Curmudgeon caution is wisdom sometimes. iPhoto is the free photo
application you get when you buy a Mac. The Photo iPod has a tiny color
screen that will let you look at the photos stored on it. It is not an
image tank for reading memory cards, at least at this point. The
multiple use devices may look intriguing, but they really don't do
anything really well. Most cannot display raw photos, for instance,
only jpeg. There is a review of three of the better ones in the new
MacWorld magazine. For what it is worth I experimented quite a bit and
Apple's AAC sound file is definitely better sounding than an MP-3 of
the same size.
Winsor
Long Beach, California, USA
On Mar 9, 2005, at 1:00 AM, Andrew Fildes wrote:
> Apple's justification for being more expensive was that, unlike a PC,
> it already had everything that you need on board. The Pod don't and
> cheaper copies, like the iRiver, seem to do more for less. I guess, for
> me, the music is not enough although I was impressed shooting a wedding
> at the weekend when they used an iPod for all the music - set up files
> for each stage of the day including the ceremony. That was clever.
> The sysops at work use them for reinstalling the system on crashed
> workstations, a disturbingly common occurrence, but I don't know if
> they need a peripheral device for that. I wanted an image tank when I
> first looked - the iPhoto is out now so that seems more sensible
> (anyone using one?) but I still suspect that something so popular among
> my students is unlikely to meet my needs - curmudgeon caution.
> AndrewF
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|