dazzjazz Posted November 12, 2004 Report Share Posted November 12, 2004 Hi all, I am going to hold off buying a new HIMD until I get to Japan next April. I'm hoping to get a real bargain, and maybe an even newer (as yet unreleased) model. Anybody heard any whispers of such new models, or where HiMD is heading ? dazzjazz Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Stamp Posted November 16, 2004 Report Share Posted November 16, 2004 i read hints of hi-md being able to play mp3's directly (no conversion) but most likely they'll put DRM on that. as for the future of hi-md in general? well, solid state memory will eventually hold the walkman market in the future, because of it having no moving parts, unless there is a way to increase the writing speed of the hi-md, and shrink the size of the data sectors quickly. so ya, the near future, hi-md looks pretty good. far future, not so good. not exactly the response you wanted eh? oh, sony comes out with new models of minidisc every year. so yes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Embio Posted November 16, 2004 Report Share Posted November 16, 2004 couldnt sony produce double sided MD's, giving 2 gig? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sallymae_hogsby Posted November 16, 2004 Report Share Posted November 16, 2004 Does Sony have plans for non-portable Hi-MD units? I'm terribly old fashioned, and like to do my recording on a home unit (with a PC keyboard for titles) and then play the discs on a portable unit. Has Sony forgotten about people like me? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Latexxx Posted November 16, 2004 Report Share Posted November 16, 2004 Does Sony have plans for non-portable Hi-MD units? I'm terribly old fashioned, and like to do my recording on a home unit (with a PC keyboard for titles) and then play the discs on a portable unit. Has Sony forgotten about people like me?It is easier to record using pc and a portable unit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sallymae_hogsby Posted November 16, 2004 Report Share Posted November 16, 2004 I probably should have mentioned that I don't exist in Sony's eyes, since I'm a Mac person. So apparently MiniDisc is just a PC accessory now, and just a response to the iPod. I'm very pro-MD, but can't understand why Sony insists on limiting itself so much, especially where MD is concerned. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dex Otaku Posted November 16, 2004 Report Share Posted November 16, 2004 MO discs of the type used by MD cannot be double-sided. There's a magnetic head on the top and a laser below. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bjsilva Posted November 17, 2004 Report Share Posted November 17, 2004 It is easier to record using pc and a portable unit.Easier doesn't necessarily make it better I personally quite like the experience of recording a CD/record to MD in real-time - to me, doing a quick transfer using a computer is far more boring. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dex Otaku Posted November 17, 2004 Report Share Posted November 17, 2004 Incidentally, sallymae_hogsby - the reason Sony don't support Mac is simple numbers. Mac has 2% or less marketshare desktop-wise [where I live it's actually less than 0.2%]. Developing the software would cost no less for Mac than it did for PC, since almost no [software] components can be shared between the two. End result: high development costs for an extremely small potential market that could never possibly make returns on the initial investment. Which is the same reason so many other commercial software packages never make it to the Mac: high development costs for negative returns. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deafplayer Posted November 17, 2004 Report Share Posted November 17, 2004 Just out of curiosity how does VirtualPC for macs perform with minidiscs and HI-MD? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xeroxide Posted November 17, 2004 Report Share Posted November 17, 2004 VirtualPC is supposed to have usb support right? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dex Otaku Posted November 17, 2004 Report Share Posted November 17, 2004 One user reported that the new version of VPC with SonicStage was so slow as to be completely useless. i.e. it would take hours to rip a single CD, &c. There is actually a thread specifically about Mac support. It hasn't been posted to for quite a while, so it's fallen down the list. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Christopher Posted November 17, 2004 Report Share Posted November 17, 2004 I actually would just nullify that effort and use an Xitel DG2 or something along those lines..seems like a worthless endeavor to hope some sort of protocols can be made for Mac's. No offense or anything, but development has been stagnant. I sometimes even question the Mac operating system will exist in a decade's time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bjsilva Posted November 18, 2004 Report Share Posted November 18, 2004 Incidentally, sallymae_hogsby - the reason Sony don't support Mac is simple numbers. ... Which is the same reason so many other commercial software packages never make it to the Mac: high development costs for negative returns.Actually, I suspect the reason Sony is not developing for the Mac at this time is largely because the quantity of Mac users who would use MD and Sony Connect instead of Apple's iPod and iTunes is very small. Not that the Mac market itself is too small. Though I wouldn't rule out the possibility. Plenty of companies develop for both PC and Mac with positive financial results. The usual reason a company won't develop their product for the Mac is simply because they don't feel like it - they're happy with their large potential user base with Windows. Don't be fooled by the 2%+ market share, it's still enormous. I sometimes even question the Mac operating system will exist in a decade's time.That has been said repeatedly and in various fashions for the past decade If the Mac goes away it won't be because of it's relatively small market share. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Christopher Posted November 18, 2004 Report Share Posted November 18, 2004 Well, it's just funny how successful they are now with the iPod in their hands. The Mac OS sold okay, but the iPod changed everything. I see it becoming a viable solution for certain applications..but who knows. Ten years from now things could be totally different. Coming from a guy, me, who employed OS/2 Warp back in 1995. Nearly ten years ago. C'mon.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dex Otaku Posted November 18, 2004 Report Share Posted November 18, 2004 Heh. I used OS/2 from when 2.1 came out to [upgrading to Warp 3] sometime in 1997. I also ran all kinds of unix software under OS/2, had TCP/IP daemons running, &c. And I remember how angry I was when Windows95 came out - seeing how M$ had directly ripped off so many key features of OS/2. And funny .. later on, Apple did the same, copying the dock directly from OS/2 Warp 3. It's a shame that IBM were 7-8 years ahead of their time, really. I'd rather still be using a version of OS/2 than any version of Windows. I don't doubt that the Mac and Mac OS X [and its descendants] will be around for some time. Macs have always held a strong niche market, especially in the publishing, graphics, film, and broadcast industries. Which is specifically why I tend to question why Sony are such boneheads about Mac support - considering how strong the market is in that 'niche' for exactly the kind of people who would use quality pro / semipro / amateur broadcasting-related equipment ... I don't know. I don't exactly agree with bjsilva's saying "The usual reason a company won't develop their product for the Mac is simply because they don't feel like it," because the reason they don't feel like it is usually perceived market economics. It costs a crapload of money to develop software for a specific platform, and then you have to support it afterwards... many companies look at the Mac market, think of how much they'd sell of their product to those people, and then the costs of supporting to product for a market that already lost money hand over fist just from the development and distribution and advertising costs.. and think that it's simply not worth it. That doesn't make it correct. It's just how many companies perceive that particular market. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hobgoblin Posted November 19, 2004 Report Share Posted November 19, 2004 it seems right now that a lot of people are buying apple laptops. i guess half the reason is that with a quick crossover cable or a hub/switch and the use of samba and you can access any windows network out there. and a apple item allways is a fashion statement more then a utility, perfect for students. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PDOG58 Posted November 20, 2004 Report Share Posted November 20, 2004 solid state memory will eventually hold the walkman market in the future, because of it having no moving parts, unless there is a way to increase the writing speed of the hi-md, and shrink the size of the data sectors quickly.THat is a REALLY great point. I have been thinking that as well. However, the prices for flash media of sizes needed to hold large amounts of data is almost as exspensive as Hi-MD players. Until Flash Media can hold 10GB and you can buy it for $10, i dont see a solid state media player market anytime soon. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bjsilva Posted November 20, 2004 Report Share Posted November 20, 2004 Heh. I used OS/2 from when 2.1 came out to [upgrading to Warp 3] sometime in 1997. Cool! I've only really seen OS/2 from a friend at university. I always heard good things about it. And funny .. later on, Apple did the same, copying the dock directly from OS/2 Warp 3. I've never seen the dock in OS/2, and don't doubt it had some influence, but I suspect the OS X dock was more a merge of the NeXTSTEP application dock and the Mac OS<=9 application menu. I don't exactly agree with bjsilva's saying "The usual reason a company won't develop their product for the Mac is simply because they don't feel like it," because the reason they don't feel like it is usually perceived market economics. It costs a crapload of money to develop software for a specific platform, and then you have to support it afterwards...That is definitely an issue for sure, but I think even that is founded less on a fear of developing for a small segment and more on the contentment with a large market share on the Windows side. In any case, there's no need to discuss this at length or for me to continue with my infatuation with the newly discovered quoting feature Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xeroxide Posted November 20, 2004 Report Share Posted November 20, 2004 lol, ipod keeping the mac afloat. must admit, it was tempting to get one instead of the mznh700, but my primary purpose was to record rehearsals so ipod was out of the question (don't like the recording on ipod and prefered ipod mini to begin with which doesn't record) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Christopher Posted November 20, 2004 Report Share Posted November 20, 2004 I won't turn this into an anti-Mac thread, but I honestly just do not see a long-term future for the equipment or the operating system. Yes, it's good for a niche group, and I agree with that wholeheartedly, but I just don't see it escalating beyond anything but that. It'll be interesting to see where Apple ends up after the iPod wave is over. It will happen, you know. :rasp: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Syrius Posted November 20, 2004 Report Share Posted November 20, 2004 I have to agree with Kurisu. The fact that the next big idea to come out of the Apple camps is a simple slide show-like picture feature for the Ipod leaves me a bit... weirded out. (of course, what else could you add to a media player that can use lossless AAC, lossy AAC, and Mp3? Toast-making capabilities?) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Latexxx Posted November 20, 2004 Report Share Posted November 20, 2004 There is no such thing as lossless aac. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Syrius Posted November 20, 2004 Report Share Posted November 20, 2004 Sorry. I meant Apple Lossless format. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thepootleflump Posted November 21, 2004 Report Share Posted November 21, 2004 Apple has been around for donkeys and is very good at reinventing itself and coming out with innovative products e.g. iMAC and iPOD. I'm sure they'll be along with more innovative products soon to knock the socks off the competition - they came out with the iPOD when nobody else was doing that sort of thing. OS/2 started out as a joint development between IBM and MS, MS pulled out and knocked out NT. OS/2 was nothing to write home about. Microsoft just seems to take the ideas of others, refine and make it work better. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dex Otaku Posted November 21, 2004 Report Share Posted November 21, 2004 Windows itself [the interface, not the underlying parts] was based almost entirely on the work that M$ did with IBM on OS/2 v1.x [which was a 16-bit OS]. NT didn't come until much later, and was actually an attempt at porting an OS that M$ had started developing for RISC systems to the x86 architecture [which is why is had so many problems, and still does, since the different architectures require different OS design philosophies for the underlying layers]. OS/2 actually had many incorporated ideas that completely blew away every other desktop PC OS that existed at the time. Their major mistakes were in trying to push a full 32-bit with virtual memory &c. at a time when memory and permanent storage were still very expensive. As a result their market was severely limited [mostly to corporate use - up here in Canada almost all banking institutions, government offices, &c. ran exclusively on OS/2 and later with cheaper Windows 3.1 - with OS/2 servers] because the machines required to run the OS would be too expensive for the average person. IBM are also notoriously bad as marketing their products to consumers rather than corporations. The narrow market meant few developers made software for it. Win95's interface, with right-clicked context menus &c. was lifted almost directly from OS/2 2.x. Also interesting to note, though: most of the places where OS/2 were found were places that required guarnteed running stability, such as 911 call centers, hospitals, banks and other financial institutions, government offices [such as the Canadian tax departments], and most notably software development houses. Many custom-written *nix programs such as databases &c. were written under OS/2. A fair amount of Windows 3.x software as well, since you could crash Windows under OS/2 and then simply close the session and open a new one. So - sure, OS/2 was nothing to write home about. It was just stable, usable, and versatile, especially compared with MS's offerings. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thepootleflump Posted November 21, 2004 Report Share Posted November 21, 2004 Brilliant! Just the sort of answer I was expecting :wink: The last time I worked on an OS/2 project was back in 1999 - but that was porting a system from OS/2 to Windows NT. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.