Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Windows Vista Beta 1 and Tiger
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Windows Vista on iMac - cnn.com
Seen on cnn.com on 8/5. Tell me that isn't an iMac in that picture!
http://www.cnn.com/2005/TECH/ptech/08/04/windows.vista.ap/index.html
Seen on cnn.com on 8/5. Tell me that isn't an iMac in that picture!
http://www.cnn.com/2005/TECH/ptech/08/04/windows.vista.ap/index.html
I suppose it might be some sort of flat screen thing, but I might be able to see the blur of "iMac" at the top of the screen... lol.
At least everyone realises that Vista is a carbon copy of OS X. Except worse. Windows appearing in a slick animation when applications launched?! Uh oh, do we have that? Well our icons bounce. Ha.
At least everyone realises that Vista is a carbon copy of OS X. Except worse. Windows appearing in a slick animation when applications launched?! Uh oh, do we have that? Well our icons bounce. Ha.
Viruses
Macs don't have viruses, not because the OS is impervious (otherwise why all those security updates), but because it is small and no one hates it. People who don't like Macs tend to trivialize them, not hate them.
No one hates Macs because no one is forced to use one. Macs haven't penetrated the corporate world enough for very many people to resent being forced to use a Mac when they'd prefer Windows (though I was in that position once).
I have only been hit by one virus on Windows, and only because I stupidly opened an email attachment. I can only claim in my own defense that I was distracted at the time. Norton came out with the antidote an hour later, and I was able to repair the damage following Norton's instructions. In those instructions, it explained how the virus worked. It deleted JPEG files and did other mischief, and then sent out lots of email to cause denial-of-service attacks. However, the virus contained a list of domains it wouldn't infect--they were all the companies that put out Linux distros or were related in some way to Linux or UNIX.
So it is obvious in that instance that a Linux fan deliberately wrote a virus to infect only Windows, except it wouldn't infect Windows servers owned by Linux-oriented companies. Now that same Linux person is going to try to convince me to switch to Linux because it is more secure.
I don't fall for that sort of thing. I'm not going to buy an OS from a vandal whose selling point is that he vandalizes only his competitors.
OS X and Windows are both going to be good choices, because OS X will remain small, therefore an unattractive target, and Microsoft will make Windows more secure to defend their commercial interests.
These Windows Vista viruses attack MONAD, a product that has never been sold commerically, and which most end users will not need. The vandal (virus writer) made a strategic mistake. The most effective time to vandalize the software is AFTER it is in general use. All he's doing now is giving Microsoft another beta test.
Macs don't have viruses, not because the OS is impervious (otherwise why all those security updates), but because it is small and no one hates it. People who don't like Macs tend to trivialize them, not hate them.
No one hates Macs because no one is forced to use one. Macs haven't penetrated the corporate world enough for very many people to resent being forced to use a Mac when they'd prefer Windows (though I was in that position once).
I have only been hit by one virus on Windows, and only because I stupidly opened an email attachment. I can only claim in my own defense that I was distracted at the time. Norton came out with the antidote an hour later, and I was able to repair the damage following Norton's instructions. In those instructions, it explained how the virus worked. It deleted JPEG files and did other mischief, and then sent out lots of email to cause denial-of-service attacks. However, the virus contained a list of domains it wouldn't infect--they were all the companies that put out Linux distros or were related in some way to Linux or UNIX.
So it is obvious in that instance that a Linux fan deliberately wrote a virus to infect only Windows, except it wouldn't infect Windows servers owned by Linux-oriented companies. Now that same Linux person is going to try to convince me to switch to Linux because it is more secure.
I don't fall for that sort of thing. I'm not going to buy an OS from a vandal whose selling point is that he vandalizes only his competitors.
OS X and Windows are both going to be good choices, because OS X will remain small, therefore an unattractive target, and Microsoft will make Windows more secure to defend their commercial interests.
These Windows Vista viruses attack MONAD, a product that has never been sold commerically, and which most end users will not need. The vandal (virus writer) made a strategic mistake. The most effective time to vandalize the software is AFTER it is in general use. All he's doing now is giving Microsoft another beta test.
polsons said:
As everyone here knows, I'm not the biggest FCP or Apple fan but the Mac OS isn't "absolute crap" by any means. I agree with some of the things you said (like about overpricing stuff) and shipping beta OS's as final) but overall it just seems like you're trolling and way off base.
Final Cut Pro and Premiere Pro both have their advantages and disadvantages. As for Avid, some people just want to edit video, not work at a tv station. For that, Final Cut Pro or Premiere Pro should work fine. However, it is better to know all three apps and both OS's if you are looking for work. In my opinon Final Cut Pro is a little further ahead than Premiere Pro. But it really comes down to how creative you are.BGil said:
JFreak said:
What is really funny is how hard MS execs fought against games/driectx: see
Renegades of the Empire
Beg to Differ
Many proficient hackers are massive ego-freaks and would like nothing better than to write an effective virus for OS X; anytime something little, tiny, and insignificant such as a distant possibility of a mischievious bit of code or proof-of-concept (which never seems to make it into the "wild") comes along, it seems that the Wall Street Journal, C|Net, and other magazines are all reporting on it.
While there have been security updates for both platforms, the two don't compare. XP's updates have been legendary with regard to the sheer number of them as well as their tardiness (reactive). OS X's updates are relatively few and far between, and somehow seem to be way ahead of schedule (proactive). This by no means makes OS X (or Linux) impervious, just much more secure in comparison.
Again, if someone "out there" really wants to make a name for themselves, OS X is it...
Panu said:
Many proficient hackers are massive ego-freaks and would like nothing better than to write an effective virus for OS X; anytime something little, tiny, and insignificant such as a distant possibility of a mischievious bit of code or proof-of-concept (which never seems to make it into the "wild") comes along, it seems that the Wall Street Journal, C|Net, and other magazines are all reporting on it.
While there have been security updates for both platforms, the two don't compare. XP's updates have been legendary with regard to the sheer number of them as well as their tardiness (reactive). OS X's updates are relatively few and far between, and somehow seem to be way ahead of schedule (proactive). This by no means makes OS X (or Linux) impervious, just much more secure in comparison.
Again, if someone "out there" really wants to make a name for themselves, OS X is it...
polsons said:
And you accuse others of having their head up their arse? There a plenty of articles around talking about Pixar's use of Mac OS X. Here's a couple of examples:
Tool Time at Pixar
Pixar Talks OS X Migration
I think it has a lot to do with hackers respecting the open source kernel (Darwin) of OS X in conjunction with MacOS X superior innate security when compared to Windows.
You'll play with the real boys after you've updated your virus protection and made you system somewhat secure enough to go online.........polsons said:
Even then, you'll only be playing wth those who think they know what they're talking about, but they don't. I'm not timid nor insecure. I just use what works, simple as that. Why should I have to work for my computer when it was designed to work for me? I'd much rather use something that will simply let me do what I need to do without hassle. Microsoft has never and will never produce anything like that. (Also, before you try to tell Pixar that they're using a different platform than they thought, you'd better check your facts first.) As it was said earlier, Premiere was designed for home video, while FCP was designed for pros. Adobe is a fine company, but when they're putting their software on an underpowered, shaky OS, reputation amounts to a hill of beans. You keep bashing FCP saying that Apple should leave DV to those who can do it, since they supposedly can't get it right after version 5, but there you are sitting at a computer with an OS that has never been up to par from day one. Yet, you can sit there and tell FCP users that they are using crap? I think there's something wrong with that picture. That's like someone on the Titanic telling people on a nearby lifeboat that their boat has a leak.......
dsharits said:
Premiere Pro is designed for professionals in everyway. Its support all the major pro formats (HDV, DVCPRO 50, DVCPRO100 IIRC, HD, Uncompressed 601, Uncompressed HD, SDI/HD, analog etc.). In fact, there are a lot of "Pro" things that Premiere Pro can do that FCP cannot including effortlessly mixing formats and codecs in the timeline while playing them out without rendering.
I do like FCP better but PPRO isn't anyless professional.
Come on, quit arguing.. OSX is great!
It is just the hardware that is currently somewhat lacking. Hell, I'm even starting to slowly grow onto the one button mouse mantra....
I really do think Microsoft is in a wee bit of trouble though, when the name is announced for the next version of Windows, every single one of my friends (we are all in IT) agreed that it is a REAL CRAPPY NAME.
Plus, with news that more and more core features are getting dropped from Windows Vista with each passing day, and coupled with the rumored new DRM features of world domination(tm).... to be quite honest, Windows Vista just doesn't bring the same feeling that Windows XP brought last time.
For all its crappiness Windows XP did bring a certain.. something.. it was actually something to look forward to having. Windows Vista, bleight, who cares. It's a real joke of an OS honestly.
I'd probably just upgrade to XP-64 when driver supports improves, and that's only if MacIntels are still not able to handle that occasional entertainment/Windows application.
With Darwine however... I really have to add again that MS is in some serious shitz
They can probably still keep pushing their junk out through the OEM channels, given that virtually nobody actually buys Windows but receiving it preinstalled on their machines. But there will probably come a time when..
1. People actually start considering Apple as a legitimate alternative...
2. Good ole Stevo agrees to partner with Dell and license OSX to them!
2 might mean any Dull user on the streets will be enjoy OSX, but while that thought might suck, it is definitely hurting Microsoft a lot more than the petty feelings of a feel million Mac users put together
Let's just wait and see how it all pans out.
It is just the hardware that is currently somewhat lacking. Hell, I'm even starting to slowly grow onto the one button mouse mantra....
I really do think Microsoft is in a wee bit of trouble though, when the name is announced for the next version of Windows, every single one of my friends (we are all in IT) agreed that it is a REAL CRAPPY NAME.
Plus, with news that more and more core features are getting dropped from Windows Vista with each passing day, and coupled with the rumored new DRM features of world domination(tm).... to be quite honest, Windows Vista just doesn't bring the same feeling that Windows XP brought last time.
For all its crappiness Windows XP did bring a certain.. something.. it was actually something to look forward to having. Windows Vista, bleight, who cares. It's a real joke of an OS honestly.
I'd probably just upgrade to XP-64 when driver supports improves, and that's only if MacIntels are still not able to handle that occasional entertainment/Windows application.
With Darwine however... I really have to add again that MS is in some serious shitz
They can probably still keep pushing their junk out through the OEM channels, given that virtually nobody actually buys Windows but receiving it preinstalled on their machines. But there will probably come a time when..
1. People actually start considering Apple as a legitimate alternative...
2. Good ole Stevo agrees to partner with Dell and license OSX to them!
2 might mean any Dull user on the streets will be enjoy OSX, but while that thought might suck, it is definitely hurting Microsoft a lot more than the petty feelings of a feel million Mac users put together
Let's just wait and see how it all pans out.
BGil said:
...and still, adobe doesn't have guts to compete with fcp on apple platform.
in fact, just a short while ago they dropped premiere mac 'cause they lost customers for a better product. that says it all, imo.
JFreak said:
Yes, they don't have the guts to compete with Apple on their own platform
Apple doesn't have the guts to compete with Adobe on a neutral platform. It cuts both ways. Apple has a distinct advantage when they run the platform in any way they choose. Adobe ditched the product because they said it didn't make sense for them to build a new product for OS X. Premiere Pro shares no code with Premiere 6.5 and is an entirely new product. From what I understand, DirectX/Directshow/WM is a far better enviorment for building a video editing app anyway.
What dropped "core" features? WinFS is 90-120 days after launch (which is faster than Media Center and Tablet came) or a public beta at launch, the sidebar is apparently back, Monad is still there despite the bad rumors etc.
It's become fashionable to say features are always being cut from Longhorn/Vista when you really don't have any idea what's going on.
BGil said:
even adobe doesn't release linux software, so this point is not valid. apple releasin software on a microsoft platform is very unfair, as microsoft can very well make things extremely difficult for apple, take a history of quicktime for example.
BGil said:
apple has always been very adobe-friendly. dropping premiere was solely adobe's own decision. they don't want to compete with final cut express either, as that would force them to reduce price for their pc version, too.
in fact, there just isn't any company besides adobe itself that is more adobe-friendly than apple. from the very beginning the two have always benefited from each others.
BGil said:
it made sense for adobe to build a new indesign for osx - that didn't share much code with pagemaker, either. why did they do that, but not premiere? because they excel in desktop publishing and can see profit. that's not the case with video editing, so kudos for them for not banging their head against the (very thick) wall (of apple and final cut pro).
the fact is, you need to compare final cut pro to avid systems just the way you have to compare logic pro to pro tools. comparing fcp to premiere is unfair just as it would be comparing logic to cool edit - there just is not any comparison at all. just the very same reason why 125cc motorbike cannot compete with a 500cc one.
You resort to bringing Linux into this? LOL
Linux isn't a video editing platform in any way shape or form.
Windows or Macintosh are the two platforms and you say Adobe is scared of Apple on Apple's platform but try to run around the fact that Apple doesn't compete with Adobe on any neutral platform.
Because Indesign ties inot a bunch of apps that already exist for Mac while PPRO uses Encore, Audition neither of which have any Mac code base. So they would have to port Audition, Encore, and PPRO to make the senario work... that's a lot more work than Indesign (which is a smaller app anyway).
I do this for a living and I can tell you don't know what you're talking about. Go to LAFCPUG, CreativeCow, DMN, DVInfo.net, 2-pop, or any place else and they'll tell you that Premiere Pro 1.5 is every bit the competitor to FCP that Avid is. In fact, the Adobe Video Collection is better than Final Cut Studio (although I like FCP more than PPRO). To say they don't compete is just showing your lack of knowledge on the subject especially sense you didn't give any specifics at all.
And that Pro Tools stuff is BS as well. Unless you're talking about a full ProTools HD type setup then there are numerous apps that are hands down better than ProTools. The only people who really swear by Avid or ProTools are the ones using super-high end equipment that other products (including FCP and Logic) can't touch.
As far as Logic 7 goes, it too isn't nearly as good as you try to make it out to be. It's buggy as hell, the interface is horrible and convoluted, its plugin support is subpar, and it's more of a music app with audio production features strapped to it (in a very bad way) so using it for the video/film/audio production that ProTools is designed for is just painful at best. Logic is easily comparable to Nuendo, Audition, Cubase, Sonar, Sony, and numerous other products. It's not even close to any of those products as far as audio production is concerned... music is another story though.
What?
What the story with that?Why can't Apple compete with Adobe on a Microsoft platform? (Note: that's different from Apple competing with Microsoft on a Microsoft platform or viseversa). Apple makes QT and iTunes and they both do very well on Windows. AFAIK Microsoft isn't currently doing anything that prevents them from competing on Microsoft's platform. In fact, Microsoft generally releases platform technologies and lets other vendors user them first before they enter the market with a first-party solution (read about Napster, Yahoo, Real, and MusicMatch).
and we're back to microsoft vs apple battle, it seems. i don't even bother entering this again. if you cannot see why microsoft is not a neutral platform when we're talking about apple, then that's your problem and not mine. do your own research, please. "the neutral platform" is linux, when platforms (operating systems) are concerned - it is free and owned-by-nobody, which neither windows or macintosh are.
apple makes macintosh, so it makes perfect sense that apple only releases macintosh software, having few mandatory exceptions. adobe doesn't make operating systems, so it has to cater for whatever its users want to use; or, make decisions to withdraw based on competition. adobe did just that, because it cannot compete. if it could, i bet they would love to get all the money they can get - except that they did the research and saw that premiere (regular or pro, doesn't matter) is not profitable on macintosh platform. they are not in a business of losing money, so it's fine.
why cannot you see that premiere is not on par with fcp when adobe can? are you adobe-fanboy as well as microsoft-fanboy? i cannot understand that. i could if you were photographer or dtp pro, but as a video guy you should know better. and you do, according to yourself, you do like fcp better, and if it's better for you, then it is better. in the end of the day, it is you who does your work and nobody else.
i know, i'm a protools guy myself. it's just that logic is the second best alternative, by far better than digital performer and cubase for example, and totally in a different league than audition or sonar.
logic is a sequencer that has audio features, you got that right. that takes a completely different approach than an audio app that has sequencer features. BUT, if we're not talking about huge-budget mainstream, A LOT of film music is being made with loops and sequencers (you must know this), and for that work logic is rather good. for its midi part, it's better than protools.
apple makes macintosh, so it makes perfect sense that apple only releases macintosh software, having few mandatory exceptions. adobe doesn't make operating systems, so it has to cater for whatever its users want to use; or, make decisions to withdraw based on competition. adobe did just that, because it cannot compete. if it could, i bet they would love to get all the money they can get - except that they did the research and saw that premiere (regular or pro, doesn't matter) is not profitable on macintosh platform. they are not in a business of losing money, so it's fine.
why cannot you see that premiere is not on par with fcp when adobe can? are you adobe-fanboy as well as microsoft-fanboy? i cannot understand that. i could if you were photographer or dtp pro, but as a video guy you should know better. and you do, according to yourself, you do like fcp better, and if it's better for you, then it is better. in the end of the day, it is you who does your work and nobody else.
BGil said:
i know, i'm a protools guy myself. it's just that logic is the second best alternative, by far better than digital performer and cubase for example, and totally in a different league than audition or sonar.
logic is a sequencer that has audio features, you got that right. that takes a completely different approach than an audio app that has sequencer features. BUT, if we're not talking about huge-budget mainstream, A LOT of film music is being made with loops and sequencers (you must know this), and for that work logic is rather good. for its midi part, it's better than protools.
Polsons, please never buy a Mac, you would be a disgrace to the Mac community.
Just keep rolling in your mud together with the real boys.
Just keep rolling in your mud together with the real boys.
Microsoft has always treated Apple (as a Windows developer) the same as Adobe. Microsoft gives no advantages to Adobe and they aren't out sabotaging Apple products on Windows. If you want to pretend that Windows is somehow a hostile enviorment for Apple software development then you haven't done your research and are just buying into typical slashdot-style FUD.
In terms of music work I'd agree that Logic is the best except for it's VST(i) shortcomings. In audio/film work (even looping) Logic is far from the best or even good IMO. That's why Apple created Soundtrack and Soundtrack Pro.
Acid/Vegas/Soundforge is far superior unless you have midi needs that extend beyond the basics. Steinberg WaveLab kicks ass too. I haven't used Nuendo is a long time but I've heard it's very very good as well.
For my film (haha) and video work I like to use live musicians as much as possible so my midi needs are slim.
Microsoft did in fact sabotage QuickTime, and even stole QuickTime code in order to get acceptable performance from their own video solution. This became public during the antitrust suit, where it was revealed that the $150 million "investment" and patent exchange with Apple in 1997 were in fact part of the settlement stemming from those activities. IIRC Apple also got a guarantee that there would be Office on the Mac through 2002 and some other minor goodies.BGil said:What?
BGil said:
i do not have to pretend, as it is a court-proven fact.
BGil said:
for that i respect you!