After much looking I'm pretty much decided on a BOSS MICRO BR
Here with Demo Video http://www.roland.co.uk/microbr.asp

And very full review here.
http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/feb07/articles/bossmicrobr.htm

(\__/)
(='.'=)
(")_(")  mouse (y not just get an Acoustic ?)

"Trimble Bracegirdle"  wrote in message
news:483a1e4d$1_2@mk-nntp-2.news.uk.tiscali.com...
> After much looking I'm pretty much decided on a BOSS MICRO BR
> Here with Demo Video http://www.roland.co.uk/microbr.asp
>
> And very full review here.
> http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/feb07/articles/bossmicrobr.htm
>
> (\__/)
> (='.'=)
> (")_(")  mouse (y not just get an Acoustic ?)
>
>

Line6 Spider Jam.

That is all.

Ivar

"Ivar Arnesen"  wrote in message 
news:g1ep8u$sa9$1@news.get.no...
>
> Line6 Spider Jam.

On toast. Yum.

>Ivar Arnesen"  wrote in message 
>news:g1ep8u$sa9$1@news.get.no...
>
> Line6 Spider Jam.

Very interesting - I hope they issue it as a stand-alone without the amp. I 
already have guitar amps.

Steve.

On 26 May, 03:19, "Trimble Bracegirdle"  wrote:
> After much looking I'm pretty much decided on a BOSS MICRO BR
> Here with Demo Videohttp://www.roland.co.uk/microbr.asp
>
> And very full review here.http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/feb07/articles/bossmicrobr.htm
>
> (\__/)
> (='.'=)
> (")_(")  mouse (y not just get an Acoustic ?)

Hi,

I have one of these. I bought it to allow me to produce my own backing
tracks to practice over. I've never been happy playing music around a
PC so the Micro BR looked just right.

Very happy with the sound quality. You can copy guitar effects patches
and then edit those copies so your not stuck with the preprogrammed
sounds. The selection of guitar effects are fine for me but some may
prefer a greater selection. I really like the range of amp sims. The
selection of drum patterns is good however, these can not be editted.
It is possible to string together various drum patterns, fills etc to
make a song arrangement.

Once you have recorded a few tracks the editing tools are very good.
You can copy various sections to different tracks very effectively.
There are also some useful mix down presets to add final eq and
compression if required.

The one warning I would like to give is, don't buy this device if you
don't like reading the manual. Once you get the hang of things the
mist will clear but IMO you definately need to read that manual a few
times. Luckly the manual is well written.

Good luck with your new purchase. I'm sure you'll enjoy the BR if you
go for one.

Cliff

Thanks Cliff.
My main worry re: the Effects is more about quality than quantity.

I was just about to get one thru Ebay ..When I've noticed the BOSS BR 600
Around at (maybe £170 ref. the Micro BR around £130)
I think its just basically same with 8 rather than 4 tracks ...but I do like 
its separate channel sliders & the whole box looks easier to control ...I 
will have to check out the effects side.

http://www.bosscorp.co.jp/products/en/_support/faq.cfm?ln=en&prd=BR-600&dsp=0&iCncd=1064&iStcd=4

(\__/)
(='.'=)
(")_(")  mouse

Trimble Bracegirdle  wrote:

> Thanks Cliff.
> My main worry re: the Effects is more about quality than quantity.
> 
> I was just about to get one thru Ebay ..When I've noticed the BOSS BR 600
> Around at (maybe £170 ref. the Micro BR around £130)
> I think its just basically same with 8 rather than 4 tracks ...but I do like
> its separate channel sliders & the whole box looks easier to control ...I
> will have to check out the effects side.

The boss BR 600 is probably better for pretty well everything other than
size. The micro BR is designed for just carrying around with you, and
that is what you pay for. If you aren't carrying it around the BR 600 is
probably better. I have a Micro BR, and it is great, although the
effects aren't great and the controlls are cramped.

However, if i wanted to do something serious I would use the computer,
it is better in almost every way.

-- 
Woody

www.alienrat.com

On 27 May, 20:53, "Trimble Bracegirdle"  wrote:
> Thanks Cliff.
> My main worry re: the Effects is more about quality than quantity.
>
> I was just about to get one thru Ebay ..When I've noticed the BOSS BR 600
> Around at (maybe £170 ref. the Micro BR around £130)
> I think its just basically same with 8 rather than 4 tracks ...but I do like
> its separate channel sliders & the whole box looks easier to control ...I
> will have to check out the effects side.
>
> http://www.bosscorp.co.jp/products/en/_support/faq.cfm?ln=en&prd=BR-6.> (\__/)
> (='.'=)
> (")_(")  mouse


I like the look of the BR600. Probably OTT for my needs but looks more
practical for serious recording. IMO the extra knobs and buttons will
probably save a bit of time scrolling through menus. Also, the Micro
BR's display can be hard to read in direct sunlight, the mirror finish
was not a good idea.

I suspect the effects are similar on both machines which should be
fine. I was more than happy with the sound quality.

Cliff

"Woody"  wrote in message 
news:1ihmccu.11gb6241od491bN%usenet@alienrat.co.uk...

> However, if i wanted to do something serious I would use the computer,
> it is better in almost every way.

The MicroBR is much better for getting down ideas quickly. By the time a 
computer is powered up and everything plugged in you can have forgotten 
whatever it is. The Pearlcorder is still quickest though.

icarusi
--

remove 00 to reply

icarusi  wrote:

> "Woody"  wrote in message 
> news:1ihmccu.11gb6241od491bN%usenet@alienrat.co.uk...
> 
> > However, if i wanted to do something serious I would use the computer,
> > it is better in almost every way.
> 
> The MicroBR is much better for getting down ideas quickly. By the time a
> computer is powered up and everything plugged in you can have forgotten
> whatever it is.

In my case that is opening the lid and connecting the lead that is in
the drawer by my guitar. Actually slightly faster than the MicroBR
(which is in the same drawer)!


-- 
Woody
Alienrat Design Ltd

"Woody"  wrote in message 
news:1ihnzn5.dzzijf1yz4rlsN%usenet@alienrat.co.uk...

>> The MicroBR is much better for getting down ideas quickly. By the time a
>> computer is powered up and everything plugged in you can have forgotten
>> whatever it is.
>
> In my case that is opening the lid and connecting the lead that is in
> the drawer by my guitar. Actually slightly faster than the MicroBR
> (which is in the same drawer)!

I was assuming 'normal' people who close down and power down their computers 
when not in use. If you have an audio program always running in a laptop in 
standby/supend then you should already have that lead and guitar plugged in! 
I wonder how quick the Olympus LS10 is to fire up?

icarusi
--

remove 00 to reply

icarusi wrote:
> "Woody"  wrote in message 
> news:1ihnzn5.dzzijf1yz4rlsN%usenet@alienrat.co.uk...
> 
>>> The MicroBR is much better for getting down ideas quickly. By the time a
>>> computer is powered up and everything plugged in you can have forgotten
>>> whatever it is.
>> In my case that is opening the lid and connecting the lead that is in
>> the drawer by my guitar. Actually slightly faster than the MicroBR
>> (which is in the same drawer)!
> 
> I was assuming 'normal' people who close down and power down their computers 
> when not in use.

TBH, I know very few mac owners who shutdown their macs unless they are 
going away or out for a while. I do it with the PCs, as they take a lot 
of power sleeping and dont recover well, but the macs dont and do.
So pretty normal here!


> If you have an audio program always running in a laptop in 
> standby/supend then you should already have that lead and guitar plugged in! 
> I wonder how quick the Olympus LS10 is to fire up?

I don't have an audio program always running, but if I open the laptop 
lid and type 'gb' to fire up garage band or something, but the time i 
have picked up the guitar and put the lead in it is running.

Just timed it. From sleeping to an audio program running, just under 20 
seconds. That was garage band, whereas I would usually use logic. 
Probably another 10 seconds for that!

-- 
Woody

"Woody"  wrote in message 
news:6a729sF369janU1@mid.individual.net...

> Just timed it. From sleeping to an audio program running, just under 20 
> seconds. That was garage band, whereas I would usually use logic. Probably 
> another 10 seconds for that!

Is that with garbage band already running? Not bad, but the microcassette 
Pearlcorder is virtually 0 seconds, usually me just checking I don't tape 
over my previous recording. My DV camcorder is recording after 5 seconds. 
MicroBR is 15 seconds.

BTW have you ever tried opening a midi file in garbage band?

icarusi
--

remove 00 to reply

icarusi wrote:
> "Woody"  wrote in message 
> news:6a729sF369janU1@mid.individual.net...
> 
>> Just timed it. From sleeping to an audio program running, just under 20 
>> seconds. That was garage band, whereas I would usually use logic. Probably 
>> another 10 seconds for that!
> 
> Is that with garbage band already running? Not bad, but the microcassette 
> Pearlcorder is virtually 0 seconds,

No, I don't leave it running, that was starting it. As I said I 
generally would use logic, but it takes another 10 seconds.

 > usually me just checking I don't tape
> over my previous recording. My DV camcorder is recording after 5 seconds. 
> MicroBR is 15 seconds.

As I said, the laptop is on the sofa, so more accessible. If I want to 
use the microbr I have to get it from its drawer, and that takes a bit 
longer. So for me the laptop is a lot quicker. I am not saying that for 
everyone it will be.
I have nothing that takes 0 seconds, as i can't move that fast, and 
certainly couldn't connect a lead and get a guitar in that time!


> BTW have you ever tried opening a midi file in garbage band?

Yes, before I got logic I used to use it a lot for that. You cant open 
it directly but you can just drag it into the timeline and it works fine.

-- 
Woody

"Woody"  wrote in message 
news:6a86eaF35s06gU1@mid.individual.net...

> Yes, before I got logic I used to use it a lot for that. You cant open it 
> directly but you can just drag it into the timeline and it works fine.

That's the *only* way you can do it. No import or 'open' options. I was 
roped in to assist a new Mac user (how hard can it be?) so now getting up to 
speed with OSX foibles to match Windo$e. Can you resize any OSX (or any 
MacOS) window with other than the bottom RH corner? I do like the squidging 
the side mouse buttons to 'sort of' temporarily tile open windows and the 
bouncing icons of items requiring attention, otherwise I'm scratching around 
for much to prefer.

icarusi
--

remove 00 to reply

"icarusi"  wrote in message 
news:HvKdnTHt_tNh3qLVnZ2dnUVZ8sHinZ2d@posted.plusnet...
> "Woody"  wrote in message 
> news:6a86eaF35s06gU1@mid.individual.net...
>
>> Yes, before I got logic I used to use it a lot for that. You cant open it 
>> directly but you can just drag it into the timeline and it works fine.
>
> That's the *only* way you can do it. No import or 'open' options.

No, it is an audio program that was never meant to have any midi functions.
A lot of people critizise garage band as it is slow and has some odd 
restrictions, but for a 'free' (or free with other things) application I 
think it is great. I wish something like that was available when I started, 
I would have used it to death but back then computers didn't come with free 
multitrack audio recorders and software instrument players. In fact in 
general they didnt do much more than beep!
It isn't the best of anything. I don't tend to use it much as I have logic 
8, which is very good, but it does mean when you get your mac, anyone can 
fire up garage band, plug their guitar in and do a multitrack recording.


> I was roped in to assist a new Mac user (how hard can it be?) so now 
> getting up to speed with OSX foibles to match Windo$e. Can you resize any 
> OSX (or any MacOS) window with other than the bottom RH corner?

Not a normal one, no. Other than the resize button obviously.

> I do like the squidging the side mouse buttons to 'sort of' temporarily 
> tile open windows

I am stuck with that mouse unfortunately. Normally I just throw the apple 
mouse away and use a logitech one (the last computers mouse is still in the 
plastic), but that stupid ball thing on the new one is really good, and 
nothing else seems to have it. Otherwise I hate the mouse!

Expose like you say is good, although I prefer to get to it from the 
keyboard.

> and the bouncing icons of items requiring attention,

Rather than jumping in front of what you are doing in windows? God I hate 
that.

> otherwise I'm scratching around for much to prefer.

I wouldn't scratch around, it is a personal preference thing. I have to use 
windows for a living, I am a windows programmer, but I certainly wouldnt 
choose to use it at home. My macbook pro has gone away for a repair and I am 
stuck using windows until it gets back. I am counting the minutes!

-- 
Woody

"Woody"  wrote in message 
news:6a9r2lF35rb52U1@mid.individual.net...

> No, it is an audio program that was never meant to have any midi 
> functions.
> A lot of people critizise garage band as it is slow and has some odd 
> restrictions, but for a 'free' (or free with other things) application I 
> think it is great. I wish something like that was available when I 
> started, I would have used it to death but back then computers didn't come 
> with free multitrack audio recorders and software instrument players. In 
> fact in general they didnt do much more than beep!

I agree from the very olden days, but there've been lite versions of the big 
audio programs around for ages, some free which work in a more consistent 
way. Why is there no track vertical zoom for instance? Why isn't 'mute' icon 
a speaker with a line or x through it (standard on virtually every remote 
control and not a GB alone criticism Vegas has something else)?

> I am stuck with that mouse unfortunately. Normally I just throw the apple 
> mouse away and use a logitech one (the last computers mouse is still in 
> the plastic), but that stupid ball thing on the new one is really good, 
> and nothing else seems to have it. Otherwise I hate the mouse!

I miss the right button giving me contextual help. Most Windo$e programs 
adopt the text labels or explanations if you hover the cursor over a button 
but not all Mac buttons have this, 'views' in Finder for instance. They're 
not consistent with icons vs text either. The dock only has icons and no 
text until you 'cursor hover', but open windows only have text and no icon, 
all in samey grey. At least Finder has both icons and text.

> I wouldn't scratch around, it is a personal preference thing. I have to 
> use windows for a living, I am a windows programmer, but I certainly 
> wouldnt choose to use it at home. My macbook pro has gone away for a 
> repair and I am stuck using windows until it gets back. I am counting the 
> minutes!

It took me few minute to get back into the Windo$e ways after half a day on 
a Mac. I thought it looked good but wasn't as 'simplified' as I was 
expecting in an 'easy to use' way, although the 'help' features, especially 
the online vids (assuming you were broadband online, less good if you 
couldn't be online or on dial-up) were very good, often you *had* to use 
them. I couldn't often *guess* my way round some simple things, because of 
peculiarities.

I found it less easy to get into the dirty areas when something didn't work 
as expected. The owner had snarfed in camera video footage which was duly 
showing up in iMovie. Some of his other footage was absent. When I checked 
in Finder there were Quicktime copies of his avi's which showed up in iMovie 
but the absent footage had no QT copies. Fairly obvious that iMovie only 
deals in QT format (although iDVD 'sees' avis, don't know if they can be 
directly, use but assume so).

I did manage to 'manually' convert one of the avis (but couldn't find a 
batch converter) which duly showed up in iMovie, I know Move Maker does a 
similar stunt by converting all to wmv, but something like Vegas (later 
versions at least) take any old video format at editing stage and only 
'conform' them at rendering stage. I'm surprised that iMovie and iDVD aren't 
integrated together. Trying to explain all this stuff to a novice is 
worthwile, but from the hype I wasn't expecting to have needed to.

icarusi
--

remove 00 to reply

"icarusi"  wrote in message 
news:bsqdnXUWNdrce6LVRVnyiwA@posted.plusnet...
> "Woody"  wrote in message 
> news:6a9r2lF35rb52U1@mid.individual.net...
>
>> No, it is an audio program that was never meant to have any midi 
>> functions.
>> A lot of people critizise garage band as it is slow and has some odd 
>> restrictions, but for a 'free' (or free with other things) application I 
>> think it is great. I wish something like that was available when I 
>> started, I would have used it to death but back then computers didn't 
>> come with free multitrack audio recorders and software instrument 
>> players. In fact in general they didnt do much more than beep!
>
> I agree from the very olden days, but there've been lite versions of the 
> big audio programs around for ages, some free which work in a more 
> consistent way.

I don't know if they are necessarily more consistant, or if you just get 
used to them.
From way back until recently I used to use cubase, but it has never been 
really consistant, although it has not been free either, so I don't know 
which ones you are refering to.

> Why is there no track vertical zoom for instance? Why isn't 'mute' icon a 
> speaker with a line or x through it (standard on virtually every remote 
> control and not a GB alone criticism Vegas has something else)?

I can't remember what it is offhand as I use logic, but I don't recal ever 
having a problem knowing a track was muted in garage band? I am not so 
worried what the icon is as long as I know what it means.
The vertical zoom would be handy, although I would have thought its most 
pressing problem was of performance rather than interface, although there is 
possibly another issue as to why it doesn't look like everything else.

>> I am stuck with that mouse unfortunately. Normally I just throw the apple 
>> mouse away and use a logitech one (the last computers mouse is still in 
>> the plastic), but that stupid ball thing on the new one is really good, 
>> and nothing else seems to have it. Otherwise I hate the mouse!
>
> I miss the right button giving me contextual help. Most Windo$e programs 
> adopt the text labels or explanations if you hover the cursor over a 
> button but not all Mac buttons have this, 'views' in Finder for instance. 
> They're not consistent with icons vs text either. The dock only has icons 
> and no text until you 'cursor hover', but open windows only have text and 
> no icon, all in samey grey.

I don't get what you mean by 'open windows'? normal finder windows? They can 
have icons and text, or just text, whichever you want.

>At least Finder has both icons and text.

So you dont mean finder windows above?

It is true that consistancy on the mac has gone down a lot since OSX.

>> I wouldn't scratch around, it is a personal preference thing. I have to 
>> use windows for a living, I am a windows programmer, but I certainly 
>> wouldnt choose to use it at home. My macbook pro has gone away for a 
>> repair and I am stuck using windows until it gets back. I am counting the 
>> minutes!
>
> It took me few minute to get back into the Windo$e ways after half a day 
> on a Mac. I thought it looked good but wasn't as 'simplified' as I was 
> expecting in an 'easy to use' way, although the 'help' features, 
> especially the online vids (assuming you were broadband online, less good 
> if you couldn't be online or on dial-up) were very good, often you *had* 
> to use them. I couldn't often *guess* my way round some simple things, 
> because of peculiarities.
>
> I found it less easy to get into the dirty areas when something didn't 
> work as expected.

In any system that obviously takes more knowledge. macosxhints.com is a good 
source for that.

> The owner had snarfed in camera video footage which was duly showing up in 
> iMovie. Some of his other footage was absent. When I checked in Finder 
> there were Quicktime copies of his avi's which showed up in iMovie but the 
> absent footage had no QT copies. Fairly obvious that iMovie only deals in 
> QT format (although iDVD 'sees' avis, don't know if they can be directly, 
> use but assume so).

There is a plugin called perian <http://perian.org/> which adds a whole host 
of formats to quicktime, such as flash and many of the avi codecs. It is 
worth getting, especially as it is free.

> I did manage to 'manually' convert one of the avis (but couldn't find a 
> batch converter) which duly showed up in iMovie,

ffmpeg, visual hub, one of those programs will batch convert files. There 
are obviously a lot of commercial ones.

> I know Move Maker does a similar stunt by converting all to wmv, but 
> something like Vegas (later versions at least) take any old video format 
> at editing stage and only 'conform' them at rendering stage

As I say, with the perian plugin you can add a lot more formats and wouldn't 
have this as an issue. It will read anything that quicktime will read.

>. I'm surprised that iMovie and iDVD aren't integrated together.

In what way? They sort of are connected, in the way everything is. The 
output of iMovie can be accessed in iDVD from the media browser, and just 
dropped where you want them. iDVD will use chapter markers in from iMovie 
(or is that just a final cut thing?).

> Trying to explain all this stuff to a novice is worthwile, but from the 
> hype I wasn't expecting to have needed to.

you should never believe the hype!

-- 
Woody

"Woody"  wrote in message 
news:6aa9e2F36auorU1@mid.individual.net...
> "icarusi"  wrote in message

> I don't know if they are necessarily more consistant, or if you just get 
> used to them.
> From way back until recently I used to use cubase, but it has never been 
> really consistant, although it has not been free either, so I don't know 
> which ones you are refering to.

They seemed to copy each other during the arms escalations so they all had a 
very similar basic operation. The 'free'  'lite' versions were often bundled 
with hardware. I don't mind a 'new' way to do things if it does improve 
matters, like that 'tile' feature.

> I can't remember what it is offhand as I use logic, but I don't recal ever 
> having a problem knowing a track was muted in garage band? I am not so 
> worried what the icon is as long as I know what it means.

I prefer them to be standard like transport icons, play, pause etc, have 
become on virtually everything which 'plays'.

> The vertical zoom would be handy, although I would have thought its most 
> pressing problem was of performance rather than interface, although there 
> is possibly another issue as to why it doesn't look like everything else.

Seems like they want detailed editing to be in the lower window alone.

 >> They're not consistent with icons vs text either. The dock only has 
icons
>> and no text until you 'cursor hover', but open windows only have text and 
>> no icon, all in samey grey.
>
> I don't get what you mean by 'open windows'? normal finder windows? They 
> can have icons and text, or just text, whichever you want.
>
>>At least Finder has both icons and text.
>
> So you dont mean finder windows above?
>
> It is true that consistancy on the mac has gone down a lot since OSX.

The window/pane/panel of an open program just has text in the top 'bar', no 
icon. I find few of the icons informative in OSX or XP, Garage Band, Movie 
Maker, Notepad/Wordpad are exceptions. Vegas is just an orange daub. Must 
have taken miliseconds to devise.  Most icons don't even appear in  XP 
'programs' listing/selecting, but it may be more down to the provider's 
installation routine, so Finder is better there.

 >> I found it less easy to get into the dirty areas when something didn't
>> work as expected.
>
> In any system that obviously takes more knowledge. macosxhints.com is a 
> good source for that.

I assumed it was more deliberate for OSX whereas M$ fare has more of a 
gubbins outward history.

> There is a plugin called perian <http://perian.org/> which adds a whole 
> host of formats to quicktime, such as flash and many of the avi codecs. It 
> is worth getting, especially as it is free.

I'll look for that. I also found the Mpeg-streamclip (which I already use) 
has a Mac version and does batch conversions. It also has a very handy 
forward/reverse frame nudger which works in mpeg4. Handy for saving specific 
frames to jpeg.

>>. I'm surprised that iMovie and iDVD aren't integrated together.
>
> In what way? They sort of are connected, in the way everything is. The 
> output of iMovie can be accessed in iDVD from the media browser, and just 
> dropped where you want them. iDVD will use chapter markers in from iMovie 
> (or is that just a final cut thing?).

He expected to create his DVD from within iMovie, and I thought his point 
was fair. I know most programs split aquiring/editing from DVD creation, but 
can't think of a good reason to split them in a consumer level product. I'll 
check the chapter mark thing. It would be handy if it does carry over.

>> Trying to explain all this stuff to a novice is worthwile, but from the 
>> hype I wasn't expecting to have needed to.
>
> you should never believe the hype!

*I* didn't, but I was prepared to be converted.

Do you have a 'hackingtosh'?

icarusi
--

remove 00 to reply

icarusi  wrote:

> "Woody"  wrote in message 
> news:6aa9e2F36auorU1@mid.individual.net...
> > "icarusi"  wrote in message
> 
> > I don't know if they are necessarily more consistant, or if you just get
> > used to them.
> > From way back until recently I used to use cubase, but it has never been
> > really consistant, although it has not been free either, so I don't know
> > which ones you are refering to.
> 
> They seemed to copy each other during the arms escalations so they all had a
> very similar basic operation. The 'free'  'lite' versions were often bundled
> with hardware. I don't mind a 'new' way to do things if it does improve
> matters, like that 'tile' feature.

Don't know what the tile feature is!

To be fair to GB, it isn't even a lite version as such, as there is
Logic Express that is the lite version. It is just a freebee like
notepad or paint.

> > I can't remember what it is offhand as I use logic, but I don't recal ever
> > having a problem knowing a track was muted in garage band? I am not so
> > worried what the icon is as long as I know what it means.
> 
> I prefer them to be standard like transport icons, play, pause etc, have
> become on virtually everything which 'plays'.

Fair enough. Now I look I find them quite clear to see which is muted,
especially as it greys the track out.

> > The vertical zoom would be handy, although I would have thought its most
> > pressing problem was of performance rather than interface, although there
> > is possibly another issue as to why it doesn't look like everything else.
> 
> Seems like they want detailed editing to be in the lower window alone.

I meant every other program. ie, no wood effect!

>  >> They're not consistent with icons vs text either. The dock only has
> icons
> >> and no text until you 'cursor hover', but open windows only have text and
> >> no icon, all in samey grey.
> >
> > I don't get what you mean by 'open windows'? normal finder windows? They
> > can have icons and text, or just text, whichever you want.
> >
> >>At least Finder has both icons and text.
> >
> > So you dont mean finder windows above?
> >
> > It is true that consistancy on the mac has gone down a lot since OSX.
> 
> The window/pane/panel of an open program just has text in the top 'bar', no
> icon. 

Depends on the application and use. Some have an icon, and if they do,
it can be dragged to either make an alias or to save something somewhere
(or to put in a file selector to change the path).
If they don't, they are normally just a dropdown list to the path of the
file you are looking at. Some, like the finder, will be both.

> I find few of the icons informative in OSX or XP, Garage Band, Movie 
> Maker, Notepad/Wordpad are exceptions.

I find most of the icons in OSX fairly informative, although no idea
what movie maker on the PC is like. Now I use vista mostly their icons
have lost their definition (such as notepad).

>  >> I found it less easy to get into the dirty areas when something didn't
> >> work as expected.
> >
> > In any system that obviously takes more knowledge. macosxhints.com is a
> > good source for that.
> 
> I assumed it was more deliberate for OSX whereas M$ fare has more of a
> gubbins outward history.

I guess it is deliberate in that if you want to do something out of the
usual, it expects you to know (or find out) how to do it.

> > There is a plugin called perian <http://perian.org/> which adds a whole
> > host of formats to quicktime, such as flash and many of the avi codecs. It
> > is worth getting, especially as it is free.
> 
> I'll look for that. I also found the Mpeg-streamclip (which I already use)
> has a Mac version and does batch conversions. It also has a very handy
> forward/reverse frame nudger which works in mpeg4. Handy for saving specific
> frames to jpeg.

Quicktime does that anyway. You can use the cursor keys to nudge frames.

> >>. I'm surprised that iMovie and iDVD aren't integrated together.
> >
> > In what way? They sort of are connected, in the way everything is. The
> > output of iMovie can be accessed in iDVD from the media browser, and just
> > dropped where you want them. iDVD will use chapter markers in from iMovie
> > (or is that just a final cut thing?).
> 
> He expected to create his DVD from within iMovie, and I thought his point
> was fair.

I suppose if you are just making a one continuous DVD that makes sense,
but if you have multiple sources less so.

> I know most programs split aquiring/editing from DVD creation, but 
> can't think of a good reason to split them in a consumer level product.

Because in a consumer level product, a dvd you make is often made up of
a series of unconnected videos. iDVD lets you put them in different
places. You wouldn't be able to do that as easily from iMovie (although
I haven't yet used the latest iMovie).

> >> Trying to explain all this stuff to a novice is worthwile, but from the
> >> hype I wasn't expecting to have needed to.
> >
> > you should never believe the hype!
> 
> *I* didn't, but I was prepared to be converted.
> 
> Do you have a 'hackingtosh'?

No. I have a macbook pro (or would have except it is currently being
fixed), my wife has a macbook, and we have just got a new iMac 2.8 to
replace the older powermac (which we still have, like the old powerbooks
which I need to get round to doing something with).
The PCs around here are just that, normal PCs. A vista one, and a couple
of XP ones.


-- 
Woody
Alienrat Design Ltd

"Woody"  wrote in message 
news:1ihs1lg.1pf9g5i10j1sh4N%usenet@alienrat.co.uk...

> Depends on the application and use. Some have an icon, and if they do,
> it can be dragged to either make an alias or to save something somewhere
> (or to put in a file selector to change the path).
> If they don't, they are normally just a dropdown list to the path of the
> file you are looking at. Some, like the finder, will be both.

I'll make a note if I find any icons, not just text, in the top bar of an 
open program.

 >> I'll look for that. I also found the Mpeg-streamclip (which I already 
use)
>> has a Mac version and does batch conversions. It also has a very handy
>> forward/reverse frame nudger which works in mpeg4. Handy for saving 
>> specific
>> frames to jpeg.
>
> Quicktime does that anyway. You can use the cursor keys to nudge frames.

I'll look for that. Mpeg-streamclip also uses a Quicktime 'engine'.

>> He expected to create his DVD from within iMovie, and I thought his point
>> was fair.
>
> I suppose if you are just making a one continuous DVD that makes sense,
> but if you have multiple sources less so.

Most home-movie first time users only have one source.

>> I know most programs split aquiring/editing from DVD creation, but
>> can't think of a good reason to split them in a consumer level product.
>
> Because in a consumer level product, a dvd you make is often made up of
> a series of unconnected videos. iDVD lets you put them in different
> places. You wouldn't be able to do that as easily from iMovie (although
> I haven't yet used the latest iMovie).

I think iDVD may be able to do the job alone if it has an aquisition tool. I 
did find from a local Mac shop that iVideo has some 'advanced' tools which 
can be selected (if you know they're available) which make assembling clips 
a bit simpler. The previous iMovie and Final Cut look more similar to other 
programs I've used. I haven't seen any advantages yet in the current iMovie.

icarusi
--

remove 00 to reply