Windows Vista Beta 1 and Tiger

[rxse7en]

Please show me where you encoded all your CD's to 24-bit 96khz surround sound encoded AAC from Quicktime or iTunes. That was the topic of discussion, remember? Otherwise you're just using regular 16-bit, 44.1-48kHz encoding.

128kbps for mine...

 

[Rod Rod]

And you can't encode that from Quicktime, iTunes, or Compressor just like I said.

You can create/encode/edit multichannel sound in QuickTime Pro. Just add more channels and give them the appropriate assignment (Left, Right, Center, LFE, Left Surround, etc etc).

 

[BGil]

128kbps for mine...

kbps, kHz and 24-bit are not the same thing.

You can create/encode/edit multichannel sound in QuickTime Pro. Just add more channels and give them the appropriate assignment (Left, Right, Center, LFE, Left Surround, etc etc).

Yes, it does but where is the multichannel AAC at 24-bit and 96kHz?

 

[MontyZ]

.

 

[Rower_CPU]

BGil-

Forgive us if we take ship date estimates from Microsoft with a boulder-sized grain of salt.

And the topic is the comparison of the beta Windows Vista OS versus OS X Tiger. Start a new thread if you want to debate whose media player codecs are superior to whose and tone down the attitude.

Thanks

 

[beatle888]

Dude, give it a rest. You're just asking for a world of pain if you think you're going to convince anyone here that Windows is better than OSX. Many of us have actually used Windows in the past, and we know better.

Hahahaha..... a world of pain. i love it. that sure does fit BGil how can he not have any respect for apple? i hate windows but i definitely respect them.

 

[271]

Yes, it does but where is the multichannel AAC at 24-bit and 96kHz?

all this seems obvious/redundant but i just have to spit it out...

it's really not important unless the thing you are encoding is in that format anyway.. encoding a stereo CD that's in 16/44 to a multichannel surround is stupid at any sample rate/bit depth. the extra channels aren't there to being with.

if you have something that's DVD audio, or what's the sony format?? superaudio CD that are surround mixes then of course you want to encode it in a format that can playback those surround mixes back.

the same way you would get nothing out of playing a stereo CD thru surround set up. you just get a washed out stereo image with nonsense given over to the other channels. it's not a true surround sound mix.

any record that is made for DVDA or superaudio CD is remixed. it's a completely different mix from the stereo mix. they dont just taket he stero mix and encode it into surround they remix the entire albuma nd pan things differently and 'place' sounds and ambiences etc where whoever the mix engineer thigks they should go.. then that mix is encoded into whatever multichannel format they want (DVDA or superaudio CD)

 

[BGil]

all this seems obvious/redundant but i just have to spit it out...

it's really not important unless the thing you are encoding is in that format anyway.. encoding a stereo CD that's in 16/44 to a multichannel surround is stupid at any sample rate/bit depth. the extra channels aren't there to being with.

if you have something that's DVD audio, or what's the sony format?? superaudio CD that are surround mixes then of course you want to encode it in a format that can playback those surround mixes back.

the same way you would get nothing out of playing a stereo CD thru surround set up. you just get a washed out stereo image with nonsense given over to the other channels. it's not a true surround sound mix.

any record that is made for DVDA or superaudio CD is remixed. it's a completely different mix from the stereo mix. they dont just taket he stero mix and encode it into surround they remix the entire albuma nd pan things differently and 'place' sounds and ambiences etc where whoever the mix engineer thigks they should go.. then that mix is encoded into whatever multichannel format they want (DVDA or superaudio CD)

Yes, you're preaching to the choir. I wasn't the one implying that I encoded my CD's in that format. I think music in surround is really bad in most instances. DVD's and movies are great in surround though.

 

[rendezvouscp]

Yes, you're preaching to the choir. I wasn't the one implying that I encoded my CD's in that format. I think music in surround is really bad in most instances. DVD's and movies are great in surround though.

It's a wonder that the choir complains about something they don't even use themselves.

"I'm sorry, but WE DON'T HAVE ANY FRIGGIN' TUBAS! WHERE ARE THE TUBAS?"

"Ma'am, what piece requires a tuba?"

"We don't require a tuba, I was just wondering why we don't have one."

I think I've gone too far with the analogy...

Perhaps we'll go back on topic (then again, perhaps not, seeing that I just talked about an actual choir).

In the article it said 10,000 testers, but I believe a recent CNN report said 500,000. Anyone know what it actual is?

Perhaps not on topic, but closer to it.
-Chase

 

[BGil]

It's a wonder that the choir complains about something they don't even use themselves.

I work on a Mac daily as well as provide tech support for them. I use FCP, Compressor, Soundtrack Pro, and DVDSP all the time. I know what they can and can not do.

And I just got another Mac from freemacminis.com

I'm as much a Mac user as anyone else on this forum.

 

[BGil]

In the article it said 10,000 testers, but I believe a recent CNN report said 500,000. Anyone know what it actual is?

It was 100,000 beta testers. 15,000 people recieved their copies each day until Aug 3rd.

Beta 2 will be publically downloadable for free by anyone who wants to run it. I think MS said they are expecting over 3 million testers for Beta 2.

 

[chucknorris]

Please show me where you encoded all your CD's to 24-bit 96khz surround sound encoded AAC from Quicktime or iTunes. That was the topic of discussion, remember? Otherwise you're just using regular 16-bit, 44.1-48kHz encoding.

Well, the original topic was whether or not AAC supported surround-sound encoding, which it does. Contrary to the first argument you tried to make.

You then said, Quicktime, iTunes, and Compressor couldn't encode to "that," presumably AAC, which is of course not true. I'm not sure what your intended meaning was, but you seem to be quite adept at revisionist posting.

This particular argument begs the question: why would it be desirable to have these programs encode to an "inferior" format, as you so aptly put it?

(Anybody who's heard 128 kbps WMA vs. 128 kbps AAC would likely choose a different word for the quality of AAC)

By the way, you've evidently underestimated M-soft's ability to cut features from Vista. Goodbye Monad!

 

[jaw04005]

It was 100,000 beta testers. 15,000 people recieved their copies each day until Aug 3rd.

Beta 2 will be publically downloadable for free by anyone who wants to run it. I think MS said they are expecting over 3 million testers for Beta 2.

Since when has Microsoft allowed enthusiasts to download a beta version of a flagship product for free? The current Beta 1 download runs 2GB. There is no way Microsoft is going to allow that kind of bandwidth access to the public. I expect a $30-35 charge for a Beta 2 kit that includes Beta 2 on DVD and access to RC 1 and RC 2 via download.

 

[chucknorris]

Since when has Microsoft allowed enthusiasts to download a beta version of a flagship product for free? The current Beta 1 download runs 2GB. There is no way Microsoft is going to allow that kind of bandwidth access to the public. I expect a $30-35 charge for a Beta 2 kit that includes Beta 2 on DVD and access to RC 1 and RC 2 via download.

Yeah, that sounds much more plausible to me.

3 million people trying to make a 2 GB download in about the same timeframe? I don't think so!

 

[rendezvouscp]

I work on a Mac daily as well as provide tech support for them. I use FCP, Compressor, Soundtrack Pro, and DVDSP all the time. I know what they can and can not do.

And I just got another Mac from freemacminis.com

I'm as much a Mac user as anyone else on this forum.

Wait, you do know why I said that though, right? You said that you see no point in having your music encoded in that specific type, but yet you were complaining about it.

BTW, it'd be more reassuring that you actually had a Mac if it was in your sig. The fact that the only system in your sig is a PC doesn't exactly help your case if you know what I mean.

On the Microsoft Beta 2 download, haven't they allowed the public to test their products while in beta before? The downloading doesn't make sense, but I think they've allowed the public to test betas for free before.
-Chase

 

[BGil]

Well, the original topic was whether or not AAC supported surround-sound encoding, which it does. Contrary to the first argument you tried to make.

You then said, Quicktime, iTunes, and Compressor couldn't encode to "that," presumably AAC, which is of course not true. I'm not sure what your intended meaning was, but you seem to be quite adept at revisionist posting.

Wrong. Here is what was said:
And you can go do some research if you think Apple's AAC is better than WMA. Does Apple's AAC (iTunes, QT, Compressor) support 24-bit 96kHz surround sound encoding? No. End of story.

Never once did I say those apps didn't encode to AAC or surround sound (iTunes does not). I said they didn't encode to both AAC, and surround sound as well as 96kHz and 24-bit. For clarification (because you seem to have trouble), that's one file encoded from QT, iTunes, or Compressor that is AAC, 5.1 or 7.1, 24-bit, and 96 kHz. Again, WMA Pro does this quite easily and you can download numerous trailers and movies online with audio encoded like that. Notice that none of Apple's trailers have their audio encoded similarily?

(Anybody who's heard 128 kbps WMA vs. 128 kbps AAC would likely choose a different word for the quality of AAC)

1. All AAc, like MP3 encoders, are not the same. So some are better and some are worse.
2. Nearly everybody says WMA 9.1 Standard (VBR) and AAC from iTunes are about the same. You can break out the high-end encoders and audio equipement if you want and you'll see what my tests have shown... with proper settings most AAC and WMA encoders produce pretty similar sounding files. At lower bitrates (64 and below) HE-AAC sounds much better but AFAIK nothing Apple sells can encode that. I had to encode it from Nero.
3. WMA Pro is far and away better than what comes out of iTunes, the iTMS, and QT. That's why it's used in Landmark Theaters Digital Projection Systems, in numerous Pionner recievers (among others), and on current shipping high-definition DVD's.

By the way, you've evidently underestimated M-soft's ability to cut features from Vista. Goodbye Monad!

WOW!!! LOL!!!
Monad ships as part the free developer tools always has, and always will. Good luck trying to come up with more FUD.

Here's the download if you want to see for yourself.

So far all indications are that it'll ship (final version) at the same time as Exchange 12, which is before Vista.

 

[BGil]

Wait, you do know why I said that though, right? You said that you see no point in having your music encoded in that specific type, but yet you were complaining about it.

BTW, it'd be more reassuring that you actually had a Mac if it was in your sig. The fact that the only system in your sig is a PC doesn't exactly help your case if you know what I mean.

On the Microsoft Beta 2 download, haven't they allowed the public to test their products while in beta before? The downloading doesn't make sense, but I think they've allowed the public to test betas for free before.
-Chase

Wait, you do know why I said that though, right? You said that you see no point in having your music encoded in that specific type, but yet you were complaining about it.

There are other audio sources besides music that one may want to encode, ya know. I for one rip many of my DVD's in addition to creating video and film soundtracks encoded in 5.1. At the moment, WMA Pro is by far the best way to handle such media and Apple offers nothing that competes.

And yes, Microsoft offered free downloads of Windows XP 64-bit beta, Windows Server 2003 64-bit beta, Windows Server 2003 beta, Windows ME RC0 and RC1, Office 2003 Beta, OneNote Beta, and IIRC a Whister (XP) Beta as well.

Currently they have free trial versions of Windows Server 2003, Windows XP 64-bit, and Windows Server 2003 64-bit on their website. The trial versions last between 120 and 360 days. The Office 2003 trials are generally 60 days.

Since when has a Microsoft site ever had a problem with bandwidth? MSDN subscribers have access to virtually every Microsoft software product ever made, all available over the internet. The downloads are always super fast too.

 

[Rower_CPU]

...

Since when has a Microsoft site ever had a problem with bandwidth?

...

As recently as last week.

 

[JFreak]

why Sonar, WaveLab, and SoundForge sell so many copies?

there are more hobbyists than professionals.

why ProTools Venue only runs on XP-based systems

venue is a standalone system and does only run on digidesign system. it can be operated in a live venue without a computer, and that's where it got its name. it is an embedded system.

Emagic thought there was enough reason to cater to Windows users.

it had a right to do so. apple didn't think so, and it also has a right to do whatever suits them best. apple is not in a business of losing money.

if Windows users are the ones using ProTools LE and other desktop based DAW's and Mac users are using high-end ProTools HD systems then why remove Logic (a desktop DAW) from Windows where the users are more likely to pick it over ProTools? Like you said, Professionals on the Mac are most likely going to want a ProTools (HD) system so Logic has no place there.

didn't i just explain you a few posts ago that logic is used quite differently than protools, and that logic is better in midi than protools? logic is a tool for professionals, really. if some professionals choose not to use protools, they very likely use logic pro, and those of us who have chosen protools still likely use the lesser version of logic, which is good for what it's good.

most music studios are using Macs because that's what they've traditionally used and change in the industry is very slow.

yes, we are. what works is good. macintosh doesn't get in my way, windows does. conclusion: use mac, not windows. that's how audio professionals do think. and yes, we are the people who venture exciting new software on a secondary workstation. we only use what works as a primary.

 

[jaw04005]

And yes, Microsoft offered free downloads of Windows XP 64-bit beta, Windows Server 2003 64-bit beta, Windows Server 2003 beta, Windows ME RC0 and RC1, Office 2003 Beta, OneNote Beta, and IIRC a Whister (XP) Beta as well.

I was a Beta tester of Windows XP, Windows 2003, and Office 2003. All cost around $35 and were shipped in Beta Kits that included product keys, cds, and instructions. Microsoft allows a certain group of enthusiasts (http://beta.microsoft.com) and other individuals that are rewarded for their participation on their message boards (MVPs and such) to beta test flagship products for free. However, I wouldn't expect them to just up and completely open Vista Beta 2 to everyone.

Since when has a Microsoft site ever had a problem with bandwidth? MSDN subscribers have access to virtually every Microsoft software product ever made, all available over the internet. The downloads are always super fast too.

Microsoft MSDN Universal members have access to most flagship product lines (Windows, Office, Visual Basic, etc), however other MSDN levels only have access to their respected area of emphasis (Operating Systems, etc). I know from experience that when the original Longhorn WinHEC alpha was released it took several days to download the alpha from Microsoft's MSDN servers due to traffic.

 

[willyjsimmons]

Ignorant

Now you're name calling?

Wow.

Okay.

From your own link

http://www.winsupersite.com/showcase/longhorn_preview_2005.asp

'WinFS Beta: Mid-2006'

Notice the 'Beta' there.

Beta!

The completed version of WinFS won't be available until 2007.

Just like I said before.

And Monad has been pulled from Vista.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nf/37682

'Microsoft's Berg indicated that the company is considering including Monad with the next version of Microsoft Exchange. In addition, Monad might be bundled with an upcoming version of Windows Server slated to be released in 2007.'

Ignorant?

Plus, your link hasn't been updated since April.

Ignorant.

 

[PCMacUser]

Vista Beta 1

Well, I'm writing this post from IE7 under Vista Beta 1, and all I can say is 'this is different'. As someone who saw the transition from Windows 98 to Windows XP, and OS 9 to OS X, I think this is going to be of a similar learning curve.

MS have really moved stuff around - and so far I 'dis'like as much as I 'do' like about the new approach. Sure it's early days though, so we'll see what happens with the new releases.

Tiger users can rest assured that Spotlight kicks Vista's backside when it comes to searching! But Vista does look considerably more modern than Tiger, but obviously we'll see Leopard before Vista makes it to final release
The fancy new graphics in the core windows system are very nice - dare I say it - more impressive than Tiger. But sometimes the transparent title bars are annoying and unclear... Now if only I can find some new drivers for this thing...

Someone mentioned in another posting that IE7 was copied from Safari... well, I used Safari for a long time and it didn't look anything like this. But there is a lot of Firefox similarity... and I think I'll stick to using FF.

 

[the-fish]

Huh. Microsoft are cool but sometimes I really, really wish they'd innovate in a direction completely seperate to Apple's; they've been taking cues from Mac OS for ages. If Vista turns out to be good and different (i.e. not a Mac clone) then I'll be really happy.

 

[BenRoethig]

If vista is as close to OSX as it looks, Apple could be in trouble. We could be in for another 1985 where Apple develops a great operating system, chooses not to license it and MS comes along implements of all Apple's good ideas and ends up reaping the rewards of Apple's hard work.

 

[Tech^salvager]

Linux. Particularly Xandros (formerly known as Lindows IIRC)

I wonder how long it's going to take before someone combines Xandros with Darwin and OS X86 to create a distro that is compatible with both Windows and Mac.

Xandros wasn't lindows
Linspire is (formerly know as lindows)
BGil have to say you do know your stuff main seeing as alot of it checks out right.
hats off to you!
Tech^salvager