There's a problem being overlooked here: Cocoa. All the other iApps, aside from iTunes, are written in Cocoa, which cannot be simply ported over to Windows, the way Carbon code can. Cocoa is written in an entirely different language, Objective-C. So that's a major added cost -- not only porting the programs to the Windows toolkit, but rewriting all that Objective-C as C++ or C#.
You are assuming that there is no other option like say...the "Yellow Box" (or Blue Box or Fuschia Box....or whatever it was)...the porting of the Cocoa APIs to windows. How is it that Adobe and MS manage to run their applications on both platforms. Surely they a) don't re-write them every time, or b) manage two complete code bases. They likely have some kind of "platform isolation layer" that they write to.
OK, we got three free apps then. MSN Messenger, WMP, IE. Does THAT make them welfare?
Microsoft don;t make IE anymore (for the Mac). WMP is a player only on the mac, they want to have some dominance in every market so they couldn't not develop wmp, it would be anti-cpompetitive msn is the same (and messenger). Notice the difference though
iTunes - the same in windows and mac (in fact better on PC - can convert WMP files)
QuickTime - the same on Macs and PCs
WMP Player only on Mac
Messenger - chat and file sending (bit dodgy) on the Mac - no video or voice or games etc.
Oh and Apple don;t need to make iPhoto for windows, they can use a folder
OK, we got three free apps then. MSN Messenger, WMP, IE. Does THAT make them welfare?
IE, as was stated above, is no longer supported, and the basic reason is that it can no longer be reasonably argued that it brings anything useful to the platform. Welfare gives you something you need for free. iPhoto for the PC would be a boon because there's really no such user-friendly photo app out there. That would be a freebie. That would be bestowing on them something useful for nothing, filling a hole for free. IE isn't welfare because even if they're free no one's going to accept rotten turnips--it fills no need.
Messenger is the same thing. It is no better than Fire or any number of apps on the Mac. So it's a giveaway of something we have no need for. Why is it free? Because of the monopolistic commercialism mentioned above. But see this curious note:
Quote:
iTunes - the same in windows and mac (in fact better on PC - can convert WMP files)
Here we see the same. Why be able to convert WMP files on the Win version? Pure self-interest. iTMS is the reason iTunes was the first. It's not a giveaway, but an entryway. Messenger or IE would be the same if they too were superior programs. But they're not so they wont be.
iPhoto for the PC would be a boon because there's really no such user-friendly photo app out there.
Apple don;t make software for the PC unless it helps the sale of Apple hardware or the ease of use for mac users. Mac develop Rendezvous to help Mac people network, they make iTunes to sell more iPods, the iPod photo may benefit slightly from iPhoto on the PC but Apple will find it difficult (porting it to windows) but also justifying the decision. MusicMatch didn't synchronise very well with the iPod, so Apple made iTunes for windows to help PC people out. You can't expect people to use 3rd party software for the basic function - transferring music. However iTunes sorts your photos out for you, making no need for the PC version of iPhoto. Look at iSync, it puts calendars and contacts on the iPod, no Windows version because it's not the basic function and other programs on the PC do it. By supplying too many programs for the PC Apple are shooting themselves in the feet.
I am not arguing about the quality of the apps in either architecture. I am saying that they both have ported something to other architectures, and done it for purely economic reasons.
Anyone who tried Picasa (offered free from Google), knows that it is indeed better than iPhoto that usually gets slow when you have more than 5 photos in your library.
QuickTime can't even play movies in fullscreen, so that's hardly a player. Or, lets call it an hendicaped player.
My argument is that, Apple has ported only (I repeat, ONLY) apps that can bring money (through sales of hardware, OS, or other peripherals, iPod, etc.). It hasn't ported anything else to the Windows platform, and it has never hinted that it would. So this could hardly fit the 'welfare' tag someone mentioned above.
Nobody in Windows actually needs iTunes - they got WinAmp, MusicMatch, etc., so its not like they're asking for it. They only need it insofar as they have some hardware that requires iTunes or QuickTime (iPod) .They don't need QuickTime either - there's WMP, DivX Player, VLC, etc.
if one calls Apple's moves towards software in Windows 'welfare', I can't even imagine what they would call the OpenSource projects and apps that are both in Windows and in Macs.
Anyway, iPhoto is not even needed for iPod Photo. That was not my argument at all. Neither IE's quality, nor MSN Messenger's. Their presence in the Mac world was the argument, and not their quality.
Anyway, I'll refrain from further discussion on the topic of windows/mac apps ported to win/mac.
iChat is noticeably absent from the discussion. What better way for Apple to get additional free marketing than to have a bunch of Macheads video conferencing with a bunch of Windows users with a great Apple video conferencing solution?
Anyone who tried Picasa (offered free from Google), knows that it is indeed better than iPhoto that usually gets slow when you have more than 5 photos in your library.
QuickTime can't even play movies in fullscreen, so that's hardly a player. Or, lets call it an hendicaped player.
I have 1220+ photos on a G3, I'm using iLife '04 and i wont lie the app takes a long time to open. BUT once open i can go through all the photos no waiting, as advertised by Jobs.
QuickTime is a decent technology but I never use the app on its own, i use it in safari, imovie, itunes, garageband etc. I never need a full-screen mode because i very rarely use the actual program. It would be nice to see full-screen but what is available of any great length in quicktime format anymore? Most digital movies are on dvds! (Oh and if you use salling clicker - a demo will do, you can use full-screen without paying for pro.)
iChat is noticeably absent from the discussion. What better way for Apple to get additional free marketing than to have a bunch of Macheads video conferencing with a bunch of Windows users with a great Apple video conferencing solution?
Pretty much what I think. I bought my parents broadband so that we could video conference, and let them see their grandson. There is no way they ( or I ) are going to get a Mac, and the state of video conferencing on the PC has meant that we basically abandoned the concept. We are using Skype.
If Apple sold iSights with a windows version of ichat I wouldnt hesitate to go and buy two right now. It seems like a no-brainer, and the only thing I can see stopping Apple is AOL.
I find iphoto to be annoying. I just use CS's broser (much better than 7's). CS's is slow at first but if you are willing to allow it to "build cache for subfolders" it is very fast
I have 1220+ photos on a G3, I'm using iLife '04 and i wont lie the app takes a long time to open. BUT once open i can go through all the photos no waiting, as advertised by Jobs.
I highly confirm this. Even on my CRT iMac 350 G3 iPhote is quite, how do you say, ... responsive Well not quite a speed demon Different shot on my PB.
Quote:
QuickTime is a decent technology but I never use the app on its own, i use it in safari, imovie, itunes, garageband etc. I never need a full-screen mode because i very rarely use the actual program.
... [/B]
Well it is not that hard to get full-screen mode with QT Anyway, there is
What size are your photos!? I have a thousand or so photos on iPhoto on my G4 with 640 MB RAM and loads of free hard drive space. Most of my photos are 3, 4 and some 6 megapixels. iPhoto CHOKES. It really is nearly unuseable, especially when switching between editing and browsing modes. Meanwhile PhotoGrid flies through the photos like lightning.
2MP about 800KB each but some are bigger. I have 768MB RAM and a 40GB harddrive. I like completely smooth but it doesn;t lag much, it's so much faster than iPhoto 2, it literally zips through them!
iPhoto is crap with any professional use. If your biggest file is around 1MB, then it does do well, but anything above 3MB and it dies...I refuse to use it any longer, though I loved the ease of use, when I could use it....
iPhoto is crap with any professional use. If your biggest file is around 1MB, then it does do well, but anything above 3MB and it dies...I refuse to use it any longer, though I loved the ease of use, when I could use it....
I'm sire iLife '05 will be better. Or they could make iPhoto Pro (kind of a windows idea making an upgrade to a free app) which was faster for bigger files. I didn't realise it was so bad on big files.
Comments
Originally posted by Kirkland
There's a problem being overlooked here: Cocoa. All the other iApps, aside from iTunes, are written in Cocoa, which cannot be simply ported over to Windows, the way Carbon code can. Cocoa is written in an entirely different language, Objective-C. So that's a major added cost -- not only porting the programs to the Windows toolkit, but rewriting all that Objective-C as C++ or C#.
You are assuming that there is no other option like say...the "Yellow Box" (or Blue Box or Fuschia Box....or whatever it was)...the porting of the Cocoa APIs to windows. How is it that Adobe and MS manage to run their applications on both platforms. Surely they a) don't re-write them every time, or b) manage two complete code bases. They likely have some kind of "platform isolation layer" that they write to.
This isn't too hard to imagine actually.
Originally posted by Gene Clean
OK, we got three free apps then. MSN Messenger, WMP, IE. Does THAT make them welfare?
Microsoft don;t make IE anymore (for the Mac). WMP is a player only on the mac, they want to have some dominance in every market so they couldn't not develop wmp, it would be anti-cpompetitive msn is the same (and messenger). Notice the difference though
iTunes - the same in windows and mac (in fact better on PC - can convert WMP files)
QuickTime - the same on Macs and PCs
WMP Player only on Mac
Messenger - chat and file sending (bit dodgy) on the Mac - no video or voice or games etc.
Oh and Apple don;t need to make iPhoto for windows, they can use a folder
Originally posted by Gene Clean
OK, we got three free apps then. MSN Messenger, WMP, IE. Does THAT make them welfare?
IE, as was stated above, is no longer supported, and the basic reason is that it can no longer be reasonably argued that it brings anything useful to the platform. Welfare gives you something you need for free. iPhoto for the PC would be a boon because there's really no such user-friendly photo app out there. That would be a freebie. That would be bestowing on them something useful for nothing, filling a hole for free. IE isn't welfare because even if they're free no one's going to accept rotten turnips--it fills no need.
Messenger is the same thing. It is no better than Fire or any number of apps on the Mac. So it's a giveaway of something we have no need for. Why is it free? Because of the monopolistic commercialism mentioned above. But see this curious note:
iTunes - the same in windows and mac (in fact better on PC - can convert WMP files)
Here we see the same. Why be able to convert WMP files on the Win version? Pure self-interest. iTMS is the reason iTunes was the first. It's not a giveaway, but an entryway. Messenger or IE would be the same if they too were superior programs. But they're not so they wont be.
--B
Originally posted by bergz
iPhoto for the PC would be a boon because there's really no such user-friendly photo app out there.
Apple don;t make software for the PC unless it helps the sale of Apple hardware or the ease of use for mac users. Mac develop Rendezvous to help Mac people network, they make iTunes to sell more iPods, the iPod photo may benefit slightly from iPhoto on the PC but Apple will find it difficult (porting it to windows) but also justifying the decision. MusicMatch didn't synchronise very well with the iPod, so Apple made iTunes for windows to help PC people out. You can't expect people to use 3rd party software for the basic function - transferring music. However iTunes sorts your photos out for you, making no need for the PC version of iPhoto. Look at iSync, it puts calendars and contacts on the iPod, no Windows version because it's not the basic function and other programs on the PC do it. By supplying too many programs for the PC Apple are shooting themselves in the feet.
Anyone who tried Picasa (offered free from Google), knows that it is indeed better than iPhoto that usually gets slow when you have more than 5 photos in your library.
QuickTime can't even play movies in fullscreen, so that's hardly a player. Or, lets call it an hendicaped player.
My argument is that, Apple has ported only (I repeat, ONLY) apps that can bring money (through sales of hardware, OS, or other peripherals, iPod, etc.). It hasn't ported anything else to the Windows platform, and it has never hinted that it would. So this could hardly fit the 'welfare' tag someone mentioned above.
Nobody in Windows actually needs iTunes - they got WinAmp, MusicMatch, etc., so its not like they're asking for it. They only need it insofar as they have some hardware that requires iTunes or QuickTime (iPod) .They don't need QuickTime either - there's WMP, DivX Player, VLC, etc.
if one calls Apple's moves towards software in Windows 'welfare', I can't even imagine what they would call the OpenSource projects and apps that are both in Windows and in Macs.
Anyway, iPhoto is not even needed for iPod Photo. That was not my argument at all. Neither IE's quality, nor MSN Messenger's. Their presence in the Mac world was the argument, and not their quality.
Anyway, I'll refrain from further discussion on the topic of windows/mac apps ported to win/mac.
Have a nice one.
Originally posted by Gene Clean
Anyone who tried Picasa (offered free from Google), knows that it is indeed better than iPhoto that usually gets slow when you have more than 5 photos in your library.
QuickTime can't even play movies in fullscreen, so that's hardly a player. Or, lets call it an hendicaped player.
I have 1220+ photos on a G3, I'm using iLife '04 and i wont lie the app takes a long time to open. BUT once open i can go through all the photos no waiting, as advertised by Jobs.
QuickTime is a decent technology but I never use the app on its own, i use it in safari, imovie, itunes, garageband etc. I never need a full-screen mode because i very rarely use the actual program. It would be nice to see full-screen but what is available of any great length in quicktime format anymore? Most digital movies are on dvds! (Oh and if you use salling clicker - a demo will do, you can use full-screen without paying for pro.)
Originally posted by McCrab
iChat is noticeably absent from the discussion. What better way for Apple to get additional free marketing than to have a bunch of Macheads video conferencing with a bunch of Windows users with a great Apple video conferencing solution?
Pretty much what I think. I bought my parents broadband so that we could video conference, and let them see their grandson. There is no way they ( or I ) are going to get a Mac, and the state of video conferencing on the PC has meant that we basically abandoned the concept. We are using Skype.
If Apple sold iSights with a windows version of ichat I wouldnt hesitate to go and buy two right now. It seems like a no-brainer, and the only thing I can see stopping Apple is AOL.
Originally posted by MacCrazy
I have 1220+ photos on a G3, I'm using iLife '04 and i wont lie the app takes a long time to open. BUT once open i can go through all the photos no waiting, as advertised by Jobs.
I highly confirm this. Even on my CRT iMac 350 G3 iPhote is quite, how do you say, ... responsive
QuickTime is a decent technology but I never use the app on its own, i use it in safari, imovie, itunes, garageband etc. I never need a full-screen mode because i very rarely use the actual program.
... [/B]
Well it is not that hard to get full-screen mode with QT
always VLC as an option.
Originally posted by tonton
What size are your photos!? I have a thousand or so photos on iPhoto on my G4 with 640 MB RAM and loads of free hard drive space. Most of my photos are 3, 4 and some 6 megapixels. iPhoto CHOKES. It really is nearly unuseable, especially when switching between editing and browsing modes. Meanwhile PhotoGrid flies through the photos like lightning.
2MP about 800KB each but some are bigger. I have 768MB RAM and a 40GB harddrive. I like completely smooth but it doesn;t lag much, it's so much faster than iPhoto 2, it literally zips through them!
Originally posted by ijerry
iPhoto is crap with any professional use. If your biggest file is around 1MB, then it does do well, but anything above 3MB and it dies...I refuse to use it any longer, though I loved the ease of use, when I could use it....
I'm sire iLife '05 will be better. Or they could make iPhoto Pro (kind of a windows idea making an upgrade to a free app) which was faster for bigger files. I didn't realise it was so bad on big files.