I work helpdesk at a University and I've had tons of freshmen coming in really upset that their new 1500 laptop wont even play a simple little full screen video let alone 1/2 the formats they download off the Internet. Full screen is not a Pro feature Apple. It's just about the most basic feature besides play and pause. And for those who say you could just download XYZ app. Sure you could, but that's defeating the purpose of having an easy to use computer that "just works" out of the box. Quit crippling your computers and making WMP look all the better Apple and get a clue. Keep QT Pro for the content creators and keep the standard QT full featured for all consumer needs.
Hey, I'd like to know what videos everyone's getting off the internet. I can't say I've downloaded or viewed much of anything (a few news reports, that type of deal, but beyond that), and little of that did I go "Wow, wish this was full screen!".
[Hey, out of the box, I can't figure out how to get WMP to play a DVD full screen and hide the freakin' control bar. But I only tried for 30 minutes. Usually it takes an hour or two to figure out windows things. Then again, it took me over an hour to help a friend to get Outlook to let her open an attachment someone emailed her. Apparently MS thinks so little of their users that they literally have Outlook block a huge set of files from being opened or even saved because they COULD contain viruses or something. MS, your second mother. I hear best buy is going to stop selling people electronic equipment, because people could electrocute themselves. Hey, but enough ranting about MS, let's rant more about Apple, for goodness sakes!]
Blast it Apple, I can't see my on-line porn movies in full screen!
Hey, I'd like to know what videos everyone's getting off the internet. I can't say I've downloaded or viewed much of anything (a few news reports, that type of deal, but beyond that), and little of that did I go "Wow, wish this was full screen!".
[Hey, out of the box, I can't figure out how to get WMP to play a DVD full screen and hide the freakin' control bar. But I only tried for 30 minutes. Usually it takes an hour or two to figure out windows things. Then again, it took me over an hour to help a friend to get Outlook to let her open an attachment someone emailed her. Apparently MS thinks so little of their users that they literally have Outlook block a huge set of files from being opened or even saved because they COULD contain viruses or something. MS, your second mother. I hear best buy is going to stop selling people electronic equipment, because people could electrocute themselves. Hey, but enough ranting about MS, let's rant more about Apple, for goodness sakes!]
Blast it Apple, I can't see my on-line porn movies in full screen!
What people want full screen:
A) Porn
Music Videos
C) Divx flicks which will never ever ever play right
D) VCDS
E) Still camera video files
That's what people have always complained to me about. BTW if you go fullscreen in WMP move the mouse off the controller for about 3 seconds and it goes away. That was a damn good feature on Microsoft's part.
Does it mean you can't open multiple QT documents at once? That would be annoying and surprising.
Or does it just mean you can't open a new EMPTY player window from the file menu? THAT makes sense, since you wouldn't be able to assemble any content into it anyway, without Pro.
(I have Pro, so I don't know if opening an empty window from the File meny currently works without Pro.)
And yes, full-screen play really SHOULD be for everyone. And saving movies from the web, too. Those are NOT "pro" features, they are basic.
And if letting people have them meant fewer QT Pro sales... it would also mean more Tiger sales--and another little blow to competitors like MS WMP.
They are essentially just copying the format of windows media I expect.
...while the second pane allows users to specify directories or folders that Spotlight should never search.
This gets a resounding YES! from me. There's nothing like the pain of accidentally hiting an "everywhere" search with either an iDisk mounted, or a remote volume on a slow connection, like across the internet. Beachball city.
Hmm, only on OS X Server? That sucks. That's about the only feature that's piqued my interest in Tiger so far. It's looking like I'll skip this release so far.
It's not a feature exclusive to Mac OS X Server, but does require it. It's a client - server relationship, parts are on both the client and the server.
Portable (formerly Mobile) Home Directories are basically an extension of the networked home directories in OS X Server - now with local caching (for offline access) and syncing (online).
seriously, that's very ignorant of you. but it'll be your loss.
No, ignorant is you for trying to judge his personal opinion as wrong. It's pretty obnoxious to throw around such a word when the issue at hand is an opinion which doesn't affect your life one bit.
That said, my main wish for Tiger is much improved networking over Panther. Even if they get it back to Jaguar's network performance I would be happy.
Apple should integrate .Mac services into the Tiger Server release this summer (if not, certainly include it in later versions). Jobs seems to be headed down this path with the iChat server to be included in Tiger. See: Enterprise Mac: .Mac Integration into Tiger Server
Apple should integrate .Mac services into the Tiger Server release this summer (if not, certainly include it in later versions). Jobs seems to be headed down this path with the iChat server to be included in Tiger. See: Enterprise Mac: .Mac Integration into Tiger Server
my main wish for Tiger is much improved networking over Panther. Even if they get it back to Jaguar's network performance I would be happy.
What's wrong with Panther's network performance? I can swear it's better than in Jaguar. Moreover, it's been getting better with every major release. If you have problems with your network, you should really troubleshoot it, because there are hundreds of tricky issues which don't have anything to do with an OS.
What's wrong with Panther's network performance? I can swear it's better than in Jaguar. Moreover, it's been getting better with every major release. If you have problems with your network, you should really troubleshoot it, because there are hundreds of tricky issues which don't have anything to do with an OS.
establishing network connections after a boot, or waking from sleep are ridiculously slow. And if you have a server volume mounted when the machine goes to sleep, you get the spinning beachball of death for a minute or 2 before it decides it has lost the connection to the server. Under jaguar my connections simply re-established themselves quickly, and without any hold-ups or loss of connections.
Speed-wise performance is fine in Panther. So I guess I shouldn't beef about network performance, more like the speed at which connections are established. And forget about browsing for a server, that is just painfully slow.
Just a few minor thorns in my side that I would love to see cleared up in Tiger.
No, ignorant is you for trying to judge his personal opinion as wrong. It's pretty obnoxious to throw around such a word when the issue at hand is an opinion which doesn't affect your life one bit.
That said, my main wish for Tiger is much improved networking over Panther. Even if they get it back to Jaguar's network performance I would be happy.
but of course, that is just my opinion.
no it's ignorant of him to ignore all the other benefits and improvements in Tiger. He seems very much of an "on the outside kind of guy". It'll be his loss when he realized much of the software he wants to use relies on the new and improved frameworks in Tiger.
Don't be ignorant and obnoxious when accusing someone of the same.
establishing network connections after a boot, or waking from sleep are ridiculously slow.
Not sure about sleep since I never put a networked machine to sleep (if you think about it, it's quite ambiguous - a machine must be either available and awake or unavailable at all). All network connections, in my case, mounting sharepoints, are instantaneous both right after boot or after several days of work.
Quote:
And if you have a server volume mounted when the machine goes to sleep, you get the spinning beachball of death for a minute or 2 before it decides it has lost the connection to the server. Under jaguar my connections simply re-established themselves quickly, and without any hold-ups or loss of connections.
You may be absolutely right - just remember that it's a dangerous practice. Nobody guarantees that some app you use won't crash and lose unsaved data in these circumstances.
Quote:
And forget about browsing for a server, that is just painfully slow.
On our 100Mb Ethernet network file browsing in the Finder is really slow. At least, you can always tell if you are browsing a remote volume. However, it makes no difference when using CLI and this makes me think that the Finder sucks. Of course, it loads icons, calculates folder sizes and all that, but I seriously hope it could be faster.
no it's ignorant of him to ignore all the other benefits and improvements in Tiger. He seems very much of an "on the outside kind of guy". It'll be his loss when he realized much of the software he wants to use relies on the new and improved frameworks in Tiger.
Don't be ignorant and obnoxious when accusing someone of the same.
again, benefits are a matter of opinion and based on how an idividual needs to work. If the new features of Tiger don't appeal to him, or improve his present style of working, who the F are you to tell him he is ignorant?
All I'm saying is that you could have expressed your view of things in a much better manner than throwing a word like ignorant around when it is not even apropriate.
and to Costique:
you are right about asking for trouble letting a machine go to sleep with unsaved documents. I was not talking about doing that. Most people, if not all know better than to do that here at the office. But my solution to dropping the network mounts has been to just not allow the machines to sleep. oh well, it works for now.
Comments
Originally posted by york2600
I work helpdesk at a University and I've had tons of freshmen coming in really upset that their new 1500 laptop wont even play a simple little full screen video let alone 1/2 the formats they download off the Internet. Full screen is not a Pro feature Apple. It's just about the most basic feature besides play and pause. And for those who say you could just download XYZ app. Sure you could, but that's defeating the purpose of having an easy to use computer that "just works" out of the box. Quit crippling your computers and making WMP look all the better Apple and get a clue. Keep QT Pro for the content creators and keep the standard QT full featured for all consumer needs.
Hey, I'd like to know what videos everyone's getting off the internet. I can't say I've downloaded or viewed much of anything (a few news reports, that type of deal, but beyond that), and little of that did I go "Wow, wish this was full screen!".
[Hey, out of the box, I can't figure out how to get WMP to play a DVD full screen and hide the freakin' control bar. But I only tried for 30 minutes. Usually it takes an hour or two to figure out windows things. Then again, it took me over an hour to help a friend to get Outlook to let her open an attachment someone emailed her. Apparently MS thinks so little of their users that they literally have Outlook block a huge set of files from being opened or even saved because they COULD contain viruses or something. MS, your second mother. I hear best buy is going to stop selling people electronic equipment, because people could electrocute themselves. Hey, but enough ranting about MS, let's rant more about Apple, for goodness sakes!]
Blast it Apple, I can't see my on-line porn movies in full screen!
Originally posted by Louzer
Hey, I'd like to know what videos everyone's getting off the internet. I can't say I've downloaded or viewed much of anything (a few news reports, that type of deal, but beyond that), and little of that did I go "Wow, wish this was full screen!".
[Hey, out of the box, I can't figure out how to get WMP to play a DVD full screen and hide the freakin' control bar. But I only tried for 30 minutes. Usually it takes an hour or two to figure out windows things. Then again, it took me over an hour to help a friend to get Outlook to let her open an attachment someone emailed her. Apparently MS thinks so little of their users that they literally have Outlook block a huge set of files from being opened or even saved because they COULD contain viruses or something. MS, your second mother. I hear best buy is going to stop selling people electronic equipment, because people could electrocute themselves. Hey, but enough ranting about MS, let's rant more about Apple, for goodness sakes!]
Blast it Apple, I can't see my on-line porn movies in full screen!
What people want full screen:
A) Porn
C) Divx flicks which will never ever ever play right
D) VCDS
E) Still camera video files
That's what people have always complained to me about. BTW if you go fullscreen in WMP move the mouse off the controller for about 3 seconds and it goes away. That was a damn good feature on Microsoft's part.
G) Stevenotes
Originally posted by adpowers
F) Movie trailers off Apple's own site
G) Stevenotes
(H)
AND
and QT rendered iMovies of course (if you don't
burn them on DVD)
Originally posted by nagromme
That could mean two different things:
Does it mean you can't open multiple QT documents at once? That would be annoying and surprising.
Or does it just mean you can't open a new EMPTY player window from the file menu? THAT makes sense, since you wouldn't be able to assemble any content into it anyway, without Pro.
(I have Pro, so I don't know if opening an empty window from the File meny currently works without Pro.)
And yes, full-screen play really SHOULD be for everyone. And saving movies from the web, too. Those are NOT "pro" features, they are basic.
And if letting people have them meant fewer QT Pro sales... it would also mean more Tiger sales--and another little blow to competitors like MS WMP.
They are essentially just copying the format of windows media I expect.
...while the second pane allows users to specify directories or folders that Spotlight should never search.
This gets a resounding YES! from me. There's nothing like the pain of accidentally hiting an "everywhere" search with either an iDisk mounted, or a remote volume on a slow connection, like across the internet. Beachball city.
Originally posted by adpowers
F) Movie trailers off Apple's own site
G) Stevenotes
Odd, I was able to watch this last keynote full screen on my iBook using QT player. I think the option was "present movie" which is command-shift-f.
I don't have QT-pro so figured either Apple moved the feature down or they allow it with some movies.
Originally posted by foshizzle
Hmm, only on OS X Server? That sucks. That's about the only feature that's piqued my interest in Tiger so far. It's looking like I'll skip this release so far.
It's not a feature exclusive to Mac OS X Server, but does require it. It's a client - server relationship, parts are on both the client and the server.
Portable (formerly Mobile) Home Directories are basically an extension of the networked home directories in OS X Server - now with local caching (for offline access) and syncing (online).
Originally posted by applenut
seriously, that's very ignorant of you. but it'll be your loss.
No, ignorant is you for trying to judge his personal opinion as wrong. It's pretty obnoxious to throw around such a word when the issue at hand is an opinion which doesn't affect your life one bit.
That said, my main wish for Tiger is much improved networking over Panther. Even if they get it back to Jaguar's network performance I would be happy.
but of course, that is just my opinion.
Originally posted by PDubNYC
my main wish for Tiger is much improved networking over Panther. Even if they get it back to Jaguar's network performance I would be happy.
Originally posted by costique
establishing network connections after a boot, or waking from sleep are ridiculously slow. And if you have a server volume mounted when the machine goes to sleep, you get the spinning beachball of death for a minute or 2 before it decides it has lost the connection to the server. Under jaguar my connections simply re-established themselves quickly, and without any hold-ups or loss of connections.
Speed-wise performance is fine in Panther. So I guess I shouldn't beef about network performance, more like the speed at which connections are established. And forget about browsing for a server, that is just painfully slow.
Just a few minor thorns in my side that I would love to see cleared up in Tiger.
Originally posted by PDubNYC
No, ignorant is you for trying to judge his personal opinion as wrong. It's pretty obnoxious to throw around such a word when the issue at hand is an opinion which doesn't affect your life one bit.
That said, my main wish for Tiger is much improved networking over Panther. Even if they get it back to Jaguar's network performance I would be happy.
but of course, that is just my opinion.
no it's ignorant of him to ignore all the other benefits and improvements in Tiger. He seems very much of an "on the outside kind of guy". It'll be his loss when he realized much of the software he wants to use relies on the new and improved frameworks in Tiger.
Don't be ignorant and obnoxious when accusing someone of the same.
Originally posted by PDubNYC
establishing network connections after a boot, or waking from sleep are ridiculously slow.
Not sure about sleep since I never put a networked machine to sleep (if you think about it, it's quite ambiguous - a machine must be either available and awake or unavailable at all). All network connections, in my case, mounting sharepoints, are instantaneous both right after boot or after several days of work.
And if you have a server volume mounted when the machine goes to sleep, you get the spinning beachball of death for a minute or 2 before it decides it has lost the connection to the server. Under jaguar my connections simply re-established themselves quickly, and without any hold-ups or loss of connections.
You may be absolutely right - just remember that it's a dangerous practice. Nobody guarantees that some app you use won't crash and lose unsaved data in these circumstances.
And forget about browsing for a server, that is just painfully slow.
On our 100Mb Ethernet network file browsing in the Finder is really slow. At least, you can always tell if you are browsing a remote volume. However, it makes no difference when using CLI and this makes me think that the Finder sucks. Of course, it loads icons, calculates folder sizes and all that, but I seriously hope it could be faster.
Originally posted by costique
Of course, it loads icons, calculates folder sizes and all that, but I seriously hope it could be faster.
I agree. I have a server on a LAN, and have custom icons on some fo my server folders. I can get slow at times.
Originally posted by applenut
no it's ignorant of him to ignore all the other benefits and improvements in Tiger. He seems very much of an "on the outside kind of guy". It'll be his loss when he realized much of the software he wants to use relies on the new and improved frameworks in Tiger.
Don't be ignorant and obnoxious when accusing someone of the same.
again, benefits are a matter of opinion and based on how an idividual needs to work. If the new features of Tiger don't appeal to him, or improve his present style of working, who the F are you to tell him he is ignorant?
All I'm saying is that you could have expressed your view of things in a much better manner than throwing a word like ignorant around when it is not even apropriate.
and to Costique:
you are right about asking for trouble letting a machine go to sleep with unsaved documents. I was not talking about doing that. Most people, if not all know better than to do that here at the office. But my solution to dropping the network mounts has been to just not allow the machines to sleep. oh well, it works for now.