iPhoto used to wow me, but I'm becoming, forgive the expression, disenfranchised, with it.
Before you comment that I'm nuts or too plain picky or that I might as well swith to a Windows PC, hear me out. :-)
My first mistake might have been using iPhoto Buddy and segmenting my library into 7 libraries. That was with iPhoto 2. Things worked well with the exception of slowness (and the fix-it features). Enter iLife 4 with iPhoto 4. Nice, faster and all that. The way Jobs showed it at MW Expo SF 2004, there was nothing close to it on the market. Probably true. Adobe Photoshop Album was on the prowl - too bad it hasn't come to the Mac, it's 1/2 way decent.
Importing my libraries into iPhoto 4 was easy, but for crying out loud, my library went from just over 1000 pix to over 4000 pix! Duplicates abounded. Long story short, I've futzed with iPhoto 4 for a long time, ended up digging through the cryptic library weeding out all photos, dups, thumbs, etc., and starting over.
Looking at the library of iPhoto was like rummaging through the Windows registry. Okay, not quite, but good grief, talk about complicated. IMHO, unnecessarily complicated.
Enter Kodak EasyPhoto. Not as fast as iPhoto 4, but very nice. I love the one touch feature - it gives you a movable divider down the center of the photo with a "before" and "after" of your photo. Really nice. Kodak has done a bang-up job with this free app. For those not into .Mac, it works seamlessly with Kodak's Ofoto service, also excellent - arguably way better than Apple's minimalist offerings for photo printing, etc., via .Mac.
Which brings me to a little thing that irks me with iPhoto. Why can't I have a button for BOTH clockwise and counter-clockwise photo rotation?! Simplicity, minimalism! Hallmarks of Apple hardware and software. Well, I usually like that approach except when it comes to managing my music and my photos.
Last. Printing photos works fantastic - as long as I use full-size photo paper. I have an Epson Stylus C82, latest OS X release, etc. Even with Kodak's EasyShare, it won't print 4x6 paper correctly. The problem is the driver as far as I can tell as Kodak's EasyShare on XP works perfectly with the C82. I don't fault iPhoto for this. The C82 driver is weaker in some respects on OS X than XP. The most current driver for this printer comes with OS X. Epson hasn't updated their driver for years.
Bottom line. I am less impressed by the day with iPhoto's photo management. I don't like the cryptic nature of how it does its thing (nested folders numerically named).
I hope iPhoto 5 (or 4.5 or whatever) answers some of these issues.
Question for those of you who are iPhoto experts: Why is the library managed the way it is? Should I not have the option of saving (i.e., overwriting) the "changed" photo rather than it being duplicated thus doubling the space taken by the photo?
Thanks for reading. And please be nice in the comments.
Tuesday, December 28, 2004
Monday, December 20, 2004
iTunes Feature Request: Customizable Cross-Fading
I use iTunes almost daily - for the obvious listening to tunes, talk radio broadcasts and spoken-word ... audio.
I've created a smart playlist for a particlular set of spoken-word audio that I've recently begun adding to my library. While listening yesterday I was taken aback to hear the next chapter start before the last sentence was read of the previous chapter. Realizing what was going on , I scrambled to the preferences and changed the cross-fading option ... and realized that this is something that should be fixed, or perhaps a better word is, enhanced.
If I could have one wish (at this point only one) for iTunes it would be that either the preferences would have greater control over cross-fading (i.e., turn it off for spoken-word, etc.) OR, and I like this better, let playlists and smart playlists have settings for cross-fading. So when I create a new smart/playlist, let the window where I choose genre, etc., have an option(s) for cross-fading - and while we're at it, why not have Equalizer settings there, too, so I can have greater flexibility in that area as well.
But sticking to cross-fading for now, I don't want a global cross-fading option only. I want to be able to drill down and choose - say for these 24 songs in this playlist, that I don't want cross fading, I want to hear each song in its entirety. Likewise, spoken-word simply doesn't work with cross-fading turned on. But I want the option for everything else and I don't want to have to go into the preferences each time to change it.
Anyone else feel the same way? Is there a way to do this already that I have simply overlooked ... was it staring me right in the face?
I've created a smart playlist for a particlular set of spoken-word audio that I've recently begun adding to my library. While listening yesterday I was taken aback to hear the next chapter start before the last sentence was read of the previous chapter. Realizing what was going on , I scrambled to the preferences and changed the cross-fading option ... and realized that this is something that should be fixed, or perhaps a better word is, enhanced.
If I could have one wish (at this point only one) for iTunes it would be that either the preferences would have greater control over cross-fading (i.e., turn it off for spoken-word, etc.) OR, and I like this better, let playlists and smart playlists have settings for cross-fading. So when I create a new smart/playlist, let the window where I choose genre, etc., have an option(s) for cross-fading - and while we're at it, why not have Equalizer settings there, too, so I can have greater flexibility in that area as well.
But sticking to cross-fading for now, I don't want a global cross-fading option only. I want to be able to drill down and choose - say for these 24 songs in this playlist, that I don't want cross fading, I want to hear each song in its entirety. Likewise, spoken-word simply doesn't work with cross-fading turned on. But I want the option for everything else and I don't want to have to go into the preferences each time to change it.
Anyone else feel the same way? Is there a way to do this already that I have simply overlooked ... was it staring me right in the face?
Sunday, December 19, 2004
BBEdit 8
BBedit 8: text/HTML/XML, etc., editor
By: Bare Bones Software
Type of review: minor, general comments, praise, criticism, no deep bone crushing code stuff.
---
I've spent a lot of time, nearly every day over the last year +, in one text editing program or another on the Mac, and some of the time on XP. I'm not sure that there is one editor to rule them all, but if I could combine two of them, they'd be BBEdit 8 and from the PC world, EditPlus. Maybe a BBEditPlus, if you will.
But that's not too fair, because between the two of them, I'd like all of what BBEdit has to offer, adding the tabs for windows and a few interface niceties from EditPlus. So really, BBEdit is as close to perfect as I've found on any platform.
Of the other editors on the Mac, I like Tex-Edit Plus (TE+). I bought a license for it and used it on my job for some time; however, there was one thing I couldn't live without - automatic syntax highlighting (Both BBE and EditPlus do this). To combat this in TE+, I used a script I wrote for text highlighting (so it'd look like BBE), but it only worked for existing text and had to be reapplied for every modification/addition. Not fun and not functional.
I used BBEdit 7.x.x in demo and built quite a few AppleScripts around it utilizing its excellent grep capabilities among other things, one aspect of the things that endeared me to BBEdit. But for sake of money and conscience, I turned to TE+. While powerful in its own right, it couldn't (can't) match the editing capabilities of BBEdit, driving me to learn other AppleScript solutions like fixing and tidying text on the clipboard.
But that still wasn't "perfect" - so the opportunity presented itself to me to obtain a BBE license finally and I've been quite happy ever since. While I miss some things TE+ allowed me to do (bold certain words, highlight words, etc.) BBEdit allows me to do other things better. Like perform grep functions better, in this sense - when I "set selection to clipText" in a script, that selection remains highlighted in BBEdit until I change the focus of the cursor. This capability allows me to run all manner of fix ups, etc., to the text w/o having to highlight it again, run a fix, ad nauseum.
BBEdit 8 presents a new layer of refinement and capability, the least of which is not the document drawer. Here is one thing that I do like, but prefer a tabbed interface a la Safari or EditPlus. I would LOVE for Bare Bones to add this option in the preferences. I realize that there is *sort of* a tab bar, but, to me, it is counter-intuitive. I have to click it, and a menu pops up of the docs I have open. Or I could click the right/left arrows to navigate thru my docs. But at least give me the option to remove those and place aquafied tabs of my docs.
In addition to the tabs, I need to be able to have a single keystroke to switch documents like I have when I switch windows - the command+` key. Instead, BBEdit forces me to use three-fingered commands - and two of them, to jump between documents. I find this inefficient and a waste of my time. Don't get me wrong, I like it better than having to have two windows open - I prefer it with the document drawer. But here's where EditPlus' tabbed documents would be a lovely addition.
So if you guys read this, would you mind adding that for me? :-) Purty puleeze?
At first the vertical lines bothered me, but I'm used to it now to the point that I don't like it w/o them. And it is great that the depth of preference is there for color, saturation, etc. I love the ability to identify which line I'm on by a subtle highlight spanning the width of the page at the cursor location. Excellent touches that make this app stand out from the rest.
Do I recommend BBEdit for serious programmers - absolutely. For web site builders/maintainers? Yes. My one major drawback is the retail price. I honestly think BBEdit is overpriced by ... well, a lot of money. EditPlus is $30 for a one-user license. If I had to live on Windows, there's no question I'd own it. It's a great app with a compelling set of features. BBEdit has more features, but for $150 more?? It is my sincere hope that Bare Bones will lower the price w/o compromising the functionality. Bring it into a price parity with the rest of the text-editor market.
What would I pay for BBEdit? Well, I think that even $80 is high, but I'd be willing to swing it if it had every feature I want. If EditPlus were on OS X (and was AppleScriptable), I'd wager it'd win a lot of converts on price alone. I realize Bare Bones is not Microsoft (apps also overpriced), and they deserve to make a good living for the great products they make, but it is tough to scrape up enough change to take the plunge.
Even so, I need BBEdit for peace of mind in doing my work. If I make an error in my tags, the syntax highlighting changes giving me a visual indication that something is wrong. This is a good thing. EditPlus does this, too, fwiw.
So the bottom line is that my only *real* gripe is the retail price of the package. Otherwise it is hands down the best out there.
Having read numerous reviews/blogs on this topic, I know there are those of you who hate BBEdit and prefer apps like TextMate, TE+, et al., so your opinion is fine, but I've tried many of the apps suggested on those blogs and found them to pale in comparison to BBEdit. FWIW, I still think TE+ is excellent and phenomenal on pricing. If Mr. Bender adds tabs and auto-highlight-syntax, it' be a strong pull to go back. But for now, my hat is hung with BBEdit.
By: Bare Bones Software
Type of review: minor, general comments, praise, criticism, no deep bone crushing code stuff.
---
I've spent a lot of time, nearly every day over the last year +, in one text editing program or another on the Mac, and some of the time on XP. I'm not sure that there is one editor to rule them all, but if I could combine two of them, they'd be BBEdit 8 and from the PC world, EditPlus. Maybe a BBEditPlus, if you will.
But that's not too fair, because between the two of them, I'd like all of what BBEdit has to offer, adding the tabs for windows and a few interface niceties from EditPlus. So really, BBEdit is as close to perfect as I've found on any platform.
Of the other editors on the Mac, I like Tex-Edit Plus (TE+). I bought a license for it and used it on my job for some time; however, there was one thing I couldn't live without - automatic syntax highlighting (Both BBE and EditPlus do this). To combat this in TE+, I used a script I wrote for text highlighting (so it'd look like BBE), but it only worked for existing text and had to be reapplied for every modification/addition. Not fun and not functional.
I used BBEdit 7.x.x in demo and built quite a few AppleScripts around it utilizing its excellent grep capabilities among other things, one aspect of the things that endeared me to BBEdit. But for sake of money and conscience, I turned to TE+. While powerful in its own right, it couldn't (can't) match the editing capabilities of BBEdit, driving me to learn other AppleScript solutions like fixing and tidying text on the clipboard.
But that still wasn't "perfect" - so the opportunity presented itself to me to obtain a BBE license finally and I've been quite happy ever since. While I miss some things TE+ allowed me to do (bold certain words, highlight words, etc.) BBEdit allows me to do other things better. Like perform grep functions better, in this sense - when I "set selection to clipText" in a script, that selection remains highlighted in BBEdit until I change the focus of the cursor. This capability allows me to run all manner of fix ups, etc., to the text w/o having to highlight it again, run a fix, ad nauseum.
BBEdit 8 presents a new layer of refinement and capability, the least of which is not the document drawer. Here is one thing that I do like, but prefer a tabbed interface a la Safari or EditPlus. I would LOVE for Bare Bones to add this option in the preferences. I realize that there is *sort of* a tab bar, but, to me, it is counter-intuitive. I have to click it, and a menu pops up of the docs I have open. Or I could click the right/left arrows to navigate thru my docs. But at least give me the option to remove those and place aquafied tabs of my docs.
In addition to the tabs, I need to be able to have a single keystroke to switch documents like I have when I switch windows - the command+` key. Instead, BBEdit forces me to use three-fingered commands - and two of them, to jump between documents. I find this inefficient and a waste of my time. Don't get me wrong, I like it better than having to have two windows open - I prefer it with the document drawer. But here's where EditPlus' tabbed documents would be a lovely addition.
So if you guys read this, would you mind adding that for me? :-) Purty puleeze?
At first the vertical lines bothered me, but I'm used to it now to the point that I don't like it w/o them. And it is great that the depth of preference is there for color, saturation, etc. I love the ability to identify which line I'm on by a subtle highlight spanning the width of the page at the cursor location. Excellent touches that make this app stand out from the rest.
Do I recommend BBEdit for serious programmers - absolutely. For web site builders/maintainers? Yes. My one major drawback is the retail price. I honestly think BBEdit is overpriced by ... well, a lot of money. EditPlus is $30 for a one-user license. If I had to live on Windows, there's no question I'd own it. It's a great app with a compelling set of features. BBEdit has more features, but for $150 more?? It is my sincere hope that Bare Bones will lower the price w/o compromising the functionality. Bring it into a price parity with the rest of the text-editor market.
What would I pay for BBEdit? Well, I think that even $80 is high, but I'd be willing to swing it if it had every feature I want. If EditPlus were on OS X (and was AppleScriptable), I'd wager it'd win a lot of converts on price alone. I realize Bare Bones is not Microsoft (apps also overpriced), and they deserve to make a good living for the great products they make, but it is tough to scrape up enough change to take the plunge.
Even so, I need BBEdit for peace of mind in doing my work. If I make an error in my tags, the syntax highlighting changes giving me a visual indication that something is wrong. This is a good thing. EditPlus does this, too, fwiw.
So the bottom line is that my only *real* gripe is the retail price of the package. Otherwise it is hands down the best out there.
Having read numerous reviews/blogs on this topic, I know there are those of you who hate BBEdit and prefer apps like TextMate, TE+, et al., so your opinion is fine, but I've tried many of the apps suggested on those blogs and found them to pale in comparison to BBEdit. FWIW, I still think TE+ is excellent and phenomenal on pricing. If Mr. Bender adds tabs and auto-highlight-syntax, it' be a strong pull to go back. But for now, my hat is hung with BBEdit.
Tuesday, October 05, 2004
Firefox (PR1): I wouldn't mind using it all the time, but...
Firefox is an excellent browser. On Windows. It is a very good browser on the Mac. In my book, Excellent = top notch, very good=really likable, but needing work.
I think Firefox is more stable, faster, and less buggy on Windows than on OS X. Granted, we're not talking identical machines. Nope. My Dell is a 866MHz Pentium III, 512MB RAM, 30 Gig HD. My Mac is a 17" 1.33GHz PowerBook, 1Gig RAM, 80Gig HD.
Loading identical bookmark groups in Tabs (PC running Firefox, Mac running Safari), the Dell finishes a few seconds faster (between 3 and 8 secs, actually) than the PB. You say, "what's a few seconds?" I say, yeah, but my PB is -should be- WAY faster. Compare Firefox to Firefox on both and the gap is narrowed a bit, but still, the PC is faster. I'm assuming the code is better optimized for Intel chips than IBM or Motorola.
In case you're wondering if the PC was using cached pages, no, it wasn't, in fact, neither machine was.
There you have my PC to Mac gripe. How about comparing Firefox and Safari.
Don't get me wrong, I really do like Firefox. I would use it more because it is faster than Safari. But it doesn't behave well enough for me to switch. First and foremost, I need it to be way more AppleScriptable than it is. I'm glad there's a little library for it, but I want to use commands like Safari's do Javascript getSelection() of document 1, and I'd like some way to get the URL so I can put it in a document or other.
Firefox does have the huge advantage of extensions - and one extension, Copy URL+ is pretty slick, but it doesn't allow me to do what I do with Safari. That extension will grab the URL, selected text and whatever is in the title tags. The author says it can be modified by editing a certain file, but that file doesn't exist anywhere on my machine. If anyone knows what to do on the Mac to edit that extension - say to put tags around the selected text and URL, please let me know in the comments section.
Speaking of selecting text, here is where Firefox's bugs fly around. It is really odd. I'll double-click on a headline to highlight it, but only a portion of it will highlight. Or suddenly there's a colored highlight box around the entire article instead of the headline. I click numerous times on the title to get back to it, but it won't highlight. I'll reload the page, then it works. Reload it again and I am only able to highlight a portion of the title. What gives?
Sometimes Safari is buggy on highlighting as well. I've seen what I think is a pattern on some sites where a certain ad loads near the title and when that ad is in rotation, I can't highlight the text w/o highlighting the whole blooming article. But Firefox breaks far more often on this than Safari. I've never experienced this on Firefox for Windows.
Safari continues to rule the browser roost on my PowerBook. Will Safari in Tiger be a giant leap beating all other browsers on the Mac? Of course that remains to be seen. There's excellent potential with both apps, but until and unless the coders of Firefox continue to beef up support for AppleScript, I probably won't use it as my main browser even though I'd like to.
----
I know there are some AppleScripter demigods out there who know how to script the unscriptable. If anyone knows some scripting techniques for Firefox, please leave me a comment below with any info you can provide.
As for the odd behavior of Firefox on OS X, am I alone in this, or are there any of you who've experienced the same things? Any workarounds to offer? I am a regular maintainer of my system - repairing permissions, clearing cache, running cron stuff and all that - usually via Cocktail.
Thanks for putting up with my gripes. It is tough when a potentially great app gets released across platforms, but one platform outperforms the other. In this case, Windows Firefox outperforming Mac's Firefox.
I think Firefox is more stable, faster, and less buggy on Windows than on OS X. Granted, we're not talking identical machines. Nope. My Dell is a 866MHz Pentium III, 512MB RAM, 30 Gig HD. My Mac is a 17" 1.33GHz PowerBook, 1Gig RAM, 80Gig HD.
Loading identical bookmark groups in Tabs (PC running Firefox, Mac running Safari), the Dell finishes a few seconds faster (between 3 and 8 secs, actually) than the PB. You say, "what's a few seconds?" I say, yeah, but my PB is -should be- WAY faster. Compare Firefox to Firefox on both and the gap is narrowed a bit, but still, the PC is faster. I'm assuming the code is better optimized for Intel chips than IBM or Motorola.
In case you're wondering if the PC was using cached pages, no, it wasn't, in fact, neither machine was.
There you have my PC to Mac gripe. How about comparing Firefox and Safari.
Don't get me wrong, I really do like Firefox. I would use it more because it is faster than Safari. But it doesn't behave well enough for me to switch. First and foremost, I need it to be way more AppleScriptable than it is. I'm glad there's a little library for it, but I want to use commands like Safari's do Javascript getSelection() of document 1, and I'd like some way to get the URL so I can put it in a document or other.
Firefox does have the huge advantage of extensions - and one extension, Copy URL+ is pretty slick, but it doesn't allow me to do what I do with Safari. That extension will grab the URL, selected text and whatever is in the title tags. The author says it can be modified by editing a certain file, but that file doesn't exist anywhere on my machine. If anyone knows what to do on the Mac to edit that extension - say to put tags around the selected text and URL, please let me know in the comments section.
Speaking of selecting text, here is where Firefox's bugs fly around. It is really odd. I'll double-click on a headline to highlight it, but only a portion of it will highlight. Or suddenly there's a colored highlight box around the entire article instead of the headline. I click numerous times on the title to get back to it, but it won't highlight. I'll reload the page, then it works. Reload it again and I am only able to highlight a portion of the title. What gives?
Sometimes Safari is buggy on highlighting as well. I've seen what I think is a pattern on some sites where a certain ad loads near the title and when that ad is in rotation, I can't highlight the text w/o highlighting the whole blooming article. But Firefox breaks far more often on this than Safari. I've never experienced this on Firefox for Windows.
Safari continues to rule the browser roost on my PowerBook. Will Safari in Tiger be a giant leap beating all other browsers on the Mac? Of course that remains to be seen. There's excellent potential with both apps, but until and unless the coders of Firefox continue to beef up support for AppleScript, I probably won't use it as my main browser even though I'd like to.
----
I know there are some AppleScripter demigods out there who know how to script the unscriptable. If anyone knows some scripting techniques for Firefox, please leave me a comment below with any info you can provide.
As for the odd behavior of Firefox on OS X, am I alone in this, or are there any of you who've experienced the same things? Any workarounds to offer? I am a regular maintainer of my system - repairing permissions, clearing cache, running cron stuff and all that - usually via Cocktail.
Thanks for putting up with my gripes. It is tough when a potentially great app gets released across platforms, but one platform outperforms the other. In this case, Windows Firefox outperforming Mac's Firefox.
Thursday, September 02, 2004
A Look at WiMP 10 and iTunes
Today Microsoft released Windows Media Player 10 (WiMP 10) in addition to it's new MSN music service. It is obvious that Microsoft wants to own and be king of whatever market it enters. Just scan the press today and they (MS) make no bones about the fact that they aim to compete heavily, if not crush, Apple's iTunes Music Store (iTMS).
I'm finding myself fatigued in my wish that Microsoft would let others dominate in some markets. Wish of the day, impossible as it is. It would be like asking Caesar to let the Gaul's have their country. Caesar's answer was an undeniable and thunderous "NO".
So here we are with Microsoft's entry into the music store download arena. Microsoft is the big, overweight gladiator, Real Networks is the sickly guy who's there for the easy kill. Apple, however, is the not-big, but polished, popular gladiator loved and adored by "the Mob." (references to the movie Gladiator abound, so if you don't get it, go watch Russel Crowe in an awesome flick).
From here I'll briefly look at the actual players from Microsoft and Apple as opposed to the stores and the store experience.
WiMP 10: Much cleaner interface than WiMP 9. Did I mention a MUCH cleaner interface? The sound is great as well, but I found that even though the interface was the best MS has put forward to date (IMO), it is not as intuitive as iTunes.
Don't get me wrong. WiMP 10 certainly takes cues from iTunes' design, but it is a lot more complicated. It is as if WiMP 10 is trying to do too much. Take a peek at the included skins. Yuck with a capital Y. Same old skins with the last two iterations of the WiMP family.
On my machine, the install defaulted the menubar as "OFF" - so I don't see "File, Edit ..." etc. I could change it, but to do so there's this little down-pointing triangle/arrow on the right, next to the minimize/maximize/close buttons. Odd place, if you ask me, and unintuitive. I didn't expect it to be there.
What I do like is the inclusion of Movies & TV. It is a one-stop-shop for checking the latest news headlines, special interest, online movie stream rentals and such. Something I think Apple will do in the future.
iTunes (Mac or Windows). Staying on the Movie & TV topic for a moment, Apple does offer movie previews via the iTMS and that is neat, but it is not the same as what MS is offering. MS clearly adds to the experience in this arena where, as I mentioned above, Apple will likely do - dare I say - needs to do down the line.
iTunes' interface is notably simple, the signature of Apple products and software. WiMP 10 trimmed down their interface to a *more* simplified design, but Apple still holds the gold medal in this category. Apple's UI design guru's are sure to be copied when they come up with something "new", and iTunes is no exception. MS must have felt that Apple's design was better, hence WiMP's resemblance.
iTunes is simpler when it comes to visualizations and engaging them while playing music. I had to hunt and peck for it with WiMP 10 - finally switching to skin mode did the trick. I thought it would be different this time, I was wrong.
One thing I like about WiMP that I wish Apple did with iTunes (though you can with 3rd party, sort of) is integration into the menu bar. For WiMP, if you've enabled the option, when you minimize the player, a mini-metallic skinned player becomes part of the task bar. A little window pops up when songs change, or you can watch videos this way - if your eyesight is good. Visualizations work in this mode as well. Nice.
For iTunes, I downloaded You Software's free You Control iTunes menubar controller. A very nice, low CPU utility. Though I wish it would work w/o opening iTunes, but alas, none of the menubar controllers for iTunes do. But it's a start.
Stores: Briefly let me mention that Microsoft's store is less flashy than iTMS, and offers fewer genres. For instance, I like to hit the "Inspirational" genre in iTMS to see what new (or old favs) Christian artists have been released. Can't do that - at least it wasn't obvious - on MS's store.
Furthermore, on iTMS you do a search, say for Phil Keaggy and all of his stuff will pop up. Same with on MS. However, on iTMS, you can tell his genre - generally, more information is available at quick glance in iTunes. However Microsoft offers a bio of the artist when you are at his/her page. That is slick. I've been a long-time fan of King's X and am familiar with much of their history; however, I learned a few things from the band bio on the MS music store. Really nice.
iTMS is more colorful and fun to browse. Hands down. iTunes is a better all-around player with the exception, IMHO, of the exclusion of Movies & TV viewing. But that ability is NOT that big of a deal, honestly. A jukebox is a jukebox and should try to be the best jukebox it can be. Trying to do all things for all people is not necessarily the best choice for a jukebox.
Anyone else try it that has been using iTunes (either for Win or Mac?). Like it, hate it?
I'm finding myself fatigued in my wish that Microsoft would let others dominate in some markets. Wish of the day, impossible as it is. It would be like asking Caesar to let the Gaul's have their country. Caesar's answer was an undeniable and thunderous "NO".
So here we are with Microsoft's entry into the music store download arena. Microsoft is the big, overweight gladiator, Real Networks is the sickly guy who's there for the easy kill. Apple, however, is the not-big, but polished, popular gladiator loved and adored by "the Mob." (references to the movie Gladiator abound, so if you don't get it, go watch Russel Crowe in an awesome flick).
From here I'll briefly look at the actual players from Microsoft and Apple as opposed to the stores and the store experience.
WiMP 10: Much cleaner interface than WiMP 9. Did I mention a MUCH cleaner interface? The sound is great as well, but I found that even though the interface was the best MS has put forward to date (IMO), it is not as intuitive as iTunes.
Don't get me wrong. WiMP 10 certainly takes cues from iTunes' design, but it is a lot more complicated. It is as if WiMP 10 is trying to do too much. Take a peek at the included skins. Yuck with a capital Y. Same old skins with the last two iterations of the WiMP family.
On my machine, the install defaulted the menubar as "OFF" - so I don't see "File, Edit ..." etc. I could change it, but to do so there's this little down-pointing triangle/arrow on the right, next to the minimize/maximize/close buttons. Odd place, if you ask me, and unintuitive. I didn't expect it to be there.
What I do like is the inclusion of Movies & TV. It is a one-stop-shop for checking the latest news headlines, special interest, online movie stream rentals and such. Something I think Apple will do in the future.
iTunes (Mac or Windows). Staying on the Movie & TV topic for a moment, Apple does offer movie previews via the iTMS and that is neat, but it is not the same as what MS is offering. MS clearly adds to the experience in this arena where, as I mentioned above, Apple will likely do - dare I say - needs to do down the line.
iTunes' interface is notably simple, the signature of Apple products and software. WiMP 10 trimmed down their interface to a *more* simplified design, but Apple still holds the gold medal in this category. Apple's UI design guru's are sure to be copied when they come up with something "new", and iTunes is no exception. MS must have felt that Apple's design was better, hence WiMP's resemblance.
iTunes is simpler when it comes to visualizations and engaging them while playing music. I had to hunt and peck for it with WiMP 10 - finally switching to skin mode did the trick. I thought it would be different this time, I was wrong.
One thing I like about WiMP that I wish Apple did with iTunes (though you can with 3rd party, sort of) is integration into the menu bar. For WiMP, if you've enabled the option, when you minimize the player, a mini-metallic skinned player becomes part of the task bar. A little window pops up when songs change, or you can watch videos this way - if your eyesight is good. Visualizations work in this mode as well. Nice.
For iTunes, I downloaded You Software's free You Control iTunes menubar controller. A very nice, low CPU utility. Though I wish it would work w/o opening iTunes, but alas, none of the menubar controllers for iTunes do. But it's a start.
Stores: Briefly let me mention that Microsoft's store is less flashy than iTMS, and offers fewer genres. For instance, I like to hit the "Inspirational" genre in iTMS to see what new (or old favs) Christian artists have been released. Can't do that - at least it wasn't obvious - on MS's store.
Furthermore, on iTMS you do a search, say for Phil Keaggy and all of his stuff will pop up. Same with on MS. However, on iTMS, you can tell his genre - generally, more information is available at quick glance in iTunes. However Microsoft offers a bio of the artist when you are at his/her page. That is slick. I've been a long-time fan of King's X and am familiar with much of their history; however, I learned a few things from the band bio on the MS music store. Really nice.
iTMS is more colorful and fun to browse. Hands down. iTunes is a better all-around player with the exception, IMHO, of the exclusion of Movies & TV viewing. But that ability is NOT that big of a deal, honestly. A jukebox is a jukebox and should try to be the best jukebox it can be. Trying to do all things for all people is not necessarily the best choice for a jukebox.
Anyone else try it that has been using iTunes (either for Win or Mac?). Like it, hate it?
Wednesday, September 01, 2004
Dvorak's Invective ... sheesh
You know, I ask myself, why even bother replying to Mr. J. C. Dvorak? I mean, go and read his article at CBS MarketWatch. He talks about how Apple is starting to believe their own press in regard to the iPod ... sounds like John's starting to beleive that he's a really good tech writer. I mean, come on, CBS is publishing his stuff.
Glad it is filed under "John Dvorak's Second Opinion."
I won't bother with a point by point refutation ... other sites will glady jump on that. Suffice it to say, it's a fun read, though rife with, IMHO, rather uhh, silly analysis.
I realize that the G5 iMac has hit with a lot of praise, naysaying as well as folks scratching thier heads. John is pretty much just another one of the guys who tap their watch, hold it up to their ear and say, "Is this thing working? Wasn't Apple supposed to be dead by now ... what's going on? I better think of something to write about Apple that is negative. Am I late for dinner?"
The first thing he finds to complain about is Schiller's remark that September can't come soon enough ... though it was just the next day. Okay, yeah, kind of silly. Then he complains about Schiller's choice of shirt, his gushing about the iPod and wishing he could dance like those silhouettes in the commercials.
Hey JOHN!! Your opinion is yours, and you are free to voice it. But dude, why smack Phil in such a personal way? It wasn't ad hominem, but it was one of those things that reminds you of a bully picking on another kid only to make himself feel better. Please.
That bothered me and set the tenor of the entire read - again, it was fun, but in a "gee, is this guy serious?" sort of way. But here I am smacking John. Well, I guess it's okay since I don't write for CBS or PC Magazine or other.
Go ahead and read the article. When you're done laughing, let me know what you thought. I think I can count on one hand the number of articles over the years John's written that I found I agreed with. Go figure.
Glad it is filed under "John Dvorak's Second Opinion."
I won't bother with a point by point refutation ... other sites will glady jump on that. Suffice it to say, it's a fun read, though rife with, IMHO, rather uhh, silly analysis.
I realize that the G5 iMac has hit with a lot of praise, naysaying as well as folks scratching thier heads. John is pretty much just another one of the guys who tap their watch, hold it up to their ear and say, "Is this thing working? Wasn't Apple supposed to be dead by now ... what's going on? I better think of something to write about Apple that is negative. Am I late for dinner?"
The first thing he finds to complain about is Schiller's remark that September can't come soon enough ... though it was just the next day. Okay, yeah, kind of silly. Then he complains about Schiller's choice of shirt, his gushing about the iPod and wishing he could dance like those silhouettes in the commercials.
Hey JOHN!! Your opinion is yours, and you are free to voice it. But dude, why smack Phil in such a personal way? It wasn't ad hominem, but it was one of those things that reminds you of a bully picking on another kid only to make himself feel better. Please.
That bothered me and set the tenor of the entire read - again, it was fun, but in a "gee, is this guy serious?" sort of way. But here I am smacking John. Well, I guess it's okay since I don't write for CBS or PC Magazine or other.
Go ahead and read the article. When you're done laughing, let me know what you thought. I think I can count on one hand the number of articles over the years John's written that I found I agreed with. Go figure.
Tuesday, August 31, 2004
iMac G5 - Initial Reaction
Well, the "hurricane" of the Keynote came and went. Cleanup ensues.
I was a little shocked, to be honest, not a lot shocked, a little. I assumed that the "all in the monitor" rumors had some truth to them. I feel like I shouldn't be shocked at all, but I am.
First the exterior. It is neat. But I like the sunflower iMac the best as of this point. The big white space at the base of the monitor is ... *okay*. Not sure they could have done much else with it, though. I am a huge J. Ive fan, and this is no exception to his excellent work. But I'm not sure it is his best.
But I still like it. It may become the iMac of preference for me soon enough as I'm a big fan of future-looking devices. I like that on the iMac page (graphics) Apple says that you can purchase a mount for the iMac and hang it on a wall or desk-mount device. Now that's cool.
Overall it does look neat to me. Okay, as I type this out, I'm liking it more ... I'm trying to resist. Must ... maintain ... composure.
Interior is neat. Clean, simple, powerful. Design feat.
Video: This is the first real thing that got me. The second is the *optional* bluetooth. A unit this slick should be wirless from the git go. Not a good move, IMHO. But the video. 64MB?! So it can run Doom III, but golly gee, guys!! 128 should have been the starting point. And there is no option to upgrade.
Granted, video cards produce a lot of heat. Maybe the beefier cards just couldn't pass the temperature muster, or the size muster given the need for a fan on the card. But still.
Bluetooth: $50 option alone, but if you purchase the system and there is an option of "Bluetooth + Apple wireless keyboard and mouse" for only $99. That's a good deal.
Other gripes: Base RAM. Still at 256MB. Not good. Wireless ready. The top two models should have it built-in, so the cost of this puppy keeps going up.
Would I buy one. If I had the money, yes. After all you other folks jumped in first to work out the bugs and stuff :-). Give me the 20" model with a 250MB HD upgrade, AirPort Extreme, bluetooth/keyb/mouse deal, 2GB RAM. That'd work ... that is, except for the price: $3320.00 in USD. Granted, I could get the RAM cheaper elsewhere, and probably would, so knock off $1125 from Apple.
Desktop space (and floor) is a premium in our house, so though I'd rather the full power of dual processors, this would do.
How about you? Like it, hate it, jury still out?
I was a little shocked, to be honest, not a lot shocked, a little. I assumed that the "all in the monitor" rumors had some truth to them. I feel like I shouldn't be shocked at all, but I am.
First the exterior. It is neat. But I like the sunflower iMac the best as of this point. The big white space at the base of the monitor is ... *okay*. Not sure they could have done much else with it, though. I am a huge J. Ive fan, and this is no exception to his excellent work. But I'm not sure it is his best.
But I still like it. It may become the iMac of preference for me soon enough as I'm a big fan of future-looking devices. I like that on the iMac page (graphics) Apple says that you can purchase a mount for the iMac and hang it on a wall or desk-mount device. Now that's cool.
Overall it does look neat to me. Okay, as I type this out, I'm liking it more ... I'm trying to resist. Must ... maintain ... composure.
Interior is neat. Clean, simple, powerful. Design feat.
Video: This is the first real thing that got me. The second is the *optional* bluetooth. A unit this slick should be wirless from the git go. Not a good move, IMHO. But the video. 64MB?! So it can run Doom III, but golly gee, guys!! 128 should have been the starting point. And there is no option to upgrade.
Granted, video cards produce a lot of heat. Maybe the beefier cards just couldn't pass the temperature muster, or the size muster given the need for a fan on the card. But still.
Bluetooth: $50 option alone, but if you purchase the system and there is an option of "Bluetooth + Apple wireless keyboard and mouse" for only $99. That's a good deal.
Other gripes: Base RAM. Still at 256MB. Not good. Wireless ready. The top two models should have it built-in, so the cost of this puppy keeps going up.
Would I buy one. If I had the money, yes. After all you other folks jumped in first to work out the bugs and stuff :-). Give me the 20" model with a 250MB HD upgrade, AirPort Extreme, bluetooth/keyb/mouse deal, 2GB RAM. That'd work ... that is, except for the price: $3320.00 in USD. Granted, I could get the RAM cheaper elsewhere, and probably would, so knock off $1125 from Apple.
Desktop space (and floor) is a premium in our house, so though I'd rather the full power of dual processors, this would do.
How about you? Like it, hate it, jury still out?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)