jeffharris's Profile

  • Dec 15, 2009
  • 11
  • 0

Latest comments made by: jeffharris

  • johnniefr is correct. You CAN give a real title to a recording, although it's not in a very conspicuous location. The Custom Label title you assign can be inadvertently cleared if you select one of the other labels. Bad design! Apple should move it to an obvious place and change the field name to something obvious as well, like "Title" or something similar. Better yet, there should be an optional prompt to give a new recording a title when you're done. If you're reviewing something, especially an app as simple as this, you should really dig around a bit before writing. _____________________ For a nice microphone for iPod touch users, check out the SwitchEasy ThumbTacks microphone. ($16 w/ S&H;.) They're small, cute, easy to carry and work well. It has an 1/8" extension at it's base to allow it to be used with your iPod touch case ON! The only caveat is that it disables the speaker when inserted.
    jeffharris had this to say on Jun 20, 2009 Posts: 11
    iTalk vs. Voice Memo
  • Good points about eSATA & FireWire. I want faster FireWire, too! Building Apple TV functionality into an Mac mini A/V would be a stroke of genius! I really don't see Apple dropping the mini's price any lower. Remember when the new Aluminum iMacs came out, everyone was disappointed that Apple didn't keep the 17" iMac in the lineup as an $799 emac-like entry-level machine. Besides, we're talking about a TRUE mid-range, user upgradable machine, not a beefed up mini. In this case, function and flexibility are more important than low price.
    jeffharris had this to say on Apr 19, 2008 Posts: 11
    The Non Existent Glaring Hole in the Mac Lineup
  • That's Apple TV. I tried Shift-Option-K, but the gall durned server doesn't accept extended characters? Sheesh!
    jeffharris had this to say on Apr 19, 2008 Posts: 11
    The Non Existent Glaring Hole in the Mac Lineup
  • The Psystar Hackintosh is looking more like a scam by the day. Yeah, the mini is an excellent and capable machine. It's a perfect media server. Too bad it lacks FireWire 800. I'd get a mini and a Blu-ray player for my HDTV before an TV, that's for sure. $799 for a bottom end Half-Mac Pro wouldn't cut it since that's the same price for a top of the line mini. Slots and expansion capabilities add to motherboard and case complexity and a higher price than a 2 RAM slot laptop motherboard. We would want FireWire 800, at least 4 RAM slots, 1 video and 1 free PCI slot and maybe an extra drive bay or two. An eSATA port would be icing on the cake. That's a LOT more machine than a mini! Apple DOES add niceties. A bottom end MacPro is $2300. $1500 would be more in line with Apple's pricing structure for our mythical Mac and place it about half-way between the mini and MacPro. The Mac myth would cut into iMac AND MacPro sales, but would probably sell more than enough to make up the difference!
    jeffharris had this to say on Apr 19, 2008 Posts: 11
    The Non Existent Glaring Hole in the Mac Lineup
  • "OK, I have converted one of the minis into a Leopard Server with an external 1TB Firewire800 drive for the encoded HD movies." Wow, I'm impressed! A Mac mini only supports FireWire 400! For the few who still harp on the cost of a Mac, give it up. It's been proven over and over that Macs and COMPARABLY specced PCs are roughly the same price. Steve Jobs has been widely quoted as saying that Apple cannot and WILL not build junk. An iMac will a slew of little doors for swapping components couldn't be had at the same price points. Apple maximizes profits by melding a laptop motherboard (FIXED components) with a monitor. As far as I'm concerned, adding RAM and swapping the hard drive isn't "expandability". At this point, I "expand" by buying a new MacBook Pro (and craigslisting the "old" one) every other generation. One year I bought 3 successive releases of Titanium PowerBooks JUST to get faster video and more VRAM! That's pretty dumb in hindsight, but there's no other real alternative if you don't want a hulking MacPro. My home office is 58 square feet, including furniture (w/under desk storage), built-in shelves, a big CRT monitor (it's days are numbered) and an 11 x 17 LaserJet. A MacPro is TOO BIG! My main concern is being able to get decent video performance. A MUCH smaller form-factor, pro-level machine wold work. 1 slot for the video card and one PCI slot would be enough or me. One extra internal drive bay would be adequate, although the price of external RIAD drives is pretty good these days. The Mac Cube is looking pretty good these days…
    jeffharris had this to say on Apr 19, 2008 Posts: 11
    The Non Existent Glaring Hole in the Mac Lineup
  • I've got to say, this article completely misses the mark. Just because you don't see the need, good for you, but that doesn't mean there's no market for it. i'd say it could be a substantial market, too! Many users want/need a Half-MacPro… half the slots, half the bays, half the size or LESS. Something that would take a pro-level graphics card and more than 4GB of RAM. Something that can run TWO 23" monitors out of the box. Add one extra PCI slot to add an eSATA card, etc.. If an eSATA port were built-in, even that would be unnecessary. If it fell in the $1200 - $1500 that would be fine, since you'd need to add a monitor. And I want to be able to select my OWN monitor and do NOT want a glossy iMac screen, which is not appropriate for pro-level work. I could see something like a pizza-box form factor like a Mac IIci or Mac LC type of thing. These were great, extremely popular machines back in their day. This would be a great compact workstation and the perfect switcher machine. For me, it's a space issue. I've resigned myself to using a Macbook Pro, which I LOVE, but I'd like some beefier machine for my office that I could do 3D rendering and such.
    jeffharris had this to say on Apr 18, 2008 Posts: 11
    The Non Existent Glaring Hole in the Mac Lineup
  • Numbers and Pages both look good. I've discovered a pretty glaring weakness: Pages hangs when attempting to Open or Import AppleWorks documents with graphics or spreadsheet objects embedded in word processing documents. Since iWork is aimed at AppleWorks users, this is a a pretty bad shortcoming. If Apple wants AppleWorks users, and there are MANY of us out there, to shell out $79 for this "upgrade", then it better work! The writing has been on the wall for AppleWorks for a number of years, but Apple still needs to work on iWork. It also needs Filemaker Lite to complete the Suite.
    jeffharris had this to say on Aug 27, 2007 Posts: 11
    iWork '08—Numbers & Keynote
  • That was a DARK day in Apple history!
  • My Menu bar is loaded... in order form Left to Right... PopCharX. Access all extended characters with a pop-up menu. Synergy. To control iTunes. Timbuktu Pro. Stuffit Deluxe 10. SlimBatteryMonitor. A nice colored replacement for the system battery menu item. Missing Sync for Palm OS. SwitchRes X. Controls multiple monitors and allows me to save resolution sets for different monitors. WeatherPop Advance. Temperature and weather status icon. iClock. Date/Time, floating calendar, stopwatch, calculator AND active application menu with direct access to all System Preference Panes AND System Menu Extras AND recent applications. There's more, too! It's loaded, but excellent! This doesn't include my Airport guage, keyboard menu or Spotlight. What I'd REALLY like to see is a menu bar item that holds other menu bar items as sub-menus...
    jeffharris had this to say on Mar 25, 2006 Posts: 11
    What's in Your Menubar?
  • Right On, flyermoney!!! And WHY are G5's suddenly crappy processors in some people's minds? I don't get it. Maybe it's the same way we can vilify old girlfriends after we've moved on? Personally, I think you'd be NUTS to buy a Rev. A or even a Rev. B of a MacTel machine. WHY, you ask? They'll be NEW! (meaning BEST?) 1.) NEW hardware configurations ALWAYS have problems. I can't imagine what problems an entirely NEW system architecture will have. I've impatiently (foolishly) bought Rev. A machines (Mac IIcx [the IIci was better], PowerMac 8500, PowerBook G3 Lombard, PowerBook G4) and would never do it again! We're not talking about some skunk-works lab created and tested MacTel box. We're talking full-blown, tens and hundreds of thousands production machines that people and businesses will PAY for and assume that they can run their lives and businesses with RELIABILITY.... which, oddly, is exactly why many people choose Macs over Windows boxes. 2.) SOFTWARE!. If we're talking an entirely new hardware architecture, we're also talking about software that runs on this new hardware. Again, this isn't a skunk-works geek driven secret project, but millions of machines sold to consumers and businesses who EXPECT and are PAYING for, Macintosh stability and reliability. Expecting ALL your software to run with stability and reliability on an entirely new hardware architecture is foolhardy. I'm not talking emulation, as others have mentioned. I'm not talking Office or Safari or Mail, but the dozens of little applications, utilities and system enhancements which we grow to rely upon, but tend to forget about. Will ALL of them run on a spanky new Intel Mac on day ONE? Day 301? I seriously doubt it. Apple a has a LONG history of PROMISING smooth transitions, whether it be System software or hardware transitions. In my experience (Mac user since 1985) those transitions have NEVER been as smooth as advertised. That's the key term: ADVERTISED! Would Apple PROMISE a miserable hardware/software transition and expect to stay in business? I think not. Here are some serial transition examples (all based on personal experience, BTW): A: System 6 to System 7 to System 8 to OS 9 to Mac OS X B: Motorola 68000 to 68030 to 68040 to PowerPC... then 600 to 604 to G3. Once we hit the G3's, it's been smooth as silk! Then there were some major hardware changes and additions: Nu-Bus to PCI slots ADB to USB SCSI to FireWire CD-ROM, CD-R, DVD, et al There were myriad troubles and delays with ALL those transitions, especially for those of us who wanted to ride the first car of the MacTrain. I learned a lot (certainly there's much value in that), but there was pain involved too. We waited several YEARS for Mac OS 9 software to be ported to and run reliably on Mac OS X. Some software just plain disappeared. THAT has happened with just about every transition I can think of as well. Luckily file formats are more universal these days, so transitioning to new applications and file formats can be less of a headache. I don't want to sound like a nay sayer, but we've all got to be prepared for a less than glass-smooth transition to Intel. MacUsers LOVE to complain (obviously, this one included) just don't jump into this one blind and expect to come out without a few bruises and shattered illusions. THAT said... I JUST ordered a new 15" PowerBook G4 with a 100GB x 7200 rpm hard drive and 1GB of RAM (I'll bump it to 2 GB when the new RAM is available from third parties). I could quibble about some of the specs... GPU especially... but my 3 year old Giga TiBook has been fading fast and with AppleCare due to run out, I'll get it completely overhauled, sell it on eBay and pay for 1/3 to 1/2 my new rig. I figure I'll get enough milage out of the new machine to carry me to the Rev. B or Rev. C dual-core MacTel PowerBooks and all the hardware and software crap has settled down. Gotta love Macs!
    jeffharris had this to say on Oct 22, 2005 Posts: 11
    Don't Buy A Quad G5
  • I'd say that a return to Interface CONSISTENCY is the key to improving Leopard. I love OS X, but it has really strayed from the old Classic Mac OS' almost fanatical adherence to Apple's own Human Interface Guidelines (or whatever it's called). It was always great to have 2 or 3 or 4 ways to do something, but when those methods constantly vary, it makes navigating much more of a chore than it needs to be. There are lots of little functional/cosmetic tweaks and adjustments to different navigation items that don't STAY the way I've set them, which constantly need to be re-adjusted. Icons should stay where I've put them. Columns need to stay whatever widths or order I've set, etc., etc.. I'd like to see Open/Save dialogues automatically adjust column widths for the longest file name, or at least be able to assign a specific width, so I can see entire file names without having to resort to resizing columns EVERY time a dialogue appears. Why do some applications quit when you close the last window and others not? Make ALL applications function ONE way! I could go on and on, nitpicking away, but let's see a return to Interface Consistency!
    jeffharris had this to say on Oct 10, 2005 Posts: 11
    How Could OS X Be Improved?