BlogHotel.orgAccueil | Créer un blog | Imprimer la page Imprimer | Blog hasard Au hasard | Chercher des blogs Rechercher | Entrer dans le chat du blog Chat | | Jeux Jeux | Adminitration et édition du Blog Manager

http://www.kaufen-akku.com

Accueil - Profil - Archives - Amis

Acer Aspire 4552 Battery www.all-laptopbattery.com

Posté le 19/2/2018 à 06:25 - poster un commentaire

They started writing Pink, an object-oriented OS with the Mac’s familiar UI on top and solid computing foundations beneath. Pink was soon sidetracked by Apple’s 1989 deal with IBM, one result of which was an independent OS called Taligent. This was Pink by another name but, separated from Apple, it went nowhere.In 1993, Apple, under new management, had another go: a project was established to build a ground-up OS with the established Mac UI as a friendly front-end. It would, they hoped, drive Apple way ahead of the competition, then the upcoming Windows 95. They called it Raptor. One smart move was to base it on a microkernel, allowing the engineers to focus on the essential plumbing, wiring and steel framework, and then build the fancy glass exterior around it.Management procrastination killed Raptor by riling the team leaders so much that they quit. But the same bosses soon decided that they really did need a microkernel-based OS after all, and told a second team of engineers to go and build it. Work began on Copland early in 1994. Three months later it was announced to the public and, in May 1995, it was scheduled to be released the following year as Mac OS 8.

The fact Mac folks are all using the NeXT-derived Mac OS X tells you exactly how good the Copland team were at meeting that deadline.Within nine months of starting work, the Copland team had bloated out of all recognition. The idea behind Raptor had been to build the kernel and then steadily add features. Apple could ship and then evolve the product. Copland started out the same way, but quickly became mired in an attempt to do everything all at once. It started out with four people and less than a year later had hundreds working on it, 50 on the kernel alone.There were demos, but apart from new Mac UI support for customisable themes and a multi-threaded Finde, Copland seemed largely indistinguishable from System 7. When the Copland team failed to deliver public beta software in May 1996 as promised, CEO Gil Amelio realised the company needed an alternative.

Whether he should have bought Be’s BeOS or NeXT’s OpenStep is a question that will continue to be debated among Mac fans, but few of them would say he should have stuck with Copland. Whatever the OS’ technical merits, if any, the next Mac OS needed a new face, not the old one. It needed something to make explicit Apple’s claim that this was new, modern technology. Amelio got that, but he wouldn’t have if he’d kept Copland. Arguably, there’d be no Apple now, either. TSApple had the right idea with eWorld: set up its own, consumer-oriented online community to rival pioneers such as AOL and CompuServe back in the early, pre-Internet 1990s. It was a brighter, more friendly and more cartoon-like alternative to AppleLink, Apple’s existing online service for folk in the trade. And if you wanted to chat online with fellow Mac users it was actually a pretty good place to be.eWorld However, high subscription fees and the Mac-only entrance policy meant that subscriber numbers never really took off, and eWorld closed its doors just two years later.

It did, however, set up a pattern. Apple has struggled with its online offerings ever since. Mac OS 9’s iTools - “a revolutionary new category of internet services”, said Apple in 2000 - started out free and then, when times got tough, had a subscription fee grafted on. The service mutated into .Mac and, later, Mobile Me, but these brands too eventually fell by the wayside.Even Apple’s latest attempt, iCloud, faltered at first, although last year’s release of iOS 7 finally saw it maturing into something that’s actually quite useful, though still not as resilient as it ought to be given Apple has had at least 20 years of experience with consumer online services. CJApple has never really, truly embraced gaming, but there was a brief period when (equally brief) Apple CEO Gil Amelio flirted with the gaming world in an attempt to extend Apple’s reach beyond the Mac and into the living room. The Mac got a vaguely DirectX-style API out of it, called Game Sprockets, but better known is the hardware developed in partnership with the Japanese company Bandai, the Pippin games console.

This actually had a lot going for it and included a modem and internet connectivity as early as 1995. One of your reporters remembers playing Bungie’s first-person shooter, Marathon, on the console.But, like so many of Apple’s belly flops, the Pippin was wildly overpriced. It cost $600 and was simply ignored by gamers who flocked to the less expensive PlayStation. It didn’t help that the Mac - Pippin’s source; the console was essentially a 66MHz PowerPC 603-based Macintosh - was not known for a extensive catalogue of A-list games.When Amelio was shafted replaced by Steve Jobs in 1997, Apple went back to ignoring gaming again – until, purely by chance, it turned out that the iPhone was quite good for playing games. Apple’s PowerBook laptops were a big success in the early 1990s, and the PowerBook 5300 had the potential to take that success to an even higher level. Released in 1995, the 5300 was the Ultrabook of its day, kind of. Well, it didn’t have an optical drive, but it did include a 1.4MB 3.5-inch floppy drive, which you could remove when the machine was powered down, handily replacing it with a Zip drive. It was also the first Apple laptop to use the new PowerPC processor developed by Motorola.

But things went wrong right from the start. Hinge problems caused cracks in the laptop’s cover, and worn video cables affected the display. And when battery problems caused some models to overheat and catch fire, the 5300 was dubbed the "HindenBook" and quickly consigned to history. Released to mark the arrival of the third decade of Apple itself, rather than the Mac, the 20th Anniversary Mac (TAM) was one of Apple’s more glorious failures. Like the G4 Cube, the TAM was ahead of its time, boasting a slimline, all-in-one design with an integrated flat-panel LCD (12.1-inch, 800 x 600) screen at a time when bulky CRT displays were still the norm. The more affordable iMac didn’t get the flat-panel treatment until 2002.Bizarrely codenamed "Spartacus", the TAM had a front-loading CD drive, built-in stereo speakers and came bundled with a Bose-engineered sub-woofer, not to mention a separate keyboard with integrated trackpad.The TAM had Apple fans drooling – I saw it; I was at the launch – but the $7,500 price tag meant that it failed to sell even its limited-edition production run of 12,000 units. Apple had to cut the price drastically to sell off the final stocks in 1998, but the TAM remains a popular collector’s item with many Mac fans. CJ

Antennagate was a prime example of a PR disaster exacerbated by the sheer arrogance of Apple’s management. Soon after the launch of the iPhone 4 in June 2010, it emerged that reception to the handsets’ antennas, which had been wrapped around the top, bottom and sides of the phone, could sometimes be blocked by those fleshy protuberances known as "fingers".But rather than admitting that the mighty Apple might have got it wrong, Steve Jobs simply blamed iPhone owners. “You’re holding it wrong,” was the headline that ricocheted around the internet, prompting gale-force laughter from all corners of the globe.In the end Apple solved the problem by giving away a few million dollars worth of iPhone cases – a paltry cost to Apple, but an expensive lesson in humility. Especially since, if it had bundled its “Bumper”, it could probably have avoided the controversy in the first place.Speaking of the Bumper, isn’t it interesting that Apple’s first ever iPhone cover, available at the phone’s launch, was designed very specifically to cover the troublesome external antenna? Apple didn’t rush these things out because it knew the iPhone 4 was problematic, did it? Of course not.

As Apple products go, you would have thought the release Final Cut Pro X in June 2011 would be a cause for celebration. The original Final Cut Pro non-linear video editing software had started life back in 1998 as a Macromedia product, and relied on Apple’s QuickTime. However, Macromedia’s own licensing tie-in with Microsoft prevented its release.So Apple bought it and ran with it for the next 12 years, enhancing and expanding its capabilities to the point where it became the editing tool of choice for a wide range of video professionals. Yet given its early beginnings and its capacity to handle legacy projects created on the platform, the product was rooted in the past.Announced at NAB in April 2011, the professionals looked forward to 64-bit processing on Final Cut Pro X that would enable more efficient use of the hardware it would run on. Workflow would be faster, smoother and, what the faithful hadn’t bargained on at all, completely different.

Apple, in its infinite wisdom, culled just about all the professional features you could think of in its first release of Final Cut Pro X. It caused outrage and to say it soured Apple’s relationship with the user base is an understatement. This was no niche product, with an SCRI report from 2007 stating that in the US 49 per cent of video editors relied on FCP. Add to this the 2008 study from the American Cinema Editors Guild notching up 21 per cent of users.It’s difficult to know whether it was laziness or just a brutal decision to focus on a different kind of workflow, but Apple’s thinking appeared to be to target the single camera videographer who would be using the HD video capture features found on the latest wave of DSLRs. With that kind of creative in mind, who needs multicam editing that the pros had come to rely upon? As for features such as XML and Open Media Framework (OMF) or legacy elements such as an Edit Decision List (EDL), they were gone.

The user interface had changed radically too and Final Cut Pro files from previous versions could not be imported. To add insult to injury the only video projects you could import were from iMovie. Needless to say, the creatives who’d built their careers on knowing FCP inside out had plenty to say about the new version with many airing their views on video.Editor and knowledgeable video blogger Jeffery Harrell put his thoughts on FCP X into action with “a little thing” he made to test Adobe Premiere that went viral among the video editing community, only to be pulled for copyright reasons, so we’re told. Sadly, Harrell’s entertaining and informative blog went silent soon after that. For now at least, you can still view his video I don’t have a title for this (NSFW if sweary singing is not your boss's thing), albeit not uploaded by him personally. Better be quick if you want to see it.Others ran with the well-worn Hitler bunker scene from Downfall to good comic effect and the issue even went prime-time with US TV presenter Conan O’Brien’s show featuring a spoof put together by the programme’s own editors.


« Précédent :: Suivant »

Blog suivant >> Signaler un abus?Haut de page