Posted on 07/11/2018 8:44:09 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
The Mac used to have numerous advantages over the PC, but with Windows 10 the PC has now closed the gap.
These days buying a PC gives you many more options compared to the Mac, which continues to stagnate. Business Insider's senior tech correspondent, Steve Kovach, switched his Mac for a PC to see what Windows 10 really has to offer.
Following is a transcript of the video.
Steve Kovach: I've been a Mac user for over 15 years. I hated PCs. They came loaded with a bunch of software that slowed down my machine, and they caught viruses way too easily.
Ad: Last year there were 114 thousand known viruses for PCs.
PCs, but not Macs.
Steve: Then I discovered the Mac. And it had everything the PC didn't. But lately, I've grown frustrated with the Mac lineup. And while Apple has let its Mac lineup stagnate, Windows 10 computers have gotten really good. So I decided to make the switch back for a few days and tested Huawei's new MateBook X Pro. Which runs Windows 10 and starts at about $1200. Some have called it the best laptop you can buy. And guess what, Windows is actually really great. And I may even like it better than my Mac.
Windows 8 tried to be two operating systems in one. One for desktop and one for mobile. And it failed at both. It even got rid of Windows' iconic Start menu. But Windows 10 reversed a lot of those mistakes. The Start menu's back and it works great on the desktop. Windows 10 comes with Cortana. The Microsoft Digital Assistant. It can dig through files on your computer and even search the web. It's almost as good as Google Search.
Windows 10 also has a lot more hardware options.
(Excerpt) Read more at businessinsider.com ...
The iTunes converter offers both MP3 and AAC at bit-rates up to 320kbps stereo, with optional VBR (variable bit-rate) where 320 is a minimum guaranteed bit-rate.
Given that the "Hi-Fi Transparency" standard is 128kbps per channel (thus 256kbps for stereo), I doubt anyone's ears can discern the difference between 320kbps and either lossless PCM or the original analog.
> Actually, Mac OS is Linux...
Actually, NO IT'S NOT. Emphatically not.
MacOS is based on FreeBSD Unix, not Linux. Completely different at all levels except "work-similar".
The Linux kernel was written as a "work-alike" for Unix in the early 90's, but that kernel and the BSD Unix kernel are completely different "under the hood". The system libraries of Linux and BSD are likewise completely different, even though they implement similar functionality.
Both BSD and Linux make extensive use of the Gnu operating system sources (utilities, tools, etc.) and thus have many command-line commands in common. However, they are alike only at the source-code level -- their running programs (executables) are not at all cross-compatible.
Ping to #142 above.
Another example of your ignorance of what you are talking about. MP3 is a lossy standard. Apple lossless is exactly what it says it is. . . when ever you continue a statement with "but" that "but" denies everything you said before it. Just admit you don't know what you don't know.
First of all, it is not "my company." I have no business relationship with Apple. I am not, and never have been an employee of Apple or any of their suppliers, advertisers, or any ancillary companies. I own my own business that uses both Apple OS and Microsoft OS computers. . . and support other businesses that use both as well as Linux computers.
Secondly, just because YOU did not know that a piece of software had a capability YOU did not know it had, does not mean it did not have that capability. . . and no, I am not referring to "the ridiculous process of burning the song to a cd and then extracting it as an MP3."
Apple's iTunes software has had the capability of creating MP3, AIFF, WAV, MPEG-4, AAC, Apple Lossless (.m4a), and other format music and sound files for many years on CDs, Macs, and PCs, to files, to memory sticks, etc. Many DJs used Macs and Mac minis as the source devices for their businesses at weddings, dances, parties, etc., using iTunes with the music files on the HD in some of those formats. I've attended weddings where that occurred in the mid 2000s.
Could one REMOVE the DRM from purchase iTunes music LEGALLY in the early years? No. That was illegal under the licensing from the music publishers and Apple could not allow that capability under their contracts with the publishers to sell their music. if Apple had included that capability to strip DRM from that music, the publishers would have pulled their music from Apple's iTunes Store. However iTunes allowed ripping from CDs one already owned and creating MP3 files in all of those formats on one's computer or any other digital media, technically for archival purposes (wink, wink) and did not share those "archives" with any one else. In 2001, when the iPod and iTunes were first released, that was the only way to put music on the iPod as the iTunes music store was not even opened until April 28, 2003.
In February 2007, Steve Jobs famously wrote the open letter to the music publishing industry pointing out their hypocrisy which got them to change their DRM requirements. . . and got them to offer non-DRM tracks and albums for a slightly higher price (99¢ for DRM tracks and $1.29 for non-DRM), changing the music industry forever.
I do know my history, while you obviously don't know the history of iTunes capabilities. You made ASSUMPTIONS based on limited experience and challenge the actual fully familiar experience of people who used it thoroughly and KNOW the abilities of the software arguing from your position of ignorance trying to tell US what we DO KNOW.
That figure is 9.8% world wide. That's is almost 10% for ONE SINGLE COMPANY against several hundred other computer makers in the entire world making PCs that use either Microsoft Windows or the 1.4% that use some flavor of Linux. In some areas of the world that percentage is much higher.
In 2016, Apple Macs with only ~7.5% of world wide PC sales took home 45% of all PC profits. In 2017, that figure with approximately 8% of all PC sales in the world, Apple took home close to 50% of all PC profits. ONE COMPANY of all the hundreds that make Personal computers, took HOME HALF THE PROFITS.
Why is this true? The answer is simple. Apple offers quality products and has chosen NOT to compete in the race to the bottom of the barrel.
Uh, no. MacOS and OS X is actually UNIX™ not Linux. Linux is a clean-room work alike constructed copy of UNIX™.
Apple macOS and OS X are the world's best selling, completely certified POSIX® compliant and TradeMarked by the Open Group versions of UNIX™ being sold today. UNIX preceded Linux by at least two decades.
For a good explanation of the history of the two, read this link.
Not really. Most of the world has moved on. MP3 is a very lossy compression system that has really gone by the wayside as it was replaced in every use for other more efficient and less lossy compression schemes.
Ya mine especially. Too much rock music back in the day. I convert to 128 for space.
I am concerned though about the algorithm for converting one format to the next. Is a direct bit/byte copy or decompression then compression to mp3? Like the old goofy burn to dusk solution.
l
Except for those of us who have years of ripped music. Do not want to have to pull out the CDs again! Nor do I want to pay Apple $2000 for the songs that I already have... 2000 songs x 0.99 each.
Ya. Just noting that Ubuntu looks a lot like my dads old Mac.
And it could be a lot more if they changed their business model. But they won’t.
Interesting that it hasn’t changed much over the past 20 years. But Apple seem to be happy with that.
That's one solution. These old iMacs (called blueberry Macs) are readily available on the Internet sales sites. I have a few of them, with dual-boot drives to boot between different OS versions. I collect vintage machines, and the ones I have are different versions and colors and still work on the Internet although slow. Lighter faster PowerPC systems are still available. There are people out there who can convert almost anything (I can do most except my punched paper tape rolls and 9-track reels from the 70's). Best idea is to plan ahead, and constantly move copies of files to newer digital platforms. No excuse not to do it. DVD's go bad and are becoming obsolete. Same will happen to USB sticks. Important files should have printed counterparts stored in a safe place. If not, too bad.
> Not really. Most of the world has moved on. MP3 is a very lossy compression system that has really gone by the wayside as it was replaced in every use for other more efficient and less lossy compression schemes.
Eh, I will beg to differ a bit.
I observe that while MP3 got a deservedly terrible reputation early on, it was because the high expense of disk space, and slow download speeds, meant that songs were compressed so severely they became unlistenable (64kbps stereo was not uncommon). 15 years ago I was compressing live recordings of my band to MP3 format at 128kbps as a compromise between quality and filesize. They sound pretty bad today unless I'm in the car where you can't tell.
Today MP3 at 256kbps or 320kbps with VBR gives a listening experience which is superb -- double-blind listening tests, using normal human beings, comparing those rates vs uncompressed, show no statistically significant difference, even though they're still "lossy".
OTOH, there are some rare people whose hearing is so acute that they can reliably distinguish between uncompressed PCM at 20 bits sample depth vs. 24 bits depth. I imagine they might be able to tell 320kbps VBR MP3 from lossless.
But who cares? Delivering very high quality sound, with file format portability and player compatibility, is worth infinitely more in the marketplace of real products, than the perfection only audible to 0.00001% of the population.
Has the world moved on? Well, better compression schemes have been developed, and the existing ones like MP3 have been improved immeasurably since their introduction. But every time someone posts an audio file in a format that most of the world cannot play, they will look around for something more portable and compatible. High bit-rate MP3 and other lossy compression schemes will continue to enjoy popularity in the general marketplace.
I have rendered all of the movies to raw video and have stored them on backup and a RAID NAS. All are in uncompressed AVI. As you mention, I will have to migrate them to newer formats and hardware in the future.
Here is a bit of irony. Photos shot 100 years ago have a better chance of survival than a digital photo shot this morning. Low tech or no tech will survive when high tech will not. The late 70s early 80s is when things got more complicated.
I expect AVI and jpeg to be around for a few more years. Maybe I will “print” the most valuable pictures.
Unfortunately, my dad wasn't as careful. How would he have known? The good news is that he printed some of the files.
BTW, a few years back, I ripped an LP and compared it with the Itunes equivalent song and my MP3 was >much better< (had more depth) than the Apple iTunes equivalent of the time.
Makes you wonder how good the iTunes capture was and is in the first place. What is their source? What is the quality of their equipment? Did they start with the original tapes, rip from a CD, etc. Did they manage the digital artifacts correctly during capture and render?
Anyway...
It has been an interesting ride — the past 25 years or so. Originally, the digital versions (photos and audio) were inferior to their analog counter parts. It was convenience over quality. Actually the CD was the first step in digitization and everyone bragged about the quality of a compact disc.
However, as the technology has improved and storage space is plentiful and data transfer speeds have increased, the digital equivalent is comparable to the analog counter parts plus with the addition of convenience.
Of course, if you have perfect vision and hearing, you might notice a difference. Few people do. Those same people probably listen to LPs. More power to them!
Although I'm quoting good advice, I'm not immune. I waited too long to convert some old 8mm & 35mm film reels from the 1950's and 1960's. They had begun disintegrating; the nitrocellulose doesn't hold up well over time. A shop converted what could be salvaged but some family history was lost. Another time we had a water pipe leak in the wall behind a closet, and it damaged hundreds of photos and negatives, none of which had been converted to digital. Only after that did I get moving on converting other media to digital. We didn't have the patience to convert a large bunch of VHS tapes for my wife's mom so they went into a dumpster (in Chinese, no use to us). I have a bunch of 4-track and 8-track music tapes from the 1960's; alas, half have decayed. (Yes, I was playing 4-tracks in my '56 Chevy before the 8-track cartridges came out.)
I also have the bulk of my media stored in RAID arrays. Have had hard drive failures in the past and it's unpleasant having to recover from that. I'm now in the process of upgrading my 6TB RAID arrays with 8TB drives; as they get larger and cheaper that's what I do. Even then, I have backups in secondary locations in case the RAID arrays are damaged or stolen. Even with many precautions you can still lose it all. A close friend of mine lost everything in the San Bruno gas explosion a few years back. Hers was one of the first 3 homes destroyed by the blast. Even her safe with all her jewelry melted to ash, all her family memorabilia completely gone. Counts her blessings, as friends invited them out to dinner just minutes before the blast.
Formats constantly change. I have various forms of optical hard media (not CD or DVD), Iomega JAZ media, magnetic tapes (micro to 9-track), eprom chips, micro-drives, compact flash drives, etc. Not to mention different format floppies that held from 80K max up through 1.4MB. It's amazing to think what was used over only a few decades. For the most part they are obsolete. What will we be using ten years from now? Nano-organic crystals? I made that up, but if created I'll be using it if I'm still alive. I like the old stuff but the future marches on and gets better.
So how do they create a high res version. Do they go back to the original source and render it or somehow upscale the low res version?
One thing I have learned when coping something that you can never improve on the original. The original is it and can only degrade.
Maybe they use some kind of interpolation algorithm. Who knows but I would be skeptical of the quality and I don't think that anyone has ever asked this question. Most people don't care.
I actually had to search the Internet for a bulb for the movie projector. I found one!!!
It is a chore and a lot of pressure. I inherited the family pictures when my dad went into a nursing home. I bought plastic, sealed bins, in hopes of preventing the disaster that you mention. Scares me to death.
4 tracks? Wow. Lol. That was after two tracks. Lol. My parent had 8-tracks.
Backups in secondary locations — good man. Your children, grandchildren, greatgrandchildren…. will thank you. :)
Wow. Jaz. I still have some too... and no player.
New future formats — lol. Reminds me of the Men in Black....
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.