PDA

View Full Version : HP: No WMA for iPod.


MacBytes
Jan 13, 2004, 11:00 AM
Category: News and Press Releases
Link: HP: No WMA for iPod. (http://www.macbytes.com/link.php?sid=20040113120016)

Posted on MacBytes.com (http://www.macbytes.com)

Approved by Mudbug

Mord
Jan 13, 2004, 11:07 AM
More proff that thurrot is an idiot, apple would never allow wma on the ipod it is substandard.

There should be a petition to have thurrot fired for being so insanely up bill gates @ss.

vniow
Jan 13, 2004, 11:15 AM
I think its time for the second official vniow No **** Sherlock award.

duce
Jan 13, 2004, 11:29 AM
Just because the neysayers shout first doesn't mean its the truth. Why believe that its PC (pun intended) to pander to MS or MS technology? I commend HP in using logic over false assumptions on what are customer needs. Because MS made the codex and player on the specific platform need not be the best now does it?

nickmcghie
Jan 13, 2004, 12:30 PM
Originally posted by Hector
more proff that thurrot is an idiot apple would never allow wma on the ipod it is substandard.

there should be a petition to have thurrot fired for being so insanely up bill gates @ss

hi, it'd be great if you could use some puncuation in your sentences. it's really confusing and annoying to read comments like yours. even though the content may be good, it doesn't really matter because people won't enjoying reading through it

but anyway, i must say that i do completely agree with what you have to say. paul thurrot is a mega idiot, and i don't understand how he can make a living doing what he does (perhaps he secretly works for bill gates?)

machinehien
Jan 13, 2004, 12:37 PM
I think by now everyone knows that Paul Thurrot is an astroturfer. WMA? Superior? Not bloody likely. Not bloody likely at all!

I don't know how he came to be a tech writer in the first place. Does he use his computer for anything other than glorifying Microsoft or making way off predictions regarding apple?

simX
Jan 13, 2004, 12:52 PM
Originally posted by vniow
I think its time for the second official vniow No **** Sherlock award.

Hahahahahaha. Good one.

Personally, I think AtAT's (http://www.appleturns.com/) opinion of Paul Thurrott is best: "It's all too clear that Bill Gates need never experience a colonoscopy, because he can always ask Paul Thurrott to give Bill's doctor an eyewitness account of just how things are going up there."

Gymnut
Jan 13, 2004, 01:26 PM
Poor babies :D

1macker1
Jan 13, 2004, 02:50 PM
What company ran the test that said WMA was inferior to AAC, or vice versa?

nagromme
Jan 13, 2004, 04:34 PM
Tom's Hardware Guide finds AAC is superior both by waveform analysis and by listening tests--better quality per file size than WMA:
http://www6.tomshardware.com/consumer/20020712/2u4u-05.html


As for AAC and WMA, the biggest difference was clarity. At the same bit rate, AAC offered a clearer and closer sound to the original, beating out WMA.

And look at this:

Green is original sound
Blue is AAC (follows the green closely)
Yellow is WMA (deviating from the original sound in a band humans CAN hear)
Red is MP3 (deviating even worse than WMA)

http://www6.tomshardware.com/consumer/20020712/images/all.jpg

(Thanks to whoever posted the link to Tom's.)

1macker1
Jan 13, 2004, 04:42 PM
I didnt see any information on which waveform was which, and the 2nd link lead to a blank page.

He said that the AAC file had more clarity, but that's just an opinion.

Nermal
Jan 13, 2004, 05:05 PM
... what do I want to look at a picture of a hammer for? :confused:

irmongoose
Jan 14, 2004, 05:22 AM
Nermal: Once the page has loaded, click the address bar and press Return. It's detecting that it's linked from somewhere so it doesn't show the actual image, but it's fine if the user directly goes there.



irmongoose

kettle
Jan 14, 2004, 05:56 AM
Not sure which thread is which, I do know that this HP/Apple page (http://daringfireball.net) has a good take on it