MacAddict1978
Mar 26, 02:18 PM
It must be conspiracy right. Right.
It couldn't just be an honest mistake as a result of a stretched development team.
No. It must be the same guys who shot Kennedy messing up all our tech. It's probably something to do with the Chinese.
With all the cash Apple sit's their butts on, there is NO EXCUSE for their development teams, or any team to be stretched thin. Back in the day when Apple was still the little engine that could and trying to avoid that second foot falling in the grave, ok. Yes, they needed to stretch themselves, innovate with little expense, but not today.
Some will argue Apple is slow with development because they want to get it right. Though history in the past 5 years shows us consistency with hardware issues in just about every thing they have released, and software bugs to match on the other end. We've seen delays in OS releases the past few times, and still buggy when they do come out. Leopard was released with an installer that failed and forced tons of people mass headaches, even the tech savvy. The bloody installer was buggy! I expect the darn thing to at least install before glitches tick me off.
Hire some damned people already. The money you spend denying things are buggy or denying the existence of hardware issues (that magically a month or 2 later you fix even though you denied it was a problem in the first place) could easily expand your teams.
And while I don't subscribe to the original posters conspiracy theory, I think he's half right. THey just don't care. iPhone 3G users anyway? They bricked everyone's phones with a bad update, and then acted like everyone was crazy, then admitted it was slow (no, unusable) gave a shoddy fix that made it usable but so bad you had to either hack your phone to put an old version of IOS on it, or you were running to upgrade. Wait, maybe I do buy into his theory. It's one thing to not support old technologies, it's another to leave them crippled and not look back.
It couldn't just be an honest mistake as a result of a stretched development team.
No. It must be the same guys who shot Kennedy messing up all our tech. It's probably something to do with the Chinese.
With all the cash Apple sit's their butts on, there is NO EXCUSE for their development teams, or any team to be stretched thin. Back in the day when Apple was still the little engine that could and trying to avoid that second foot falling in the grave, ok. Yes, they needed to stretch themselves, innovate with little expense, but not today.
Some will argue Apple is slow with development because they want to get it right. Though history in the past 5 years shows us consistency with hardware issues in just about every thing they have released, and software bugs to match on the other end. We've seen delays in OS releases the past few times, and still buggy when they do come out. Leopard was released with an installer that failed and forced tons of people mass headaches, even the tech savvy. The bloody installer was buggy! I expect the darn thing to at least install before glitches tick me off.
Hire some damned people already. The money you spend denying things are buggy or denying the existence of hardware issues (that magically a month or 2 later you fix even though you denied it was a problem in the first place) could easily expand your teams.
And while I don't subscribe to the original posters conspiracy theory, I think he's half right. THey just don't care. iPhone 3G users anyway? They bricked everyone's phones with a bad update, and then acted like everyone was crazy, then admitted it was slow (no, unusable) gave a shoddy fix that made it usable but so bad you had to either hack your phone to put an old version of IOS on it, or you were running to upgrade. Wait, maybe I do buy into his theory. It's one thing to not support old technologies, it's another to leave them crippled and not look back.
snebes
Apr 7, 11:30 PM
Apple products are price-locked. No second hand retailer marks up on them, like Bose. Retailers are told what to sell at and they comply or they lose rights to sell the product. If these are overpriced, it is Apples doing.
You might want to look at Best Buy's pricing again.
All iPads, iPods and Macs are sold $.99 (at minimum) above Apple.
Time Capsule 1TB $334.99 at Best Buy, $299.00 at Apple
2TB $499.99, $499.00 at Apple
Airport Extreme - $189.99 at Best Buy $179.00 at Apple
Express, $109.99 at Best Buy, $99.00 at Apple
The small accessories are just as bad. And Apple isn't the only brand they mark over MSRP too. I wouldn't be surprised is Bose products were too.
You might want to look at Best Buy's pricing again.
All iPads, iPods and Macs are sold $.99 (at minimum) above Apple.
Time Capsule 1TB $334.99 at Best Buy, $299.00 at Apple
2TB $499.99, $499.00 at Apple
Airport Extreme - $189.99 at Best Buy $179.00 at Apple
Express, $109.99 at Best Buy, $99.00 at Apple
The small accessories are just as bad. And Apple isn't the only brand they mark over MSRP too. I wouldn't be surprised is Bose products were too.
Multimedia
Aug 21, 05:43 AM
I stopped by the Apple store tonight to play with a Macpro. I'm getting ready to buy and thought I'd get some hands on experience to see how it performed with Finalcut Pro. I was especially interested in how it handles playback of uncompressed footage.
The store had a 2.6 hooked up to a 30"ACD. Everything on the machine was stock. I launched FCP and it appeared with a project already loaded (about 5 seconds). The project was a simple 20-30 second 720x480 NTSC clip of hockey game footage. I selected the clip and copied it to a new layer and threw a blend mode on it AND changed the speed to 85%. Next I copied and made another layer and changed the speed and offset it and changed the transparency to 80%. 3 layers total with the top two manipulated. I hit the render and it finished in about 30 seconds. :)
I know, not very scientific, but I just wanted to get a feel for how fast the Macpro would render manipulated footage. Anyhow, next I changed the output in project settings to "uncompressed" and hit render again. Again, it took less than a minute to render and the CPU usage in console was maxing out at only 42% per core.
Once the render completed, I hit the play button to see how the stock Macpro would handle playback of the uncompressed footage. It played for about 4 seconds then threw an error saying that frames were being dropped during playback. Not good. I was hoping that the Macpro would be able to play uncompressed footage from the timeline without 3rd party acceleration or setting up a raid. The error message suggested turning off RT effects (of which I did, but still had dropped frames) or get a faster drive. There was a couple other things the error suggested, but I can't remember at the moment. I wonder if having the ATI card would have made a difference? Not sure if FCP uses the GPU for playback, but I would think that should make a difference. Ram would probably help too. Anyone know what might be going on? Am I expecting too much out of this machine?
Sorry for sort of getting off topic. I thought this might be an appropriate area to post this; I wasn't feeling up to starting a new thread.That's great info. Would you please tell us:
1. How fast that is compared to what Mac model-speed you are currently using?
2. IE Were you impressed or not so impressed with how fast-slow it rendered?
3. What kind of speed were you expecting?
I'm no expert, but my guess is that the lack of RAM may have been the culprit. Need more independent tests like this from other FCP users. Thanks a lot. :)
The store had a 2.6 hooked up to a 30"ACD. Everything on the machine was stock. I launched FCP and it appeared with a project already loaded (about 5 seconds). The project was a simple 20-30 second 720x480 NTSC clip of hockey game footage. I selected the clip and copied it to a new layer and threw a blend mode on it AND changed the speed to 85%. Next I copied and made another layer and changed the speed and offset it and changed the transparency to 80%. 3 layers total with the top two manipulated. I hit the render and it finished in about 30 seconds. :)
I know, not very scientific, but I just wanted to get a feel for how fast the Macpro would render manipulated footage. Anyhow, next I changed the output in project settings to "uncompressed" and hit render again. Again, it took less than a minute to render and the CPU usage in console was maxing out at only 42% per core.
Once the render completed, I hit the play button to see how the stock Macpro would handle playback of the uncompressed footage. It played for about 4 seconds then threw an error saying that frames were being dropped during playback. Not good. I was hoping that the Macpro would be able to play uncompressed footage from the timeline without 3rd party acceleration or setting up a raid. The error message suggested turning off RT effects (of which I did, but still had dropped frames) or get a faster drive. There was a couple other things the error suggested, but I can't remember at the moment. I wonder if having the ATI card would have made a difference? Not sure if FCP uses the GPU for playback, but I would think that should make a difference. Ram would probably help too. Anyone know what might be going on? Am I expecting too much out of this machine?
Sorry for sort of getting off topic. I thought this might be an appropriate area to post this; I wasn't feeling up to starting a new thread.That's great info. Would you please tell us:
1. How fast that is compared to what Mac model-speed you are currently using?
2. IE Were you impressed or not so impressed with how fast-slow it rendered?
3. What kind of speed were you expecting?
I'm no expert, but my guess is that the lack of RAM may have been the culprit. Need more independent tests like this from other FCP users. Thanks a lot. :)
totoum
Apr 12, 12:49 PM
I almost never have to convert. All clients I work with require ProRes deliverables, and any tapeless material I get is ProRes. If I capture I use ProRes.
Good for you ;)
Used to be like that for me but on the projects I work on everybody's gone crazy over DSLRs so I'm stuck with converting.
Good for you ;)
Used to be like that for me but on the projects I work on everybody's gone crazy over DSLRs so I'm stuck with converting.
Popeye206
Mar 22, 08:01 PM
My take...
Competition is good.
It will be interesting to see if the Playbook sticks. RIM is losing ground in so many areas and from what my daughter says (who works for one of the cell phone companies) that even with all the nice new goodies in BB's, that they are the smart phone that makes them all grimace. She says it's by far the worst phone to activate to trouble shoot. So, will the Playbook be any different?
Samsung... could they have rushed that one out any quicker? They seem desperate to get a tablet to sell. So much for quality control I'm sure.
Is the new Xoom about ready to be run over two minutes out the gate by other Android devices?
From what I can see, the most damage is not going to come in the Apple arena... the iPad is different with iOS, it's proven (15 million sold and growing fast)... it's going to be the other Android devices. Each of them fighting for a small share of customers who don't want Apple.
I honestly believe most consumers care less about the specs. The geeks on this site do.... but the average person does not care. They care about what they hear and see. They see iPads flying out the door. They know the iPad is slick and works.
I'll go with the Analysts on this one... by the end of Apple will own 70-80% market share and the rest will be a mixed bag of struggling tablet makers.
Competition is good.
It will be interesting to see if the Playbook sticks. RIM is losing ground in so many areas and from what my daughter says (who works for one of the cell phone companies) that even with all the nice new goodies in BB's, that they are the smart phone that makes them all grimace. She says it's by far the worst phone to activate to trouble shoot. So, will the Playbook be any different?
Samsung... could they have rushed that one out any quicker? They seem desperate to get a tablet to sell. So much for quality control I'm sure.
Is the new Xoom about ready to be run over two minutes out the gate by other Android devices?
From what I can see, the most damage is not going to come in the Apple arena... the iPad is different with iOS, it's proven (15 million sold and growing fast)... it's going to be the other Android devices. Each of them fighting for a small share of customers who don't want Apple.
I honestly believe most consumers care less about the specs. The geeks on this site do.... but the average person does not care. They care about what they hear and see. They see iPads flying out the door. They know the iPad is slick and works.
I'll go with the Analysts on this one... by the end of Apple will own 70-80% market share and the rest will be a mixed bag of struggling tablet makers.
zelet
Aug 25, 04:02 PM
Another person who can never be satisfied.:rolleyes:
Are you telling me somebody who spent thousands of dollars on "premium" hardware doesn't have a right to be pissed when both systems he bought were DOA? That is stupid! Apple should have kissed his ass and gave him a new computer after the second major repair. He was nicer than I would have ever been. I would have gone to the Apple store and caused a HUGE scene in the middle of a busy Saturday about it.
Apple computers are expensive. They are worth it when they work (and they usually do) but when Apple makes a mistake they should correct it better than anybody.
Are you telling me somebody who spent thousands of dollars on "premium" hardware doesn't have a right to be pissed when both systems he bought were DOA? That is stupid! Apple should have kissed his ass and gave him a new computer after the second major repair. He was nicer than I would have ever been. I would have gone to the Apple store and caused a HUGE scene in the middle of a busy Saturday about it.
Apple computers are expensive. They are worth it when they work (and they usually do) but when Apple makes a mistake they should correct it better than anybody.
kresh
Nov 29, 11:13 AM
Just to be clear, this whole idea of collecting on music players is nothing short of outrageous. But it doesn't have the legal implications or weight that have been popularized here. They CAN have their cake and eat it, too, and they know it. That's why it's important for me to ensure that these false notions don't become ingrained as part of the Internet groupthink--when you step back into the real world, you'll be equally screwed, with or without this fee.
I really don't harbor any hope that this could really be considered as royalty payment by the courts, it was just a little fantasy.
The real implication is on the moral front. You mentioned "group think" and I think that is the real danger for the record labels. If enough people were to convince themselves that the record label has grabbed enough money upfront, then they could step across the moral line that keeps them from piracy.
It's not law enforcement, or the actions of RIAA, that prevents the vast majority from crossing the line into piracy, it's their own built-in moral objection to it.
If the record labels remove this moral hurdle through their own actions, then there are not enough police officers, federal agencies, or private enforcement groups to even begin to stem the resulting piracy wave.
I really don't harbor any hope that this could really be considered as royalty payment by the courts, it was just a little fantasy.
The real implication is on the moral front. You mentioned "group think" and I think that is the real danger for the record labels. If enough people were to convince themselves that the record label has grabbed enough money upfront, then they could step across the moral line that keeps them from piracy.
It's not law enforcement, or the actions of RIAA, that prevents the vast majority from crossing the line into piracy, it's their own built-in moral objection to it.
If the record labels remove this moral hurdle through their own actions, then there are not enough police officers, federal agencies, or private enforcement groups to even begin to stem the resulting piracy wave.
shamino
Jul 20, 09:58 AM
No I think you are confused. :) I meant "Is having more cores, lets say 8, more efficient than one big core equal in processing power to the 8 cores?"
First of all, you assume that it is possible to make "one big core equal in processing power to the 8 cores". I don't think it is possible to do this (at least not with the x86 architecture using today's technology.)
But assuming such a chip exists, the answer depends on what kind of efficiency you're thinking of.
If you mean computational efficiency (meaning the most useful processing per clock-tick), then a single big core will do better. This is because single-threaded apps will be able to use the full power (whereas multiple threads are needed to take advantagte of multiple cores.) Also, the operating system can get rid of the overhead that is needed to keep software running on the multiple cores from stepping on each other.
If you mean energy efficiency (amount of processing per watt of electricity consumed), then it could go either way, depending on how the chips are made. But given today's manufacturing processes and the non-linear power curve that we see as clock speeds are increased, the multiple-core solution will almost definitely use less power.
First of all, you assume that it is possible to make "one big core equal in processing power to the 8 cores". I don't think it is possible to do this (at least not with the x86 architecture using today's technology.)
But assuming such a chip exists, the answer depends on what kind of efficiency you're thinking of.
If you mean computational efficiency (meaning the most useful processing per clock-tick), then a single big core will do better. This is because single-threaded apps will be able to use the full power (whereas multiple threads are needed to take advantagte of multiple cores.) Also, the operating system can get rid of the overhead that is needed to keep software running on the multiple cores from stepping on each other.
If you mean energy efficiency (amount of processing per watt of electricity consumed), then it could go either way, depending on how the chips are made. But given today's manufacturing processes and the non-linear power curve that we see as clock speeds are increased, the multiple-core solution will almost definitely use less power.
shawnce
Aug 21, 10:59 AM
Mac Pros will need 64bit Leopard to achieve their full multi-core potential.
You care to define "their full multi-core potential"?
You care to define "their full multi-core potential"?
AidenShaw
Aug 27, 07:53 AM
You're screwing up, intel. We don't want 300 trillion transistors on a 1 nm die. We want longer battery life. Idiots.
Check this table of Core processor power consumptions (http://spamreaper.org/frankie/macintel.html).
Intel is making Core processors that draw 5.5 watts, Apple is using the versions that draw more than 30 watts.
Check this table of Core processor power consumptions (http://spamreaper.org/frankie/macintel.html).
Intel is making Core processors that draw 5.5 watts, Apple is using the versions that draw more than 30 watts.
benthewraith
Nov 28, 08:18 PM
I haven't read all the post as yet, got to around post #50 but my sentiments pretty much reflect those of most posters.
However, if there is evidence that a bulk of the royalty (and I mean more than 50%) will go to artists then I can see justification in the process (but it should not be a flat $1 per device as the cost/profit of devices varies). But at the same time, Apple should get a higher share of the 99c per track as I believe the money they get per song pretty much only covers there management of the stored data and hosting on iTunes with very little profit per song - and this is understandable as Apple can leverage the iTunes store to drive iPod sales.
If the record companies want a profitable piece of Apple’s pie (no pun intended) then Apple should be entitled to a profitable piece of the 99c download.
Same logic me thinks…
It won't happen. The way I see it, Apple stands a greater chance of being forced to raise it's prices on the store.
However, if there is evidence that a bulk of the royalty (and I mean more than 50%) will go to artists then I can see justification in the process (but it should not be a flat $1 per device as the cost/profit of devices varies). But at the same time, Apple should get a higher share of the 99c per track as I believe the money they get per song pretty much only covers there management of the stored data and hosting on iTunes with very little profit per song - and this is understandable as Apple can leverage the iTunes store to drive iPod sales.
If the record companies want a profitable piece of Apple’s pie (no pun intended) then Apple should be entitled to a profitable piece of the 99c download.
Same logic me thinks…
It won't happen. The way I see it, Apple stands a greater chance of being forced to raise it's prices on the store.
NY Guitarist
Apr 5, 08:47 PM
Everything else you said is all well and good, but why on earth would anyone need to download a 4K movie?
4K is coming sooner than later. Youtube has 4K media, of course it looks bad because of the YT compression penalty.
4K displays are coming too, both computer monitors and home theater.
4K is coming sooner than later. Youtube has 4K media, of course it looks bad because of the YT compression penalty.
4K displays are coming too, both computer monitors and home theater.
NebulaClash
Apr 6, 01:31 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8G4 Safari/6533.18.5)
Motorola doesn't "get" tablets yet, but the G1 didn't sell well either. Let's look at the market again in two years, I bet it'll look a lot different.
In two years the iPad 4 will be trouncing whatever tablets are trying to top the year-old iPad 3s.
Motorola doesn't "get" tablets yet, but the G1 didn't sell well either. Let's look at the market again in two years, I bet it'll look a lot different.
In two years the iPad 4 will be trouncing whatever tablets are trying to top the year-old iPad 3s.
NY Guitarist
Apr 6, 11:54 AM
What is the obsession with back-lit keys?
Do you actually look at the keyboard when you're typing?
Yes. I need to see the keyboard. And in a dark room it's critical.
Do you actually look at the keyboard when you're typing?
Yes. I need to see the keyboard. And in a dark room it's critical.
Piggie
Mar 23, 02:40 AM
When will RIM realize that nothing they can create, have created, or ever will create can be as good as something created by Apple? Some companies: Google, Microsoft, and RIM will just never learn.
Steve Jobs = Genius
It depends how you define "Good" does it not?
For some people an iMac or an iPad would be a useless device, and a PC with a Honeycomb tablet could be the ideal combination for them.
It's all down to what you want something to do.
Steve Jobs = Genius
It depends how you define "Good" does it not?
For some people an iMac or an iPad would be a useless device, and a PC with a Honeycomb tablet could be the ideal combination for them.
It's all down to what you want something to do.
yoak
Apr 12, 07:25 AM
I'm on a 2006 Mac Pro 2.66GHz.
I never set up QMaster. It's installed, but I never touched it. Mpeg2 (highest quality double pass) saturates all cores.
EDIT: sending to compressor from the timeline doesn't change. FCP and compressor together use 350% CPU (400% max).
Very interesting, could you check your batch monitor to see if it uses every core to compress?.
I think maybe we are talking past each other and it�s my mistake. For Compressor to use all of the machines CORES you have to do what I described. This speeds up the rendering times as every core work at 80-90%, each core rendering a chunk (1/8) of the file.
I never set up QMaster. It's installed, but I never touched it. Mpeg2 (highest quality double pass) saturates all cores.
EDIT: sending to compressor from the timeline doesn't change. FCP and compressor together use 350% CPU (400% max).
Very interesting, could you check your batch monitor to see if it uses every core to compress?.
I think maybe we are talking past each other and it�s my mistake. For Compressor to use all of the machines CORES you have to do what I described. This speeds up the rendering times as every core work at 80-90%, each core rendering a chunk (1/8) of the file.
clevin
Aug 7, 05:37 PM
can't believe only 8 people voted for 64bit, its the most profound change here.... all others you can achieve with some 3rd party softwares.
iJohnHenry
Mar 21, 02:38 PM
It is in fact somewhat problematic. At present, the government is basically run by moneyed interests that supply the funding needed for the candidates to get into office
Exactly, he's doing the best he can, given the situation he is in.
Perhaps sysiphus could do a better job, without being a broken man as a result? ;)
Exactly, he's doing the best he can, given the situation he is in.
Perhaps sysiphus could do a better job, without being a broken man as a result? ;)
Amazing Iceman
Mar 31, 05:21 PM
Apple realized long time ago that it is bad if the cell service provider has too much freedom, puts too much **** on the phone and customizes it in ways that it is no longer maintainable ... they got bashed as being too closed.
But now people finally realize they were right:
- android is getting too fragmented because service providers are either too slow to provide updates or refuse to update at all for current phones
- microsoft just realed an update to their mobile7 - guess what: service providers are too slow to update the brand new phones - weeks after the MS release they still need many more weeks to 'test' and 'adjust' for their phones
What good is it to have an OS that claims to be 'open' but you still can't get updates because the openess was abused by service providers who struggle to re-adding their ****.
The problem that has always existed, not just with Android, is that the carriers customize the OS, release it with a phone, and you can forget about getting any updates for it. Maybe one update for the lifetime of the device, if you are lucky. My HTC TouchPro 2 has only seen in almost 2 years just one update to WM 6.5, and it was not even close to the most current revision at that time.
This just shows that carriers and manufacturers don't want to keep maintaining their phones. They want to sell and forget, and push a new model out the door.
Sad, but true... :(
But now people finally realize they were right:
- android is getting too fragmented because service providers are either too slow to provide updates or refuse to update at all for current phones
- microsoft just realed an update to their mobile7 - guess what: service providers are too slow to update the brand new phones - weeks after the MS release they still need many more weeks to 'test' and 'adjust' for their phones
What good is it to have an OS that claims to be 'open' but you still can't get updates because the openess was abused by service providers who struggle to re-adding their ****.
The problem that has always existed, not just with Android, is that the carriers customize the OS, release it with a phone, and you can forget about getting any updates for it. Maybe one update for the lifetime of the device, if you are lucky. My HTC TouchPro 2 has only seen in almost 2 years just one update to WM 6.5, and it was not even close to the most current revision at that time.
This just shows that carriers and manufacturers don't want to keep maintaining their phones. They want to sell and forget, and push a new model out the door.
Sad, but true... :(
ltcol266845
Aug 25, 07:41 PM
Im sorry, but when you recall 1.8million batteries, and expect them not to get over laoded with call, your crazy. Dell is making some people wait nearly 70 days to get their replacement. Its a LOT of batteries. Affecting a LOT of users. These things happen.
epitaphic
Aug 18, 06:22 AM
Apps already capable of saturating 4 cores need more cores to run simultaneously without compromising speed.That is what has already happened. You were unaware of that fact. So yes, it is a whole different ballgame already. :eek:
http://images.anandtech.com/graphs/mac%20pro_081406100848/12798.png
I think this speaks for itself.
When I'm working on one project, that's all my attention to it. When I'd like to encode it, I'd like my however many cores to be at full blast. Sadly, that's not happening at the moment and will remain so until they rewrite h264 encoding.
Like I said, unless people are doing what you do (sending multiple files to be encoded at the same time all the time) they won't benefit from 4, 8, 100 cores.
Now if anyone can show benchmarks that show FCP being 40-50% faster on a quad than on a dual when working on a project, I'll shut up :)
http://images.anandtech.com/graphs/mac%20pro_081406100848/12798.png
I think this speaks for itself.
When I'm working on one project, that's all my attention to it. When I'd like to encode it, I'd like my however many cores to be at full blast. Sadly, that's not happening at the moment and will remain so until they rewrite h264 encoding.
Like I said, unless people are doing what you do (sending multiple files to be encoded at the same time all the time) they won't benefit from 4, 8, 100 cores.
Now if anyone can show benchmarks that show FCP being 40-50% faster on a quad than on a dual when working on a project, I'll shut up :)
Juan007
Apr 7, 11:45 PM
BestBuy are some of the most notorious criminals in this country and Apple should pull out completely from their worthless trash retail stores. I'm sure Amazon could move all the stock Apple allocated to BestBuy in about an hour. iPads, iPhone, iPods, Macs... EVERYTHING that Apple sells should be taken off BestBuy shelves. Let them sell Xoom tablets all day, there's a giant market for those.
This scam BestBuy is pulling is just the lastest in a long series of scams from the mafia of retail. Steve Jobs is pulling an Eliot Ness, he's the only one who can take these criminals down. Good for Apple.
This scam BestBuy is pulling is just the lastest in a long series of scams from the mafia of retail. Steve Jobs is pulling an Eliot Ness, he's the only one who can take these criminals down. Good for Apple.
falconeight
Apr 6, 03:11 PM
I bought a xoom...the salesmen started it up for me and after seeing it I changed my mind. It was my first return before I swipped my card.
Richardthe4th
Apr 10, 02:28 PM
reading this tread is so much fun. this actually is like film, all about emotions; dripping out of it. the next version of fcp will be a disappointment compared to this. waiting... :D