Be glad Apple doesn't make cameras
RichA
replacing PC's haven't and won't come to pass. It comes down to
design. Apple products are plagued by a soulless European minimalism
that to some appears attractive, but from a functional aspect, sucks.
Think about pro cameras then think about newer small cameras and what
is the small camera's main problem? Lack of up front functionality,
lack of buttons. Everything is buried in menus or simply lacking.
This is why despite the constant griping by some there ARE no small,
pro-level DSLRs.
Apple doesn't use buttons. Everything is in multi-layed menus
onscreen. If the could commit the keyboard to a screen, likely they
would. This is not the kind of hamstrung functionality people who
know better want in a camera. They want the functions available to
them with a one-button push, ideally.
Which is why pro cameras will stay large.
Neil Harrington
"RichA" <rande...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:de1b8d61-7a2e-4c41...@j35g2000vbl.googlegroups.com...
> Because they'd corner the market? Hardly. Their aspirations about
> replacing PC's haven't and won't come to pass. It comes down to
> design. Apple products are plagued by a soulless European minimalism
> that to some appears attractive, but from a functional aspect, sucks.
Not necessarily "European." This undoubtedly goes back to Steve Jobs's
marketing philosophy from the very beginning. When he and Steve Wozniak (who
did virtually all the actual engineering) designed the original Apple II, it
had only a 52-key keyboard and no shift key, because Jobs wanted to keep it
simple and non-threatening to ordinary, non-computer-savvy consumers.
Consequently when word processing software was developed for it it was more
or less crippled, unless users were satisfied to write in all caps. There
were hardware modifications to correct this, but until 1983 when the Apple
IIe came out with a much improved keyboard (I'm ignoring the Apple III
because it was a commercial flop), that was the situation.
And Jobs insisted on convection cooling only, because he thought ordinary
consumers would be put off by the sound of a fan -- too "machine-like," you
see. Many (probably most) buyers on their own added a Kensington system fan
made for the Apple II case. Also Jobs wanted only two expansion slots, but
Wozniak overruled him on that dopey idea and gave it seven.
Ray Fischer
>Because they'd corner the market? Hardly. Their aspirations about
>replacing PC's haven't and won't come to pass. It comes down to
>design. Apple products are plagued by a soulless European minimalism
Rich is an effete snob who doesn't realize that Apple's computers are
designed in California. And judging by Apple's stock price they seem
to be doing quite well.
It's a good thing Rich isn't an engineer. Any product he designed
would be so heavy and so muddled with useless crap as to be unusable.
>Think about pro cameras then think about newer small cameras and what
Oooo! "Think".
Take your own advice.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
corks
"RichA" <rande...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:de1b8d61-7a2e-4c41...@j35g2000vbl.googlegroups.com...
Roger Matthews
battery needed replacement!
"corks" <triga...@nospam.iinet.net.au> wrote in message
news:K-2dnQy-aebgTIHW...@westnet.com.au...
John McWilliams
> In article
> <de1b8d61-7a2e-4c41...@j35g2000vbl.googlegroups.com>,
> consumer-level digital cameras on the market. Apple has never aspired to
> replace the PC. Steve Jobs has said that in public several times. You
> need to update yourself on history before you spout off with clearly
> uninformed information.
That won't be happening, as Rich likes to post.... a lot.
Apple still "makes" a digital camera- they're embedded in all laptops
and iPhones.
--
John McWilliams
George Kerby
On 12/6/09 10:34 PM, in article
de1b8d61-7a2e-4c41...@j35g2000vbl.googlegroups.com, "RichA"
<rande...@gmail.com> wrote:
You are just pissed because you shorted the stock, and now you want to
bellyache in here. As Don Henley said: "Get over it!".
George Kerby
On 12/7/09 6:01 AM, in article srhi-6BD2BC.0...@news.newsguy.com,
"Shawn Hirn" <sr...@comcast.net> wrote:
> In article
> <de1b8d61-7a2e-4c41...@j35g2000vbl.googlegroups.com>,
> RichA <rande...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Apple did make a digital camera. Apple's QuickTake was one of the first
> consumer-level digital cameras on the market. Apple has never aspired to
> replace the PC. Steve Jobs has said that in public several times. You
> need to update yourself on history before you spout off with clearly
> uninformed information.
Hell will freeze over before he stops his spouts.
RichA
Ray Fischer wrote:
> RichA <rande...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >Because they'd corner the market? Hardly. Their aspirations about
> >replacing PC's haven't and won't come to pass. It comes down to
> >design. Apple products are plagued by a soulless European minimalism
>
> Rich is an effete snob who doesn't realize that Apple's computers are
> designed in California. And judging by Apple's stock price they seem
> to be doing quite well.
>
Selling iphones. European means European style, not built there.
Apple is the Ikea of computers, but not nearly as successful with
computers as Ikea has been with cheap furnture.
GMAN
They were a piece of shit.
RichA
Shawn Hirn wrote:
> In article <4b1c9c09$0$1648$742e...@news.sonic.net>,
> rfis...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>
> > RichA <rande...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >Because they'd corner the market? Hardly. Their aspirations about
> > >replacing PC's haven't and won't come to pass. It comes down to
> > >design. Apple products are plagued by a soulless European minimalism
> >
> > Rich is an effete snob who doesn't realize that Apple's computers are
> > designed in California. And judging by Apple's stock price they seem
> > to be doing quite well.
>
> Let's see. As of close this past Friday ...
>
> APPL = 193.32
> HP = 36.80
> DELL = 13.46
>
>
> Hmmm ...
>
> Apple shareholders are laughing all the way to the bank.
Clueless. Individual share prices mean nothing, unless contrasted
against historical prices. There are plenty of huge, successful
companies with share prices in double-digits and plenty of boutique
companies with share prices in the high hundreds.
GMAN
>On Mon, 07 Dec 2009 07:05:54 -0500, Shawn Hirn <sr...@comcast.net>
>wrote:
>
>>In article <4b1c9c09$0$1648$742e...@news.sonic.net>,
>> rfis...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>
>>> >Because they'd corner the market? Hardly. Their aspirations about
>>> >replacing PC's haven't and won't come to pass. It comes down to
>>> >design. Apple products are plagued by a soulless European minimalism
>>>
>>> Rich is an effete snob who doesn't realize that Apple's computers are
>>> designed in California. And judging by Apple's stock price they seem
>>> to be doing quite well.
>>
>>
>>APPL = 193.32
>>HP = 36.80
>>DELL = 13.46
>>
>>
>>Hmmm ...
>>
>>Apple shareholders are laughing all the way to the bank.
>
And the idiots who have to replace their devices every 6 months either because
they have to be a duchebag snob and have the latest model or Apple throws
something into the next device that can only be done on the new 6 month model.
Bowser
wrote:
Hmmm.....
Let's see. RichA whines about Apple while Apple's stock is killer and
theyhave the highest market value in silicon valley. Steve Jobs has
been named CEO of the Decade by Fortune Magazine, and the entire world
tries to ape their products.
Dead on, Rich, no question. Maybe you should apply for a job there?
Robert Haar
> On Mon, 07 Dec 2009 07:05:54 -0500, Shawn Hirn <sr...@comcast.net>
> wrote:
>
>> In article <4b1c9c09$0$1648$742e...@news.sonic.net>,
>> rfis...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>
>>> RichA <rande...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Because they'd corner the market? Hardly. Their aspirations about
>>>> replacing PC's haven't and won't come to pass. It comes down to
>>>> design. Apple products are plagued by a soulless European minimalism
>>>
>>> Rich is an effete snob who doesn't realize that Apple's computers are
>>> designed in California. And judging by Apple's stock price they seem
>>> to be doing quite well.
>>
>> Apple shareholders are laughing all the way to the bank.
>
> The iPod & iPhone are to thank for that.
iPhones and many iPods *are* cameras, albeit limited ones.
George Kerby
On 12/7/09 12:38 PM, in article
a20d38ab-061b-470a...@e4g2000prn.googlegroups.com, "RichA"
<rande...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> Shawn Hirn wrote:
>> In article <4b1c9c09$0$1648$742e...@news.sonic.net>,
>> rfis...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>
>>> RichA <rande...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Because they'd corner the market? Hardly. Their aspirations about
>>>> replacing PC's haven't and won't come to pass. It comes down to
>>>> design. Apple products are plagued by a soulless European minimalism
>>>
>>> Rich is an effete snob who doesn't realize that Apple's computers are
>>> designed in California. And judging by Apple's stock price they seem
>>> to be doing quite well.
>>
>> Let's see. As of close this past Friday ...
>>
>> APPL = 193.32
>> HP = 36.80
>> DELL = 13.46
>>
>>
>> Hmmm ...
>>
>> Apple shareholders are laughing all the way to the bank.
>
> Clueless.
Nice self-description. Agreed!
Paul J Gans
>In article <4b1c9c09$0$1648$742e...@news.sonic.net>,
> rfis...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>> RichA <rande...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >Because they'd corner the market? Hardly. Their aspirations about
>> >replacing PC's haven't and won't come to pass. It comes down to
>> >design. Apple products are plagued by a soulless European minimalism
>>
>> Rich is an effete snob who doesn't realize that Apple's computers are
>> designed in California. And judging by Apple's stock price they seem
>> to be doing quite well.
>Let's see. As of close this past Friday ...
>APPL = 193.32
>HP = 36.80
>DELL = 13.46
>Hmmm ...
>Apple shareholders are laughing all the way to the bank.
Share price alone means nothing. The value of a share
depends on many things in addition to the value of the
company. One obvious one is how many shares have been
issued?
--
--- Paul J. Gans
Ray Fischer
>> > RichA <rande...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > >Because they'd corner the market? Hardly. Their aspirations about
>> > >replacing PC's haven't and won't come to pass. It comes down to
>> > >design. Apple products are plagued by a soulless European minimalism
>> >
>> > Rich is an effete snob who doesn't realize that Apple's computers are
>> > designed in California. And judging by Apple's stock price they seem
>> > to be doing quite well.
>>
>> Let's see. As of close this past Friday ...
>>
>> APPL = 193.32
>> HP = 36.80
>> DELL = 13.46
>>
>> Hmmm ...
>>
>> Apple shareholders are laughing all the way to the bank.
>
>Clueless. Individual share prices mean nothing, unless contrasted
>against historical prices.
Now go and look up the historical prices.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Ray Fischer
>Ray Fischer wrote:
>> RichA <rande...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >Because they'd corner the market? Hardly. Their aspirations about
>> >replacing PC's haven't and won't come to pass. It comes down to
>> >design. Apple products are plagued by a soulless European minimalism
>>
>> Rich is an effete snob who doesn't realize that Apple's computers are
>> designed in California. And judging by Apple's stock price they seem
>> to be doing quite well.
>
>Selling iphones.
And computers and iPods and music.
> European means European style, not built there.
You don't even know what "European style" means. Apparently
you're such an America-hating snob that you think that Americans
aren't even capable of building well-designed products.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Ray Fischer
>But you would have to send them back to the manufacturer every time the
>battery needed replacement!
No, Apple's computers really do have removeable batteries.
>"corks" <triga...@nospam.iinet.net.au> wrote in message
>> ahem but apple pc's are made of metal ????
>>
>>
>> "RichA" <rande...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:de1b8d61-7a2e-4c41...@j35g2000vbl.googlegroups.com...
>>> Because they'd corner the market? Hardly. Their aspirations about
>>> replacing PC's haven't and won't come to pass. It comes down to
>>> design. Apple products are plagued by a soulless European minimalism
>>> that to some appears attractive, but from a functional aspect, sucks.
>>> Think about pro cameras then think about newer small cameras and what
>>> is the small camera's main problem? Lack of up front functionality,
>>> lack of buttons. Everything is buried in menus or simply lacking.
>>> This is why despite the constant griping by some there ARE no small,
>>> pro-level DSLRs.
>>> Apple doesn't use buttons. Everything is in multi-layed menus
>>> onscreen. If the could commit the keyboard to a screen, likely they
>>> would. This is not the kind of hamstrung functionality people who
>>> know better want in a camera. They want the functions available to
>>> them with a one-button push, ideally.
>>> Which is why pro cameras will stay large.
>>
>>
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
-hh
>
> Apple "DID" make digital cameras way back in 1994
> They were a piece of shit.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_QuickTake
I can recall using one of those at work.
Sure, it was slow, image quality was "eh"...but to call it crap is
missing the point: what other digital existed to compare it against?
Particularly at the same basic price point?
Please do feel free to suggest some of its competing products from
circa 1994.
My recollection is that it was pretty unique product ... and cheaper
than a Nikon Coolscan LS-1000 film scanner. So while it arguably
wasn't a commercial success, it was the "innovator" marketplace risk-
taker that revealed a new market opportunity. I don't think that we
need to debate that digital cameras have since grown into a viable &
profitable market segment.
-hh
Chris H
.com>, RichA <rande...@gmail.com> writes
>
>
>Ray Fischer wrote:
>> RichA <rande...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >Because they'd corner the market? Hardly. Their aspirations about
>> >replacing PC's haven't and won't come to pass. It comes down to
>> >design. Apple products are plagued by a soulless European minimalism
>>
>> Rich is an effete snob who doesn't realize that Apple's computers are
>> designed in California. And judging by Apple's stock price they seem
>> to be doing quite well.
>>
>
>Selling iphones. European means European style, not built there.
OK so you are admitting that European style is more sophisticated than
US "style".... I am not sure anyone, globally, will disagree with you
as a generalisation. There will be a few exceptions I am sure.
You will note that the majority of Apple computers are used in the
graphics and media industries where style is important. So that you can
not understand it says more about you than the Apple computers.
--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
nsbm
package so prettily in order to run a Linux cloned OS then you will not
tolerate anything negative about Apple, despite the fact that Apple still
does not have a fully functional 64 bit OS software development environment
compared to, uh, Microsoft from several years ago.
If you are a na�ve photographer who has swallowed the Apple Kool aid and
realize that you cannot calibrate ANY Apple monitor correctly without
additional, very expensive obscure third party purchases then you may have
already shot yourself and are dead and cannot read this.
However if you think you are calibrating your Apple monitor in situ
correctly then you are the na�ve soul you are, bless your heart.
Pete D
"Shawn Hirn" <sr...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:srhi-6BD2BC.0...@news.newsguy.com...
> In article
> <de1b8d61-7a2e-4c41...@j35g2000vbl.googlegroups.com>,
> RichA <rande...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Because they'd corner the market? Hardly. Their aspirations about
>> replacing PC's haven't and won't come to pass. It comes down to
>> design. Apple products are plagued by a soulless European minimalism
>> Think about pro cameras then think about newer small cameras and what
>> is the small camera's main problem? Lack of up front functionality,
>> lack of buttons. Everything is buried in menus or simply lacking.
>> This is why despite the constant griping by some there ARE no small,
>> pro-level DSLRs.
>> Apple doesn't use buttons. Everything is in multi-layed menus
>> onscreen. If the could commit the keyboard to a screen, likely they
>> would. This is not the kind of hamstrung functionality people who
>> know better want in a camera. They want the functions available to
>> them with a one-button push, ideally.
>> Which is why pro cameras will stay large.
>
> consumer-level digital cameras on the market. Apple has never aspired to
> replace the PC. Steve Jobs has said that in public several times. You
> need to update yourself on history before you spout off with clearly
> uninformed information.
I still have one of these in the cupboard.
nospam
<fac...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> If you are willing to pay Apple prices for the obsolete hardware they
> package so prettily in order to run a Linux cloned OS then you will not
> tolerate anything negative about Apple, despite the fact that Apple still
> does not have a fully functional 64 bit OS software development environment
> compared to, uh, Microsoft from several years ago.
prices are competitive and the hardware is anything but obsolete. they
even get advance shipments of intel chips before pc makers do. the os
has nothing to do with linux and it's been 64 bit for about 6 years.
> If you are a na�ve photographer who has swallowed the Apple Kool aid and
> realize that you cannot calibrate ANY Apple monitor correctly without
> additional, very expensive obscure third party purchases then you may have
> already shot yourself and are dead and cannot read this.
absolute nonsense. any colorimeter works fine.
> However if you think you are calibrating your Apple monitor in situ
> correctly then you are the na�ve soul you are, bless your heart.
the only naive soul would be you, except that it's more ignorance,
stupidity and trolling.
dirk van lut
"John A." <jo...@nowhere.invalid> wrote in message
news:fh4qh5dobfo5bvrva...@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 07 Dec 2009 07:05:54 -0500, Shawn Hirn <sr...@comcast.net>
> wrote:
>
>>In article <4b1c9c09$0$1648$742e...@news.sonic.net>,
>> rfis...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>
>>> >Because they'd corner the market? Hardly. Their aspirations about
>>> >replacing PC's haven't and won't come to pass. It comes down to
>>> >design. Apple products are plagued by a soulless European minimalism
>>>
>>> designed in California. And judging by Apple's stock price they seem
>>> to be doing quite well.
>>
>>
>>APPL = 193.32
>>HP = 36.80
>>DELL = 13.46
>>
>>
>>Hmmm ...
>>
>>Apple shareholders are laughing all the way to the bank.
>
It is definetly not due to their iMac screens. I was thinking switching from
PC to Mac for photoprocessing.
After reading all the negatives in the Apple usegroups on the quality of
Apple screens (not the computer bit) I decide to stay with a standard PC
(less $$$) and de hi-quality screen.
C J Campbell
> In article <4b1c9c09$0$1648$742e...@news.sonic.net>,
> rfis...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>
>> RichA <rande...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Because they'd corner the market? Hardly. Their aspirations about
>>> replacing PC's haven't and won't come to pass. It comes down to
>>> design. Apple products are plagued by a soulless European minimalism
>>
>> Rich is an effete snob who doesn't realize that Apple's computers are
>> designed in California. And judging by Apple's stock price they seem
>> to be doing quite well.
>
> Let's see. As of close this past Friday ...
>
> APPL = 193.32
> HP = 36.80
> DELL = 13.46
>
>
> Hmmm ...
>
> Apple shareholders are laughing all the way to the bank.
I do NOT!
However, Apple is one of the few stocks I own that has not lost about
50% of its value in the last year.
--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor
C J Campbell
> On Mon, 07 Dec 2009 07:05:54 -0500, Shawn Hirn <sr...@comcast.net>
> wrote:
>
>> In article <4b1c9c09$0$1648$742e...@news.sonic.net>,
>> rfis...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>
>>> RichA <rande...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Because they'd corner the market? Hardly. Their aspirations about
>>>> replacing PC's haven't and won't come to pass. It comes down to
>>>> design. Apple products are plagued by a soulless European minimalism
>>>
>>> Rich is an effete snob who doesn't realize that Apple's computers are
>>> designed in California. And judging by Apple's stock price they seem
>>> to be doing quite well.
>>
>> Let's see. As of close this past Friday ...
>>
>> APPL = 193.32
>> HP = 36.80
>> DELL = 13.46
>>
>>
>> Hmmm ...
>>
>> Apple shareholders are laughing all the way to the bank.
>
> The iPod & iPhone are to thank for that.
That, and the fact that the Mac is at the highest market share it has
ever been. Windows 7 might slow that growth some. Some analysts are
saying that Apple may go to $500/share. Might be time to sell.
GMAN
camera, with Apple's name on it.
Not one bit of Apple design went into it.
C J Campbell
> If you are willing to pay Apple prices for the obsolete hardware they
> package so prettily in order to run a Linux cloned OS then you will not
> tolerate anything negative about Apple
You don't read the Apple discussion boards, do you?
> despite the fact that Apple still does not have a fully functional 64
> bit OS software development environment compared to, uh, Microsoft from
> several years ago.
Bunk.
> If you are a na�ve photographer who has swallowed the Apple Kool aid
> and realize that you cannot calibrate ANY Apple monitor correctly
> without additional, very expensive obscure third party purchases then
> you may have already shot yourself and are dead and cannot read this.
> However if you think you are calibrating your Apple monitor in situ
> correctly then you are the na�ve soul you are, bless your heart.
Bunk.
C J Campbell
> Roger Matthews <r...@aber.ac.uk> wrote:
>> But you would have to send them back to the manufacturer every time the
>> battery needed replacement!
>
> No, Apple's computers really do have removeable batteries.
The 2009 MacBook Pros do not. This is a major gripe. You cannot have an
extra battery and Apple charges $179 to replace the battery on a 17"
MacBook Pro.
Neil Harrington
"C J Campbell" <christophercam...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:2009120810574916807-christophercampbellremovethis@hotmailcom...
Then you're in the wrong stocks, C J. This has been a very good year for
stocks, though there is some question as to how long that will continue.
My best performing American stock is SXC Health Solutions (SXCI), up 184% on
the year as of yesterday's close. Unfortunately I wasn't holding it all
year, but I did get in early enough to double my money.
Better still (but again, I was late getting into these) are some of the
Chinese stocks. Home Inns & Hotels (HMIN) yesterday was ahead 327% YTD.
China is where most of the growth is probably going to be over the next
decade, if not the next century.
-hh
> -hh <recscuba_goo...@huntzinger.com> wrote:
> >winniethe...@100acrewoods.org (GMAN) wrote:
>
> >> Apple "DID" make digital cameras way back in 1994
> >> They were a piece of shit.
>
> >>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_QuickTake
>
> >I can recall using one of those at work.
>
> >Sure, it was slow, image quality was "eh"...but to call it crap is
> >missing the point: what other digital existed to compare it against?
> >Particularly at the same basic price point?
>
> >Please do feel free to suggest some of its competing products from
> >circa 1994.
>
> Actually apple didnt design or manufacture the QuickTake, it was a Kodak
> camera, with Apple's name on it.
>
> Not one bit of Apple design went into it.
Interesting trivia, but since you didn't address my point, its utterly
irrelevant.
Namely, "What other alternatives existed to even possibly consider?"
-hh
nospam
<2009120811535011272-christophercampbellremovethis@hotmailcom>, C J
Campbell <christophercam...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > No, Apple's computers really do have removeable batteries.
>
> The 2009 MacBook Pros do not.
yes they do, it just takes a screwdriver to remove it. with an 8+ hour
per charge, there's rarely a need.
> This is a major gripe. You cannot have an
> extra battery and Apple charges $179 to replace the battery on a 17"
> MacBook Pro.
the battery should last 5 years, so that's something that might happen
once in the lifetime of the machine, if that. chances are you'll sell
it before the battery needs replacing.
-hh
>
> It is definetly not due to their iMac screens. I was thinking switching from
> PC to Mac for photoprocessing.
> After reading all the negatives in the Apple usegroups on the quality of
> Apple screens (not the computer bit) I decide to stay with a standard PC
> (less $$$) and de hi-quality screen.
There's been two major complaints about iMac screens. The first is
glossy instead of matte; Apple now has an option on the 27" for that
IIRC, plus there's aftermarket films. The second is some less-than-
perfect uniformity of illumination. I've looked at the screenshots
and have been able to see what they're talking about, but who knows
how much contrast they post-process added in Photoshop? I've not seen
it in person to offer a meaningful comment.
OTOH, one might want to take a look at their 24" stand-alone display
and IIRC their newest iMacs, as I believe that both have gotten rave
reviews for better...something or other. I'm not in the market right
now, so I don't recall the detailed technical specifics.
-hh
Neil Harrington
"C J Campbell" <christophercam...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:2009120811014175249-christophercampbellremovethis@hotmailcom...
There is something to that. I wish I'd sold FUQI when I was ahead about
60% -- now I'm back to a little less than even. As the old saying has it:
"Bulls make money and bears make money, but pigs get slaughtered." On the
other hand, this is what makes the stock market fun.
Neil Harrington
> On 2009-12-07 22:29:49 -0800, rfis...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) said:
>
>> Roger Matthews <r...@aber.ac.uk> wrote:
>>> But you would have to send them back to the manufacturer every time the
>>> battery needed replacement!
>>
>> No, Apple's computers really do have removeable batteries.
>
> The 2009 MacBook Pros do not. This is a major gripe. You cannot have an
> extra battery and Apple charges $179 to replace the battery on a 17"
> MacBook Pro.
That too seems to reflect Steve Jobs's original marketing philosophy. I
remember when the first Macintosh came out, it had NO color and NO expansion
slots (arguably the very things that had made the Apple II such a huge
success), and my understanding was that the owner couldn't even add more
memory if he wanted to -- which he probably would have wanted to do, since
that first Mac had only 128K. Any change of memory or anything else required
taking the machine back to Your Friendly Apple Dealer.
Alan Browne
> "dirk van lut"<gerber_d...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> It is definetly not due to their iMac screens. I was thinking switching from
>> PC to Mac for photoprocessing.
>> After reading all the negatives in the Apple usegroups on the quality of
>> Apple screens (not the computer bit) I decide to stay with a standard PC
>> (less $$$) and de hi-quality screen.
>
>
> There's been two major complaints about iMac screens. The first is
> glossy instead of matte;
That's not a problem here. Room lighting is well controlled, however.
> Apple now has an option on the 27" for that
> IIRC, plus there's aftermarket films. The second is some less-than-
> perfect uniformity of illumination. I've looked at the screenshots
> and have been able to see what they're talking about,
A screenshot knows nothing about the backlight or how the image looks.
It is data from the computer.
I've measured with a lightmeter and mask, and the difference in
illumination is 0.1 EV or less from an all white screen.
On a 50% grey screen (more or less) there is a faint impression of
unevenness in bands. While doing actual photo work it is imperceptible.
C J Campbell
>
> "C J Campbell" <christophercam...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:2009120810574916807-christophercampbellremovethis@hotmailcom...
>> On 2009-12-07 04:05:54 -0800, Shawn Hirn <sr...@comcast.net> said:
>>
>>> In article <4b1c9c09$0$1648$742e...@news.sonic.net>,
>>> rfis...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>>
>>>> RichA <rande...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> Because they'd corner the market? Hardly. Their aspirations about
>>>>> replacing PC's haven't and won't come to pass. It comes down to
>>>>> design. Apple products are plagued by a soulless European minimalism
>>>>
>>>> Rich is an effete snob who doesn't realize that Apple's computers are
>>>> designed in California. And judging by Apple's stock price they seem
>>>> to be doing quite well.
>>>
>>> Let's see. As of close this past Friday ...
>>>
>>> APPL = 193.32
>>> HP = 36.80
>>> DELL = 13.46
>>>
>>>
>>> Hmmm ...
>>>
>>> Apple shareholders are laughing all the way to the bank.
>>
>> I do NOT!
>>
>> However, Apple is one of the few stocks I own that has not lost about 50%
>> of its value in the last year.
>
> Then you're in the wrong stocks, C J. This has been a very good year for
> stocks, though there is some question as to how long that will continue.
Well, I have to admit that everything has gone up since the big crash.
That is why it is stupid to get out *after* a stock market falls; you
may not be able to get back in at all.
>
> My best performing American stock is SXC Health Solutions (SXCI), up 184% on
> the year as of yesterday's close. Unfortunately I wasn't holding it all
> year, but I did get in early enough to double my money.
>
> Better still (but again, I was late getting into these) are some of the
> Chinese stocks. Home Inns & Hotels (HMIN) yesterday was ahead 327% YTD.
I have a fair amount of Chinese stocks. They are doing quite well.
C J Campbell
Yeah, that attitude was showing up even with the Apple II. Remember the
original floppy disk? Who else would have tried to sell a
quarter-density floppy disk drive for twice what a normal drive cost?
And then there was Lisa...
Chris H
<fac...@hotmail.com> writes
>If you are willing to pay Apple prices for the obsolete hardware
CRAP/
>they package so prettily in order to run a Linux cloned OS then you
You have absolutely no idea. OSX is based on BSD that predates Linux. It
is Linux that is a pale clone of Unix
> will not tolerate anything negative about Apple, despite the fact that
>Apple still does not have a fully functional 64 bit OS software
>development environment compared to, uh, Microsoft from several years
>ago.
Now many will argue that MS had a "fully functioning" 64 bit system
years ago :-
>If you are a na�ve photographer who has swallowed the Apple Kool aid
>and realize that you cannot calibrate ANY Apple monitor correctly
>without additional, very expensive obscure third party purchases
Hmmmm so why do the vast majority of graphics people and media people
use Apple systems where exact colour matching is essential?
For ALL monitors you need some inexpensive, readily available third
party calibrators. We use the same ones on the PC's, SUN and Apples.
>However if you think you are calibrating your Apple monitor in situ
>correctly then you are the na�ve soul you are, bless your heart.
SO that's is all the pro photographers and Graphics people that I know
then.
Neil Harrington
Yes. List price for an Apple floppy drive in 1983, when I bought my Apple
IIe, was $500! My Friendly Apple Dealer sold me the second one for $380.
Those were the old full-height drives, and I could have gotten one of the
newer half-height (or slimmer) drives for something over $200 -- probably a
better drive, too. How things have changed. I think the last 3.5" floppy
drive I bought cost me about $20 -- and checking NewEgg just now I see
they're about $8, the couple that they're still selling.
>
> And then there was Lisa...
I remember the $10,000 Lisa very well, though I never got very close to one.
I went up to the big Applefest in Boston that same year, 1983, where they
had a Lisa, but where they had it it was so mobbed I couldn't get within 30
feet of it.
As I recall, the original plan for the Macintosh was that it was to be a
low-priced version of the Lisa, sort of a Chevy to GM's Cadillac. But that
idea didn't seem to last very long.
Neil Harrington
Absolutely. I would say the rule is, If you're going to panic, panic EARLY!
The first people to get scared out of the market don't do badly at all,
though of course this assumes the market is going to keep going down. It's
the poor guy who hangs in there tenaciously, but with steadily increasing
fear and uncertainty as the market goes down, and finally throws it in just
as the market bottoms -- that's the guy I sincerely feel sorry for. And of
course there always are some people who are doing that, selling out right at
the bottom.
Bruce
wrote:
>Because they'd corner the market? Hardly. Their aspirations about
>replacing PC's haven't and won't come to pass. It comes down to
>design. Apple products are plagued by a soulless European minimalism
>that to some appears attractive, but from a functional aspect, sucks.
>Think about pro cameras then think about newer small cameras and what
>is the small camera's main problem? Lack of up front functionality,
>lack of buttons. Everything is buried in menus or simply lacking.
>This is why despite the constant griping by some there ARE no small,
>pro-level DSLRs.
>Apple doesn't use buttons. Everything is in multi-layed menus
>onscreen. If the could commit the keyboard to a screen, likely they
>would. This is not the kind of hamstrung functionality people who
>know better want in a camera. They want the functions available to
>them with a one-button push, ideally.
>Which is why pro cameras will stay large.
I bet Alan Browne would buy one, though. ;-)
It would go with his image - that of a middle aged failed engineer who
is obsessed with technology but cannot apply it to any useful purpose.
whisky-dave
"RichA" <rande...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:de1b8d61-7a2e-4c41...@j35g2000vbl.googlegroups.com...
> Because they'd corner the market? Hardly.
> Their aspirations about
> replacing PC's haven't and won't come to pass.
It has Pro's want their equipment working straight out of the box.
How many Pro camera usuers would want to have to install anti-virus stuff on
their
camera or have to get buying it and checking it's still working. and having
accerrories
that might not work or will need another new driver that nmight corrupt the
system meaning you'll
have to re-install the OS yet again.
>It comes down to
> design. Apple products are plagued by a soulless European minimalism
> that to some appears attractive,
Check out some pros see what they prefer.
> but from a functional aspect, sucks.
> Think about pro cameras then think about newer small cameras and what
> is the small camera's main problem? Lack of up front functionality,
> lack of buttons. Everything is buried in menus or simply lacking.
> This is why despite the constant griping by some there ARE no small,
> pro-level DSLRs.
> Apple doesn't use buttons. Everything is in multi-layed menus
> onscreen.
Pretty much teh same as windoze in fact most say thay windoze 7 is emulating
the
look of the previous mac OS Tiger.
> If the could commit the keyboard to a screen, likely they
> would. This is not the kind of hamstrung functionality people who
> know better want in a camera. They want the functions available to
> them with a one-button push, ideally.
> Which is why pro cameras will stay large.
Do pros really want camera bodies filled with buttons.
whisky-dave
"dirk van lut" <gerbe...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:u5xTm.79245$P71....@newsfe28.ams2...
But iMacs don;t pretend to have pro screens, I have a 24" iMac and it's fine
for what I do, but I'm not a pro. If you're a pro you'd know what you're
talking about
and buy a pro screen which costs more than the iMac which of course
includes
the computer bit.
if I were a pro I wouldn;t consider an iMac as my main machine.
Notice how even Apple use the word Pro. There's no Pro level iMac.
>
>
nospam
Trautmann <t-us...@gmx.net> wrote:
> > the battery should last 5 years, so that's something that might happen
> > once in the lifetime of the machine, if that. chances are you'll sell
> > it before the battery needs replacing.
>
> Apple does claim that the newer models do have much better battery
> performance - but they still do stick to a warranty limitation of six
> months only.
wrong. the warranty is one year, just like anything else, with an
optional extension for 3 years.
> If they don't trust their own promises, why should anyone else?
where in the world do you get that they don't trust their own promises?
George Kerby
On 12/8/09 12:19 PM, in article hfm5bl$gq3$1...@adenine.netfront.net, "nsbm"
<fac...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> If you are willing to pay Apple prices for the obsolete hardware they
> package so prettily in order to run a Linux cloned OS then you will not
> tolerate anything negative about Apple, despite the fact that Apple still
> does not have a fully functional 64 bit OS software development environment
> compared to, uh, Microsoft from several years ago.
> If you are a na�ve photographer who has swallowed the Apple Kool aid and
> realize that you cannot calibrate ANY Apple monitor correctly without
> additional, very expensive obscure third party purchases then you may have
> already shot yourself and are dead and cannot read this.
> However if you think you are calibrating your Apple monitor in situ
> correctly then you are the na�ve soul you are, bless your heart.
>
Apple also invented what's commonly known as 'paragraphs', in case you
didn't know that.
Ray Fischer
>If you are willing to pay Apple prices for the obsolete hardware
The latest quad-core processors are "obsolete"?
>they
>package so prettily in order to run a Linux cloned OS
Mac OS X has nothing at all to do with Linux.
>then you will not
>tolerate anything negative about Apple,
Apparently you won't tolerate the facts.
> despite the fact that Apple still
>does not have a fully functional 64 bit OS software development environment
It's called "XCode".
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
isw
"nsbm" <fac...@hotmail.com> wrote:
-- snippage of stuff --
> If you are a na�ve photographer who has swallowed the Apple Kool aid and
> realize that you cannot calibrate ANY Apple monitor correctly without
> additional, very expensive obscure third party purchases then you may have
> already shot yourself and are dead and cannot read this.
> However if you think you are calibrating your Apple monitor in situ
> correctly then you are the na�ve soul you are, bless your heart.
You appear to be quite knowlegable on the subject, so I would appreciate
it if you would elaborate on this, and tell me *precisely* what is wrong
with Apple's built-in calibration software, why it is no good, which
calibrations it cannot accomplish, and how far off the monitor can wind
up if it is used.
I can't afford any "additional, very expensive obscure third party
purchases", but I do some image editing, and I want to get the best out
of what I have.
Isaac
nospam
<i...@witzend.com> wrote:
he's full of shit.
isw
nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
And if he won't/can't provide a good, knowledgeable, answer we'll have
that info from the best possible source, won't we? 8^}
Isaac (who has calibrated more monitors with Apple's tools than he cares
to admit)
R. Mark Clayton
"Shawn Hirn" <sr...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:srhi-6BD2BC.0...@news.newsguy.com...
> In article
> <de1b8d61-7a2e-4c41...@j35g2000vbl.googlegroups.com>,
> RichA <rande...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Because they'd corner the market? Hardly. Their aspirations about
>> replacing PC's haven't and won't come to pass. It comes down to
>> design. Apple products are plagued by a soulless European minimalism
>> Think about pro cameras then think about newer small cameras and what
>> is the small camera's main problem? Lack of up front functionality,
>> lack of buttons. Everything is buried in menus or simply lacking.
>> This is why despite the constant griping by some there ARE no small,
>> pro-level DSLRs.
>> Apple doesn't use buttons. Everything is in multi-layed menus
>> would. This is not the kind of hamstrung functionality people who
>> know better want in a camera. They want the functions available to
>> them with a one-button push, ideally.
>> Which is why pro cameras will stay large.
>
> consumer-level digital cameras on the market. Apple has never aspired to
> replace the PC. Steve Jobs has said that in public several times. You
> need to update yourself on history before you spout off with clearly
> uninformed information.
Recently starred second in "Bad Apples - Their 10 worst inventions" in
Computer Weekly see: -
http://www.computerweekly.com/galleries/238046-2/Apple-QuickTake-No-zoom-focus-or-memory.htm
Typically if it were Apple the lenses would be incompatible with everyone
else, the filter size would be 49.5mm with an anti-clockwise thread, the
aspect ratio would be 17:10, the flash connection would not be hot shoe, the
media connection would be GPIB, the tripod thread would not be 1/4"
Whitworth and it would take Apple's own 30mm film...
Ray Fischer
That's just childish. That was probably the first digital cameras
targeted for average consumers, and adding all the the extras would
have doubled the price.
When you're first in a market you don't always guess right.
But if you're never first in a market you don't do as well.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Alan Browne
> http://www.computerweekly.com/galleries/238046-2/Apple-QuickTake-No-zoom-focus-or-memory.htm
>
> Typically if it were Apple the lenses would be incompatible with everyone
> else, the filter size would be 49.5mm with an anti-clockwise thread, the
> aspect ratio would be 17:10, the flash connection would not be hot shoe, the
> media connection would be GPIB, the tripod thread would not be 1/4"
> Whitworth and it would take Apple's own 30mm film...
That was amusing.
Contrast however to today, where their interfaces are ubiquitous (and
the best serial gp interface, firewire, has been used elsewhere, PC's
and military aircraft buses included. Blows USB out of the water [and
of course, most all Mac's have USB and all (except a couple now in the
past laptops have firewire)]).
Further, of course, you don't get great without taking risks. Microsoft
is a little different: they keep throwing good money after bad when they
screw up. (Zune, HD-DVD, etc.).
In the end, Apple are not a camera co., and nor should they be expected
to excel in this area. My son's iPhone takes decent enough snapshots
for a cell phone, and I don't expect it to do much better than it
actually does. Further, you can get many apps from free to a few
dollars to improve the abilities of the iPhone camera.
OTOH, their photo editing suite, Aperture, is quite well regarded (I
don't use it myself).
I'm betting that Apple come out with a tablet in the new year that will
perform "reader" functions (Kindle) as well as netbook, phone, etc. It
will probably have an ordinary (eg: iPhone) quality camera in it.
If it has enough storage, I will get one as my field photo
storage/viewer. So, I'd like to see it have 160 - 250 Gb of storage and
have a basic photo editor with raw capability (say PS Elements) run on
it with reasonable speed. 2 GB of ram should do it.
nospam
<nospam...@btinternet.com> wrote:
> Typically if it were Apple the lenses would be incompatible with everyone
> else,
canon lenses won't fit non-canon cameras. nikon lenses won't fit
non-nikon cameras, except for fuji because fuji bought nikon bodies on
which to base their cameras.
> the filter size would be 49.5mm with an anti-clockwise thread,
a lot of p&s cameras need adapter tubes to take a filter, and sometimes
they are a non-standard size, such as the 28mm filters on a nikon
990/995. try finding those in a store. some p&s cameras can't even take
a filter at all.
> the aspect ratio would be 17:10,
olympus 4/3rds uses a 4:3 aspect ratio rather than the common 3:2 ratio
for slrs.
> the flash connection would not be hot shoe,
minolta used their own hot shoe instead of the standard hot shoe.
even if they didn't do that, each camera has its own flash protocol, so
if you buy a flash and change brands, you need to change flashes too.
> the media connection would be GPIB,
gpib is an official standard that's been around for a very long time.
however, if you attach the camera to a computer, a lot of them don't
show up as usb mass storage devices, which means you need to use
software to access the photos rather than just a simple file copy.
fortunately, a card reader solves that problem.
> the tripod thread would not be 1/4"
> Whitworth and it would take Apple's own 30mm film...
olympus brand memory cards enabled panoramas, and if you used a
different brand, you didn't get that feature. sony uses their own
memory stick.
in reality, apple is very standards compliant.
microsoft, on the other hand, likes to come up with their own
standards, such as windows media, c#, .net, wins, iis, etc.
-hh
> On Tue, 8 Dec 2009 12:36:52 -0800 (PST), -hh wrote:
> > There's been two major complaints about iMac screens. The first is
> > IIRC, plus there's aftermarket films.
>
I'm pretty sure that I wrote "iMac" above.
> AFAIK the iMacs have real glass surfaces - and although there's e.g. some
> anti newton treatment for picture frames with glass, I'm not aware of
> any such Mac treatment.
I'd have to go Google it to find the reference.
> > The second is some less-than-
> > perfect uniformity of illumination. I've looked at the screenshots
> > and have been able to see what they're talking about, but who knows
> > how much contrast they post-process added in Photoshop? I've not seen
> > it in person to offer a meaningful comment.
>
> AFAIK the iMacs do use IPS display technology which should be superior
> to simple and cheap TN displays.
Might also include better bit-depth (vs dithering) IIRC. In any
case, for those readers who are in the market and if this is of
interest to them, I'm sure that further online independent research
will reveal greater technical details.
> > OTOH, one might want to take a look at their 24" stand-alone display
> > and IIRC their newest iMacs, as I believe that both have gotten rave
> > reviews for better...something or other. I'm not in the market right
> > now, so I don't recall the detailed technical specifics.
>
> I don't know about flaws of earlier LED background illu - but I feel
> that your major source are neither current reviews nor personal
> impression, but former gossips?
You're correct: you do not know my sources.
And for your uninformed speculation of my sources...gosh, how is that
not precisely the behavior of a gossip?
-hh
-hh
> -hh wrote:
> >...
> >Namely, "What other alternatives existed to even possibly consider?"
>
> Sony Mavica, starting in '81. See my earlier reply to Martin.
Thanks for that...too bad the one making the complaint was unable to
come up with an answer.
Digitizing NTSC is an interesting approach, and was probably
indicative of industry directions being investigated. Insofar as the
rest of the camera, I'm reminded of a much later CD-burner based
Mavica that I had used at one point...it wasn't particularly stellar,
despite eight years of progress versus the Quicktake 100.
-hh
Neil Harrington
"Alan Browne" <alan....@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote in message
news:RvednbXL3KVwRr7W...@giganews.com...
[ . . . ]
>
> I'm betting that Apple come out with a tablet in the new year that will
> perform "reader" functions (Kindle) as well as netbook, phone, etc. It
> will probably have an ordinary (eg: iPhone) quality camera in it.
>
> If it has enough storage, I will get one as my field photo storage/viewer.
> So, I'd like to see it have 160 - 250 Gb of storage and have a basic photo
> editor with raw capability (say PS Elements) run on it with reasonable
> speed. 2 GB of ram should do it.
Have you looked at netbooks? I bought a Samsung NC10 a few months ago and
really like it. I'm not sure how well it would run PS Elements, since I
don't use that and haven't as yet had occasion to use any real photo editing
software on it, but my guess is it would handle an older version of PSP such
as 8 all right -- I'll have to try that.
The screen is only 10.2" but it's a very sharp1024 x 600 -- I don't know how
that compares with a tablet PC -- and the keyboard is 93% of full size, no
trouble getting used to it at all (beyond the usual laptop double-duty key
schemes). Comes with a 160GB HDD and 1 GB of RAM, and Windows XP Home Ed.
SP3 installed. Only one memory module slot, so you can upgrade to 2 GB only
by swapping out the single module. (Memory is so cheap now that's not much
of a waste, but for my purposes the 1 GB is enough anyway.)
Along with three USB ports, an external VGA port, Ethernet port, etc., it
has an SD card slot which is very handy. The only photo-related software I
have on it so far is Nikon View NX and Irfanview, both of which it handles
easily. CPU is Intel's ultra-low-power Atom N270, which helps give it
excellent battery life -- never timed it myself but users say six hours or
more is common, and that seems reasonable to me from my experience with it.
Mr. Strat
Harrington <ne...@home.com> wrote:
> Have you looked at netbooks? I bought a Samsung NC10 a few months ago and
> really like it. I'm not sure how well it would run PS Elements, since I
> don't use that and haven't as yet had occasion to use any real photo editing
> software on it, but my guess is it would handle an older version of PSP such
> as 8 all right -- I'll have to try that.
>
> The screen is only 10.2" but it's a very sharp1024 x 600 -- I don't know how
> that compares with a tablet PC -- and the keyboard is 93% of full size, no
> trouble getting used to it at all (beyond the usual laptop double-duty key
> schemes). Comes with a 160GB HDD and 1 GB of RAM, and Windows XP Home Ed.
> SP3 installed. Only one memory module slot, so you can upgrade to 2 GB only
> by swapping out the single module. (Memory is so cheap now that's not much
> of a waste, but for my purposes the 1 GB is enough anyway.)
>
> Along with three USB ports, an external VGA port, Ethernet port, etc., it
> has an SD card slot which is very handy. The only photo-related software I
> have on it so far is Nikon View NX and Irfanview, both of which it handles
> easily. CPU is Intel's ultra-low-power Atom N270, which helps give it
> excellent battery life -- never timed it myself but users say six hours or
> more is common, and that seems reasonable to me from my experience with it.
Netbooks are a fad- barely more power than a PDA. These pieces of crap
have some pretty severe limitations. Yeah, they're cheap, but even
after you explain the limitations to people, the don't understand that
they're not like a real laptop.
Neil Harrington
"Mr. Strat" <r...@nospam.techline.com> wrote in message
news:121220092227259439%r...@nospam.techline.com...
They're enough "like a real laptop" to do many if not most of the things
laptops are used for. You can write on them, send and receive e-mails,
search web sites, watch and download videos, organize and view photos, work
with spreadsheets, etc., etc. I would hate to try to do any of those things
on any PDA I've seen. I have a Pocket PC around here someplace, and the only
reason it's still here is I haven't gotten around to putting it up on eBay.
I can understand that PDAs are useful for some people with more limited
needs, but for me they are just a sort of interesting novelty.
Netbooks may indeed be "a fad," time will tell, but I find mine much more
useful than the laptops I've owned, chiefly on account of their small size
and light weight (mine weighs about 2.8 lbs), and very long battery life.
Sure they have some limitations compared to a full-sized laptop, chiefly in
screen size and resolution, but on the other hand the big laptops are quite
limited compared to desktops -- which is why I have several desktop
computers and no more full-sized laptops.
Alan Browne
I played with a couple Netbooks at a few stores. I find the displays
too small (pixels displayed). Then again, a tablet may not be any
larger, pixel wise.
Oddly enough, as many Mac laptops come with an SD port, I'd probably get
SD cards for the camera, with an adaptor. Too bad Sony insisted on
putting a MemStick slot in the a900 where SD would have been better.
There are CF/SD adaptors that will hold 4 SD cards. Could be
interesting (configures as RAID 0).
I was in line at Best Buy returning something and there were two women
in line returning netbooks... Another time at Best Buy and another
fellow was returning a netbook. I'm not sure they "catch on" really
well with a lot of people.
IAC, I'd love a tablet by Apple to sync with my mac. Would be really
cool if a CF/wireless could WiFi the photos to the tablet on the fly or
immediately after shooting in the field while driving to the hotel or
home. Products like the EyeFi do this - so I'd need a CF-SD adaptor.
Neil Harrington
"Alan Browne" <alan....@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote in message
I must admit that when online I do find 1024 x 600 rather cramped, but then
I'm used to 1280 x 1024 on my 19" monitors and 1680 x 1050 on my 22"
widescreen monitor. Heh. It doesn't seem that long ago that 1024 x 768 was
pretty much the standard on CRTs, and compared to that the netbooks wouldn't
have been giving up much at all, just about 22% in height, which one could
live with.
In physical dimensions I think I'd find the 8.9" models too small, but they
seem to be disappearing from the market anway. The Samsung I have is fine
for reviewing photos in landscape orientation. In portrait it's much less
satisfactory with that 600-pixel height, but still usable.
>
> Oddly enough, as many Mac laptops come with an SD port, I'd probably get
> SD cards for the camera, with an adaptor. Too bad Sony insisted on
> putting a MemStick slot in the a900 where SD would have been better.
Yes. Sony's continuing commitment to their Memory Sticks is the one thing
that puts me off Sony.
> There are CF/SD adaptors that will hold 4 SD cards. Could be interesting
> (configures as RAID 0).
Very interesting indeed; I hadn't heard of that. With 4 cards I should think
they could configure as RAID 1+0, but maybe there isn't really any reason to
do that with SD cards.
>
> I was in line at Best Buy returning something and there were two women in
> line returning netbooks... Another time at Best Buy and another fellow
> was returning a netbook. I'm not sure they "catch on" really well with a
> lot of people.
That's interesting too. I'd be curious to know what their reasons for
returning them were (and what makes they were returning).
>
> IAC, I'd love a tablet by Apple to sync with my mac. Would be really cool
> if a CF/wireless could WiFi the photos to the tablet on the fly or
> immediately after shooting in the field while driving to the hotel or
> home. Products like the EyeFi do this - so I'd need a CF-SD adaptor.
I'm not familiar with EyeFi at all. A couple of my little Coolpixes have
WiFi; I've tried it a very few times and it works all right, but I can't say
I really see much point to it other than showing off as a sort of "gee whiz"
feature. I understand it pulls the camera's battery down pretty fast though
I never used it enough to see this myself. Transfer of photos is definitely
slow compared to other methods, which is probably the biggest shortcoming.
If it were possible to control the camera from the computer that could be
interesting, but the Coolpix system at least does not do this.
Michael
<alan....@FreelunchVideotron.ca> said:
Keep your eyes open regarding the Mac Tablet. It's a likelihood:
http://www.editorsweblog.org/multimedia/2009/12/apple_to_launch_tablet_early_next_year_s.php
--
Michael
Alan Browne
From what I gather (after very slight research) the sole mode of the
adaptor is RAID 0 -if- all four cards are the same.
>
>>
>> I was in line at Best Buy returning something and there were two women in
>> line returning netbooks... Another time at Best Buy and another fellow
>> was returning a netbook. I'm not sure they "catch on" really well with a
>> lot of people.
>
> That's interesting too. I'd be curious to know what their reasons for
> returning them were (and what makes they were returning).
No idea, though at least one of them was a Linux box. That's enough to
turn off most casual computer users used to Windblows.
>
>>
>> IAC, I'd love a tablet by Apple to sync with my mac. Would be really cool
>> if a CF/wireless could WiFi the photos to the tablet on the fly or
>> immediately after shooting in the field while driving to the hotel or
>> home. Products like the EyeFi do this - so I'd need a CF-SD adaptor.
>
> I'm not familiar with EyeFi at all. A couple of my little Coolpixes have
> WiFi; I've tried it a very few times and it works all right, but I can't say
> I really see much point to it other than showing off as a sort of "gee whiz"
> feature. I understand it pulls the camera's battery down pretty fast though
> I never used it enough to see this myself. Transfer of photos is definitely
> slow compared to other methods, which is probably the biggest shortcoming.
> If it were possible to control the camera from the computer that could be
> interesting, but the Coolpix system at least does not do this.
The KM I had was controllable from the computer, but I don't see that at
all useful for photography, generally. One needs to be with the camera.
For some scientific or technical observations, that may be a useful
mode. (Not sure if the a900 is controllable from a PC, I don't care)
But tethered shooting, at least without a wire, would be welcome if the
transfer rate is faster than the shoot rate (on average) such that when
the last shot is taken you could leave the camera while you pack up the
remains, and then the last items are put away are the camera and the
laptop (now holding all the photos). eg: if the transfer is 5 minutes
or less behind the game, that's fine.
Alan Browne
I know. Despite the Apple denials, there have been manufacturing (Asia)
leaks.
IAC, given the technical thresholds and media convergence established by
the iPod/iPhone, low power processors, 3G/4G, "Apps" s/w model,
"readers" ("Kindle"), etc. the time has definitely come and Apple's
design/packaging prowess will set the tone.
I agree with the article about price point. If you consider that such a
device would not have a keyboard and probably minimal connectors, it
should be priced between netbooks and the "white" macbook; around $700 -
$800, not $1000.
You can be sure the lineup will be long the night before they go on
sale. I'll wait a month or three.
>
> http://www.editorsweblog.org/multimedia/2009/12/apple_to_launch_tablet_early_next_year_s.php
The video at the bottom of that page is brilliant, in the sense of how
Time/SI foresee "magazine" content push onto such devices. (Note-there
is no suggestion that it is an Apple - though the styling certainly
looks it). I'd love to read The Economist and SciAm on there.
(although The Economist's Swimsuit issue is not that great).
Neil Harrington
"Alan Browne" <alan....@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote in message
> On 09-12-13 13:15 , Neil Harrington wrote:
>> "Alan Browne"<alan....@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote in message
>> news:N9Wdnd99XdYvgrjW...@giganews.com...
>
>>
>>>
>>> IAC, I'd love a tablet by Apple to sync with my mac. Would be really
>>> cool
>>> if a CF/wireless could WiFi the photos to the tablet on the fly or
>>> immediately after shooting in the field while driving to the hotel or
>>> home. Products like the EyeFi do this - so I'd need a CF-SD adaptor.
>>
>> I'm not familiar with EyeFi at all. A couple of my little Coolpixes have
>> WiFi; I've tried it a very few times and it works all right, but I can't
>> say
>> I really see much point to it other than showing off as a sort of "gee
>> whiz"
>> feature. I understand it pulls the camera's battery down pretty fast
>> though
>> I never used it enough to see this myself. Transfer of photos is
>> definitely
>> slow compared to other methods, which is probably the biggest
>> shortcoming.
>> If it were possible to control the camera from the computer that could be
>> interesting, but the Coolpix system at least does not do this.
>
> The KM I had was controllable from the computer, but I don't see that at
> all useful for photography, generally. One needs to be with the camera.
Not useful generally, no. But there are some situations (e.g., certain kinds
of wildlife photography) where it could be useful -- especially now with
Live View becoming a standard feature on DSLRs, although I don't know if
there's enough bandwidth to make use of that wirelessly.
> For some scientific or technical observations, that may be a useful mode.
> (Not sure if the a900 is controllable from a PC, I don't care)
>
> But tethered shooting, at least without a wire, would be welcome if the
> transfer rate is faster than the shoot rate (on average) such that when
> the last shot is taken you could leave the camera while you pack up the
> remains, and then the last items are put away are the camera and the
> laptop (now holding all the photos). eg: if the transfer is 5 minutes or
> less behind the game, that's fine.
But if wireless transfer is always going to be slower than wired (which
seems to be the case), and camera and computer are in the same location
anyway, I just don't see the point to wireless. Am I missing something?
Alan Browne
> "Alan Browne"<alan....@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote in message
>> But tethered shooting, at least without a wire, would be welcome if the
>> transfer rate is faster than the shoot rate (on average) such that when
>> the last shot is taken you could leave the camera while you pack up the
>> remains, and then the last items are put away are the camera and the
>> laptop (now holding all the photos). eg: if the transfer is 5 minutes or
>> less behind the game, that's fine.
>
> But if wireless transfer is always going to be slower than wired (which
> seems to be the case), and camera and computer are in the same location
> anyway, I just don't see the point to wireless. Am I missing something?
It just saves the bother, post shoot, of manipulating the data card or
connecting the camera to a computer.
If this goes the way I hope it would, conversion to DNG, annotating and
re-naming would also happen on the fly into a folder managed by Bridge.
Of course, when getting home I'd then have to copy it to my main
computer or storage in any case, but at least all the "pre-edit" steps
would be done.
Bob Larter
> Recently starred second in "Bad Apples - Their 10 worst inventions" in
> Computer Weekly see: -
>
> http://www.computerweekly.com/galleries/238046-2/Apple-QuickTake-No-zoom-focus-or-memory.htm
>
> Typically if it were Apple the lenses would be incompatible with everyone
> else, the filter size would be 49.5mm with an anti-clockwise thread, the
> aspect ratio would be 17:10, the flash connection would not be hot shoe, the
> media connection would be GPIB,
<grin> If it used GPIB, the cable would be heavier than the camera. ;^)
--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
Bob Larter
> (although The Economist's Swimsuit issue is not that great).
*urgle!* I don't suppose it is...
whisky-dave
"Neil Harrington" <ne...@home.com> wrote in message
news:qMOdnWVcu6d79rnW...@giganews.com...
>
> "Alan Browne" <alan....@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote in message
> news:RvednbXL3KVwRr7W...@giganews.com...
>
> [ . . . ]
>>
>> I'm betting that Apple come out with a tablet in the new year that will
>> perform "reader" functions (Kindle) as well as netbook, phone, etc. It
>> will probably have an ordinary (eg: iPhone) quality camera in it.
>>
>> If it has enough storage, I will get one as my field photo
>> storage/viewer. So, I'd like to see it have 160 - 250 Gb of storage and
>> have a basic photo editor with raw capability (say PS Elements) run on it
>> with reasonable speed. 2 GB of ram should do it.
>
> Have you looked at netbooks? I bought a Samsung NC10 a few months ago and
> really like it.
I was looking at one of those last night.
>I'm not sure how well it would run PS Elements, since I don't use that and
>haven't as yet had occasion to use any real photo editing software on it,
>but my guess is it would handle an older version of PSP such as 8 all
>right -- I'll have to try that.
>
> The screen is only 10.2" but it's a very sharp1024 x 600
It's not bad but it is glossy like the iMac but I found the reflections more
noticable
perhaps because of the angle, and I found it difficult to view from another
angle,
as my friend demo'd it to 3 of us it was difficult for all 3 of us to view
it comfortably,
it was the annoying move your head and the displayed picture virtually
disappears.
I'm not sure what angle the screen can be viewd at but it seemd like 30 deg
was about the limit.
-- I don't know how
> that compares with a tablet PC -- and the keyboard is 93% of full size, no
> trouble getting used to it at all (beyond the usual laptop double-duty key
> schemes). Comes with a 160GB HDD and 1 GB of RAM, and Windows XP Home Ed.
> SP3 installed. Only one memory module slot, so you can upgrade to 2 GB
> only by swapping out the single module. (Memory is so cheap now that's not
> much of a waste, but for my purposes the 1 GB is enough anyway.)
yes my friend brought the 2GB RAM upgrade and then used a poor quality
screwdriver
to undo the screw and he damaged it. he took it to a few shops including
PCworld where
they tried a couple of screwdrivers but failed then said there was nothing
they could do.
In the end I had to drill the screw head of with an electric drill.
Seemed an OK computer for surfing/email/simple games, but I think it's annoy
me trying to do photostuff on it.
Neil Harrington
"whisky-dave" <whisk...@final.front.ear> wrote in message
news:hg7tlc$v8s$1@qmul...
>
> "Neil Harrington" <ne...@home.com> wrote in message
> news:qMOdnWVcu6d79rnW...@giganews.com...
>>
>> "Alan Browne" <alan....@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote in message
>> news:RvednbXL3KVwRr7W...@giganews.com...
>>
>> [ . . . ]
>>>
>>> I'm betting that Apple come out with a tablet in the new year that will
>>> perform "reader" functions (Kindle) as well as netbook, phone, etc. It
>>> will probably have an ordinary (eg: iPhone) quality camera in it.
>>>
>>> If it has enough storage, I will get one as my field photo
>>> storage/viewer. So, I'd like to see it have 160 - 250 Gb of storage and
>>> have a basic photo editor with raw capability (say PS Elements) run on
>>> it with reasonable speed. 2 GB of ram should do it.
>>
>> Have you looked at netbooks? I bought a Samsung NC10 a few months ago and
>> really like it.
>
> I was looking at one of those last night.
>
>>I'm not sure how well it would run PS Elements, since I don't use that and
>>haven't as yet had occasion to use any real photo editing software on it,
>>but my guess is it would handle an older version of PSP such as 8 all
>>right -- I'll have to try that.
>>
>> The screen is only 10.2" but it's a very sharp1024 x 600
>
> It's not bad but it is glossy like the iMac but I found the reflections
> more noticable
> perhaps because of the angle, and I found it difficult to view from
> another angle,
I had an Acer laptop that was like that, and I agree, the reflections were
annoying. But the Samsung netbook doesn't have any reflections that are
noticeable to me, even when viewed at an angle..
> as my friend demo'd it to 3 of us it was difficult for all 3 of us to view
> it comfortably,
> it was the annoying move your head and the displayed picture virtually
> disappears.
> I'm not sure what angle the screen can be viewd at but it seemd like 30
> deg was about the limit.
The Samsung has quite a good viewing angle, definitely better than the two
laptops I've owned in the past.
>
> -- I don't know how
>> that compares with a tablet PC -- and the keyboard is 93% of full size,
>> no trouble getting used to it at all (beyond the usual laptop double-duty
>> key schemes). Comes with a 160GB HDD and 1 GB of RAM, and Windows XP Home
>> Ed. SP3 installed. Only one memory module slot, so you can upgrade to 2
>> GB only by swapping out the single module. (Memory is so cheap now that's
>> not much of a waste, but for my purposes the 1 GB is enough anyway.)
>
> yes my friend brought the 2GB RAM upgrade and then used a poor quality
> screwdriver
> to undo the screw and he damaged it. he took it to a few shops including
> PCworld where
> they tried a couple of screwdrivers but failed then said there was nothing
> they could do.
> In the end I had to drill the screw head of with an electric drill.
> Seemed an OK computer for surfing/email/simple games, but I think it's
> annoy me trying to do photostuff on it.
As far as viewing photos is concerned, I find mine very good as long as
they're horizontal. Not so good for vertical photos because of the short
screen height. I haven't tried to do any serious photo editing on mine --
just a little cropping and red eye removal with Irfanview, and it's OK for
that.