The Best of Macworld SF 2006

ptorrone writes "We podcasted live, we posted over 100 photos real time via a WiFi camera + EVDO as we walked around and now we've picked the top 5 products we liked the most at Macworld San Fran 2006. It's safe to say our picks aren't likely to be the same ones you'll see in the usual "best of" lists. We gave top marks to products, services and software that we think fit the "Maker" mindset - technology on your time and a bit of news from the future... Here they are..."

Re:Google doesn't "get it"

[pomo monster]

Yeah, I agree, that's probably an accurate perspective on the difference between the two. The only reason I can see why it matters is that it gives me an excuse to respect Google a little more than Microsoft. :-)

what

[schroet]

Podcasted? lol.

Re:Rumor Sites Are Bogus

[geniusj]

Kevin Rose (of TechTV fame) got everything right [macrumors.com] . . .

Re:Google doesn't "get it"

[daviddennis]

This is certainly a good summary of why I prefer the Mac to Linux. The Mac is like Linux would be if huge amounts of care were poured into its design.

D

Re:Google doesn't "get it"

[Blakey Rat]

Firefox "gets" the home market, but totally misses the corporate market. For instance, it can't be deployed with roaming profiles, because it roams the cache instead of putting it in Local Settings where it belongs.

My favorite thing at Macworld so far...

[aarku]

Is a little company hidden away in the ATI rooms demoing a wicked game engine called Unity [unity3d.com]. I can't begin to say how great this thing looks. They'll be demoing on Thursday and Friday, too.

Re:Rumor Sites Are Bogus

[Jeff DeMaagd]

It doesn't make sense to introduce Final Cut 6 at a consumer show, though MacBook Pro doesn't make sense in that light. I don't really think MacBook Pro is a pro media unit though except for use by early adopters and developers, because running pro apps under emulation is stupid, those apps need to be updated first.

Anyway, usually the pro stuff is announced at pro events, such as Final Cut 5 being announced at NAB 2005, Aperture and dual core Powermacs were announced at a major pro photography convention in NYC. I don't know where or when they'd announce a Mac with DVR features, I hope Apple does release DVR Mac hardware, but I wonder if they would shirk from the idea to appease their iTunes video partners.

Re:Google doesn't "get it"

[Anonymous Coward]

Hello, this is general Mac users speaking (we decided we should probably speak for ourselves). Actually we don't hate the "metal" look.

Re:Party like its 1985

[timeOday]

I still think goggles will make it, simply because nothing else can do what they do. A huge 3d display in a pocketable form factor? Sorry, but there's nothing on the horizon besides goggles to do that.

If nothing else, they should revolutionize video games. Experiencing the virtual world through a small motionless rectangle is so limiting... we only accept it because we don't know better.

Re:Google doesn't "get it"

[eikonos]

I'm a Mac user too, and I dislike brushed metal so much (if I wanted big and clunky widgets I'd switch back to Windows) that I installed Iridium. http://www.sagefire.org/C1827030151/E2005081220104 6/index.html [sagefire.org]

Re:Google doesn't "get it"

[tpgp]

Sure you can access the source, to the extent you would want to for embedded environments, anyway.

What? You think you don't need a gui in an embedded environment?

Re:Google doesn't "get it"

[tpgp]

Now, the part of OS X that you wanted open sourced wasn't Cocoa, it was Aqua

1) I specifically said that I was not asking Apple to open anything.

2) I stated that OSX was a great system, but was not 'linux with lots of polish' because it lacked one of the things that made linux great - access to the source.

3) Embedded was an an example of what you can do with access to the source.

Anyway, the original post, to which you replied rudely, by the way,

I think you need to read the entire thread - the post you refer to was not the original post, but a reply to a posting of mine. I called the poster Captain Obvious (I presume this is the bit you meant was rude) because his reply was both obvious and not particularly relevant to the thread.

simply stated a belief that Apple's GUI (not just their widget toolkit) was too high-overhead for an embedded device.

You (like C.O.) missed the point, if you had access to the GUI source along with Darwin you could use the parts you liked. Expose, Quartz, Cocoa, whatever. Surely its not all so heavyweight that some of it wouldn't be useful?

your statement that the source to OS X is not available is not entirely correct,

No, it is entirely correct. The source to Mac OS X is not available. Darwin + GTK + X is not OS X.

The rest of your post I generally agree with (allthough I'm not really sure why you wrote it) - Yup, cocoa is pretty cool & it would be nice if it was cross platform.

Again, I'll reiterate that I am not asking Apple to open-source OS X - simply stating that OSX is not simply 'linux with lots of polish' because it lacked one of the things that made linux great - access to the source.