the corner of the screen.
Yes, Apple stuff is more expensive. Considerably so in some cases. But my life is considerably easier having my, and more importantly, my wife's, computer running smoothly, that I gladly pay the premium. Not everyone agrees with this philosophy, and that's fine. But Apple's market share is growing in a growing market (over 7% now) so there is a flight to quality in certain circles. The dog's dinner that is Vista can't have hurt.
-
As another Apple evangelist, I have to take exception to this one. Every generation of Airport base station (b,g, and n) has been insanely overpriced, and remained so long after the rest of the industry dropped prices on their already-cheaper routers. From the 1st generation of Airport, I've been using Netgear routers, which have always played well with my Macs, had more options, and cost a whole lot less.
I've never had a compatibility problem with my G4, iMac or iBook and my D-Link router. The D-Link router and the AT&T DSL modem is another story.
-
I've never had a compatibility problem with my G4, iMac or iBook and my D-Link router. The D-Link router and the AT&T DSL modem is another story.
I've never had any trouble with my (or other people's) Macs and any router. I've had significant troubles with different brands of PC and non-Mac routers. I've had no trouble with PCs and Mac routers.
Which of these things is not like the others?
-
Please, let's keep this on topic!
I left the Ludwig drumsticks that came with Rock Band at my friend's place.
Now I'm going to have to go and buy some REAL drum sticks. What brand do you suggest? If I buy the same ones that are in the Rock Band package all the assholes at Guitar Center will know I'm not a real drummer! Sure I play real guitar (for about 4 months now) but I couldn't stand the humiliation!
WHAT IS A NEUROTIC FAKE BAND PLAYER LIKE MYSELF TO DO?
http://www.amazon.com/dp/B000XZFWPA/ + Overnight shipping. Avoid all that pesky human interaction, which only serves to bring shame.
-
I've never had any trouble with my (or other people's) Macs and any router. I've had significant troubles with different brands of PC and non-Mac routers. I've had no trouble with PCs and Mac routers.
Which of these things is not like the others?
Nice avatar. I call truce, so that I may take my savings from the 3rd-party router and invest it in a Nano, powered by my own smug sense of self-satisfaction.
-
Nice avatar. I call truce, so that I may take my savings from the 3rd-party router and invest it in a Nano, powered by my own smug sense of self-satisfaction.
Enjoy! My fellow stockholders and I thank you.
-
Please, let's keep this on topic!
I left the Ludwig drumsticks that came with Rock Band at my friend's place.
Now I'm going to have to go and buy some REAL drum sticks. What brand do you suggest? If I buy the same ones that are in the Rock Band package all the assholes at Guitar Center will know I'm not a real drummer! Sure I play real guitar (for about 4 months now) but I couldn't stand the humiliation!
WHAT IS A NEUROTIC FAKE BAND PLAYER LIKE MYSELF TO DO?
Vic Firth. You'll want a smaller stick (NTTAWWT) with a nylon tips. Something like 7A would be ideal.
-
Nice avatar. I call truce, so that I may take my savings from the 3rd-party router and invest it in a Nano, powered by my own smug sense of self-satisfaction.
Please ensure that your smug cloud does not merge with George Clooney's acceptance speech.
-
Please ensure that your smug cloud does not merge with George Clooney's acceptance speech.
And don't close your eyes every time you talk.
-
And don't close your eyes every time you talk.
Thaaaaaanks.
-
Thaaaaaanks.
OK, I give up here's some spanking material for all you Apple fans posting to the thread.
Apple ][ Forever!
http://youtube.com/watch?v=YcjlhFVTY50
-
I already know what you're going to say.
"Kiddie console kiddie games gimmick controller no hi-def no home media no hard drive no Halo"
Hopefully you won't have to post a response now.
i wasn't even thinking about all that but thanks for pointing it out. My friend has a Wii and every time i go over there, his kids want to bowl - they bowl from the kitchen and kick my ass. i think it's the beginning of some cool gaming technology but i get so pissed every time i go over there. and i didn't mean to start the Apple - PC network talk either.
-
Oh, and not content with running Windows better than PCs, Macs also now have a better version of MS Office (http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/08_02/b4066000498753.htm?campaign_id=yhoo).
-
For those who might want something like Guitar Hero but that actually teaches techniques that might transfer to a real guitar -- is this what you're looking for?
http://gadgets.boingboing.net/2008/01/03/guitar-wizard-like-g.html
-
For those who might want something like Guitar Hero but that actually teaches techniques that might transfer to a real guitar -- is this what you're looking for?
http://gadgets.boingboing.net/2008/01/03/guitar-wizard-like-g.html
"gadgets.boingboing.net" sounds like the sort of thing you'd hear from a hawker outside a sailor wanna hump-hump bar in Panama City.
-
Oh, and not content with running Windows better than PCs, Macs also now have a better version of MS Office (http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/08_02/b4066000498753.htm?campaign_id=yhoo).
Call me when Macs cure cancer. THEN I'll be impressed.
-
Call me when Macs cure cancer. THEN I'll be impressed.
Jobs' keynote address at the upcoming Macworld conference is on Jan 15...
-
"gadgets.boingboing.net" sounds like the sort of thing you'd hear from a hawker outside a sailor wanna hump-hump bar in Panama City.
clownpenis.fart?
-
Oh, and not content with running Windows better than PCs, Macs also now have a better version of MS Office (http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/08_02/b4066000498753.htm?campaign_id=yhoo).
It's only fair; they had the worst version of Office for years, especially when it came to Outlook vs. Entourage.
Although I don't really see why some of those features make the Mac version better than the PC version. Realistically, who would want to watch a PowerPoint presentation on an iPod?
Then again, I don't understand why anyone would want to watch movies or TV shows on a screen that small, but I digress.
Saving directly to PDF is nice and the automation thing looks handy, but those can probably be achieved on PC versions for free, just not integrated into the software.
-
Realistically, who would want to watch a PowerPoint presentation on an iPod?
Someone wanting to review/rehearse a presentation before giving it. Someone, perhaps the same person, who wants to use the video out feature of their iPod/iPhone to show a presentation.
I reckon that I don't need about 98% of what Office can do. Doesn't mean that the things I don't need aren't important to anyone else.
-
Someone wanting to review/rehearse a presentation before giving it. Someone, perhaps the same person, who wants to use the video out feature of their iPod/iPhone to show a presentation.
Didn't know iPods could do that. Now it makes more sense.
-
Didn't know iPods could do that. Now it makes more sense.
Limey, you got it bad!
-
Didn't know iPods could do that. Now it makes more sense.
They do. Even component video (http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/07/12/20/using_ipodiphone_video_out_background_and_in_depth_review.html).
-
Limey, you got it bad!
If only I was allowed in the Galleria store! But the court case following that unfortunate incident when I walked in with a 12-pack and a fist full of dollar bills...
-
Call me when Macs cure cancer. THEN I'll be impressed.
I do cancer research using a OS X server cluster and Xgrid. I'll let you know when I'm done.
-
I do cancer research using a OS X server cluster and Xgrid.
Isn't that how Peter Parker started?
-
Isn't that how Peter Parker started?
See also Banner, David.
-
I do cancer research using a OS X server cluster and Xgrid. I'll let you know when I'm done.
Well played, sir.
-
For all of you computer saavy folks, what is the story with Windows Vista? Is it going to turn out like Windows ME which only stuck around (and sucked) for a short period of time. I'm looking to get a cheap comp for my home that I can efficiently use my MS office programs (primarily excel) from work. I have had trouble flying through excel on both macs and Vista in the past. Any advice would be greatly appreciated.
-
For all of you computer saavy folks, what is the story with Windows Vista? Is it going to turn out like Windows ME which only stuck around (and sucked) for a short period of time. I'm looking to get a cheap comp for my home that I can efficiently use my MS office programs (primarily excel) from work. I have had trouble flying through excel on both macs and Vista in the past. Any advice would be greatly appreciated.
OpenOffice.
-
For all of you computer saavy folks, what is the story with Windows Vista? Is it going to turn out like Windows ME which only stuck around (and sucked) for a short period of time. I'm looking to get a cheap comp for my home that I can efficiently use my MS office programs (primarily excel) from work. I have had trouble flying through excel on both macs and Vista in the past. Any advice would be greatly appreciated.
Yes, you should get Vista. All Windows users will all get there eventually, but there is clearly not a mad rush. It is a better product than XP and will have a dominant market share eventually, but its just not exciting enough to make anyone go out and buy it to install over XP. For new machines, though, Vista is the right answer. I'll probably start buying it for our office within the next 6 months.
-
I do cancer research using a OS X server cluster and Xgrid. I'll let you know when I'm done.
Typical. Let Mac take all the credit.
-
Yes, you should get Vista. All Windows users will all get there eventually, but there is clearly not a mad rush. It is a better product than XP and will have a dominant market share eventually, but its just not exciting enough to make anyone go out and buy it to install over XP. For new machines, though, Vista is the right answer. I'll probably start buying it for our office within the next 6 months.
Thanks for the advice. I just had a little trepidation considering the shortcuts and tricks and what not in excel seemed a little bit different in Vista. Curses to innovation (sometimes).
-
Yes, you should get Vista. All Windows users will all get there eventually, but there is clearly not a mad rush. It is a better product than XP and will have a dominant market share eventually, but its just not exciting enough to make anyone go out and buy it to install over XP. For new machines, though, Vista is the right answer. I'll probably start buying it for our office within the next 6 months.
Budget for lots of memory upgrades: Vista gorvels the available RAM.
Same for you hostros7: if you're going to buy a WinPC, make sure you boost the available RAM. MS says 1GB is required to run Vista, which is true, if you don't want to do anything else (like run Excel) and you don't mind crawling. If you want to be ok you'll need at least 2GB, but preferably you'll want to have 4GB (http://www.dailytechrag.com/story/vista-requires-4gb-of-ram-for-optimal-performance/2007-02-21) to work satisfactorily.
-
Thanks for the advice. I just had a little trepidation considering the shortcuts and tricks and what not in excel seemed a little bit different in Vista. Curses to innovation (sometimes).
Get an iMac and install your existing Windows OS and MS Office apps on it.
-
Thanks for the advice. I just had a little trepidation considering the shortcuts and tricks and what not in excel seemed a little bit different in Vista. Curses to innovation (sometimes).
I will caution that some of the older software drivers you may depend on with your XP machine may not work on Vista. The answer of course is to get rid of old software and hardware that requires an older OS, but...
I am responsible at work of maintaining a product line of ancient software we've produced for the Education field. Most of the problems we've run into with software we've developed for Windows now ported over to Vista is how said software works with third part utilities that run peripherals (like scanners).
We stay away from Vista until the scanners we're using come up with the proper patches and/or drivers for Vista for their product. That means we have our test labs configured to handle anything from old NT operating systems to Vista. Vista as the main os for everyday use is great, but for testing, it's not there yet until all peripheral hardware people get on-board.
They will eventually or we will migrate away from their product.
-
I will caution that some of the older software drivers you may depend on with your XP machine may not work on Vista. The answer of course is to get rid of old software and hardware that requires an older OS, but...
I had all kinds of problems with Office 2001 on Vista. I never got Outlook to work, for example, and Powerpoint was a bugger. Through my work, I was able to get a deal on Office 2007, so everything is now working, HOWEVER, be aware that Office 2007, while fully functional in Vista (it oughta be) is much different than old versions. I still haven't gotten used to it. Main gripe: they got rid of the old "File-Menu-View" menu that everything has had for the past, what, 20 years? That was as good an idea as changing the IE menus and not giving you the ability to move the back-forward-home-refresh buttons that everybody had known for years.
-
I had all kinds of problems with Office 2001 on Vista. I never got Outlook to work, for example, and Powerpoint was a bugger. Through my work, I was able to get a deal on Office 2007, so everything is now working, HOWEVER, be aware that Office 2007, while fully functional in Vista (it oughta be) is much different than old versions. I still haven't gotten used to it. Main gripe: they got rid of the old "File-Menu-View" menu that everything has had for the past, what, 20 years? That was as good an idea as changing the IE menus and not giving you the ability to move the back-forward-home-refresh buttons that everybody had known for years.
I was (and remain) very pissed off that MS dumped the Favorites button on the File Open dialog boxes in Office 2003. Why? No reason. Just fucking with the shit because that's what they do. Years later I still really dislike almost all of the new features of Office '03 and lament the loss of the stuff they took away. And this from a self-confessed gadget freak who loves updates and changes and new, sparkly objects. Just not anything that Microsoft puts out (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ci2D1ig4df4).
-
Thanks for the advice. I just had a little trepidation considering the shortcuts and tricks and what not in excel seemed a little bit different in Vista. Curses to innovation (sometimes).
To be clear, though, you're referring to differences in Excel 2007 vs Excel 2003, not necisarily XP vs Vista. While I've not yet begun to look into Office 2007, I understand that the Word and Excel are much improved.
-
Budget for lots of memory upgrades: Vista gorvels the available RAM.
Same for you hostros7: if you're going to buy a WinPC, make sure you boost the available RAM. MS says 1GB is required to run Vista, which is true, if you don't want to do anything else (like run Excel) and you don't mind crawling. If you want to be ok you'll need at least 2GB, but preferably you'll want to have 4GB (http://www.dailytechrag.com/story/vista-requires-4gb-of-ram-for-optimal-performance/2007-02-21) to work satisfactorily.
My understanding is that the memory usage is primarily from the optional flashy windows crap. Those with video cards with ample onboard memory dont see the needless consumption of standard memory. I imagine in our office that will be left off.
-
My understanding is that the memory usage is primarily from the optional flashy windows crap. Those with video cards with ample onboard memory dont see the needless consumption of standard memory. I imagine in our office that will be left off.
In order to run faster, Vista pre-loads into RAM what it thinks you're going to want next. If you don't have much RAM, the system ends up spending all its time caching, un-caching and re-caching. You need the extra memory so that all that unseen (and unstoppable) background activity doesn't drag your system down to a crawl. That's why 2 gig is the true bare minimum and 4 gig is recommended.
Also, Vista scales its video output depending on the size of video card you have. That's cool, except that you are charged a premium for any version of Vista above Home Basic (which itself costs nearly twice as much as the fully-featured Leopard OS). Those premium versions (everything except Home Basic) have the Aero "desktop experience", but if you don't have enough memory on graphics card, it'll simply downgrade it. At its lowest ebb, Vista will use the XP graphics software and give you an interface called "Classic", which looks like Windows 2000.
Nice upgrade, eh.
-
but preferably you'll want to have 4GB (http://www.dailytechrag.com/story/vista-requires-4gb-of-ram-for-optimal-performance/2007-02-21) to work satisfactorily.
That isn't what the article says.
"but on Vista, 4GB of RAM may be closer to its "Nirvana," he said."
2GB is what most home users should be getting in a new PC.
-
That isn't what the article says.
"but on Vista, 4GB of RAM may be closer to its "Nirvana," he said."
2GB is what most home users should be getting in a new PC.
4 gig is what MS used to demo Vista when it was first released. If you want it to perform, that's what you need. If you want to spend all that moolah on everything you need to upgrade for it to simply run ok, then 2 gig will do.
Ironically, it is recommended to upgrade an iMac (or MacBook) to 2 gig if you want to install Parallels or VMWare Fusion so that you can run OS X and Windows at the same time.
-
I don't remember ANY of this in Guitar Hero. Do you have to beat the Devil on Expert first?
-
I don't remember ANY of this in Guitar Hero. Do you have to beat the Devil on Expert first?
Nope. Just a 9-year old kid. Should be a breeze.
-
So, if I understand this correctly, Apple is producing equipment that operates all the Microsoft-based software that people want more efficiently if you are willing to pay for it. Is that a correct summation?
-
So, if I understand this correctly, Apple is producing equipment that operates all the Microsoft-based software that people want more efficiently if you are willing to pay for it. Is that a correct summation?
While curing cancer and fondling Limey all at the same time.
-
So, if I understand this correctly, Apple is producing equipment that operates all the Microsoft-based software that people want more efficiently if you are willing to pay for it. Is that a correct summation?
I think a better summation is that you should buy a Tandy 1000. Jordan vs Bird: One on One and DigDug are fucking awesome games.
-
I think a better summation is that you should buy a Tandy 1000. Jordan vs Bird: One on One and DigDug are fucking awesome games.
This is the correct answer. Lock thread, no further replies needed.
-
That's cool, except that you are charged a premium for any version of Vista above Home Basic (which itself costs nearly twice as much as the fully-featured Leopard OS).
But you can only run Leopard on a Mac. C'mon, man. Your crush is in full view.
-
While curing cancer and fondling Limey all at the same time.
Fondling? I doubt it.
Fellatio... There can be no other explanation.
-
Fondling? I doubt it.
Fellatio... There can be no other explanation.
That's not a bite mark in the logo. It's an orifice.
-
That's not a bite mark in the logo. It's an orifice.
Open Orifice?
-
So, if I understand this correctly, Apple is producing equipment that operates all the Microsoft-based software that people want more efficiently if you are willing to pay for it. Is that a correct summation?
Correct. And, no, I didn't miss the double-meaning of your comment. For example, there's no doubt that MS Office is the world leader and, annoying unnecessary tinkerings aside, is damn fine software..Did you know that Office was first written for a Mac before it was converted to Windows?
Regardless, in the realm of OS', Windows blows (and always has) while Mac has always blown Windows' doors off. The reason Windows became more widespread is because IBM licensed its PC technology (then run by DOS which was owned by MS) while Apple kept its Mac technology proprietary. PC prices tumbled and Macs stayed expensive. So when MS clumsily grafted a Macish user interface onto DOS, it had an instant majority market share despite being demonstrably inferior.
Also, the pervasiveness of Windows and all its flaws have conditioned users to expect incompetence and live with it. Example: when I got my first PlayStation, I would save the game I was playing at every opportunity. Not because it helped in the game, but because I didn't want to lose any progress when it crashed. Of course, the PlayStation wasn't running Windows, so it never crashed. But even once I realised exactly what I was doing, why I was doing and that it was just plain silly, I still wasn't comfortable moving forward without saving. Windows had conditioned me for failure. So, when MS comes out with a new version of Windows, that is (a) buggy as hell and (b) requires all kinds of hardware upgrades and maybe even a good computer, we tell ourselves that it is the price of progress, not the cost of Windows' flaws.
By contrast, OS X Leopard will run on Macs first sold in January 2002. Go grab a top of the range PC from 5 years ago, load Vista on it and see how far you get.
-
You're an idiot if you don't save your work, even on a Mac.
Mac is and will always be a niche computing system. They can afford to and that is all well and good. But to say they've done it so much better than Microsoft is comparing grapes to nuts. It's nothing more than Liberal/Conservative, AL/NL, etc.
-
But you can only run Leopard on a Mac. C'mon, man. Your crush is in full view.
As PC World magazing pointed out, when it reported that the fastest notebook for running Vista is a Mac (http://www.pcworld.com/article/id,136649-page,3-c,notebooks/article.html): "...the MacBook's score is far more impressive simply because Apple couldn't care less whether you run Windows."
I need Windows on a Mac solely so that I can run Quicken, because Intuit has ignored Mac users for years. One day, someone will come up with a workable Mac-based competitor to Quicken, or Intuit themselves will produce a workable Mac version, at which point Windows will be gone from my home.
Bottom line:
OS X is better than Vista
Macs are better than PCs
Apple is now 3rd in new computer sales in the US, a distant third behind Dell and HP, but 3rd nonetheless. The market share for Operating Systems is a little harder to judge because Windows is bundled with almost every PC sold, even to those people who dump it for another OS, and some Apple customers will choose to add Windows to their Macs for reasons like the one I explained above. Whatever you think, the buying public are switching to Mac in ever greater numbers.
-
Correct. And, no, I didn't miss the double-meaning of your comment. For example, there's no doubt that MS Office is the world leader and, annoying unnecessary tinkerings aside, is damn fine software..Did you know that Office was first written for a Mac before it was converted to Windows?
Regardless, in the realm of OS', Windows blows (and always has) while Mac has always blown Windows' doors off. The reason Windows became more widespread is because IBM licensed its PC technology (then run by DOS which was owned by MS) while Apple kept its Mac technology proprietary. PC prices tumbled and Macs stayed expensive. So when MS clumsily grafted a Macish user interface onto DOS, it had an instant majority market share despite being demonstrably inferior.
Also, the pervasiveness of Windows and all its flaws have conditioned users to expect incompetence and live with it. Example: when I got my first PlayStation, I would save the game I was playing at every opportunity. Not because it helped in the game, but because I didn't want to lose any progress when it crashed. Of course, the PlayStation wasn't running Windows, so it never crashed. But even once I realised exactly what I was doing, why I was doing and that it was just plain silly, I still wasn't comfortable moving forward without saving. Windows had conditioned me for failure. So, when MS comes out with a new version of Windows, that is (a) buggy as hell and (b) requires all kinds of hardware upgrades and maybe even a good computer, we tell ourselves that it is the price of progress, not the cost of Windows' flaws.
By contrast, OS X Leopard will run on Macs first sold in January 2002. Go grab a top of the range PC from 5 years ago, load Vista on it and see how far you get.
Wow, this is rather silly, don't you think? Condition to failure? How about conditioned you to be very aware that you're dealing with a machine and nothing else. Conditioned to be preventative or cautious or with a firm grasp of reality perhaps?
The day you trust your Mac so much that you don't save appropriately, that is the day you'll be calling tech support crying over a fatal crash with non-saved data or backups.
-
You're an idiot if you don't save your work, even on a Mac.
Mac is and will always be a niche computing system. They can afford to and that is all well and good. But to say they've done it so much better than Microsoft is comparing grapes to nuts. It's nothing more than Liberal/Conservative, AL/NL, etc.
It's niche is getting bigger by the day. I doubt it'll ever come close to tipping Windows off its pedestal, but you should be glad that Apple exists. It makes Windows better because Windows was, is and always will be a poor man's copy of the Mac's OS.
-
Wow, this is rather silly, don't you think? Condition to failure? How about conditioned you to be very aware that you're dealing with a machine and nothing else. Conditioned to be preventative or cautious or with a firm grasp of reality perhaps?
The day you trust your Mac so much that you don't save appropriately, that is the day you'll be calling tech support crying over a fatal crash with non-saved data or backups.
You (and Ty) are simply reinforcing my point.
However, for those of you who cannot let go of your conditioning, Mac offers you Time Machine (http://www.apple.com/macosx/features/timemachine.html), which automatically backs up your system, software and documents, and will keep up with such changes over intervals as small as an hour.
-
As PC World magazing pointed out, when it reported that the fastest notebook for running Vista is a Mac (http://www.pcworld.com/article/id,136649-page,3-c,notebooks/article.html): "...the MacBook's score is far more impressive simply because Apple couldn't care less whether you run Windows."
I need Windows on a Mac solely so that I can run Quicken, because Intuit has ignored Mac users for years. One day, someone will come up with a workable Mac-based competitor to Quicken, or Intuit themselves will produce a workable Mac version, at which point Windows will be gone from my home.
Bottom line:
OS X is better than Vista
Macs are better than PCs
Apple is now 3rd in new computer sales in the US, a distant third behind Dell and HP, but 3rd nonetheless. The market share for Operating Systems is a little harder to judge because Windows is bundled with almost every PC sold, even to those people who dump it for another OS, and some Apple customers will choose to add Windows to their Macs for reasons like the one I explained above. Whatever you think, the buying public are switching to Mac in ever greater numbers.
Take a quick snapshot of the current Mac buying public and then compare it to the wider home computer buyer. You'll get a quick dose of reality indeed. It's sort of like saying one day the turnstile baseball fandom at Minute Maid will one day be as savvy as a well versed OWAer when it comes to baseball. Two very distinct types of fans. The Mac public is unique and will continue to make the product viable... but not widespread because said uniqueness is pretty inherent in the marketing and use of the machine.
Blaming Dell, HP and Microsoft for being better marketers to the mass unwashed public (and putting a good product in their hands nonetheless) is not giving them their due. Your sophistication (and many Mac-ites, of which I was one for the first five years of my computer/digital life, are snobs) is right in line with the product, but as the old line goes "Will it sell in the Midwest?".
The answer seems to be a resounding no because the Apple group has been their own worse enemy when it comes to mass market appeal. And somehow I doubt they even care and would like to stay right where they are ignoring the mass and appealling the few loyalist. So if Mac-ites have any stones to toss at the PC world and the masses, let them without sin cast the first one.
And if you want a machine that will outperform your Mac, then buy a million dollar Kray machine and have it installed. See, dollars and common sense pays a big role in what people buy and will use. If savings in dollars means more saving in backups, I'll make that trade and so would many other people. But if you want to talk superior machine, you're not even close when it comes to a Mac.
-
You (and Ty) are simply reinforcing my point.
However, for those of you who cannot let go of your conditioning, Mac offers you Time Machine (http://www.apple.com/macosx/features/timemachine.html), which automatically backs up your system, software and documents, and will keep up with such changes over intervals as small as an hour.
That "however" in your statement is a reinforcement from the great holy Apple office that you better damn well wake up and realize your talking about a machine and machines are prone to failure.
You, Mr. Human, have a brain and should put it to good use and do your due dillegence to make sure your valuable data is well protected. Not by the machine you so sincerely trust, but by you, the human in this equation.
-
It's niche is getting bigger by the day. I doubt it'll ever come close to tipping Windows off its pedestal, but you should be glad that Apple exists. It makes Windows better because Windows was, is and always will be a poor man's copy of the Mac's OS.
You should be glad Microsoft/Windows exists because if not, Apple would be what MS is.
And just to be clear, I'm not anti-Apple. Far from it. I'm considering buying a MacBook Pro for the very reasons you state. But the zeal with which people pimp the product and attack the competition is strange. They fail to see that if Apple had the 90% share, they'd have all the problems Windows has now.
-
That "however" in your statement is a reinforcement from the great holy Apple office that you better damn well wake up and realize your talking about a machine and machines are prone to failure.
You, Mr. Human, have a brain and should put it to good use and do your due dillegence to make sure your valuable data is well protected. Not by the machine you so sincerely trust, but by you, the human in this equation.
Which is why my data is stored on a 1.3 TB RAID5 dual-processor server running FreeBSD. Did I mention I put it together for less than $2000? I love technology.
Now, one gripe I have about my iMac - iPhoto doesn't know how to deal with a photo repository on a remote machine. It wants to copy everything over to the local machine. iTunes works great across the net (for the most part) but iPhoto doesn't.
-
Take a quick snapshot of the current Mac buying public and then compare it to the wider home computer buyer. You'll get a quick dose of reality indeed. It's sort of like saying one day the turnstile baseball fandom at Minute Maid will one day be as savvy as a well versed OWAer when it comes to baseball. Two very distinct types of fans. The Mac public is unique and will continue to make the product viable... but not widespread because said uniqueness is pretty inherent in the marketing and use of the machine.
Blaming Dell, HP and Microsoft for being better marketers to the mass unwashed public (and putting a good product in their hands nonetheless) is not giving them their due. Your sophistication (and many Mac-ites, of which I was one for the first five years of my computer/digital life, are snobs) is right in line with the product, but as the old line goes "Will it sell in the Midwest?".
The answer seems to be a resounding no because the Apple group has been their own worse enemy when it comes to mass market appeal. And somehow I doubt they even care and would like to stay right where they are ignoring the mass and appealling the few loyalist. So if Mac-ites have any stones to toss at the PC world and the masses, let them without sin cast the first one.
I think you're looking at the old Mac community. The new Mac community now includes people like four of my colleagues who are totally tech unsavvy, but took my recommendation of an iMac when they were looking for a new computer at home. All four of them us a PC (with XP) at work, and all four of them yearn for the ease of use of their Macs when at the office.
People who have Windows fall into two categories, IMHO. Those who can get under its hood and fiddle with it until it works for them, and those who haven't a clue and just put up with a machine that just about works for them, but not very well. It's the latter group that Apple is targeting lately, and its working. Clearly, Macs price entry point is prohibitive for many, but as Steve Jobs said...
-
You should be glad Microsoft/Windows exists because if not, Apple would be what MS is.
And just to be clear, I'm not anti-Apple. Far from it. I'm considering buying a MacBook Pro for the very reasons you state. But the zeal with which people pimp the product and attack the competition is strange. They fail to see that if Apple had the 90% share, they'd have all the problems Windows has now.
You're forgetting that I'm not just a user, I'm a stock holder.
-
You're forgetting that I'm not just a user, I'm a stock holder.
Yeah, but you're like every other Mac user I know, stockholder or not.
-
Now, one gripe I have about my iMac - iPhoto doesn't know how to deal with a photo repository on a remote machine. It wants to copy everything over to the local machine. iTunes works great across the net (for the most part) but iPhoto doesn't.
There were some improvements to iPhoto with the '08 version. Dunno if this was one of them, though.
-
Yeah, but you're like every other Mac user I know, stockholder or not.
Interesting.
Mac users = enthusiastic fanboys (http://members.tripod.com/wliias8_sam/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/willspartancheerleader.jpg).
Windows users = conditioned to suffer (http://www.filmsite.org/speeches/joevolcano.jpg)
-
I think you're looking at the old Mac community. The new Mac community now includes people like four of my colleagues who are totally tech unsavvy, but took my recommendation of an iMac when they were looking for a new computer at home. All four of them us a PC (with XP) at work, and all four of them yearn for the ease of use of their Macs when at the office.
People who have Windows fall into two categories, IMHO. Those who can get under its hood and fiddle with it until it works for them, and those who haven't a clue and just put up with a machine that just about works for them, but not very well. It's the latter group that Apple is targeting lately, and its working. Clearly, Macs price entry point is prohibitive for many, but as Steve Jobs said...
Of course, and as Ty said, I'm not anti-Mac either. My mother-in-law uses a MacBook bought for her by my sister-in-law so she can use the out of the box multimedia machine to keep in video touch with her daughter in Turkey. Many technology needs like this are increasing the appeal of the Mac and I and everyone else knows it.
But by and large, Apple has ignored Mr. and Mrs. Joe Public for personal home needs until this revolution of multimedia hit several years ago. Now they're are more aligned to grab a market share because of the multimedia needs in today's techno world than the regular WinPC world. So while the Apple moves downward to grab that share, the movement is upward for WinPC makers. Such as the Dell XPS line and the Gateways attempt to do the same with the "One" machine and others such as these. Is it a wide appeal since it's multimedia?
Not yet and Vista is just a way to position the WinPC world away from the *now* everyday world of home use PCs (e-mail, browsing, et. al.). It reminds me of the Hi-Def warnings of ten years ago and how people predicted that in America the manufacturers of the regular analog systems would never catch up and give way to the paradigm shift coming in due time and a whole new market would appear. Much of that was baloney early on because the Hi-Def market was niche at the time. Until the Hi-Def market started to have Hi-Def producers (regular broadcast and all), it was no where near the market it is now. Now, in 2009, the market will explode and all television makers are well positioned to make the switch in product lines.
Same will happen to the PC world once multimedia *really* becomes the norm. You're at the front lines of the multimedia explosion however give it a few more years and then when it becomes the norm that producers of software have more and more multimedia aspects to it, I highly doubt that the PC makers will be caught with their pants down and saying that they will happily still serve the old market as is.
You can see the shift happening. So while Apple comes down to grab some of the market because of this multimedia window, the WinPC world will go upward to retain a fair chunk... and keep it at reasonable prices for the masses.
"Hey Mrs. X... you want to video conference with your daughter in Turkey? Sure, no problem... for 399 dollars, we have this really nice laptop right here that...."
-
Interesting.
Mac users = enthusiastic fanboys (http://members.tripod.com/wliias8_sam/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/willspartancheerleader.jpg).
Windows users = conditioned to suffer (http://www.filmsite.org/speeches/joevolcano.jpg)
Mac users = In hock over the prices for a multimedia machine... *NOW*... so they can watch videos on a 2 inch screen on a phone.
Windows users = savvy, budget minded and can handle most of what comes their way with a machine.
Anyone can make hyperbolic statements.
-
There were some improvements to iPhoto with the '08 version. Dunno if this was one of them, though.
Both iPhoto and iMovie were improved in iLife '08, but they're still not quite what iTunes is. Of course, iTunes is a vehicle used to sell Apple's most successful product ever, so it stands to reason that iTunes is the most-user friendly and advanced out of the iLife suite.
-
I am now exponentially gayer for having read this thread. Each and every one of you is damn lucky I dont' come to your house and beat the living shit out of you.
-
Yeah, but you're like every other Mac user I know, stockholder or not.
Hey, hey, hey...
-
Correct. And, no, I didn't miss the double-meaning of your comment.
I was just trying to put a humorous spin on the thread, and yes, I know the history very well. I have always worked on MS based machines, for the most part, and I am one of the last to ask for the latest and greatest. But then againn, I rarely push the limits of my computers. When I get a stable OS, I have to be forced off of it.
-
Yes, you should get Vista. All Windows users will all get there eventually, but there is clearly not a mad rush. It is a better product than XP and will have a dominant market share eventually, but its just not exciting enough to make anyone go out and buy it to install over XP.
If you are happy with your current hardware configuration (e.g. you don't want/need a new motherboard or processor) and aren't experiencing any problems, I would stick with XP. I have four XP machines that are all very stable. One of them is my wife's laptop we bought in fall '06, and it came with a free upgrade to Vista Home Premium. The DVD has been collecting dust on our shelf. Similarly, I have toyed with the idea of upgrading my main computer to Vista, but when neither of the x86 or x64 versions of the Vista RC2 would install on my computer, I decided to hold off for a while.
(Note that I am a notorious early adopter of the latest and greatest, so this goes against all my instincts.)
For new machines, though, Vista is the right answer.
Not necessarily, especially in workplace environments.
I'll probably start buying it for our office within the next 6 months.
Are you going to upgrade all your computers? If not, that sounds like a compatibility nightmare waiting to happen.
And BTW - I started typing this reply this afternoon, then had to leave for a while, and found 38 replies had been posted since. Don't you people have better things to do on a Friday afternoon/night?
-
Hey, hey, hey...
I said 'every other'. You know, like one's cool, the other carries a picture of Jobs in his wallet.
-
I said 'every other'. You know, like one's cool, the other carries a picture of Jobs in his wallet.
I hope Jackasteo has a picture of Jobs in his wallet...
-
Today's newly-found Vista gripe: You can't password protect a zip file in Vista. Now why in the hell would they take away THAT functionality?
-
If you are happy with your current hardware configuration (e.g. you don't want/need a new motherboard or processor) and aren't experiencing any problems, I would stick with XP. I have four XP machines that are all very stable. One of them is my wife's laptop we bought in fall '06, and it came with a free upgrade to Vista Home Premium. The DVD has been collecting dust on our shelf. Similarly, I have toyed with the idea of upgrading my main computer to Vista, but when neither of the x86 or x64 versions of the Vista RC2 would install on my computer, I decided to hold off for a while.
(Note that I am a notorious early adopter of the latest and greatest, so this goes against all my instincts.)
Not necessarily, especially in workplace environments.
Are you going to upgrade all your computers? If not, that sounds like a compatibility nightmare waiting to happen.
And BTW - I started typing this reply this afternoon, then had to leave for a while, and found 38 replies had been posted since. Don't you people have better things to do on a Friday afternoon/night?
We have ~250 PCs on a 3 year lifecycle, so I rotate 80-90 a year. We wont upgrade the XP machines to Vista until we get through at least this years new machines which will come with Vista. And it's quite possible we may not ever upgrade them, and simply wait until it is time to replace them, too.
-
Since we've gotten into computer guts talk again, I'd just like to say that if you've got some Microsoft Points (or however the other consoles are doing it) get "Gimmie Three Steps" by Lynyrd Skynyrd. Harmonix was apparently in a Southern rock mood because they also released "Hard to Handle" by The Black Crowes, but Steps is a lot of fun, especially if you're not good at hammer on/pull offs (the small notes). Took me quite a while to 5* it on Hard and it never got boring.
-
Since we've gotten into computer guts talk again, I'd just like to say that if you've got some Microsoft Points (or however the other consoles are doing it) get "Gimmie Three Steps" by Lynyrd Skynyrd. Harmonix was apparently in a Southern rock mood because they also released "Hard to Handle" by The Black Crowes, but Steps is a lot of fun, especially if you're not good at hammer on/pull offs (the small notes). Took me quite a while to 5* it on Hard and it never got boring.
I know I'm going to regret asking this...but, how do you do hammers and pulls without actual strings?
-
I know I'm going to regret asking this...but, how do you do hammers and pulls without actual strings?
I'm going to try to describe it, but I'm not good at painting a verbal picture. I'm going to assume you know nothing about the game, so if I sound condescending it is purely unintentional. Here goes nothing.
With Rock Band, playing the guitar involves a playing field separated into 5 different columns, each column representing one of the buttons on the neck of the "guitar". Horizontal bars come down the 5 columns, each bar representing a note. The larger of the two are regular notes and are played by hitting the corresponding color button on the neck of the guitar and hitting the strum bar (a small lever on the body of the guitar that acts as strumming the string on a regular guitar) at the appropriate time. The smaller of the two bars are HO/POs and are played by simply tapping the corresponding color button. It's a pain since you have to time it exactly (with regular notes you can hit the button early, only the timing on the strum bar counts). Plus, the game's creator loved using them to go up and down the scales quickly.
Sorry if that's not a very clear explanation.
Guitar Hero uses much the same process (makes sense seeing as how the same company designed Rock Band and Guitar Hero 1 and 2) but the HO/POs are represented differently (notes are circular, HO/POs have a solid white center while regular notes have a black outline). Same concept though. Here's a closer look at "Through the Fire and the Flames". Not as good as the kid earlier, but it's a better look at what the game screen looks like:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W4M7f4-bhbE&feature=related
-
Take a quick snapshot of the current Mac buying public and then compare it to the wider home computer buyer. You'll get a quick dose of reality indeed. It's sort of like saying one day the turnstile baseball fandom at Minute Maid will one day be as savvy as a well versed OWAer when it comes to baseball. Two very distinct types of fans. The Mac public is unique and will continue to make the product viable... but not widespread because said uniqueness is pretty inherent in the marketing and use of the machine.
Blaming Dell, HP and Microsoft for being better marketers to the mass unwashed public (and putting a good product in their hands nonetheless) is not giving them their due. Your sophistication (and many Mac-ites, of which I was one for the first five years of my computer/digital life, are snobs) is right in line with the product, but as the old line goes "Will it sell in the Midwest?".
The answer seems to be a resounding no because the Apple group has been their own worse enemy when it comes to mass market appeal. And somehow I doubt they even care and would like to stay right where they are ignoring the mass and appealling the few loyalist. So if Mac-ites have any stones to toss at the PC world and the masses, let them without sin cast the first one.
And if you want a machine that will outperform your Mac, then buy a million dollar Kray machine and have it installed. See, dollars and common sense pays a big role in what people buy and will use. If savings in dollars means more saving in backups, I'll make that trade and so would many other people. But if you want to talk superior machine, you're not even close when it comes to a Mac.
Kray? Dude, you are so 1980's!
-
Which is why my data is stored on a 1.3 TB RAID5 dual-processor server running FreeBSD. Did I mention I put it together for less than $2000? I love technology.
Nate, my man, even RAID5 (parity w/ striping - just to illustrate I know what I'm talking about) can fail. Please, please, please back up to tape or writeable DVD/CD if it's critical data. And then, once you've done that, test your backups regularly. You will not regret this process, despite the extra time.
-
I was just trying to put a humorous spin on the thread, and yes, I know the history very well. I have always worked on MS based machines, for the most part, and I am one of the last to ask for the latest and greatest. But then againn, I rarely push the limits of my computers. When I get a stable OS, I have to be forced off of it.
Amen, Brother!
-
By the way, for anyone still reading, forget everything I said earlier about the wireless Rock Band guitar on PS3 interfering with wireless access points. I was fooled by a quick change.
The real issue is that my Rock Band guitar has a defective strum bar. Every time I press the strum bar up, it strums twice. EA has a pretty good replacement system in place, or so I've heard. Everyone I know that has Rock Band got a defective guitar and has already had to have it replaced.
-
I'm going to try to describe it, but I'm not good at painting a verbal picture. I'm going to assume you know nothing about the game, so if I sound condescending it is purely unintentional. Here goes nothing.
With Rock Band, playing the guitar involves a playing field separated into 5 different columns, each column representing one of the buttons on the neck of the "guitar". Horizontal bars come down the 5 columns, each bar representing a note. The larger of the two are regular notes and are played by hitting the corresponding color button on the neck of the guitar and hitting the strum bar (a small lever on the body of the guitar that acts as strumming the string on a regular guitar) at the appropriate time. The smaller of the two bars are HO/POs and are played by simply tapping the corresponding color button. It's a pain since you have to time it exactly (with regular notes you can hit the button early, only the timing on the strum bar counts). Plus, the game's creator loved using them to go up and down the scales quickly.
Sorry if that's not a very clear explanation.
Guitar Hero uses much the same process (makes sense seeing as how the same company designed Rock Band and Guitar Hero 1 and 2) but the HO/POs are represented differently (notes are circular, HO/POs have a solid white center while regular notes have a black outline). Same concept though. Here's a closer look at "Through the Fire and the Flames". Not as good as the kid earlier, but it's a better look at what the game screen looks like:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W4M7f4-bhbE&feature=related
It's basically Dance Dance Revolution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dance_Dance_Revolution) for the lazy.
-
I do cancer research using a OS X server cluster and Xgrid. I'll let you know when I'm done.
Too late (http://www.theonion.com/content/amvo/anti_cancer_machine_invented?utm_source=onion_rss_daily).
-
Are people no longer using Commodore 64's? The casette tape drive is awesome.
-
It's niche is getting bigger by the day. I doubt it'll ever come close to tipping Windows off its pedestal, but you should be glad that Apple exists. It makes Windows better because Windows was, is and always will be a poor man's copy of the Mac's OS.
Apparently, Apple also makes Dell and HP PCs better (http://online.wsj.com/public/article_print/SB119940267392266173.html).
-
Too late (http://www.theonion.com/content/amvo/anti_cancer_machine_invented?utm_source=onion_rss_daily).
Well, this sucks. Looks like I won't have to finish my tribute poem to Steve Wosniak in my Nobel prize acceptance speech.
[P.S. Those of us who get their science reporting from non-Onion sources know that nano-particle tagging has been around a few years before this dude. Its pretty cool, but needs some work.]