Gizmodo 
Enter your username and password.
Tip your editors:
Editorial Director:
Brian Lam | | Twitter
Editor:
Jason Chen
| AIM | Twitter
Features Editor:
Wilson Rothman
| Twitter
Senior Contributing Editors:
Jesus Diaz
| AIM | Twitter
Mark Wilson, Reviews
| AIM | Twitter
Contributing Editors:
Matt Buchanan
| AIM | Twitter
Adam Frucci
| Twitter
Sean Fallon
| Twitter
Jack Loftus
| Twitter
John Herrman
| Twitter
Dan Nosowitz
Chris Mascari
Kat Hannaford
| Twitter
Rosa Golijan
| Twitter
Chris Jacob
Columnist:
Brendan I. Koerner
Interns:
Don Nguyen
Kyle VanHemert
Comment Account Questions:
Original material is licensed under a Creative Commons License permitting non-commercial sharing with attribution.
12/21/09
12/20/09
If you try to eject while still connected to the network, finder will hang and it will stop you from shutting down or restarting normally.
12/20/09
12/21/09
12/20/09
2. copy files over
3. walk to Mac, plug it in
4. copy files off
5. rinse repeat
6. laugh at people sharing it over wires pretending these three all talk the same lingo, limited to only LAN connections.
7. If you find you need morethan a flash drive, check back to the early point of article about an NAS, you will fall in love with them, especially if you have multiple users, possibly a few using media sharing especially.
12/20/09
Except for the fact that they *do*. SMB/CIFS is supported by Windows, Mac, and Linux. In fact, the NAS units you're championing generally use CIFS.
A flash drive is nice, but network sharing is considerably faster and more convenient once it's set up.
12/20/09
If you're only sharing a few files between a few, then a flash drive will do, with the benefit of not needing to set anything up at all, and it'll work on PC's outof your network.
If you figure you're going back n forth, just buy a damn NAS, and that's still going to be much simpler than the stuff you have to do up top.
It seems to be only the 'moderate' network user would be in any hassle. light user gets away with the flash drive, heavy user gets the NAS, which also offers up a back up ( I believe the HP ones to timemachine too?)
12/20/09
And if you're a 'heavy user' moving large files around, A--B is by definition faster than A--NAS--B.
12/20/09
A-B
B-PS
A-X
D-C
etc etc. you get the point and you can't to topology in the comment box.
12/21/09
12/21/09
But if you have several devices set up and want to share, a NAS is ususally a better option than wrestling with the fact that they don't like each other.
If you've just got a mac and a windows machine, and want to share a couple of files, well you're mostly going to be fine with a portable drive until the 4GB file problem arrives. Though it's rare to be working with 4GB files except for video. And if you're working with video...a NAS is a good idea. (one of the reasons I have one)
12/20/09
12/20/09
12/21/09
Still, you make a good point that I shouldn't sit idly by. I'll figure something out.
12/20/09
if u use this link you get 250MB extra for free. [www.dropbox.com]
12/20/09
I guess you *could* upload a movie-length video file to Dropbox and stream from there, but it's not something I'd really want to do on a regular basis.
12/20/09
12/20/09
12/20/09
If you then have shares defined on your Windows machine, your Mac should see the machine in the Shared pane of any Finder windows.
mDNS is a standard, and works well for local subnet browsing of any shared network service (file or print).
12/20/09
12/20/09
[en.wikipedia.org]
It's built to make these things mostly automatic, and has it's roots in how service discovery was done in the AppleTalk protocol stack.
12/20/09
12/20/09
12/20/09
12/21/09
12/21/09
12/17/09
12/17/09
They're making a complete rewrite of the interface called Lunettes, apparently. Looks very "media-centric" so far... [wiki.github.com]
But I'm more intrigued by this line:
Finally, we have a few issues, since Apple doesn't want us on the Mac platform and is blocking us a lot, and refuses to explain why.
I wonder why Apple would have such an interest in doing that. Maybe it's not Apple, but the new tools of code that's blocking the libraries?
12/18/09
I wonder about the blocking comment too... I could see if they got frustrated if their program broke every time a major OS revision dropped. That makes sense too since so many Mac programs require the newest OS version if you're going to get the newer program version... of the same program with the same features.
12/17/09
So maybe Apple should consider throwing their $30B weight behind supporting more formats.
12/17/09
12/17/09
12/17/09
12/17/09
12/17/09
12/16/09
12/16/09
12/17/09
12/16/09
12/16/09
12/16/09
VLC is the only "free" OS X player that gives me 5.1 (suck it, Apple DVD player) - it's essential for my HTPC.
12/16/09
12/16/09
12/16/09
12/16/09
12/16/09
Considering how Apple and Microsofts official video players are, if I'm being generous, a bit crap quite a few people I'd say. I stopped using VLC a while ago and switched to CCCP with media player classic. At any rate open source is the way to go for video playback.
12/16/09
12/16/09
Stupid me though, I just realized today that Video Download Helper extension on FireFox actually lets you convert the video as well as save it. Bah!
12/16/09
12/16/09
12/16/09
Depends. The stock video players work just fine for a good range of formats, and at least they tend to respect native UI standards.
12/16/09
12/16/09
Provide me with some market share stats that support the assertion, and I'll concede your point.
Otherwise, my question stands.
12/16/09
The closest to a market share stat you could get would be... say... taking the amount of VLC, CCCP, etc. downloads and putting it against the sales of the OS's which have their own players pre-installed, but even STILL that is mis-leading. As you're making the assumption that everyone with a computer uses video playback, and sales would likely include more *cough* practical uses... Like for businesses or browsing the web.
In short, it's kind of a moot point to even ask for "market share" stats. I for one use VLC, on Mac, no less, and find little to complain about in version 1.1.0, though to have the project die completely? That is no good at all, no matter where you stand, because in the end, competition is never a bad thing.
12/17/09
I've yet to find something I can't play with it installed. At the very least it handles .mkv's flawlessly. I've found using MPC with CCCP installed gives generally smoother playback and is overall less buggy.
VLC used to be my goto media player though, I'd still recommend it over anything other than CCCP+MPC. Plus in terms of portability it beats CCCP hands down. A media player that'll play most everything you can put and run off a USB drive? Yes please.
12/17/09
I figured they are difficult to come by, and I never expected anyone to come up with them. That, of course, also makes my original question fairly moot too, just a food for thought sort of thing.
12/17/09
To clarify, people, I'm not saying it's some piece of crap and that nobody uses it. Far from it.
I posed the question if, as far as the whole OS X user base goes, VLC really matters all that much. I explicitly noted that there are people out there who love it, and I explicitly noted that they're not necessarily indicative of the whole. (The latter part is something I reiterated to some people who provided individual use cases.)
And yet, somehow, I've been called everything from ignorant, to a troll, to Glenn Beck. For asking an innocent question? How on Earth does that make sense?
12/16/09
I mean, aren't they just PCs running MacOS in the same way Macs Run Windows? I mean, give and take a little R&D in creating working drivers and an installation work around.
ASSUMING they bought one copy of boxed MacOS per system they built, the only thing they've disrupted is the EULA, which is technically a crock of sh*t when you consider certain End-user rights are protected by Fair Use. In a sense "Unconstitutional."
Any OS that I, as an end user, purchase legally, I am protected by my right to modify that OS as I see fit, including drivers, software, workarounds, registry mods, etc. My only limitation is whether or not I am breaking OTHER laws, such as copyright infringement, installing malicious software, or using the system as a tool for other crimes.
12/16/09
12/16/09
Consider any private computer builder, in fact, commercial ones, too, such as DELL. All of them use modified installers with Windows. Throw in some service packs, hotfixes, drivers, software, put it all into an unattended install, or better yet, hard drive image. Pump out fully working OSs as fast as you can build them.
Only catch is that if you Sell 100 computers running Windows, you need to purchase 100 licenses.
12/17/09
1) Sold more copies than they bought (infringement)
2) Sold different copies than were installed (infringement)
3) Sold modified copies on the systems (infringement)
Dell has purchased a license that allows them to: 1) Ship without a disc, 2) Ship with a modified OS image, 3) Ship with a preload.
Psystar has purchased none of those things.