My laptop is really messed up right now, and for its replacement I'm considering a Macintosh. Now, currently, what I do for my audio setup goes like this:
1. rip cd to local hd using EAC. Store in Monkey's Audio format.
2. use the foobar mass encoder to convert the APE files to mp3 files. Have it encode overnight. The mp3 files are stored on an external 300 gb hd formatted in NTFS
3. After that is done, store the APE files on a DVD-R, burning using NERO, and using a .txt file (currently at 106 kb!) to list what is on there
Now, if I were to move to a Mac, a few problems would be apparent.
1. finding the same programs. I would have no problems with a different audio ripper (I've rarely ever had an error ripping a cd), but I don't know if there's the equivalent of foobar's mass encode feature
2. NTFS. This is a huge problem. the Mac can read, but can't write it. I could format the drive to HFS+ and then reencode all of my mp3s (I will reencode all of them anyways once 3.97 final is out) but that would be a hassle, especially considering that some of the ape files are tagged properly, as well as duplicates, etc.
3. reading monkey's audio. I hear that Monkey's audio has pretty bad support on the Mac. Would I be able to get them to work on a Mac? Or, since I read that Monkey's audio is dependent on x86, would a better idea be to wait until Apple moves to the x86 processors next year?
so, anyone done the move successfully?
Full Version: Hypothetical move to Mac
My personal opinion: stay with Windows. I use macs at work and I hate them with a passion. But as I said, that's just my personal view on the Win vs Mac situation.
I am biased. If Mac were good, not only would it be selling more boxes, it would be gaining market share. The snake oil boys at Mac talk always about how they are selling more boxes. But they are still losing market share. That is not because they offer such a good product but rather the opposite. I guess it is a good platform for some apps, but the marketplace has decied pretty plainly: Mac is a very distant second, barely in the running. And lest you think I love MS, I moved to the MS platform grudgingly from OS/2. That said, WXP is not bad. It does everything I need it to do. So, I have no need to migrate away from the platform. 
QUOTE(boojum @ Sep 22 2005, 01:04 PM)
I am biased. If Mac were good, not only would it be selling more boxes, it would be gaining market share. [...] I guess it is a good platform for some apps, but the marketplace has decied pretty plainly: Mac is a very distant second, barely in the running
Nice ad populum fallacy.
Just because something is popularly held to be good or true does not mean that it actually is so. The converse is the same -- just because something is not popularly held to be good or true does not mean that it is not so.
History is littered with devices and ideas which were technically superior, but did not catch the attention of the mainstream for a variety of reasons: some having to do with price, some having to do with poor marketing, and some for other reasons altogether.
But anyway, it's interesting that there are 2 posts in this thread already saying that Macs are no good, but neither one actually offers a particular criticism. This seems to be a pretty typical attitude of most PC users. I suspect many of these kinds of people would probably say the same about any alternative system, such as Linux, or others. It begs the question though: if an in depth criticism cannot be offered, does this imply that these people actually do not have the in depth experience with the system which would be required to make such a criticism, and therefore likewise do not have a good basis for making an informed judgment?
Anyway.. to the posters original questions:
Mac's make very good systems for quite a few things. Such things include development (there are free development tools which rival the feature sets of most commercial tools even, and many of the excellent development tools from the Unix world work perfectly), stability, conceptual coherence (a lot of things "just work" -- you don't get mysterious crashes or freezes that require you to reboot your system often, and the user interface doesn't change dramatically between every single application, and you don't have a poorly designed system configuration repository like a registry to hassle with... most apps are self-contained), providing a nice in between point between a heavily GUI driven system like Windows and a heavily commandline and script-based driven system like most Unixes, scientific work, etc.
One of the things Mac's don't do very well right now is offer the level of flexibility with audio format tools that you can get with a Windows system. Linux is, for the most part, in the same boat. That's not to say you can't make things work, but it will require more effort on your part, and you will have fewer options.
Specifically:
1. As far as mass encode goes, I don't know if there are programs currently available for this or not. There probably are, but if not, it wouldn't be that hard to write a shell script to do this for you, if you have any sort of inclination for doing that sort of thing.
2. NTFS will be a problem, yes. Is it possible for your to network the drive from another system and access it that way?
3. I don't know about Monkey's Audio either. I don't use that myself. You'd probably be better off to use a format which is more easily cross-platform such as FLAC or Wavpack. It shouldn't be too much of a hassle to re-encode your Monkey's Audio files to one of these. I'm not very impressed with Monkey's Audio as far as the development process goes, so I probably wouldn't use that format even if it were an option.
If you want to make the swtich then here are a few things you can do:
The Mac OS can read from a NTFS hard drive though I don't think it can write to one. You can reformet that hard drive to the Fat 32 format which the Mac OS can read and write to. As far as I know, Monkey's Audio cannot be played on the Mac OS. The only good jukebox/ripping program for the Mac OS is iTunes. The error correction mode in iTunes no where near compares to the secure ripping mode of EAC. However, the error correction mode in iTunes is far ahead of other software apps such as Windows Media Player, MusicMatch, WinAmp, and Nero. You will have no problem ripping CD's with the Lame mp3 encoder using iTunes as there is a patch you can download that adds the Lame mp3 encoding file format to iTunes. iTunes rips to Lame at a speed of 2X but you can still rip to the preset standard or higher if you want. I think the patch is up to version 3.90.3, I don't know if it will receive an update when 3.97 final is released.
Unless you are tied to the mp3 format, iTunes is really good at ripping to the mpeg-4 AAC format. A 192kbps VBR/CBR mpeg-4 AAC file encoded with iTunes is equivalent to that of a preset standard mp3 (just comparing the views on the internet, it is really hard to tell the differences between high bitrate songs so take the reviews with a grain of salt). So, if you want to swtich to the Mac OS opperating system on Apple computers (FYI their computer lines are no longer call Macintosh), you will only sacrifice the ability to play/encode Monkey's Audio. Keep in mind that iTunes now has the Apple lossless encoder so you can rip your CD's to that format if you want to have a backup of them.
You can hook up your hard drive to a Mac OS powered Apple computer, copy the mp3's off of it, then reformat the hard drive either to the HFS+ or Fat 32 formats. The Mac OS is extremely stable when compared to Windows XP. This is not entirely Microsofts fault as Windows XP is an extremely popular OS. People want to make destructive programs that will attack the greater percentage of computers, not a small margin of them. So hackers/programers are constantly looking for holes in the Windows XP OS and are producing viruses. Apple is a lot better at coming out with updates for the Mac OS. It can take weeks for Microsoft to come out with a update for Windows while Apple will often release an update a few days after an exploit is found.
The Mac OS can read from a NTFS hard drive though I don't think it can write to one. You can reformet that hard drive to the Fat 32 format which the Mac OS can read and write to. As far as I know, Monkey's Audio cannot be played on the Mac OS. The only good jukebox/ripping program for the Mac OS is iTunes. The error correction mode in iTunes no where near compares to the secure ripping mode of EAC. However, the error correction mode in iTunes is far ahead of other software apps such as Windows Media Player, MusicMatch, WinAmp, and Nero. You will have no problem ripping CD's with the Lame mp3 encoder using iTunes as there is a patch you can download that adds the Lame mp3 encoding file format to iTunes. iTunes rips to Lame at a speed of 2X but you can still rip to the preset standard or higher if you want. I think the patch is up to version 3.90.3, I don't know if it will receive an update when 3.97 final is released.
Unless you are tied to the mp3 format, iTunes is really good at ripping to the mpeg-4 AAC format. A 192kbps VBR/CBR mpeg-4 AAC file encoded with iTunes is equivalent to that of a preset standard mp3 (just comparing the views on the internet, it is really hard to tell the differences between high bitrate songs so take the reviews with a grain of salt). So, if you want to swtich to the Mac OS opperating system on Apple computers (FYI their computer lines are no longer call Macintosh), you will only sacrifice the ability to play/encode Monkey's Audio. Keep in mind that iTunes now has the Apple lossless encoder so you can rip your CD's to that format if you want to have a backup of them.
You can hook up your hard drive to a Mac OS powered Apple computer, copy the mp3's off of it, then reformat the hard drive either to the HFS+ or Fat 32 formats. The Mac OS is extremely stable when compared to Windows XP. This is not entirely Microsofts fault as Windows XP is an extremely popular OS. People want to make destructive programs that will attack the greater percentage of computers, not a small margin of them. So hackers/programers are constantly looking for holes in the Windows XP OS and are producing viruses. Apple is a lot better at coming out with updates for the Mac OS. It can take weeks for Microsoft to come out with a update for Windows while Apple will often release an update a few days after an exploit is found.
QUOTE(Dibrom @ Sep 22 2005, 01:24 PM)
QUOTE(boojum @ Sep 22 2005, 01:04 PM)
I am biased. If Mac were good, not only would it be selling more boxes, it would be gaining market share. [...] I guess it is a good platform for some apps, but the marketplace has decied pretty plainly: Mac is a very distant second, barely in the running
Nice ad populum fallacy.
Just because something is popularly held to be good or true does not mean that it actually is so. The converse is the same -- just because something is not popularly held to be good or true does not mean that it is not so.
History is littered with devices and ideas which were technically superior, but did not catch the attention of the mainstream for a variety of reasons: some having to do with price, some having to do with poor marketing, and some for other reasons altogether.
But anyway, it's interesting that there are 2 posts in this thread already saying that Macs are no good, but neither one actually offers a particular criticism. This seems to be a pretty typical attitude of most PC users. I suspect many of these kinds of people would probably say the same about any alternative system, such as Linux, or others. It begs the question though: if an in depth criticism cannot be offered, does this imply that these people actually do not have the in depth experience with the system which would be required to make such a criticism, and therefore likewise do not have a good basis for making an informed judgment?
Anyway.. to the posters original questions:
Mac's make very good systems for quite a few things. Such things include development (there are free development tools which rival the feature sets of most commercial tools even, and many of the excellent development tools from the Unix world work perfectly), stability, conceptual coherence (a lot of things "just work" -- you don't get mysterious crashes or freezes that require you to reboot your system often, and the user interface doesn't change dramatically between every single application, and you don't have a poorly designed system configuration repository like a registry to hassle with... most apps are self-contained), providing a nice in between point between a heavily GUI driven system like Windows and a heavily commandline and script-based driven system like most Unixes, scientific work, etc.
One of the things Mac's don't do very well right now is offer the level of flexibility with audio format tools that you can get with a Windows system. Linux is, for the most part, in the same boat. That's not to say you can't make things work, but it will require more effort on your part, and you will have fewer options.
Specifically:
1. As far as mass encode goes, I don't know if there are programs currently available for this or not. There probably are, but if not, it wouldn't be that hard to write a shell script to do this for you, if you have any sort of inclination for doing that sort of thing.
2. NTFS will be a problem, yes. Is it possible for your to network the drive from another system and access it that way?
3. I don't know about Monkey's Audio either. I don't use that myself. You'd probably be better off to use a format which is more easily cross-platform such as FLAC or Wavpack. It shouldn't be too much of a hassle to re-encode your Monkey's Audio files to one of these. I'm not very impressed with Monkey's Audio as far as the development process goes, so I probably wouldn't use that format even if it were an option.
unfortunately,
1. I really don't have any programming skills at all. I could barely handle comp sci 101
2. I only have one computer, and I plan on using the drive in the future to store files from more mp3s that I encode.
3. I chose APE because it encodes faster than FLAC and has better compression. I will not reencode to another format because that would be too time consuming (I would also have to reburn 120 dvd-r.
So I guess it would appear that the Mac is out of the picture, unfortunately. I suppose I was drawn to it by curiousity on how computing might be better, as well as the fervent evangelicism that Mac users have.
Hmm, well, unfortuately...
I've read up on the drive formats, and Fat32 is vastly inferior to NTFS, especially for larger drives. And I don't have an ipod, so I'm very much tied to mp3
I've read up on the drive formats, and Fat32 is vastly inferior to NTFS, especially for larger drives. And I don't have an ipod, so I'm very much tied to mp3
QUOTE(kornchild2002 @ Sep 22 2005, 01:27 PM)
If you want to make the swtich then here are a few things you can do:
The Mac OS can read from a NTFS hard drive though I don't think it can write to one. You can reformet that hard drive to the Fat 32 format which the Mac OS can read and write to. As far as I know, Monkey's Audio cannot be played on the Mac OS. The only good jukebox/ripping program for the Mac OS is iTunes. The error correction mode in iTunes no where near compares to the secure ripping mode of EAC. However, the error correction mode in iTunes is far ahead of other software apps such as Windows Media Player, MusicMatch, WinAmp, and Nero. You will have no problem ripping CD's with the Lame mp3 encoder using iTunes as there is a patch you can download that adds the Lame mp3 encoding file format to iTunes. iTunes rips to Lame at a speed of 2X but you can still rip to the preset standard or higher if you want. I think the patch is up to version 3.90.3, I don't know if it will receive an update when 3.97 final is released.
Unless you are tied to the mp3 format, iTunes is really good at ripping to the mpeg-4 AAC format. A 192kbps VBR/CBR mpeg-4 AAC file encoded with iTunes is equivalent to that of a preset standard mp3 (just comparing the views on the internet, it is really hard to tell the differences between high bitrate songs so take the reviews with a grain of salt). So, if you want to swtich to the Mac OS opperating system on Apple computers (FYI their computer lines are no longer call Macintosh), you will only sacrifice the ability to play/encode Monkey's Audio. Keep in mind that iTunes now has the Apple lossless encoder so you can rip your CD's to that format if you want to have a backup of them.
You can hook up your hard drive to a Mac OS powered Apple computer, copy the mp3's off of it, then reformat the hard drive either to the HFS+ or Fat 32 formats. The Mac OS is extremely stable when compared to Windows XP. This is not entirely Microsofts fault as Windows XP is an extremely popular OS. People want to make destructive programs that will attack the greater percentage of computers, not a small margin of them. So hackers/programers are constantly looking for holes in the Windows XP OS and are producing viruses. Apple is a lot better at coming out with updates for the Mac OS. It can take weeks for Microsoft to come out with a update for Windows while Apple will often release an update a few days after an exploit is found.
The Mac OS can read from a NTFS hard drive though I don't think it can write to one. You can reformet that hard drive to the Fat 32 format which the Mac OS can read and write to. As far as I know, Monkey's Audio cannot be played on the Mac OS. The only good jukebox/ripping program for the Mac OS is iTunes. The error correction mode in iTunes no where near compares to the secure ripping mode of EAC. However, the error correction mode in iTunes is far ahead of other software apps such as Windows Media Player, MusicMatch, WinAmp, and Nero. You will have no problem ripping CD's with the Lame mp3 encoder using iTunes as there is a patch you can download that adds the Lame mp3 encoding file format to iTunes. iTunes rips to Lame at a speed of 2X but you can still rip to the preset standard or higher if you want. I think the patch is up to version 3.90.3, I don't know if it will receive an update when 3.97 final is released.
Unless you are tied to the mp3 format, iTunes is really good at ripping to the mpeg-4 AAC format. A 192kbps VBR/CBR mpeg-4 AAC file encoded with iTunes is equivalent to that of a preset standard mp3 (just comparing the views on the internet, it is really hard to tell the differences between high bitrate songs so take the reviews with a grain of salt). So, if you want to swtich to the Mac OS opperating system on Apple computers (FYI their computer lines are no longer call Macintosh), you will only sacrifice the ability to play/encode Monkey's Audio. Keep in mind that iTunes now has the Apple lossless encoder so you can rip your CD's to that format if you want to have a backup of them.
You can hook up your hard drive to a Mac OS powered Apple computer, copy the mp3's off of it, then reformat the hard drive either to the HFS+ or Fat 32 formats. The Mac OS is extremely stable when compared to Windows XP. This is not entirely Microsofts fault as Windows XP is an extremely popular OS. People want to make destructive programs that will attack the greater percentage of computers, not a small margin of them. So hackers/programers are constantly looking for holes in the Windows XP OS and are producing viruses. Apple is a lot better at coming out with updates for the Mac OS. It can take weeks for Microsoft to come out with a update for Windows while Apple will often release an update a few days after an exploit is found.
Why don't you go on in the thread you started earlier? 
There's no point in asking the same questions in different places...
There's no point in asking the same questions in different places...
unfortunately, the majority of the GNU/OSS/GPL communities forget/ignore OSX completely, and so you have a huge gap between professional software and free (speech) software.
regarding software availability/development/etc. to the common end user, windows has both pro & free, gnu/linux has only free and OSX has only pro. this is pretty crude in a general sense, but i think that it could summarize the adoption and popularity of each format and the relation to target end user.
also, because of this huge gap of development on OSX, users are slow to adopt the MAC because if something doesn't work out-of-the-box from the OS, then it doesn't appear that anyone is up to the task to support it at all.
recent activity in the audio dept. attempts to address some huge deficiencies (like kuniklo's xist, etc) but the MAC still doesn't have something as simple as a decent audio player.
before OSX, the only thing the mac had going for it was the graphics & development focus. now, well - it's mostly the same...
somewhere, a combination of the 3 is the perfect system: the OSX UI, the *NIX utilities/backend + communities, the BSD kernel, the windows feature support
i'm rambling now...
regarding software availability/development/etc. to the common end user, windows has both pro & free, gnu/linux has only free and OSX has only pro. this is pretty crude in a general sense, but i think that it could summarize the adoption and popularity of each format and the relation to target end user.
also, because of this huge gap of development on OSX, users are slow to adopt the MAC because if something doesn't work out-of-the-box from the OS, then it doesn't appear that anyone is up to the task to support it at all.
recent activity in the audio dept. attempts to address some huge deficiencies (like kuniklo's xist, etc) but the MAC still doesn't have something as simple as a decent audio player.
before OSX, the only thing the mac had going for it was the graphics & development focus. now, well - it's mostly the same...
somewhere, a combination of the 3 is the perfect system: the OSX UI, the *NIX utilities/backend + communities, the BSD kernel, the windows feature support
i'm rambling now...
QUOTE(adlai @ Sep 22 2005, 12:45 PM)
1. finding the same programs. I would have no problems with a different audio ripper (I've rarely ever had an error ripping a cd), but I don't know if there's the equivalent of foobar's mass encode feature
2. NTFS. This is a huge problem. the Mac can read, but can't write it. I could format the drive to HFS+ and then reencode all of my mp3s (I will reencode all of them anyways once 3.97 final is out) but that would be a hassle, especially considering that some of the ape files are tagged properly, as well as duplicates, etc.
3. reading monkey's audio. I hear that Monkey's audio has pretty bad support on the Mac. Would I be able to get them to work on a Mac? Or, since I read that Monkey's audio is dependent on x86, would a better idea be to wait until Apple moves to the x86 processors next year?
so, anyone done the move successfully?
for APE use xACT <http://www.versiontracker.com/dyn/moreinfo/macosx/21952>
i dont use it so i am not quite sure of it does mass encode, tho im pretty sure its not that difficult.
for lossless ... u might wanna go w/FLAC or ALAC
In a while there will be x86 mac's and i know on linux, there is poor ntfs write kernel support....but there is a project where you can use the windows ntfs dll, and have proper ntfs read/write support.
Kristian
Kristian
about your question- if you look around you'll find programs for mac that there are for windows.
My brother just switched to mac and the majority of good mac programs he found are linux programs (i'm suprised no one mentioned you can run most linux programs on a mac)- that's a huge plus)
By the way, if you're thinking about watching movies in mac be sure to get VLC -it solves alot of problems you might run into with just the mac video player that's preinstalled.
As for audio all i can say is - linux, linux, linux, linux, linux programs.
I'm sure some big linux users can tell you their favorite audio encoding programs that have support for mac.
Hope I helped.
P.S. check this link out ffmpeg
I have a feeling this link will come in handy (by the way Afterdawn has a section which lists so more software like this, but this was the best one.)
My brother just switched to mac and the majority of good mac programs he found are linux programs (i'm suprised no one mentioned you can run most linux programs on a mac)- that's a huge plus)
By the way, if you're thinking about watching movies in mac be sure to get VLC -it solves alot of problems you might run into with just the mac video player that's preinstalled.
As for audio all i can say is - linux, linux, linux, linux, linux programs.
I'm sure some big linux users can tell you their favorite audio encoding programs that have support for mac.
Hope I helped.
P.S. check this link out ffmpeg
I have a feeling this link will come in handy (by the way Afterdawn has a section which lists so more software like this, but this was the best one.)
kritip,
The one you talk about is called "captive ntfs". It is said to be bloody slow though.
Triza
The one you talk about is called "captive ntfs". It is said to be bloody slow though.
Triza
Re Mac vs PC in terms of what the platform offers and whether the public just does not get that Mac is superior. Well, my last job was in a large corporation. We had about 5,000 folks at my installation. Almost no Macs. This is a very large, successful and profitable company with a very astute technical crew to evaluate platforms. I suppose that the minority who buy Macs know far better what is good than do the large numbers of technical departments the world around which recommend PC's. Yeah, right.
As the percentage of the marketplace Mac controls shrinks all that is left is the most vociferous supporters, which is natural. OK, Betamax is better than VHS. But the VCR purchase decision is not made by groups of technical types and engineers who recommend purchases on the basis of what you get for your money. The small/desktop computer platform is pretty well researched and I will just have to repeat that I believe that the marketplace chose what is functionally a better platform for the most people. It is pretty hard to explain the lopsided purchasing on the basis of mass ignorance.
Just my tuppence worth. And, I would still rather be on my orphan operating system of OS/2, but it was no onger viable.
As the percentage of the marketplace Mac controls shrinks all that is left is the most vociferous supporters, which is natural. OK, Betamax is better than VHS. But the VCR purchase decision is not made by groups of technical types and engineers who recommend purchases on the basis of what you get for your money. The small/desktop computer platform is pretty well researched and I will just have to repeat that I believe that the marketplace chose what is functionally a better platform for the most people. It is pretty hard to explain the lopsided purchasing on the basis of mass ignorance.
Just my tuppence worth. And, I would still rather be on my orphan operating system of OS/2, but it was no onger viable.
QUOTE(adlai @ Sep 22 2005, 10:45 PM)
1. rip cd to local hd using EAC. Store in Monkey's Audio format.
Well, I'm not aware of any QuickTime plugin for the Monkey's Audio format. But there's Apple's lossless format (ALAC) which should be more or less equal.QUOTE(adlai @ Sep 22 2005, 10:45 PM)
1. finding the same programs. I would have no problems with a different audio ripper (I've rarely ever had an error ripping a cd), but I don't know if there's the equivalent of foobar's mass encode feature
You could use iTunes (select the files, right-click, and choose "Convert"), a batch encoder like QTAmateur, or use the a self-made solution (without programming - using Automator or the command line).QUOTE(adlai @ Sep 22 2005, 10:45 PM)
2. NTFS. This is a huge problem. the Mac can read, but can't write it. I could format the drive to HFS+ and then reencode all of my mp3s (I will reencode all of them anyways once 3.97 final is out) but that would be a hassle, especially considering that some of the ape files are tagged properly, as well as duplicates, etc.
I'm not 100% sure (I have no NTFS drive to test), but I think Mac OS X's built in "Disk Utility" application has an option to convert NTFS to HFS+ (the Mac format).I formated my exernal HDD as FAT32. So far it works reliable. I guess it's because I write to it only from time to time and reading from a drive does (should) not cause any corruption.
QUOTE(adlai @ Sep 22 2005, 10:45 PM)
so, anyone done the move successfully?
I did. I love the simplicity with the power of BSD. While Mac OS X does have flaws (nothing is perfect - a lot is personal taste), I had waaaay less problems with it compared to any Windows version.I'm a little bit pissed with the support for audio formats in OSX. Yeah, there are players like VLC that can play most files, but QuickTime plugins would be cooler. With QT6.x there were some 3rd party plugins, but QT7 (completely rewritten) broke the Ogg Vorbis plugin and also many other free plugins, as they are based on the Vorbis plugin. No idea why, but the developers chose not to update most plugins.
OTOH Macs have great formats (AAC, ALAC, ...) out of the box, it should feed all needs.
QUOTE(boojum @ Sep 23 2005, 01:41 AM)
I suppose that the minority who buy Macs know far better what is good than do the large numbers of technical departments the world around which recommend PC's. Yeah, right.
Most IT departments in large companies can't find their arse with an atlas and decisions such are made for commerical not technical reasons.
It used to be the case that "No one ever got sacked for buying IBM" it's currently the case that "No one ever got sacked for buying Microsoft".
You generally don't find Computer Science graduates in IT departments in companies although you do find them in computing services in Universities, funny that.
QUOTE(chelgrian @ Sep 22 2005, 05:19 PM)
QUOTE(boojum @ Sep 23 2005, 01:41 AM)
I suppose that the minority who buy Macs know far better what is good than do the large numbers of technical departments the world around which recommend PC's. Yeah, right.
Most IT departments in large companies can't find their arse with an atlas and decisions such are made for commerical not technical reasons.
It used to be the case that "No one ever got sacked for buying IBM" it's currently the case that "No one ever got sacked for buying Microsoft".
You generally don't find Computer Science graduates in IT departments in companies although you do find them in computing services in Universities, funny that.
Exactly.
I still don't quite understand how boojum equates "Mac isn't used by the most IT people, or the most casual users" with "Mac is no good," heh. Besides being a well known fallacy, which I already pointed out, the conclusion simply doesn't follow from the premise at all.
There are a ton of instances where it can be shown that the wintel platform is "functionally" (to use boojum's phrase) inferior to many other modern platforms, in terms of both the hardware architecture (even if Intel has managed to make an old clunky architecture go relatively fast), and the software.
But because Intel and Microsoft have been more successful marketing wise, those platforms are now standard. Corporations use this platform because it's easy to support since it is widespread, not because of any technical characteristic whatsoever.
On the other hand, when it's some sort of technical characteristic that matters, I often do see people preferring Macs (or at least non-wintel platforms). Many of the people that I know in academia that are doing research of some sort (usually computationally intensive) prefer that platform when it's available for a variety of reasons, mostly having to do with its reliability, its development tools, and its performance.
Quotes from above:
"My personal opinion: stay with Windows. I use macs at work and I hate them with a passion. But as I said, that's just my personal view on the Win vs Mac situation."
---> How I used to feel, mainly out of ignorance. I don't think any one OS is the best in all a categories, each has their strong points.
"I am biased. If Mac were good, not only would it be selling more boxes, it would be gaining market share."
---> False: The best product does not always gain market share. Ogg vorbis is a superior format to Mp3, but what do most people use? Beta Max vs VHS. Beta Max was a superior product, as far as Video quality goes. But VHS was cheaper, and could hold more low quality video, so people bought VHS. Thus, VHS won, and sold. DVD-audio and SACD, clearly better sound quality then CD, but who is selling the most, CD, because their is so little demand for better quality. People don't care about quality, they care about "good enough" and this is how M$ keeps their market share. (By unethically crushing better products, and pushing a "good enough" product, instead of a superior product). Since everyone uses CDs, all music is on CD (the vast majority), since everyone uses Windows, all software is Windows (the vast majority).
My Take On The Major Operating Systems (Bottom line):
Windows = sub par operating system, (I've been using it since windows 3.1, and it's definetely true). Basically windows was code code was pieced together in random bits. It was not designed to network, but only as a desktop os. So when it took on networking (as much as it didn't want to), it was full of a multitude of security wholes. Which is evident today even, in the amount of virus/spy/adware that can infect windows pcs. But, since the market share is mostly windows pcs, most software, games or otherwise is made for it. ....and M$ is VERY good at killing competition (unethically usually), even if the product is superior.
Unix = code developed and improved since the 1950's, designed for networking and security. Since Mac OSX is basically a FreeBSD (unix) core, with quartz gui, you get that stability and general reliablity from Unix. Unfortunately, since Mac marketshare is so low, not as much software is available. This is due to the apple philosophy of providing a better product (in general), in instead of an M$ philosophy of, just good enough to keep market share. To keep compatibility apple also restricts hardware options (and make you buy their expensive stuff, that will work without question), which leads modders/geeks to want normal pcs. But most people are just normal users, who've used windows their whole life, and even if they know it poorly, they know how to send an email, so they say with windows, because it has the software and options they know.
Linux = Unix derivative (1992-present), which has the general stability of Unix. Initially very hard to use, it is increasingly getting more user friendly. Advents of KDE and Gnome enviroments, and improved installers have made ALOT of progress in the last few years. Linux will let you use any pc, mac, (or even ps3, ps2, xbox, etc..), and it's free! Unlike windows which in poor countries (like russia) is always bootlegged because of cost. Linux users believe software, and the operating system should be free, open source. Their is a good amount of software available, but it is nothing compared to windows (same problem macs faces). It is usuable, and good operating system. I'd say it's better then windows overall, it just lacks a lot of software. Since Linux comes in many "flavors", i.e. disturbutions, it suffers from widespread fractionation. Thus, preventing it's gain in popularity. Yet linux runs on almost ever device, Game consoles, power pc, x86, cell phones, pocket pcs etc... (something windows can't, unix also can do this to a degree, but their is more active development in linux)
But now: mac's are switching to intel chips (2006-2007). Which means you'll be able to triple boot windows/OSx/linux. (I actually have my dell doing this, with an early release of OSX for x86, far from perfect, but it's proof of concept). Being a windows user for the majority of my life, i'm sick of the crashes, spy and adware, poor memory managment. But I'm also at the same time hesistant to adopt OSX with open hands. But i've been playing with it, and it is very easy to use overall (even though the dock needs work). Linux, I like, but it still needs some work on user friendlyness, software, windows emulation of programs (WINE works, but is limited, actual emulation is still very slow -win4lin). But I do like the open source aspect, of open formats. Ogg , FLAC - which are suppoorted by default in many linux disturbutions. Whereas Appple has their own closed formats like ALAC, and will only let you play it on their player, but that is kind of their philosophy. Windows pushes their format (WMA), but it's generally much easier (which so much hardware/software) to get any format to play. Hardware players will play WMA. So what operating system is the best, I guess it depends on what you need to do, and what your philosophy on computers is. I used to hate MACs, because of ignorance (and their closed hardware nature), but with the advent of a unix backbone, they have strong points, especially for artistic capablities. From a technical point, I still believe windows to be the most inferior (for overall reliablity), but it stems from it's origins and the amount of hardware it needs to support (something appple can't do, and doesn't want to do, because it makes it's profits from hardware, unlike MS who makes all their money from XP, Office mostly). But again, has a lot of software.
As computers get more powerful, it will be possible to run linux as the main OS, and then run windows xp or mac os in a box (or any other combination, like windows in Mac OSx windows). (Some of this is already possibly (win4lin, Virtual PC) but it generally to slow to be applicable). So I do not believe a switch to apple is a bad one, but I'd wait till the intel chips one hit the market, as they are phazing out the powerpc line (which they did because IBM wasn't giving them the chips they wanted, i.e. a G5 powerbook that ran cool.). I'm probably going with a apple intel laptop to replace my dell laptop, so I can run all 3 major operating systems in a native environment (Choice is a good thing, and I like all 3 OSes for different purposes).
...my 2 cents....
"My personal opinion: stay with Windows. I use macs at work and I hate them with a passion. But as I said, that's just my personal view on the Win vs Mac situation."
---> How I used to feel, mainly out of ignorance. I don't think any one OS is the best in all a categories, each has their strong points.
"I am biased. If Mac were good, not only would it be selling more boxes, it would be gaining market share."
---> False: The best product does not always gain market share. Ogg vorbis is a superior format to Mp3, but what do most people use? Beta Max vs VHS. Beta Max was a superior product, as far as Video quality goes. But VHS was cheaper, and could hold more low quality video, so people bought VHS. Thus, VHS won, and sold. DVD-audio and SACD, clearly better sound quality then CD, but who is selling the most, CD, because their is so little demand for better quality. People don't care about quality, they care about "good enough" and this is how M$ keeps their market share. (By unethically crushing better products, and pushing a "good enough" product, instead of a superior product). Since everyone uses CDs, all music is on CD (the vast majority), since everyone uses Windows, all software is Windows (the vast majority).
My Take On The Major Operating Systems (Bottom line):
Windows = sub par operating system, (I've been using it since windows 3.1, and it's definetely true). Basically windows was code code was pieced together in random bits. It was not designed to network, but only as a desktop os. So when it took on networking (as much as it didn't want to), it was full of a multitude of security wholes. Which is evident today even, in the amount of virus/spy/adware that can infect windows pcs. But, since the market share is mostly windows pcs, most software, games or otherwise is made for it. ....and M$ is VERY good at killing competition (unethically usually), even if the product is superior.
Unix = code developed and improved since the 1950's, designed for networking and security. Since Mac OSX is basically a FreeBSD (unix) core, with quartz gui, you get that stability and general reliablity from Unix. Unfortunately, since Mac marketshare is so low, not as much software is available. This is due to the apple philosophy of providing a better product (in general), in instead of an M$ philosophy of, just good enough to keep market share. To keep compatibility apple also restricts hardware options (and make you buy their expensive stuff, that will work without question), which leads modders/geeks to want normal pcs. But most people are just normal users, who've used windows their whole life, and even if they know it poorly, they know how to send an email, so they say with windows, because it has the software and options they know.
Linux = Unix derivative (1992-present), which has the general stability of Unix. Initially very hard to use, it is increasingly getting more user friendly. Advents of KDE and Gnome enviroments, and improved installers have made ALOT of progress in the last few years. Linux will let you use any pc, mac, (or even ps3, ps2, xbox, etc..), and it's free! Unlike windows which in poor countries (like russia) is always bootlegged because of cost. Linux users believe software, and the operating system should be free, open source. Their is a good amount of software available, but it is nothing compared to windows (same problem macs faces). It is usuable, and good operating system. I'd say it's better then windows overall, it just lacks a lot of software. Since Linux comes in many "flavors", i.e. disturbutions, it suffers from widespread fractionation. Thus, preventing it's gain in popularity. Yet linux runs on almost ever device, Game consoles, power pc, x86, cell phones, pocket pcs etc... (something windows can't, unix also can do this to a degree, but their is more active development in linux)
But now: mac's are switching to intel chips (2006-2007). Which means you'll be able to triple boot windows/OSx/linux. (I actually have my dell doing this, with an early release of OSX for x86, far from perfect, but it's proof of concept). Being a windows user for the majority of my life, i'm sick of the crashes, spy and adware, poor memory managment. But I'm also at the same time hesistant to adopt OSX with open hands. But i've been playing with it, and it is very easy to use overall (even though the dock needs work). Linux, I like, but it still needs some work on user friendlyness, software, windows emulation of programs (WINE works, but is limited, actual emulation is still very slow -win4lin). But I do like the open source aspect, of open formats. Ogg , FLAC - which are suppoorted by default in many linux disturbutions. Whereas Appple has their own closed formats like ALAC, and will only let you play it on their player, but that is kind of their philosophy. Windows pushes their format (WMA), but it's generally much easier (which so much hardware/software) to get any format to play. Hardware players will play WMA. So what operating system is the best, I guess it depends on what you need to do, and what your philosophy on computers is. I used to hate MACs, because of ignorance (and their closed hardware nature), but with the advent of a unix backbone, they have strong points, especially for artistic capablities. From a technical point, I still believe windows to be the most inferior (for overall reliablity), but it stems from it's origins and the amount of hardware it needs to support (something appple can't do, and doesn't want to do, because it makes it's profits from hardware, unlike MS who makes all their money from XP, Office mostly). But again, has a lot of software.
As computers get more powerful, it will be possible to run linux as the main OS, and then run windows xp or mac os in a box (or any other combination, like windows in Mac OSx windows). (Some of this is already possibly (win4lin, Virtual PC) but it generally to slow to be applicable). So I do not believe a switch to apple is a bad one, but I'd wait till the intel chips one hit the market, as they are phazing out the powerpc line (which they did because IBM wasn't giving them the chips they wanted, i.e. a G5 powerbook that ran cool.). I'm probably going with a apple intel laptop to replace my dell laptop, so I can run all 3 major operating systems in a native environment (Choice is a good thing, and I like all 3 OSes for different purposes).
...my 2 cents....
Rip CD's with iTunes using Apple Lossless or AIFF/WAV. You can batch encode them to LAME mp3 with http://www.macupdate.com/info.php/id/8837 . It should be easy to change the lame executable to whatever the latest version is.
NTFS is a totally closed and proprietary filesystem and nothing but windows can write to it reliably, so unless you erase it as FAT32, UFS, HFS+, HFSX, UDF or similar and copy all your stuff back onto it (you do have backups don't you?) i can't see any way out of that. Burning to DVD etc is easy and somebody already already posted an APE solution: http://www.macupdate.com/info.php/id/14246 - reading that now it also supports cdda2wav with paranoia support which is probably the closest thing you'll get to EAC as well.
NTFS is a totally closed and proprietary filesystem and nothing but windows can write to it reliably, so unless you erase it as FAT32, UFS, HFS+, HFSX, UDF or similar and copy all your stuff back onto it (you do have backups don't you?
) i can't see any way out of that. Burning to DVD etc is easy and somebody already already posted an APE solution: http://www.macupdate.com/info.php/id/14246 - reading that now it also supports cdda2wav with paranoia support which is probably the closest thing you'll get to EAC as well.
As already mentioned, xACT for ripping/encoding/decoding.
Cog will play a great many formats including APE.
Regarding the Mac vs Win question.
IMO you would be better of using the Windows platform for the forseeable future. That said Macs are great for a number of applications, hobby audio, as in your case is not one of them.
Video encoding/ripping is also a area where it's years behind (I'm not talking by FCP and similar situations), there is no avisynth, vdubmod, gknot, good splitters, filters for subs, etc, etc.
On the other hand Mac's kick ass for regular 'home user' that wants to suft the net, read mail, store photos from cameras, edit video, audio creation... some areas that apparently are good, but I don't have much experience in, are development and in science areas.
I myself wouldn't consider a mac today (but might change if x86 OS X can dualboot/run Windows in VirtualPC at native speed), but I know what I want, and I know that those areas are not well developed for OS X... YET.
Regarding stability, I don't find one more stable than the other. IF and a very big 'if' the user on the WinXP has not installed bloat / spyware, and knows what applications are nice running. If the Windows user is a regular Joe compared to a regular Jane running OS X, the OS X is more stable by a hundred fold, and I don't feel that is an exaggeration
.
IMO you would be better of using the Windows platform for the forseeable future. That said Macs are great for a number of applications, hobby audio, as in your case is not one of them.
Video encoding/ripping is also a area where it's years behind (I'm not talking by FCP and similar situations), there is no avisynth, vdubmod, gknot, good splitters, filters for subs, etc, etc.
On the other hand Mac's kick ass for regular 'home user' that wants to suft the net, read mail, store photos from cameras, edit video, audio creation... some areas that apparently are good, but I don't have much experience in, are development and in science areas.
I myself wouldn't consider a mac today (but might change if x86 OS X can dualboot/run Windows in VirtualPC at native speed), but I know what I want, and I know that those areas are not well developed for OS X... YET.
Regarding stability, I don't find one more stable than the other. IF and a very big 'if' the user on the WinXP has not installed bloat / spyware, and knows what applications are nice running. If the Windows user is a regular Joe compared to a regular Jane running OS X, the OS X is more stable by a hundred fold, and I don't feel that is an exaggeration
.
If one only needs to Surf + Email + Listen to music and casually rip => buy a Mac.
It is a much better experience than Windows.
=> I have an Apple laptop for these.
If one needs to use some specific tools (ripping, video encoding, etc) chances are that a programmer will have released a software on Windows because it is simply a more common platform.
It might be uggly and the Windows OS is crap for any real-time/multitasking stuff (XP is much better than previous versions, though)
=> I have homemade windows XP Pro PC for these.
Now, I will never let my parents get close to a Windows PC, so I got them a Mac.
I have found that in ripping/encoding my chain the codec was so much more important than the ripper that I have recently given up on the Windows platform for ripping (EAC).
Why?
because iTunes on Mac is scriptable so its a lot easier to manipulate the album tags (especially for classical music).
QUOTE(thereeper @ Sep 23 2005, 05:17 AM)
Appple has their own closed formats like ALAC, and will only let you play it on their player
There is a open source ALAC decoder available. See http://crazney.net/programs/itunes/alac.htmlThis decoder has been integrated into ffmpeg so almost any OSS player (VLC, MPlayer, ...) should be able to play ALAC files.
QUOTE(karlie @ Sep 23 2005, 12:09 PM)
If one only needs to Surf + Email + Listen to music and casually rip => buy a Mac.
It is a much better experience than Windows.
=> I have an Apple laptop for these.
It is a much better experience than Windows.
=> I have an Apple laptop for these.
How is that experience any different on a Mac?
QUOTE(Gambit @ Sep 23 2005, 03:08 AM)
QUOTE(karlie @ Sep 23 2005, 12:09 PM)
If one only needs to Surf + Email + Listen to music and casually rip => buy a Mac.
It is a much better experience than Windows.
=> I have an Apple laptop for these.
It is a much better experience than Windows.
=> I have an Apple laptop for these.
How is that experience any different on a Mac?
Easy. No spyware or viruses to have to contend with.
I would also argue that the respective applications for doing that kind of stuff on Mac OS X are more polished than the Windows counterparts (e.g., Safari vs. IE, Mail vs. Outlook Express, iTunes vs. WMP).
Of course you can make the Windows experience quite a bit better with some customization, such as downloading better programs for these things than what comes with Windows, but the point is that most "casual users" do not do this. In other words, there's less effort required to get a nicer experience in such a scenario with Mac OS X than with Windows. Some people regard this as "much better."
Jumping in with snippets from everyone:
Well the major one is the Mac doesn't have the market and without that the majority of software companies stay away. Chicken and the Egg (see next about my remark on Standardization).
Exactly, and Apple instead of jumping onto this Standards bandwagon have to have their own propriety systems, if they really wanted to I think they could push relatively high % use on the desktop (at least 25%), but that would mean using the hardware everyone has (ie buy a Gigabyte/Asus motherboard, AMD/Intel processor), there is no reason why OSX shouldn't run on these. Imagine if Microsoft tomorrow said Windows Visa will only run on a Microsoft PC, it would never make more than 5% of the market and that is using Windows past popularity. I know, bad drivers... will make OSX look bad...lessening the Apple experience...YADA YADA..no profits in software - not the real reason, Apple could have certified drivers like Windows does with testing labs.
Exactly - Apple=closed mentality
Which is broken by iTunes v5, there are updates in the pipe I hear but as Apple a) release 0 documents then others who support their stuff does it always 'after the fact', same goes for iPod - new feature, only Apple knows the ins and outs until months later when other programs are able to reverse engineer it.
I have Ghost that and read / write NTFS files from DOS, no MS dlls are used...it is possible if someone large enough wants to put the effort in (ie if Apple wanted to they could have full NTFS support in a matter of weeks).
Don't get me wrong, competition is great, but as each new release of Windows comes out they get better and better, until end game for anyone else (there is a ‘Window’ of opportunity that is closing), take Vista finally programs run under restrictive accounts, less exploits, system popups asking if a program should access a certain part as it tries to dynamically, Unix has had this for years (sans dynamic asking end user), Apple inherited it for OSX, now Microsoft have it. These are fundamentals that a rival software company should have punished Microsoft for, but propriety over priced gear stopped all that.
In short, if Apple are serious - make OSX run on other computers, and concentrate easing the development shift from Windows to OSX, any coca freaky development which 'takes awhile to get used to, but then is better', cuts no mustard. Look up the road Apple, Microsoft are changing the Windows API to be basically .NET, a 'standard' - put some effort into making OSX+APIs and Mono part of OSX and head MS off at the pass.
QUOTE
Macs are no good, but neither one actually offers a particular criticism.
Well the major one is the Mac doesn't have the market and without that the majority of software companies stay away. Chicken and the Egg (see next about my remark on Standardization).
QUOTE
But because Intel and Microsoft have been more successful marketing wise, those platforms are now standard.
Exactly, and Apple instead of jumping onto this Standards bandwagon have to have their own propriety systems, if they really wanted to I think they could push relatively high % use on the desktop (at least 25%), but that would mean using the hardware everyone has (ie buy a Gigabyte/Asus motherboard, AMD/Intel processor), there is no reason why OSX shouldn't run on these. Imagine if Microsoft tomorrow said Windows Visa will only run on a Microsoft PC, it would never make more than 5% of the market and that is using Windows past popularity. I know, bad drivers... will make OSX look bad...lessening the Apple experience...YADA YADA..no profits in software - not the real reason, Apple could have certified drivers like Windows does with testing labs.
QUOTE
Whereas Apple has their own closed formats like ALAC, and will only let you play it on their player, but that is kind of their philosophy.
Exactly - Apple=closed mentality
QUOTE
There is a open source ALAC decoder available. See http://crazney.net/programs/itunes/alac.html
Which is broken by iTunes v5, there are updates in the pipe I hear but as Apple a) release 0 documents then others who support their stuff does it always 'after the fact', same goes for iPod - new feature, only Apple knows the ins and outs until months later when other programs are able to reverse engineer it.
QUOTE
NTFS is a totally closed and proprietary filesystem and nothing but windows can write to it reliably
I have Ghost that and read / write NTFS files from DOS, no MS dlls are used...it is possible if someone large enough wants to put the effort in (ie if Apple wanted to they could have full NTFS support in a matter of weeks).
Don't get me wrong, competition is great, but as each new release of Windows comes out they get better and better, until end game for anyone else (there is a ‘Window’ of opportunity that is closing), take Vista finally programs run under restrictive accounts, less exploits, system popups asking if a program should access a certain part as it tries to dynamically, Unix has had this for years (sans dynamic asking end user), Apple inherited it for OSX, now Microsoft have it. These are fundamentals that a rival software company should have punished Microsoft for, but propriety over priced gear stopped all that.
In short, if Apple are serious - make OSX run on other computers, and concentrate easing the development shift from Windows to OSX, any coca freaky development which 'takes awhile to get used to, but then is better', cuts no mustard. Look up the road Apple, Microsoft are changing the Windows API to be basically .NET, a 'standard' - put some effort into making OSX+APIs and Mono part of OSX and head MS off at the pass.
Slackware (or some other Unix/Linux) owns you.
A combination of Crip, Ogg Vorbis (or FLAC), mpd + ncmpc/mpc (+ gmpc) beats all.
A combination of Crip, Ogg Vorbis (or FLAC), mpd + ncmpc/mpc (+ gmpc) beats all.
I have been using/programming computers since i was 5 (started with Logo, very basic). I have had an TK83, Texas Instruments TI994/A, Commodore 128, Commodore Amiga 500, IBM PC XT (640KB RAM, 20MB HD, CGA), and from then on, always IBM PC compatibles. Have used DOS, DesqView, DesqView/X, OS/2, Linux, Windows (95-XP). As much as i love my ThinkPads, my next computer would be a MAC. Macs have the best: the stability of UNIX, the best GUI, and all the programs other *nixes can only dream of: MS Office, Adobe *, Macromedia *, etc.
QUOTE(spoon @ Sep 23 2005, 01:37 PM)
In short, if Apple are serious - make OSX run on other computers
Yeah, that'd be a really clever move for a hardware company.
QUOTE(spoon @ Sep 23 2005, 01:37 PM)
<snip>
I'm sorry Spoon, but you don't seem to know what you're talking about
QUOTE
Yeah, that'd be a really clever move for a hardware company.
You are saying it is not possible to make money on software operating systems? Microsoft must be really struggling.
QUOTE
I'm sorry Spoon, but you don't seem to know what you're talking about
It takes counter-argument facts to prove your point, your statement is seriously devoid of such.
I am talking as a software company who have run projections of converting Windows based programs on the Mac, and projected revenue - and they fall well short. Take MacAMP, they had to close up shop, you might mention iTunes as the cause, well on the PC there is iTunes and WMP, still PC based jukebox applications that are pay for use, they seem to survive - bigger market.
QUOTE(spoon @ Sep 23 2005, 03:07 PM)
QUOTE
Yeah, that'd be a really clever move for a hardware company.
You are saying it is not possible to make money on software operating systems? Microsoft must be really struggling.
Why would Apple want to change from a successful hardware company into a direct competitor with a company who would stop at nothing to destroy them if they were seen as a serious threat ?
QUOTE(spoon)
I am talking as a software company who have run projections of converting Windows based programs on the Mac, and projected revenue - and they fall well short. Take MacAMP, they had to close up shop, you might mention iTunes as the cause, well on the PC there is iTunes and WMP, still PC based jukebox applications that are pay for use, they seem to survive - bigger market.
MacAMP died because it was pretty crappy in comparison to iTunes. I always preferred SoundJam back in the OS 9 days, certainly compared to Audion which has also fallen by the wayside. Apple made the clever decision of snapping up the SoundJam people and a lot of the app's best moves.
Since when was iTunes pay for use ?
QUOTE(spoon @ Sep 23 2005, 06:07 AM)
QUOTE
I'm sorry Spoon, but you don't seem to know what you're talking about
It takes counter-argument facts to prove your point, your statement is seriously devoid of such.
I am talking as a software company who have run projections of converting Windows based programs on the Mac, and projected revenue - and they fall well short. Take MacAMP, they had to close up shop, you might mention iTunes as the cause, well on the PC there is iTunes and WMP, still PC based jukebox applications that are pay for use, they seem to survive - bigger market.
The Mac software business is a really lucrative market, much more than the market share might suggest. If I were a shareware developer that wanted to make a quick buck, I'd develop for OSX instead of Windows in a heartbeat.
Heh, found this presentation that backs me up: http://wilshipley.com/blog/WWDC_Student_Talk.pdf (Seems to be done by some cocky bastard, but there's some good points in there)
As for MacAMP, well I've never even heard of it..
I am new to posting but I often check these boards and thought I would offer my opinion after reading through this thread.
Some of the people replying here sound as though they have never used an Apple and they definately don't understand the way the company works. There are two types of Apple:
1. Mac Mini, iBook, iMac
Suitable mainly for home users, Listening to music, watching DVD's, Word Processing, browsing the web etc
2. PowerBook, PowerMac
Computers designed for professionals in graphics, audio production, video - top end PowerMacs are some seriously powerful machines.
Apples are not just for home users, so whoever said that, I'm pretty sure you have little experience with Macs, if I am wrong sorry but it just sounds that way.
Now thats out the way,
To the Original Poster-
In your specific situation I probably would reccommend sticking with Windows XP as it will probably better suit your needs with Monkeys, NTFS situation etc
(see I am not just a mac fanboy )
However, if there was room for change in the codec department, then perhaps give a Mac some serious thought, ALAC has served me very well and when the second generation of Intel Macs come out, they should be some great machines
I was on a Windows box (actually I am on it at the moment) but moved to a PowerMac mainly for the musical production side. I found that (basically) everything I could do on Windows I could do in OSX if I was willing to make a couple of changes, one of them being moving from FLAC to ALAC.
But I wouldn't suggest this move to everyone, it just depends on what is important to you about computing, and I decided it was stability.
As a user of both Windows XP and OSX I hope I have been of some help and sorry to start my first post off in such a negative manner.
Thomas
Some of the people replying here sound as though they have never used an Apple and they definately don't understand the way the company works. There are two types of Apple:
1. Mac Mini, iBook, iMac
Suitable mainly for home users, Listening to music, watching DVD's, Word Processing, browsing the web etc
2. PowerBook, PowerMac
Computers designed for professionals in graphics, audio production, video - top end PowerMacs are some seriously powerful machines.
Apples are not just for home users, so whoever said that, I'm pretty sure you have little experience with Macs, if I am wrong sorry but it just sounds that way.
Now thats out the way,
To the Original Poster-
In your specific situation I probably would reccommend sticking with Windows XP as it will probably better suit your needs with Monkeys, NTFS situation etc
(see I am not just a mac fanboy
)However, if there was room for change in the codec department, then perhaps give a Mac some serious thought, ALAC has served me very well and when the second generation of Intel Macs come out, they should be some great machines
I was on a Windows box (actually I am on it at the moment) but moved to a PowerMac mainly for the musical production side. I found that (basically) everything I could do on Windows I could do in OSX if I was willing to make a couple of changes, one of them being moving from FLAC to ALAC.
But I wouldn't suggest this move to everyone, it just depends on what is important to you about computing, and I decided it was stability.
As a user of both Windows XP and OSX I hope I have been of some help and sorry to start my first post off in such a negative manner.
Thomas
QUOTE(Dibrom @ Sep 23 2005, 01:14 PM)
QUOTE(Gambit @ Sep 23 2005, 03:08 AM)
QUOTE(karlie @ Sep 23 2005, 12:09 PM)
If one only needs to Surf + Email + Listen to music and casually rip => buy a Mac.
It is a much better experience than Windows.
=> I have an Apple laptop for these.
It is a much better experience than Windows.
=> I have an Apple laptop for these.
How is that experience any different on a Mac?
Easy. No spyware or viruses to have to contend with.
I would also argue that the respective applications for doing that kind of stuff on Mac OS X are more polished than the Windows counterparts (e.g., Safari vs. IE, Mail vs. Outlook Express, iTunes vs. WMP).
Of course you can make the Windows experience quite a bit better with some customization, such as downloading better programs for these things than what comes with Windows, but the point is that most "casual users" do not do this. In other words, there's less effort required to get a nicer experience in such a scenario with Mac OS X than with Windows. Some people regard this as "much better."
I could then argue that some Macs still come with a one mouse button and that severely decreases that great experience...
QUOTE(karlie @ Sep 23 2005, 12:09 PM)
If one only needs to Surf + Email + Listen to music and casually rip => buy a Mac.
That sounds as if Macs are only suited for grannies. Many Unix guys have switched to Macs (often PowerBooks) like quite a few Apache developers and many from the Chaos Computer Club.
QUOTE(spoon @ Sep 23 2005, 02:37 PM)
Exactly - Apple=closed mentality
Yeah, that's why most of their file formats are based on open standards and Apple is giving the source codes for many programs (e.g. the Darwin Streaming Server) away for free....QUOTE(spoon @ Sep 23 2005, 04:07 PM)
You are saying it is not possible to make money on software operating systems? Microsoft must be really struggling.
You are joking, right?- Compare the entire software lineup from Apple and MS. MS offers a lot more software. Microsofts biggest money maker is MS Office, not Windows. MS also makes games, image editing apps, desktop publishing apps, PC emulators, encyclopedias, ...
Apple makes Mac OS X, iLife, iWork, some pro video apps (Final Cut,...), Logic and FileMaker. That's it more or less.
- Apple doesn't want to compete directly with MS in the OS market and that has a logical reason: Apple people know they would lose. One of Apple key selling points of Mac is the fact, that Microsoft makes software for it - especially MS Office. You can bet, MS would stop these products.
- Since Apple seels Macs, the software they offer is often cheaper than simmilar software from other companies. When Apple sells a server, they give the software basicly away for free. MS can't do that, because they don't sell server hardware. Final Cut Studio's price is quite low for what it does.
QUOTE(KAMiKAZOW @ Sep 23 2005, 02:30 PM)
QUOTE(spoon @ Sep 23 2005, 02:37 PM)
Exactly - Apple=closed mentality
Yeah, that's why most of their file formats are based on open standards and Apple is giving the source codes for many programs (e.g. the Darwin Streaming Server) away for free....I personally believe "closed mentality" applies waaaay more to Microsoft than Apple...
Sure, ALAC is closed. But they also support AAC (open), MOV (open), PDF (open), MPEG4 video and h264 (open), etc, etc. Besides, I heard from an Apple engineer that they would have gone with MPEG4 ALS if MPEG wasn't sooo damn slow.
QUOTE(Gambit @ Sep 23 2005, 07:40 AM)
I could then argue that some Macs still come with a one mouse button and that severely decreases that great experience...
Huh?
You could only argue that if it was the case that having only one mouse button on Mac OS X severely hampers the experience. Newsflash: it doesn't. The OS is designed around the fact that one button is usually available, and context menus are pulled up with a ctrl-click. Since the Mac UI has a more well thought through design, most applications don't need to rely on context menus even close to the degree that they do under Windows, hence, it's not a problem.
Now, if you're doing something like art, or gaming, that's a little different. But in either case, the type of people doing these things are usually the kind of people that expect to purchase special hardware anyway.
And at the end of the day, it's not that hard to simply plug in a different mouse. Even that is something that a casual user would be able to do, whereas downloading and configuring different internet browsers or email clients, is not always.
QUOTE(rjamorim @ Sep 23 2005, 10:09 AM)
QUOTE(KAMiKAZOW @ Sep 23 2005, 02:30 PM)
QUOTE(spoon @ Sep 23 2005, 02:37 PM)
Exactly - Apple=closed mentality
Yeah, that's why most of their file formats are based on open standards and Apple is giving the source codes for many programs (e.g. the Darwin Streaming Server) away for free....I personally believe "closed mentality" applies waaaay more to Microsoft than Apple...
Sure, ALAC is closed. But they also support AAC (open), MOV (open), PDF (open), MPEG4 video and h264 (open), etc, etc. Besides, I heard from an Apple engineer that they would have gone with MPEG4 ALS if MPEG wasn't sooo damn slow.
Agreed. But you see, for the wintel fanboys, it's always the opposite
If it's a new programing language they have to learn, or a new set of API's, it's "freaky" and damnit, Apple should just move from the well designed and easy to use Objective-C and Foundation Toolkit to .NET and C#. God forbid programmers should actually expect to be able to learn a new language besides Visual Basic, C#, or Java (What? C or C++? No way, those languages are too complicated man).
If it's a format that Apple uses that isn't supported on Windows, then it's something marginal or pointless to use, or stupid, or whatever. Obviously it's no good because if it was, Windows would already be using it and it would be the most popular thing EVAR (because look, all the IT departments that use Windows know best man, and they never use Mac!).
If it's the fact that their Win32 programs won't run unmodified on Mac OS X, then it's Apples fault for not providing a Windows clone in Mac OS X, or providing the complete win32 API bindings. I mean, we shouldn't expect any decent programmer to have heard of "abstraction" before, and a little thing called "cross-platform" design.
If it's not an x86 processor, then damnit, it's just dumb. Everything should be little endian (I mean, why should we use big endian when it's essentially the format we use already for the arabic numeral system, or even for writing in most western languages?), everything should be CISC (none of this "easy" load/store, RISC nonsense! And who needs more than 8 general purpose registers anyway?!), and code optimized for the x86 should always run the best on any processor, or the processor just sucks.
And as for the UI, well, as a hardcore Windows user, if someone can't figure out how to remove an icon from the dock, or something else just as trivial (I mean, who in their right mind could be expected to understand Drag and Drop? It's such a weird concept...), then the UI simply is lame.
I could go on, but I guess I'll stop. The wintel fanboys probably won't get it anyway
Sometimes people need to learn to look beyond their own little world and try to compare things a little more objectively, instead of just bashing something because it's not what they're used to, and it makes them cranky to have to try and deal with that.
QUOTE
You could only argue that if it was the case that having only one mouse button on Mac OS X severely hampers the experience. Newsflash: it doesn't. The OS is designed around the fact that one button is usually available, and context menus are pulled up with a ctrl-click. Since the Mac UI has a more well thought through design, most applications don't need to rely on context menus even close to the degree that they do under Windows, hence, it's not a problem.
I've never met a Mac user who didn't have a 2 button mouse 3rd party mouse, and now that Apple is selling 2 button mice themselves, I think they would agree that the 1 button concept is depreciated.
QUOTE(Dibrom @ Sep 23 2005, 09:44 PM)
QUOTE(Gambit @ Sep 23 2005, 07:40 AM)
I could then argue that some Macs still come with a one mouse button and that severely decreases that great experience...
Huh?
You could only argue that if it was the case that having only one mouse button on Mac OS X severely hampers the experience. Newsflash: it doesn't. The OS is designed around the fact that one button is usually available, and context menus are pulled up with a ctrl-click. Since the Mac UI has a more well thought through design, most applications don't need to rely on context menus even close to the degree that they do under Windows, hence, it's not a problem.
Now, if you're doing something like art, or gaming, that's a little different. But in either case, the type of people doing these things are usually the kind of people that expect to purchase special hardware anyway.
And at the end of the day, it's not that hard to simply plug in a different mouse. Even that is something that a casual user would be able to do, whereas downloading and configuring different internet browsers or email clients, is not always.
Oh man... I mean, come on! Are you that biased? You can't tell me that you can e.g. replace the wheel with a "well thought through design". Yes, the whole system IS based on the fact that you only need one mouse button, but it doesn't feel like it is that way because it's the better way to do it, but it rather feels like it's obviously compromising in many places and you have to compensate for the missing button all the time. For example: with a mac, you always have the other hand on the keyboard, while on a win system I can comfortably scratch my balls. Errr, for example.
I'm happy enough with a one or a two button mouse...it's the scroll wheel I miss when I use an Apple mouse. Didn't like the Mighty Mouse at all.
Each OS has it's advantages and disadvantages.
Shouldn't we restrict this discussion to the audio ripping and encoding side of such?
...
Anyhow, as another person considering either the Apple or Linux route in the future, I'm wondering if anything else (non-windows) compares with EAC's handling of drives that cache?
Shouldn't we restrict this discussion to the audio ripping and encoding side of such?
...
Anyhow, as another person considering either the Apple or Linux route in the future, I'm wondering if anything else (non-windows) compares with EAC's handling of drives that cache?
@rjamorim
I happen to agree MS are possibly worse, but I am not here defending MS, rather this thread is about Apple - they need published documents for the iPOD database and ALAC, especially this one as it appears in .m4a files, supposedly a standards format.
@Dibrom
You are miss interpreting my point, if Apple want to grab market share they have to do something radical, right now they have momentum from something that is not OSX, that means trying to temp the 30x more software companies who develop on the PC. You really think Cocoa C++ would put me off developing on the Mac? (considering all our stuff is C++) no, pure economics. Put another way, lets talk games, they tend to be kings of cross platform programming, a game such as GTA will be released on the PC, XBox, Gamecube, PS2, so you cannot say they are not able to write portable code, yet most of these games will not appear on the Mac, why? no market for them.
The real question is - is Apple happy with 4% of the world market? I outlined possibility where Apple could compete with Microsoft head on. Lets guess that Apple make $150 profit on a system sold (perhaps less as there is the Mac Mini). If they could pull up market share to 20% then a $75 operating system would make them almost double profits (assuming $50 on software is profit), so it can be done.
Lets not hide behind...don't upset Microsoft as they will destroy Apple by withdrawing office, pure rubbish. Microsoft are far from infallible, they day they have an operating system that costs $1 and is 100% secure from viruses, etc then yes perhaps, until then there is leeway.
Lets not degenerate this thread into a 'Mac developers are better than Windoze devs, they are all Visual Basic noobs'. There are good and bad programmers on Windows as there are on the Mac.
In my ideal world Apple would have 40% or more of the operating system market (as long as it is not just Apple hardware), it would create more work for software companies, but would force a competition in the operating system area that could only be good for everyone.
I happen to agree MS are possibly worse, but I am not here defending MS, rather this thread is about Apple - they need published documents for the iPOD database and ALAC, especially this one as it appears in .m4a files, supposedly a standards format.
@Dibrom
You are miss interpreting my point, if Apple want to grab market share they have to do something radical, right now they have momentum from something that is not OSX, that means trying to temp the 30x more software companies who develop on the PC. You really think Cocoa C++ would put me off developing on the Mac? (considering all our stuff is C++) no, pure economics. Put another way, lets talk games, they tend to be kings of cross platform programming, a game such as GTA will be released on the PC, XBox, Gamecube, PS2, so you cannot say they are not able to write portable code, yet most of these games will not appear on the Mac, why? no market for them.
The real question is - is Apple happy with 4% of the world market? I outlined possibility where Apple could compete with Microsoft head on. Lets guess that Apple make $150 profit on a system sold (perhaps less as there is the Mac Mini). If they could pull up market share to 20% then a $75 operating system would make them almost double profits (assuming $50 on software is profit), so it can be done.
Lets not hide behind...don't upset Microsoft as they will destroy Apple by withdrawing office, pure rubbish. Microsoft are far from infallible, they day they have an operating system that costs $1 and is 100% secure from viruses, etc then yes perhaps, until then there is leeway.
Lets not degenerate this thread into a 'Mac developers are better than Windoze devs, they are all Visual Basic noobs'. There are good and bad programmers on Windows as there are on the Mac.
In my ideal world Apple would have 40% or more of the operating system market (as long as it is not just Apple hardware), it would create more work for software companies, but would force a competition in the operating system area that could only be good for everyone.
QUOTE(Cosmo @ Sep 23 2005, 09:28 PM)
Anyhow, as another person considering either the Apple or Linux route in the future, I'm wondering if anything else (non-windows) compares with EAC's handling of drives that cache?
I contacted xACT's coder a while back as I was concerned about the caching issue. He said that whereas cdparanoia would not empty the cache, rendering correction rather pointless/impossible, cdda2wav + libparanoia did not suffer from the same problem. I'm still rather sceptical and I'm sure someone here knows the definitive answer.
QUOTE(Mike Giacomelli @ Sep 23 2005, 10:12 PM)
I've never met a Mac user who didn't have a 2 button mouse 3rd party mouse, and now that Apple is selling 2 button mice themselves, I think they would agree that the 1 button concept is depreciated.
Then you probably have not met many Mac users!
I have daily contact with 10-15 Mac users and none of them use a multi-button mouse. Either they use the mouse and trackpad on their PowerBook or they use an Apple Bluetooth mouse.
As Dibrom say, the Mac OS UI is written for single-mouse users. Finder have its own contextual toolbar button and in other program use ctrl-click.
QUOTE(Gambit @ Sep 23 2005, 12:16 PM)
QUOTE(Dibrom @ Sep 23 2005, 09:44 PM)
QUOTE(Gambit @ Sep 23 2005, 07:40 AM)
I could then argue that some Macs still come with a one mouse button and that severely decreases that great experience...
Huh?
You could only argue that if it was the case that having only one mouse button on Mac OS X severely hampers the experience. Newsflash: it doesn't. The OS is designed around the fact that one button is usually available, and context menus are pulled up with a ctrl-click. Since the Mac UI has a more well thought through design, most applications don't need to rely on context menus even close to the degree that they do under Windows, hence, it's not a problem.
Now, if you're doing something like art, or gaming, that's a little different. But in either case, the type of people doing these things are usually the kind of people that expect to purchase special hardware anyway.
And at the end of the day, it's not that hard to simply plug in a different mouse. Even that is something that a casual user would be able to do, whereas downloading and configuring different internet browsers or email clients, is not always.
Oh man... I mean, come on! Are you that biased? You can't tell me that you can e.g. replace the wheel with a "well thought through design". Yes, the whole system IS based on the fact that you only need one mouse button, but it doesn't feel like it is that way because it's the better way to do it, but it rather feels like it's obviously compromising in many places and you have to compensate for the missing button all the time. For example: with a mac, you always have the other hand on the keyboard, while on a win system I can comfortably scratch my balls. Errr, for example.
You mean, am I so biased as to think that the lack of two buttons on some mice for Mac computers, is not on the same order of spyware, viruses, and low quality packaged in software for Windows, and that because of this it does not "severely hamper" (better read that twice so you don't miss the qualifier) the user experience?
Well, if that's what you mean, I suppose that does make me biased -- whatever.
I never said that a two button mouse wasn't better, I just implied that it wasn't necessary, and that it wasn't even on the same order of being detrimental as the issues I pointed out with the hypothetical Windows situation.
I use a two button mouse myself when I dock my powerbook, but I don't have any problems using the single mouse button on my powerbook when I'm away.
And as for "compromising" because you have a "missing" mouse button -- again, it's not a compromise if it's designed that way.
As for not having one hand on the keyboard, well I don't know about you, but I spend far more time on the keyboard than with the mouse anyway, and it has been this way for any OS I use. I use shortcut keys whenever I can, and tend to use the commandline interface for most simple tasks, again on just about every OS I've used.
So now, my question: Are you so biased as to think that me not thinking that the lack of a second mouse button is such a big deal that it's on the same order as problems like spyware, viruses, and low quality pack in software, and that that makes me biased?
All I wanted to point out was Apples ignorance.
And if you can't see why and admit that it's a mistake that they still hold on to a one button mouse, then pardon me, but that's just blind zealotry.
And if you can't see why and admit that it's a mistake that they still hold on to a one button mouse, then pardon me, but that's just blind zealotry.
QUOTE(spoon @ Sep 23 2005, 10:50 PM)
Put another way, lets talk games, they tend to be kings of cross platform programming, a game such as GTA will be released on the PC, XBox, Gamecube, PS2, so you cannot say they are not able to write portable code, yet most of these games will not appear on the Mac
IIRC about 80% of PC games are being ported to Mac.QUOTE(Gambit @ Sep 23 2005, 11:36 PM)
All I wanted to point out was Apples ignorance.
And if you can't see why and admit that it's a mistake that they still hold on to a one button mouse, then pardon me, but that's just blind zealotry.
Hey, you should leave the rock you are living under: http://www.apple.com/mightymouse/And if you can't see why and admit that it's a mistake that they still hold on to a one button mouse, then pardon me, but that's just blind zealotry.
And you are talking about "blind zealotry"...
QUOTE(KAMiKAZOW @ Sep 23 2005, 11:49 PM)
QUOTE(Gambit @ Sep 23 2005, 11:36 PM)
All I wanted to point out was Apples ignorance.
And if you can't see why and admit that it's a mistake that they still hold on to a one button mouse, then pardon me, but that's just blind zealotry.
Hey, you should leave the rock you are living under: http://www.apple.com/mightymouse/And if you can't see why and admit that it's a mistake that they still hold on to a one button mouse, then pardon me, but that's just blind zealotry.
And you are talking about "blind zealotry"...
I'm sorry, but I was talking about the mouse they ship with their computers. Of course you can buy a different mouse...
Edit: Oh and btw, I work with macs at work for some good five years, so I think I know what I'm talking about.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.