Details Matter
Mar 31, 03:48 PM
Let the Apple fanboys begin patting each other on the back, and taking something and running wild with it.
By the end of this thread, it'll be impossible to decipher what the original story was about.
Ironic. You took the thread off-topic to complain about people taking the thread off-topic. Thanks for the giggle.
By the end of this thread, it'll be impossible to decipher what the original story was about.
Ironic. You took the thread off-topic to complain about people taking the thread off-topic. Thanks for the giggle.
indisguise
Apr 8, 03:09 AM
Many Best Buys with Apple Shoppes have Apple representatives who work right at the store, I doubt they would let this happen at their store. I wonder how many Best Buys have done this
epitaphic
Sep 13, 02:00 PM
I think you've misunderstood. Merom/Conroe/Woodcrest are one microarch now. That's Intel's point -- the core is essentially the same.
Conroe and its derivatives are a step away from Intel's former flagship NetBurst, but even these processors are a bit of a dying breed: during Intel's shift to 45nm, the company will no longer focus on derived microprocessor cores in favor of refined unified core architectures.
So what do you think they meant with M/C/W being a derived arch and Penryn,etc being unified archs?
From what I understood, they'll stop having different characteristics (FSB,RAM,Cache) and instead just differentiate them with MHz and core count. Hence all the stories that future Intel chips (starting with Penryn I presume) won't use FSB.
Conroe and its derivatives are a step away from Intel's former flagship NetBurst, but even these processors are a bit of a dying breed: during Intel's shift to 45nm, the company will no longer focus on derived microprocessor cores in favor of refined unified core architectures.
So what do you think they meant with M/C/W being a derived arch and Penryn,etc being unified archs?
From what I understood, they'll stop having different characteristics (FSB,RAM,Cache) and instead just differentiate them with MHz and core count. Hence all the stories that future Intel chips (starting with Penryn I presume) won't use FSB.
MacinDoc
Aug 26, 02:38 PM
We also shouldn't feel good just because Dell also does not handle it too well. After all, Dell has more batteries to replace and has a shorter period of time for preparations. Supposingly, Dell provides bargain PCs, while Apple tends to charge a premium for their products. Can't Apple customers deserve better services? Shouldn't Apple be better? Should we all lower our expectations from Apple and ask for a cheaper price instead?
Dell is also a larger company with a larger customer service department and a larger distribution network, which is designed for factory direct to home shipping, so it should have less trouble than Apple with this recall.
With respect to Dell providing bargain PCs, Robert Weston (Associated Press) (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060823/ap_on_hi_te/tech_test_mac_pro_3) and Yuval Kossovsky (Computerworld) (http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&articleId=9002545&source=NLT_MAC&nlid=62) have recently concluded that Apple, not Dell, offers the best current bargain PCs (at least for their specs).
Dell is also a larger company with a larger customer service department and a larger distribution network, which is designed for factory direct to home shipping, so it should have less trouble than Apple with this recall.
With respect to Dell providing bargain PCs, Robert Weston (Associated Press) (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060823/ap_on_hi_te/tech_test_mac_pro_3) and Yuval Kossovsky (Computerworld) (http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&articleId=9002545&source=NLT_MAC&nlid=62) have recently concluded that Apple, not Dell, offers the best current bargain PCs (at least for their specs).
shawnce
Nov 28, 07:05 PM
I think it is crazy for everyone to think that the music industry is greedy when it getting squeezed out of all of their revenue streams. So, Apple makes hundreds of millions off of their back on the itunes site, and a billion off of iPod sales, and they cannot share in the wealth? Huh?
Apple pays the record labels for every song sold via iTMS, a vast majority of the "99 cents" for a song goes to the record labels (or direct to independent artist). iTMS is providing a new sales channel with effectively zero cost to the record labels (one that avoids manufacturing, shipping and stocking of physical units). This is a totally NEW revenue stream that arguable provides the record labels more bang for their buck then prior revenue streams and it is arguable more secure from copyright violations then prior revenue streams (FairPlay DRM). It also more directly connects customers with music (easy to do impulse purchases, etc.).
Now for the other half of your statement... just why should record companies get money for every iPod sold? This type of thinking is in some ways similar to demanding that paint manufactures should get a cut of the profits of every paint brush sold.
As a side note... I support the record companies/artist going after major copyright violators using legal proceedings.
Apple pays the record labels for every song sold via iTMS, a vast majority of the "99 cents" for a song goes to the record labels (or direct to independent artist). iTMS is providing a new sales channel with effectively zero cost to the record labels (one that avoids manufacturing, shipping and stocking of physical units). This is a totally NEW revenue stream that arguable provides the record labels more bang for their buck then prior revenue streams and it is arguable more secure from copyright violations then prior revenue streams (FairPlay DRM). It also more directly connects customers with music (easy to do impulse purchases, etc.).
Now for the other half of your statement... just why should record companies get money for every iPod sold? This type of thinking is in some ways similar to demanding that paint manufactures should get a cut of the profits of every paint brush sold.
As a side note... I support the record companies/artist going after major copyright violators using legal proceedings.
wpotere
Apr 27, 09:49 AM
Did he release a different form of the document today?
To catch you up... There are two versions of the form, the long and short. The long form is the one that you are used to seeing and the short is an abbreviated version that is just a as legal. Many states are using the short now including Hawaii. If he is holding a clearance (which he is), he will have had a background check and these documents would have been submitted. Basically he was cleared with no problems. This is just people raising hell of something stupid.
To catch you up... There are two versions of the form, the long and short. The long form is the one that you are used to seeing and the short is an abbreviated version that is just a as legal. Many states are using the short now including Hawaii. If he is holding a clearance (which he is), he will have had a background check and these documents would have been submitted. Basically he was cleared with no problems. This is just people raising hell of something stupid.
notabadname
Apr 6, 03:50 PM
Wow, that's success that only a Ballmer could love.
Apple does need some competition. I hope these competitors focus on some of the Apple shortcomings like the religious adherence to the Cocoa Touch UI. Ideally there would be a more hybrid iOS/MacOS functionality in an iPad such that it could morph up to a more desktop like experience when docked. And conversely, it seems like MacBook Air/ Mac OS X Lion is getting a more iOS like feel. There's a middle ground there that Apple needs to get to. I suspect they will. But as with tethering, and allowing re-duplication of core apps by third parties, it will take Apple a while to let go here and allow the iPad to become that perfect combo.
They still seem to ultimately strike this balance better than any other vendor.
Not really. They built an excellent product, at what is still a leading price point, all without ANY competition.
It is the other manufacturers that need Apple as a competitor. First the iPod, THEN all the clones that came out after, the iPhone, THEN all the clones and finally the iPad THEN . . . . you get the idea. Apple has been creating innovative products, in a vacuum, that cause the rest of the market to follow, for decades, just fine. Unlike other manufacturers, they strive for excellence with out the need for a product to "duplicate" and spurn them on.
Apple does need some competition. I hope these competitors focus on some of the Apple shortcomings like the religious adherence to the Cocoa Touch UI. Ideally there would be a more hybrid iOS/MacOS functionality in an iPad such that it could morph up to a more desktop like experience when docked. And conversely, it seems like MacBook Air/ Mac OS X Lion is getting a more iOS like feel. There's a middle ground there that Apple needs to get to. I suspect they will. But as with tethering, and allowing re-duplication of core apps by third parties, it will take Apple a while to let go here and allow the iPad to become that perfect combo.
They still seem to ultimately strike this balance better than any other vendor.
Not really. They built an excellent product, at what is still a leading price point, all without ANY competition.
It is the other manufacturers that need Apple as a competitor. First the iPod, THEN all the clones that came out after, the iPhone, THEN all the clones and finally the iPad THEN . . . . you get the idea. Apple has been creating innovative products, in a vacuum, that cause the rest of the market to follow, for decades, just fine. Unlike other manufacturers, they strive for excellence with out the need for a product to "duplicate" and spurn them on.
MacAddict1978
Mar 26, 01:43 AM
Since the release of Leopard, the subsequent releases haven't had the wow factor of before.
Just what I think anyway.
Agreed, and while I'm excited to see this one won't be delayed and Summer might not = September for Apple... I'm kinda bummed. I was hoping there were some sweet things not yet seen. Revamped interface, secret cool feature that would make me ache to have this one day 1... and guess not so much.
I'll still buy in on day 2 though. hehe
Just what I think anyway.
Agreed, and while I'm excited to see this one won't be delayed and Summer might not = September for Apple... I'm kinda bummed. I was hoping there were some sweet things not yet seen. Revamped interface, secret cool feature that would make me ache to have this one day 1... and guess not so much.
I'll still buy in on day 2 though. hehe
trogdor!
Jul 14, 10:20 PM
The current powermac g5's have 1 16x PCI-E slot for the video card along with 2 - 4x and 1 - 8x PCI-E slots. Video cards are about the only thing right now that can even use all 16 lanes of the PCI-E bus. I am not saying future things wont, but thats how it currently stands.
Stridder44
Jul 14, 03:52 PM
1) This is all rumour and speculation...
2) At the price that OEMs charge for memory, less RAM is better. We can fill it with whatever we pick.
I used to side with the people complaining about not having enough standard RAM but not after reading that. You get a gold star.
2) At the price that OEMs charge for memory, less RAM is better. We can fill it with whatever we pick.
I used to side with the people complaining about not having enough standard RAM but not after reading that. You get a gold star.
skunk
Aug 6, 01:39 PM
As Apple applied for the trademark, it will not be approved.
It is up to Apple how they want to proceed. A fight that can't win, no matter how much money they have.
Mac Pro has been the premier Mac dealer in the same county as Apple since 1988. Out of all the names for this new line of computers, why choose one that they know they cannot have.
We are already getting countless support calls for the macbook pro. It seems they assume we made them When we can't help them, they seem to get very upset.
Mac Pro is in a position to file for a court order not to release any computer that bears our name.
So get ready WWDC, we will be watching.
Mike Ajlouny
President
MAC-PRO.comFascinating. What will they call it? Macintosh Pro?
It is up to Apple how they want to proceed. A fight that can't win, no matter how much money they have.
Mac Pro has been the premier Mac dealer in the same county as Apple since 1988. Out of all the names for this new line of computers, why choose one that they know they cannot have.
We are already getting countless support calls for the macbook pro. It seems they assume we made them When we can't help them, they seem to get very upset.
Mac Pro is in a position to file for a court order not to release any computer that bears our name.
So get ready WWDC, we will be watching.
Mike Ajlouny
President
MAC-PRO.comFascinating. What will they call it? Macintosh Pro?
shawnce
Jul 27, 11:02 AM
"...Core 2 Duo chips need less electricity, drawing just 65 watts compared to the Pentium 4’s 95 watts and Pentium D’s 130 watts"
Good Lord - does anybody know what the G5 is? I'd imagine that the elaborate cooling system in the current G5 towers probably won't be needed it it's running anything like the D's...
1) The watts numbers listed are TDP (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_Design_Power). They are not the amount of power the processor consumes ("drawing").
2) PPC 970fx falls in the realm of Conroe in terms of heat generation but of course the Conroe has better performance.
I should note that the PPC 970FX is a single core chip while the PPC 970MP is the dual core one... don't have good numbers for the later but I would guess it would be about 1.75 times (or more) the PPC 970FX in terms of thermal generation and power consumption.
Good Lord - does anybody know what the G5 is? I'd imagine that the elaborate cooling system in the current G5 towers probably won't be needed it it's running anything like the D's...
1) The watts numbers listed are TDP (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_Design_Power). They are not the amount of power the processor consumes ("drawing").
2) PPC 970fx falls in the realm of Conroe in terms of heat generation but of course the Conroe has better performance.
I should note that the PPC 970FX is a single core chip while the PPC 970MP is the dual core one... don't have good numbers for the later but I would guess it would be about 1.75 times (or more) the PPC 970FX in terms of thermal generation and power consumption.
Tomaz
Aug 7, 03:40 PM
The top secret features better be REALLY good, this was disappointing and nothing was really new! Cupertino started it's photocopiers.... (The Vista banners are an actual joke after this keynote) :(
70355
Aug 7, 05:24 PM
Ahh, but that was a different situation. In that case, Steve said that, but was dependent on IBM to make it come true.
Did someone put a gun to Jobs' head and make him use IBM?
Did someone put a gun to Jobs' head and make him use IBM?
macpross
Aug 6, 11:14 PM
Fascinating. What will they call it? Macintosh Pro?
That name will be fine, I have no 100% claim to that.
That name will be fine, I have no 100% claim to that.
dethmaShine
Apr 19, 03:08 PM
When someone speaks about "smartphone marketshare" he usually means world wide and not only for Botswana. But nice try. :rolleyes:
Are you real? How is that understood?
Most of the times when marketshare is discussed, its discussed for the US only. I reside in England and I know its stupid to neglect the world; but every other sale means much more to US than to the world.
Talk about CD's/DVD's/Vinyls/MobilePhones/Computers etc.
I am not saying the world doesn't count; but US is supposed to be a big benchmark. You could have at least mentioned which marketshare you were talking about.
Are you real? How is that understood?
Most of the times when marketshare is discussed, its discussed for the US only. I reside in England and I know its stupid to neglect the world; but every other sale means much more to US than to the world.
Talk about CD's/DVD's/Vinyls/MobilePhones/Computers etc.
I am not saying the world doesn't count; but US is supposed to be a big benchmark. You could have at least mentioned which marketshare you were talking about.
NJRonbo
Jun 12, 12:29 PM
Another potential problem...
How many iPhone 4s is Radio Shack going to
have in stock on first day of sale?
It's not like they are the Apple or AT&T store.
If I could be assured of a phone on day one
from Radio Shack the deal would be a pretty
good one.
How many iPhone 4s is Radio Shack going to
have in stock on first day of sale?
It's not like they are the Apple or AT&T store.
If I could be assured of a phone on day one
from Radio Shack the deal would be a pretty
good one.
skunk
Apr 27, 03:10 PM
I'd be fascinated to know exactly what you did to "discover" those layers, 5P. I have Photoshop and Illustrator too. Guess what? One layer. Nothing selectable. At least one of us is talking complete bollocks.
shamino
Jul 22, 12:18 PM
So I read in this thread that Kentsfield and Clovertown ARE compatible with Conroe and Woodcrest sockets (respectively) (Cloverton or Clovertown?)
Well, people here have mentioned it. I haven't seen any sources for these claims, however.
It's worth noting that the Pentium 4 shipped in several different socket packages over the years. The fact that the cores might be electrically compatible does not necessarily mean you're going to be able to perform a chip-swap upgrade on your Mac!
Hope for upgrading an iMac to Quad Core is kindled! At least if Apple releases Conroe iMacs.
And assuming they don't solder the chip to the motherboard, or hardwire the clock-multiplier chips, or hard-wire the voltage regulator settings, etc.
There are a lot of things that can be done to a motherboard to make these kinds of upgrades painful or even impossible.
With any kind of rumor like this, "I'll believe it when I see it" should be your mantra. Sure, these kinds of upgrades would be great, and it may even be possible to perform them on generic PC motherbaords, but this doesn't necessarily mean it will be easy or even possible on the systems Apple ends up shipping.
BTW, In my opinion, one thing a person should never, ever say is some computer has too much power, and that it will never be needed.
"Never" is always too strong a word. But there are plenty of good reasons to say "useless for today's applications" or "not worth the cost".
When applications start demanding more, and when costs come down, then the equations change. As they always do.
When we will be able to download our entire lives, and even conciousness into a computer, as is said to happen in about 40 years (very much looking forward to)...
You're looking forward to this? Let's hope for your sake that Microsoft has nothing to do with the system software.
I don't think it will be possible, even in 40 years, despite what sci-fi authors are predicting. And there's no way I'd ever have such a system installed even if it would be come possible. The possibility of dying or becoming comatose, or even worse, as a result of a software glitch is something I'm not going to allow. To quote McCoy from Star Trek: "Let's see how it scrambles your molecules first."
So as a conclusion to my most recent rant, Please, never tell me a computer is too powerfu, has too many cores, or has too much storage capacity. If it is there to be used, it will be used. It always is.
But do you want to be the first person to have to pay for it?
Well, people here have mentioned it. I haven't seen any sources for these claims, however.
It's worth noting that the Pentium 4 shipped in several different socket packages over the years. The fact that the cores might be electrically compatible does not necessarily mean you're going to be able to perform a chip-swap upgrade on your Mac!
Hope for upgrading an iMac to Quad Core is kindled! At least if Apple releases Conroe iMacs.
And assuming they don't solder the chip to the motherboard, or hardwire the clock-multiplier chips, or hard-wire the voltage regulator settings, etc.
There are a lot of things that can be done to a motherboard to make these kinds of upgrades painful or even impossible.
With any kind of rumor like this, "I'll believe it when I see it" should be your mantra. Sure, these kinds of upgrades would be great, and it may even be possible to perform them on generic PC motherbaords, but this doesn't necessarily mean it will be easy or even possible on the systems Apple ends up shipping.
BTW, In my opinion, one thing a person should never, ever say is some computer has too much power, and that it will never be needed.
"Never" is always too strong a word. But there are plenty of good reasons to say "useless for today's applications" or "not worth the cost".
When applications start demanding more, and when costs come down, then the equations change. As they always do.
When we will be able to download our entire lives, and even conciousness into a computer, as is said to happen in about 40 years (very much looking forward to)...
You're looking forward to this? Let's hope for your sake that Microsoft has nothing to do with the system software.
I don't think it will be possible, even in 40 years, despite what sci-fi authors are predicting. And there's no way I'd ever have such a system installed even if it would be come possible. The possibility of dying or becoming comatose, or even worse, as a result of a software glitch is something I'm not going to allow. To quote McCoy from Star Trek: "Let's see how it scrambles your molecules first."
So as a conclusion to my most recent rant, Please, never tell me a computer is too powerfu, has too many cores, or has too much storage capacity. If it is there to be used, it will be used. It always is.
But do you want to be the first person to have to pay for it?
gnasher729
Jul 27, 05:59 PM
but is still more productive because it handles more calculations per clock cycle
I'm no processor geek. I have a basic understanding of the terminology and how things work so correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't this one of the advantages that the PPC had over Intel chips? Does this mean Intel is moving toward shorter pipes? Are we talking more instructions per clock cycle or what? What does "calculations" mean in this context?
With most processors, especially the Intel/AMD processors, "instructions per cycle" is not a useful number. These processors have both simple instructions (add register number 3 to register number 6) and complex instructions (add register number 3 to the number whose address is in register number 6). A PowerPC has the simple instructions, but not the complex ones. Instead it would need three instructions "load the number whose address is in register number 6, and move it to register 7", "add register 3 to register 7", "store register 7 to the location whose address is in register 6". But the Intel processor doesn't magically do three times as much work. Instead, it splits the complex instruction into three so-called "macro-ops", and does exactly the same work. So in this case, the PowerPC would execute three times as many instructions per cycle (3 instead of 1), but because it doesn't do more actual work, that is pointless. Instead you would count the number of operations, and they are more or less the same.
Intel is indeed moving towards shorter pipelines. They have done that already with the Core Duo chips. Longer pipelines have the advantage that each pipeline step is a bit faster, so you can get higher clockspeed. Shorter pipelines have the advantage that they take much less energy (very important; at some point your chips just melt), they are much faster handling branches, and they are just much much easier to design. Pentium 4 needed absolutely heroic efforts to produce it, and would have needed twice the heroics to improve it. Instead, the Core Duo has a much simpler design, that is just as powerful, and because it was so simple, Core 2 Duo could improve it.
And Core 2 Duo can now execute up to four "micro-ops" per cycle, same as the G5, compared to three for Core Duo, Pentium 4 and G4. It also has some clever features that reduce the number of micro-ops needed up to 10 percent, and some other improvements.
I'm no processor geek. I have a basic understanding of the terminology and how things work so correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't this one of the advantages that the PPC had over Intel chips? Does this mean Intel is moving toward shorter pipes? Are we talking more instructions per clock cycle or what? What does "calculations" mean in this context?
With most processors, especially the Intel/AMD processors, "instructions per cycle" is not a useful number. These processors have both simple instructions (add register number 3 to register number 6) and complex instructions (add register number 3 to the number whose address is in register number 6). A PowerPC has the simple instructions, but not the complex ones. Instead it would need three instructions "load the number whose address is in register number 6, and move it to register 7", "add register 3 to register 7", "store register 7 to the location whose address is in register 6". But the Intel processor doesn't magically do three times as much work. Instead, it splits the complex instruction into three so-called "macro-ops", and does exactly the same work. So in this case, the PowerPC would execute three times as many instructions per cycle (3 instead of 1), but because it doesn't do more actual work, that is pointless. Instead you would count the number of operations, and they are more or less the same.
Intel is indeed moving towards shorter pipelines. They have done that already with the Core Duo chips. Longer pipelines have the advantage that each pipeline step is a bit faster, so you can get higher clockspeed. Shorter pipelines have the advantage that they take much less energy (very important; at some point your chips just melt), they are much faster handling branches, and they are just much much easier to design. Pentium 4 needed absolutely heroic efforts to produce it, and would have needed twice the heroics to improve it. Instead, the Core Duo has a much simpler design, that is just as powerful, and because it was so simple, Core 2 Duo could improve it.
And Core 2 Duo can now execute up to four "micro-ops" per cycle, same as the G5, compared to three for Core Duo, Pentium 4 and G4. It also has some clever features that reduce the number of micro-ops needed up to 10 percent, and some other improvements.
roland.g
Apr 6, 11:19 AM
I LOL'd. I owned iPad 1 for a year, and while it's nice, it's a FAR, FAR cry from the productivity capabilities of the current gen MBA.
Like it or not, iPad is SEVERELY CRIPPLED for content creation (i.e. real work), but excels at content CONSUMPTION. That's factual and completely undebatable. Everyone knows this.
So, no, it's not "something better". It's a more viable choice for entertainment and consumption. That's it.
I didn't say I use it for content creation or production capabilities. Desktop power. Screen real estate. I'll take my iMac with 24" screen over a notebook at 11.6 or 13.3. And my graphics and cpu power over that in an MBA. And when I want something instant on, and quick access, and light and mobile, I've got an iPad 2. Sorry, but read the whole post. I apologize if I'm not one of those people who kids themselves into thinking that a notebook is a viable "real work" machine.
Like it or not, iPad is SEVERELY CRIPPLED for content creation (i.e. real work), but excels at content CONSUMPTION. That's factual and completely undebatable. Everyone knows this.
So, no, it's not "something better". It's a more viable choice for entertainment and consumption. That's it.
I didn't say I use it for content creation or production capabilities. Desktop power. Screen real estate. I'll take my iMac with 24" screen over a notebook at 11.6 or 13.3. And my graphics and cpu power over that in an MBA. And when I want something instant on, and quick access, and light and mobile, I've got an iPad 2. Sorry, but read the whole post. I apologize if I'm not one of those people who kids themselves into thinking that a notebook is a viable "real work" machine.
cronked
Mar 22, 01:04 PM
Blackberry playbook = The IPad 2 killer - you heard it here first.
Look at the specs, their greater or equal to the iPad 2 with the exception of battery life.
I hope you are being sarcastic. You can't even access your Blackberry email on this thing unless you are tethered to a Blackberry phone. That fact alone will keep a lot of people from using this. As far as design goes (not specs), Apple has everyone beat.
Specs aren't as important as you might think. It is the software, interface and the app store that really set Apple apart. This creates the "user experience" that they focus so much on. You can rest assured that the OS in this Playbook will not be groundbreaking.
Overall I am glad there is competition. That is good and there is plenty of room for more than one player in this space. But Playbook doesn't stand a snowballs chance in hell of being the iPad 2 killer.
Look at the specs, their greater or equal to the iPad 2 with the exception of battery life.
I hope you are being sarcastic. You can't even access your Blackberry email on this thing unless you are tethered to a Blackberry phone. That fact alone will keep a lot of people from using this. As far as design goes (not specs), Apple has everyone beat.
Specs aren't as important as you might think. It is the software, interface and the app store that really set Apple apart. This creates the "user experience" that they focus so much on. You can rest assured that the OS in this Playbook will not be groundbreaking.
Overall I am glad there is competition. That is good and there is plenty of room for more than one player in this space. But Playbook doesn't stand a snowballs chance in hell of being the iPad 2 killer.
cohen777
Apr 5, 06:55 PM
I hope that the new Final Cut Studio package updates DVDSP to allow for authoring blu-rays.
portishead
Apr 12, 01:05 PM
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.
I know. I'm lucky that I don't have to deal with that. That's what I mean by different people, different workflows. If I had to work with the DSLR workflow, it would drive me crazy. Dealing with source files, converting, proxies, offline, online.
One thing I have never had to deal with in FCP is having an offline/online workflow. It's saved me a lot of headaches I used to have to deal with in Avid. Not that Avid was bad, but capturing once is always easier than twice.
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.
I know. I'm lucky that I don't have to deal with that. That's what I mean by different people, different workflows. If I had to work with the DSLR workflow, it would drive me crazy. Dealing with source files, converting, proxies, offline, online.
One thing I have never had to deal with in FCP is having an offline/online workflow. It's saved me a lot of headaches I used to have to deal with in Avid. Not that Avid was bad, but capturing once is always easier than twice.