Posts (page 2)
Since 2 days Microsoft allows normal users to download and try the official Beta 1 of Windows 7. I had some time and enough bandwidth to download both 32 bit and 64 bit versions (2.5 and 3.2 GBs respectively) and try them with Parallels 4 on my MacBook (2GHz Core 2 Duo with 2GB RAM).
Because the OS was tried on a virtual machine, absolute numbers are almost meaningless. Nevertheless comparisons can be made between the 32 and 64 bit version and XP (tested in the same way).
Most of the following impressions are valid for both versions of Windows 7. I never really tried Windows Vista, so I cannot comment with regards to it.
The Virtual machine under Parallels 4 (latest version that supports Windows 7, released last week), was configured for both tests with 1GB RAM, no Sound, 2 cores. The ISO files from which the installation was carried out (no DVD was used), was done over an external HDD (the ISO was on the external drive, while the virtual machine HDD on the MacBook).
My impressions/comments:
- the installer says that the system will have to "reboot several times" during installation - it actually did this twice (why?); in comparison Mac OS X and Linux (if nothing changed for the latter in the past 10 years) reboot only once, after installing all files
- the startup animation is pretty cool with glowing orbs that blend together forming a glowing colorful windows flag
- the installation took about 30 minutes (pretty good!)
- although the Beta 1 is fully functional until August, for some odd reason the user is required, though not immediately, to go through the Windows Product Activation - why?
- after installing Parallel Tools (which are not compiled for 64 bits), Windows 7 downloaded 1 update for the Windows Defender signatures and started (due to the Parallels Tools) the (Home) Network install procedure; after this I performed a disk defrag (which was completed on the 32 bit version with 5 passes!) and then performed a complete reboot to see it boot performance
- Windows 7 64 bits boots in Paralles 4 in 2 minutes (yes, that long), while the 32 bit version in 1'30"; XP in Parallels required 50"...
- after the boot, soon after the desktop has finished loading, the RAM usage was about 500MB for the 64 bit version, 360MB for the 32 bit version; in comparison my OS X 10.5.6 installation requires about 450MB and XP usually requires around 150MB...
- Windows Media Player and IE8 are still compiled in 32 bit
- Windows 7 has an increasing amount of eye candy, like a glowing start windows flag button (bottom left of the task bar - is this also in Vista) when the mouse hovers over it, or on active tasks the bottom of the task bar buttons follows the mouse by glowing slightly
- Windows 7 sports a cleaner look and the Sidebar is disabled by default; the desktop is mostly clean and uncluttered; the Control Panel though, when displaying all items is pretty confusing (the items are not grouped by type) while the category view is not enough detailed to get access to what is necessary (I personally find "System Preferences" of OS X cleaner and more effective); the Explorer views are also full of details in comparison to OS X - it takes time to get used to it and often I was asking myself if all that information was always really necessary (the answer is no, at lest for me)
- I tried to carry out the Windows Experience Index test, but after 3 mins of no response I gave up; BTW: why does the WEI rating go from 1.0 to 7.9? I mean, 7.9?? why not 8.0 or 10.0? is 7.9 some magical number or does it mean anything specific? why not a round number?
- a new thing that I noticed are "libraries" - libraries are a collection of items and folders in a common view without moving the single objects - that is, as far as I understood, libraries is another name for a collection of links to several folders and files in different locations (local and external/networked drives, for example); you can do that anytime in XP, Vista, OSX, etc - I didn't get it really the purpose of it.
I am curious to read in upcoming review about the performance of Widows 7 in comparison to XP and Vista when running natively on a Windows machine or a MacBook with Boot Camp (not sure whether Boot Camp can support Windows 7 - but I don't see why it shouldn't). As it is I cannot say that this new version will bring improved performance and reduced memory footprint in comparison to Vista. In comparison to XP, in the same test conditions, it clearly didn't, if not for RAM (understandibly) at least for performance.
In the meantime, I am waiting eagerly for Snow Leopard to be released. As it has happened already for the past 2 versions of OS X (Tiger 10.4 and Leopard 10.5) the performance and/or RAM consumption has improved on the same hardware each time compared to the previous version.
If you want to read a more thourough and in-depth review from a true expert, please follow this link to Paul Thurrot's excellent Supersite for Windows.
Once again on the net there are speculations that the Apple's Mac Mini is "dead" and about to be discontinued.This product has not been updated since 400+ days and some argue that it should get also an update in the design.
A few comments:
- Apple does not offer a true "standard" desktop - either you buy an iMac with a screen you might not need, or you buy a Mac Pro that costs 2500+$
- the design of the mini is actually so simple and elegant, there is not much to update, IMHO
- mostly on the internet people talk about the mini as a media server to connect to a high-def TV, but most forget that there is the Apple TV, and that the mini is a true computer that can do *everything*. If you need to retouch a photo in Photoshop, the mini will do, the Apple TV not.
If the Mini gets discontinued, it will be a clear sign that the desktop segment (that is, a computer that comes without a screen - all in one solutions) is not of interest anymore to Apple. But the truth is that if you want to encode to MP4 a DVD of your collection or do some more intensive operation, while not burning your lap using a MacBook (Pro or not), either you buy a monitor (the iMac) or you need a bank loan (the Mac Pro).
I do hope that a new version of the Mini with new avdanced specs (e.g. Blu-Ray reader?!?!) will be released. I wouldn't mind the upgrade and would gladly upgrade my Mini with it.
The songs are well....ABBA's songs, the actors are surprisingly good at singing (particular mention to Meryl Streep, with her powerful, expressive and vibrant voice, and Colin Firth), the choreography is new, fun and colorful. Add to all this a breath-taking setting in Greece, with wonderful blue/green/emerald sea...that makes you longing to leave on the spot and go there on holiday.
All is executed in a professional way, but not taking the whole "musical" side of it too seriously. Very enjoyable. Watch the ending titles for a couple of surprises...
"It's alredy begun - iPhone 3G line starting in New York City"
And then don't wonder why there are wars, famine and poverty in the world.
Nature can stay - human kind can be razed off the face of Earth if an alien race comes...
And the poor infant!!!!!
Today I have noticed a small stenciled graffiti on a wall close to where I lived:
"8 hrs work
8 hrs play
8 hrs sleep"
8-8-8 split, sort of.
I was talking the other evening with a friend about blogging - and its purpose. It came to mind that I had read on another blog of a friend's friend a post about it (here).
At the time I wrote a comment, that, together with this older post about the topic, actually sums up my view about it:
"I have had the same problem. What to blog about? Am I blogging because it is in fashion? and who would read?
So
I often find myself during the day thinking "I could write about this"
or "I could write about this part of my inner life" - but then I go
"who cares about it? cannot I just call a friend and talk about it? why
put it on a blog anyway?".
So I only blog every once in a while -
when I find something really interesting, inspiring or because I want
to share something to the world. I just hope it might be of help to
somebody ending on my entry, if ever Google manages to index it. For
example I recently wrote my impressions moving from a Point and Shoot
camera to a DSLR. It took me a LOT of time to write it and correct it
(I hate mistakes and mis-understandings in my posts). I am pretty sure
that nobody read it or will read it.
Is all this important? Maybe. It's up to us bloggers to decide.
One solution could actually be very simple: simply not to blog at all.
And
instead call up or write to friends (even "mass-emails") telling them
what you think/did - because after all these are probably the people we
want to keep up to date with our blogs.
And as you correctly say,
our jobs can be already taxing enough to make blogging a "drag" rather
than a full-time entertaining activity. Sometimes even writing an email
for me becomes "work" - I write emails all day at work - writing emails
to my friends becomes work as well. I'd rather call them.
We have survived and had fun for a long time without blogging - we can clearly do without them if we wish to. Getting depressed because of them is the last thing I want to do.
Carpe diem, and simply
write when and if you feel to - otherwise shut the blog down and feel
happy about it. Your readers will have to understand and if they will
feel let down because you don't write anymore - well, it's their
problem... ;)"
I was planning this for a long time - actually since I was "infected" with the DSLR virus when I participated to the Tips From The Top Floor (TFTTF) Workshop back on Sept. 2006 in Tübingen - Germany, held by excellent photographer and teacher Chris Marquardt. I was the only person with a Point & Shoot (P&S) camera of the group. Everybody had a DSLR - everybody. I nick-named myself as the "P&S guy". I had a relatively new Canon S3. The only "good thing" about it was that I was the only person attending the workshop with a 12x optical zoom with optical Image Stabilization in a package smaller and lighter than any DSLR present at the workshop. I could actually take pictures of things that only a 2Kg lens on a DSLR could. But still, the first day I felt like I was the one with the "lesser" gear.
So, though planned, but actually unexpected as I wanted to use as much as possible the S3, I ended up buying a Canon 400D last December. And well, it is a "wow" experience so far, but at the same time it feels a bit weird compared to my past P&S experience and it's not necessarily all roses.
So, if you are planning to move to a DSLR from a P&S, this what you might expect (regardless of brand, I would say):
Pros:
- excellent image quality at high ISO: this was for me the first thing that made me say "Wow"; see a quick comparison of two pics taken with the Canon S3 at ISO800 here and the same pic from the Canon 400D here - crops are here and here respectively; aperture is the same; exposure is a tad different (1/6s vs. 1/8s - but trust me - it doesn't make a difference); there is simply no match - the clear winner is the 400D: a DSLR's bigger and better quality image sensor, with bigger pixels, simply delivers better looking, noise free images; it's a pleasure to the eye; you can almost say that "if a pic looks bad when using a DSLR, you can only blame the photographer";
- interchangeable lenses: with a P&S camera you are stuck with one type of lens; with a DSLR nothing prevents you to spend additional €€€ to get newer and different lenses that can better and fully exploit the camera body to deliver sharp, no chormatic aberration and purple fringing free images; though interchangeable lenses are for me also a "Con" (see below);
- more professional and higher quality/powerful image processing delivering better color quality/fidelity, faster focusing, improved and more intelligent flash compensation, better exposure analysis: more processing power and better components are used to build a DSLR - the buyer expects this, the buyer wants this, image quality is a must and anything needed to achieve it will be used; the better image quality provided by the bigger sensor also enables better processing (the data coming from the sensor is better and noise free, the end result is simply better; most P&S cameras instead need to do "miracles" in processing, often needing to destroy detail and color precision to remove noise (chroma & luminance) coming from the sensor);
- higher quality automatic modes: i.e., because of overall better camera quality, the outcome of automatic modes is often really pleasing!
- RAW format support: you can do the image processing off-line on your program of choice; change/improve/correct white balance, increase/reduce color saturation, perform custom noise removal, etc. and at full quality; P&S cameras usually deliver only compressed JPGs images;
- faster and better focusing: DSLRs use more than just contrast based focusing - some actually measure the distance of the subject and employ other techniques to know where the subject is; especially at low light, focusing is much better than what on average one can get with a P&S
- more powerful built-in flash: when present, the built-in flash will deliver less washed out portraits (also for the reasons above) and a hot-shoe is always present, enabling you to buy an additional flash that can be used to lit up the room (by rotating the flash head and using wall reflections) to get a more distributed flash illumination and even more pleasing results;
- speed: DSLRs are "instantly on" (typically there are no lenses to setup or live previews to initiate) and usually have bigger memory buffers enabling faster continuous shooting sequences
- stuff: there are tons of small items here and there that when discovered you think "how could I ever live without this feature in my P&S?"; for me for example was the AI Focus Servo
Cons:
- weight: a DSLR weighs simply more than a P&S - it can kill your neck and shoulders when walking around with it; excluding the back pack or bag with the additional gear; it is simply very difficult to go "light" with a DSLR;
- portability: a P&S like the Canon S3 packs a 12x optical zoom with optical IS, with F2.7-3.5 and 0cm Macro in one light package; to have the same capability on a DSLR you need at least 4 different lenses; forget about "hiding" the camera someplace - with all the gear and the bags you have to bring, you will clearly stand out as the "tourist", wherever you go, no matter how you are dressed...
- cost: a DSLR costs proportionally more than a P&S; buying a camera body is only the first step - if the lens kit provided is not "that good", consider spending another xxx€ to get a good lens; this is not the case with a P&S;
- noise: when shooting a picture, the DSLR will make a distinctive sound - most people (sorry, photographers) will like it, but in some occasions, the quiet and discreet "click" of a Point & Shoot (they don't have a mirror to flip up) will be sorely missed;
- lenses: with a P&S you are "stuck" with one lens, but this also means that you are not to worry about "other" lenses; with a DSLR you are faced with the option of buying tens of different lens from more than one manufacturer - and this can be confusing and distracting from what really matters - good photography; I am still, after almost 4 months, completely lost - what should I buy? from whom? are 300€ for lens xyz with Fmm and blahblahblah feature OK? - it is simply still an alien world to me;
- no live view on LCD screen (at least on the cheapest models, but market situation improving): you need to look into the viewfinder to know what you are taking the picture of; on the S3 for example, the screen can even rotate, enabling the user to take pictures with precision even when keeping the camera at weird angles; with a DSLR if you are not looking directly in the viewfinder you are taking pictures essentially "blind folded"; you just hope that the subject was properly framed and that you focused on it... beyond that "good luck!";
- small LCD screens: it is not uncommon to have small P&S cameras with "huge" 3" LCD screens - a DSLR with a 2.5" screen is normal - a 3" LCD screen is still "exceptional", though the body could probably fit a 4"...;
- Image Stabilisation is not a standard feature: it is still considered a "bonus" feature and typically is on the lens, not on the sensor; IS is now common on many, also "cheap" P&S cameras and I honestly miss it on my 400D.
My conclusion: If you are planning to take excellent quality images and don't want to be disappointed by grainy or un-sharp or simply not "stunning" pictures or feel that you don't want to use the flash all the time, a DSLR will be your choice and "final" solution; if you need to take pictures in well lit situations with crowds or when you want to keep your camera in the pocket and travel "light", a P&S will be your best option.
Other considerations: Making a P&S with the image quality of a DSLR is one of the challenges of camera manufacturers today - and may well not be their focus as well. Keeping costs down means making smaller sensors with more and more pixels (as marketing requires - this is not necessarily a consumer need...), which yields less sensitive and noisier pixels, delivering eventually, no matter how much processing is done, lower quality pictures. Also lenses need to be "cheap" to keep costs down. A DSLR decouples the cost of the lenses from the body, and this enables the user to choose what is best for him/her and his/her photography needs.
I would advice you to read the excellent reviews of the Canon S3 (and its new version the Canon S5) and of the Canon 400D to make you own opinion on the topic on the DPReview website.
From the Ars Technica article "From BFS to ZFS: past present, and future of file systems":
And what about the problem of storage optimization? With a hard drive, a user was always copying and deleting files, and this left holes that new files were crammed into (since FAT just looked for the first space it could store stuff) which led to real problems with fragmentation. This made hard drives work harder than ever, jumping around willy-nilly trying to find all the bits of a file that were strewn about the drive. Did Microsoft fix this problem with FAT? Not at all. They let other companies make programs like Norton Utilities and PC-Tools that would defragment the whole disk in one go, giving users happy evenings to remember forever, sitting watching the screen move little rectangles around.
Which I did myself as well....many times...It was just like when, 3-4 years old or even older, I would stare at the rotating laundry with all the water and soap in the washing machine.... ;)
Based on this article it is likely that I am a snob, because I am a Mac user....oh well....
Am I a snob, really? are you Mac users out there consider yourself snobs? do your PC friends consider you snobs?...
MacBook Air = 13" iPod Touch
End of story. If you think this way - there is not too much to discuss about non-swappable battery, no optical drive, no Firewire, no 2nd USB port, "small" 80GB HDD, "expensive" 64GB SSD drive, etc.etc.etc. You can read about it all over the internet.
The MacBook Air is NOT a laptop. If you want a laptop (and use Mac OS X, that is) you get a MacBook or a MacBook Pro. Or you get a MacBook Air with the idea that is more an iPod Touch on steroids, or a slim-cool looking sub-notebook.
[Update]: If interested, AnandTech has recently posted an excellent review of the MacBook Air.
