This deviant's full pageview
graph is unavailable.
Banned Deviant
I am a Web Developer
Metsuo
17/Male/United States
Why I Am Here
No reason given yet
Last Visit: 152 weeks ago
I'm Right... I'm Always Right.
Art Zone
Personal Zone
Misc. Zone
This is the place where you can personalize your profile!
But, how?
By moving, adding and personalizing widgets.
You can drag and drop to rearrange.
You can edit widgets to customize them.
The left side has widgets you can add!
Some widgets you can only access when you get a premium membership.
Some widgets have options that are only available when you get a premium membership.
We've split the page into zones!
Certain widgets can only be added to certain zones.
"Why," you ask? Because we want profile pages to have freedom of customization, but also to have some consistency. This way, when anyone visits a deviant, they know they can always find the art in the top left, and personal info in the top right.
Don't forget, restraints can bring out the creativity in you!
Now go forth and astound us all with your devious profiles!
He only compares the price to iriver. My Zen Nano cost $50 and it's has a lot more features(As in Graphical user interface, Mic, and I can choose what song I'm listening to) than a shuffle, which cost $99, and holds the same amount.
That really is only half-true. Yes, songs purchased from the iTunes Music Store are only available as protected AAC files and cannot be converted. So, to play them on your computer, you need iTunes. And, to play them on a portable media player, you need an iPod.
Again you need something with an Apple logo to play their wack formats. I support the whole buy music thing but I want to choose what I put my music on. I mean after all I did pay for the song!
But, songs which aren’t purchased from the iTunes Music Store (songs imported from a CD or freely downloaded file) can be converted to MP3, WAV, or AIFF files at any time, just by changing the encoder setting under the Import options.
Why use iTune when I can use foobar to convert to any filetype I want(even Ogg/Vorbis Which iPods fail to play... The expensive Iriver plays them that might be why it cost more) and foobar takes like 300% less CPU to do it too!
And, yes, iPods can play all of the above formats.
Again no Ogg/Voribis
From my experience, AAC does offer higher quality and smaller file size at comparable bit-rates to MP3 files.
That's biased libel! They are about the same. BTW OGG is better than both.
Yes, the “Dock Connector” is unique to the iPod, but there are plenty of low-cost generic cables on the market. Also, the Apple dumped the Firewire cable at least six months ago. Since then, the iPods have been shipping with USB 2 cables.
How is that a pro? USB 2 should have been default in the first place.
No, they don’t come with microphones, but you can buy a voice-recorder accessory for your iPod. There are currently three on the market. My favorite is the iTalk by Griffin Technology. I use it quite frequently.
That's just $20 more! Lets see my Zen Nano is still $50 and that iPod Shuffle is at about $119.99?
I'm sorry man but if you are going to send me a like to a biased website at least have get the facts straight.
--
When developing applications you have to make sure it works by debugging. QuickTime is a great example of how important debugging is.
I thought it better to answer your browser questions here, so people can actually see my answers.
*Ahem*
First of all, that page is comparing browsers on the Macintosh platform only. Therefore, of course it doesn't compare IE 6 because no such thing exists on the Mac. Microshit stopped making IE for Mac with version 5, which by the way, was still better than IE on Windows. Different team of developers . But we both agree that IE sucks ass anyway.
Second, that page was made when Tiger and Safari 2.0 were first released, and hasn't been updated since aside from advertising the latest packaged version of the OS, and therefore there was no 1.5 version of of Firefox at the time that page was created. Mac OS X Tiger along with Safari 2.0 was released to the public on April 29th, 2005, while Firefox 1.5 was released on November 29th, 2005. And there you have it.
Why would microsoft make a better browser than their own for their competition?
You didn't answer everything my friend. One thing I learned about essay writing is to answer all the questions that is being asked.
You explained IE and firefox so what about Netscape? 7.2 was released in 2004. Why didn't they compaire it to Opera? Is it because Opera may out perform Safari and may make their statisitc look bad?
--
When developing applications you have to make sure it works by debugging. QuickTime is a great example of how important debugging is.
Well, they had a better platform to work on for one thing And like I said, different team of programmers.
I couldn't remember everything you said, sorry. Here's my explanation for the others:
Why not the latest version of Netscape? Because starting with version 8.0, it it had been bought by AOL and is now based on Firefox, and on top of that, is not available for the Macintosh platform. Even if it were, why compare Safari to a browser that is based on something they already compared it to? That would be pretty pointless, wouldn't it?
Why not Opera? Let's look at the timeline again. As of 8.0, which was the latest version of Opera at the time, you still had to pay for it. The rest are free, and therefore more popular, so nobody cares. I'm not trying to diss Opera, but that's the truth. Nobody really cares. In fact, I'm willing to bet that a lot of people would say something like, "Opera? Never heard of that". Opera 8.5, the first free version of the browser, came out in September of 2005. Even today, though, nobody really cares. It's just a fact. Here's a fun little write up about Opera 8.0 to show you just what Mac users did think about it at the time. Yes, I realize it is about the beta version... blah. Frankly, I really don't feel like doing any research about how the beta version compares to the final release. I'm sure the changes were minimal. So there.
I guess Free BSD is a better platform >_>; and I really doubt that IE is better on Mac than Windows.
About them compairing it to something they have already compaired it to is stupid. That's why I didn't ask about Konqueror because we all know that Safari stole everything from it
That write up about Opera was based purley on looks and features which rest my case on how Mac users are GUI dependent. I saw nothing on performance. No one cares about opera but web developers because Opera has the best parsing out of any browser hands down. Though I don't use Opera as my default browser I must say that Opera is the best browser that I have used... I can list the ones I have used for you...
Opera (of course if I'm defending it) Passes Acid 2
IE (It's standard for people that use real computers) Fails Acid 2
Firefox (who doesn't) Fails Acid 2
Mozilla Suite (I used it for a long time because of the email) Fails Acid 2
K-Melon (I used it just to see how it worked... didn't like it too much) Fails Acid 2
Safari (Back when I kept an open mind about Mac) Passes Acid 2
Epiphany (Gnome browser that I used when I used Gentoo and Ubuntu) Fails Acid 2
Konqueror (KDE browser that I used a lot of most KDE distros and ubuntu) Passes Acid 2
MyIE2 or Maxthon (I dabbled... Kind of like what IE 6 could have been if it had tabs) Fails Acid 2
--
When developing applications you have to make sure it works by debugging. QuickTime is a great example of how important debugging is.
"The Apple team has ironed out many rendering glitches, moving it to a competitive position in the chaotic web. Importantly, because of its “copyleft” license, KHTML remains in public domain, and improvements made by Apple are fed back into the Konqueror project, fast-tracking the maturity of Konqueror's back end."
That really is only half-true. Yes, songs purchased from the iTunes Music Store are only available as protected AAC files and cannot be converted. So, to play them on your computer, you need iTunes. And, to play them on a portable media player, you need an iPod.
Again you need something with an Apple logo to play their wack formats. I support the whole buy music thing but I want to choose what I put my music on. I mean after all I did pay for the song!
But, songs which aren’t purchased from the iTunes Music Store (songs imported from a CD or freely downloaded file) can be converted to MP3, WAV, or AIFF files at any time, just by changing the encoder setting under the Import options.
Why use iTune when I can use foobar to convert to any filetype I want(even Ogg/Vorbis Which iPods fail to play... The expensive Iriver plays them that might be why it cost more) and foobar takes like 300% less CPU to do it too!
And, yes, iPods can play all of the above formats.
Again no Ogg/Voribis
From my experience, AAC does offer higher quality and smaller file size at comparable bit-rates to MP3 files.
That's biased libel! They are about the same. BTW OGG is better than both.
Yes, the “Dock Connector” is unique to the iPod, but there are plenty of low-cost generic cables on the market. Also, the Apple dumped the Firewire cable at least six months ago. Since then, the iPods have been shipping with USB 2 cables.
How is that a pro? USB 2 should have been default in the first place.
No, they don’t come with microphones, but you can buy a voice-recorder accessory for your iPod. There are currently three on the market. My favorite is the iTalk by Griffin Technology. I use it quite frequently.
That's just $20 more! Lets see my Zen Nano is still $50 and that iPod Shuffle is at about $119.99?
I'm sorry man but if you are going to send me a like to a biased website at least have get the facts straight.
--
When developing applications you have to make sure it works by debugging. QuickTime is a great example of how important debugging is.
*Ahem*
First of all, that page is comparing browsers on the Macintosh platform only. Therefore, of course it doesn't compare IE 6 because no such thing exists on the Mac. Microshit stopped making IE for Mac with version 5, which by the way, was still better than IE on Windows. Different team of developers
Second, that page was made when Tiger and Safari 2.0 were first released, and hasn't been updated since aside from advertising the latest packaged version of the OS, and therefore there was no 1.5 version of of Firefox at the time that page was created. Mac OS X Tiger along with Safari 2.0 was released to the public on April 29th, 2005, while Firefox 1.5 was released on November 29th, 2005. And there you have it.
You didn't answer everything my friend. One thing I learned about essay writing is to answer all the questions that is being asked.
You explained IE and firefox so what about Netscape? 7.2 was released in 2004. Why didn't they compaire it to Opera? Is it because Opera may out perform Safari and may make their statisitc look bad?
--
When developing applications you have to make sure it works by debugging. QuickTime is a great example of how important debugging is.
I couldn't remember everything you said, sorry. Here's my explanation for the others:
Why not the latest version of Netscape? Because starting with version 8.0, it it had been bought by AOL and is now based on Firefox, and on top of that, is not available for the Macintosh platform. Even if it were, why compare Safari to a browser that is based on something they already compared it to? That would be pretty pointless, wouldn't it?
Why not Opera? Let's look at the timeline again. As of 8.0, which was the latest version of Opera at the time, you still had to pay for it. The rest are free, and therefore more popular, so nobody cares. I'm not trying to diss Opera, but that's the truth. Nobody really cares. In fact, I'm willing to bet that a lot of people would say something like, "Opera? Never heard of that". Opera 8.5, the first free version of the browser, came out in September of 2005. Even today, though, nobody really cares. It's just a fact. Here's a fun little write up about Opera 8.0 to show you just what Mac users did think about it at the time. Yes, I realize it is about the beta version... blah. Frankly, I really don't feel like doing any research about how the beta version compares to the final release. I'm sure the changes were minimal. So there.
And there you have it, once again.
About them compairing it to something they have already compaired it to is stupid. That's why I didn't ask about Konqueror because we all know that Safari stole everything from it
That write up about Opera was based purley on looks and features which rest my case on how Mac users are GUI dependent. I saw nothing on performance. No one cares about opera but web developers because Opera has the best parsing out of any browser hands down. Though I don't use Opera as my default browser I must say that Opera is the best browser that I have used... I can list the ones I have used for you...
Opera (of course if I'm defending it) Passes Acid 2
IE (It's standard for people that use real computers) Fails Acid 2
Firefox (who doesn't) Fails Acid 2
Mozilla Suite (I used it for a long time because of the email) Fails Acid 2
K-Melon (I used it just to see how it worked... didn't like it too much) Fails Acid 2
Safari (Back when I kept an open mind about Mac) Passes Acid 2
Epiphany (Gnome browser that I used when I used Gentoo and Ubuntu) Fails Acid 2
Konqueror (KDE browser that I used a lot of most KDE distros and ubuntu) Passes Acid 2
MyIE2 or Maxthon (I dabbled... Kind of like what IE 6 could have been if it had tabs) Fails Acid 2
--
When developing applications you have to make sure it works by debugging. QuickTime is a great example of how important debugging is.
"The Apple team has ironed out many rendering glitches, moving it to a competitive position in the chaotic web. Importantly, because of its “copyleft” license, KHTML remains in public domain, and improvements made by Apple are fed back into the Konqueror project, fast-tracking the maturity of Konqueror's back end."
Right. *ahem*
I don't like Opera, personally. Makes me feel like I'm using Windows
Previous Page12345...Next Page