Mx:TabBar is better than s:TabBar

s:TabBar is a downgrade because it doesn't support disabled tabs.
Here's an example:
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<s:Application xmlns:fx="http://ns.adobe.com/mxml/2009"
               xmlns:s="library://ns.adobe.com/flex/spark"
               xmlns:mx="library://ns.adobe.com/flex/mx">
    <s:controlBarContent>
        <s:CheckBox id="tab1Enabled"
                    label="Tab1.enabled"
                    selected="true"/>
        <s:CheckBox id="tab2Enabled"
                    label="Tab2.enabled"
                    selected="false"/>
    </s:controlBarContent>
    <mx:VBox verticalGap="0"
             verticalCenter="0"
             horizontalCenter="0">
        <mx:TabBar dataProvider="{viewStack}"/>
        <s:TabBar dataProvider="{viewStack}"/>
        <mx:ViewStack id="viewStack"
                      width="200"
                      height="100">
            <s:NavigatorContent id="tab1"
                                label="Tab1"
                                enabled="{tab1Enabled.selected}"
                                backgroundColor="red">
                <s:Label text="Label 1" />
            </s:NavigatorContent>
            <s:NavigatorContent id="tab2"
                                label="Tab2"
                                enabled="{tab2Enabled.selected}"
                                backgroundColor="blue">
                <s:Label text="Label 2" />
            </s:NavigatorContent>
        </mx:ViewStack>
    </mx:VBox>
</s:Application>

Thanks for the simple, complete code sample. I have filed a bug for this here: http://bugs.adobe.com/jira/browse/SDK-31873

Similar Messages

Is there a way that i can downgrade my iOS 7.1 on my iPhone 4 to iOS 6xx? battery life not good, and performance isn't better than iOS 6.. Please apple i am really disappointed with iOS 7 on my iPhone 4

Is there a way that i can downgrade my iOS 7.1 on my iPhone 4 to iOS 6xx? battery life not good, and performance isn't better than iOS 6.. Please apple i am really disappointed with iOS 7 on my iPhone 4, it can runs great on iPhone above 4 such as 5/5s/etc.. iPhone 4 just good with iOS 6...

No.

Why does a DVI or VGA look better than HDMI for 2nd Monitor

Why does a DVI or VGA connection for a program monitor look better than HDMI. I've tested this on several systems with CS5x and CS6. The full screen output from premiere definitely looks worse with HDMI.
I can often see visual differences with the Windows GUI as well, over sharpening of text and lines, harsh rendering of gradients. It looks like a VGA signal displayed on a television.
I've looked at the NVidia stetting and it appears to be set to 1920x1080 at 60hz either way, DVI or HDMI. On one Acer 20 inch monitor the was VGA, HDMI, Composite, Component, and Digital Tuner, but no DVI. The program monitor has always looked blah from the HDMI. So I recently switched the connection to a DVI to VGA adaptor, and now the video looks so much better.
Any thoughts or explanations?

Just because the monitors accept a 1080P signal doesn't mean their native resolution is 1920x1080. At 20 inch they very likely can scale that signal down to the native resolution of the panel which may be 1600 x 900 or another resolution that is 16 x 9 resolution. That scaling can be done by the GPU or firmware on the Monitor depending on the video driver options and the firmware options. That scaling is also the most common cause to text and icon blurriness you are talking about. As an example there are Pro monitors that accept a 4K signal but scale it down to 2.5K or 2K on the actual panel. You might try going into your video card settings such as Nvidia control panel and look for the scaling options. Select GPU scaling and see if the preview is better. If that doesn't work select no scaling and see if it's better if the monitor firmware handles the scaling.
Eric
ADK

Open DNS better than Comcast xfinity DNS?

Is OpenDNS better than using Comcast/xfinity's DNS? If yes, how do I switch over?
I go to into Airport Utility and enter in the 2 openDNS numbers, something like 222 and 220, but at the bottom of the page right now (because I am using Comcast's DNS) there's a web address something.comcast.net Do I need to change that info too? If so, what do I put in that field?
Thanks!

How did you add them?
If you are using a single computer: Open System Preferences/Network. Double click on your connection type, or select it in the drop-down menu, and in the box marked 'DNS Servers' add the following two numbers:
208.67.222.222
208.67.220.220
(You can also enter them if you click on Advanced and then DNS)
Sometimes reversing the order of the DNS numbers can be beneficial in cases where there is a long delay before web pages start to load, and then suddenly load at normal speed:
http://support.apple.com/kb/TS2296
If your computer is part of a network: please refer to this page: http://www.opendns.com/start/bestpractices/#yournetwork and follow the advice given.
(An explanation of why using Open DNS is both safe and a good idea can be read here: http://www.labnol.org/internet/tools/opendsn-what-is-opendns-why-required-2/2587 /
Open DNS also provides an anti-phishing feature: http://www.opendns.com/solutions/homenetwork/anti-phishing/ )
Wikipedia also has an interesting article about Open DNS:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenDNS

How can we say if Join better than using Sub Queries ??

Hi all,
I am trying to understand the rationale behind "Is _Inner Join_ better than using _Sub Query_ ?" for this scenario ...
I have these tables --
Table1 { *t1_Col_1* (PrimaryKey), t1_Col_2, t1_Col_3, t1_Col_4 }
-- Number of rows = ~4Million , t1_Col_3 has say 60% entries non-zero -----> (Condition 4)
Table2 { *t2_Col_1* (PK), t2_Col_2, t2_Col_3 }
-- Number of rows = ~150Million, t2_Col_2 maps to t1_Col_1 -----> (Condition 1). This means for every distinct value of t1_Col_1 (its PK) we'll have multiple rows in Table2.
Table3 { *t3_Col_1* (PK), t3_Col_2, t3_Col_3 }
-- Number of rows = ~50K, t3_Col_1 maps to t1_Col_2 -----> (Condition 2)
Table4 { *t4_Col_1* (PK), t4_Col_2, t4_Col_3 }
-- Number of rows = ~1K, t4_Col_2 maps to t3_Col_2 -----> (Condition 3)
Now here are the 2 queries: -
Query using direct join --
SELECT t1_Col_1, t2_Col_1, t3_Col_1, t4_Col_2
FROM Table1, Table2, Table3, Table4
WHERE t1_Col_1=t2_Col_2 -- Condition 1
AND t1_Col_2=t3_Col_1 -- Condition 2
AND t3_Col_2=t4_Col_1 -- Condition 3
AND t1_Col_3 != 0
Query using SubQuery --
SELECT t1_Col_1, t2_Col_1, t3_Col_1, t4_Col_2
FROM Table2,
(SELECT t1_Col_1, t3_Col_1, t4_Col_2
FROM Table1,Table3, Table4
WHERE
AND t1_Col_2=t3_Col_1 -- Condition 2
AND t3_Col_2=t4_Col_1 -- Condition 3
AND t1_Col_3!= 0
WHERE t1_Col_1=t2_Col_2 -- Condition 1
Now the golden question is - How can I document with evidence that Type-1 is better than Type-2 or the other way ? I think the 3 things in comparison are: -
- Number of rows accessed (Type-1 better ?)
- Memory/Bytes used (Again Type-1 better ?)
- Cost ( ?? )
(PS - testing on both MySQL, Oracle10g)
Thanks,
A

So, is it right to conclude that Optimizer uses the optimal path and then processes the query resulting in nearly the same query execution time ?If the optimizer transforms two queries so that they end up the same, then they will run in the same time. Of course, sometimes it cannot do so because of the the way the data is defined (nulls are often a factor; constraints can help it) or the way the query is written, and sometimes it misses a possible optimization due to inaccurate statistics or other information not available to it, or limitations of the optimizer itself.
Is this the right place to ask for MySQL optimization ?Probably not.

Are the screens on white iMac 20" better than those on new 24"?

I have read so much about the troubles with the 20" and 24" Aluminum iMac screens that I'm afraid to buy one now, and was thinking of buying a refurb'd white (plastic) iMac from Apple. Is the screen tech in the white version better than that in the 24" Alum? I have an old 2.0 white iMac and have never had any trouble with the screen at all.

Pier Rodelon wrote:
Thanks for these pix. I have two more questions,
1) Previous poster suggests that specs for the white iMac screens were lower
than specs for ALU iMac screens--is this true and in what particulars?
Other than viewing angle and brightness, Apple doesn't publish any meaningful
screen specs.
The ALU screens are a little brighter -- entirely too bright -- and they don't have
sufficient adjustment range to reduce the brightness for comfortable viewing with
normal home lighting levels.
The 20" ALU viewing angle specs are much poorer than the white 20" or any of
the 24" models. In practice, the difference is easily noticable even to the most
casual observer.
2) Does the 24" white iMac have the same screen that the 20" white iMac has?
All 24" iMacs have expensive S-IPS LCD panels. That's the same basic technology
and from the same manufacturer as the Apple Cinema Displays. (As discussed
previously, some (many?) 24" ALUs have/had problems with uneven backlighting.)
Some white 20" units use exactly the same S-IPS panel as 20" Cinema Displays;
some others came with an excellent-quality S-PVA display. I believe all 20" iMacs,
at least as far back as the G5 PPC, used similarly high-quality (gorgeous!) panels.
The 20" ALU iMacs all have much lower-quality TN panels (from various sources).
The 17" white Intel iMacs also use the lower-quality TN panels.
To see what display you currently have, cut-n-paste the following command line
into Terminal.app -- then look it up in the panel database at tftcentral.co.uk:
ioreg -lw0 | grep IODisplayEDID | sed "/\[^<\]*</s///" | xxd -p -r | strings -6
I don't know if the 24" white iMac refurb would be a better choice than the 20"
white (or the 20/24" ALU).
IMO, there's no contest in 20" size -- the white iMac displays are vastly superior.
If you're lucky enough to get a good display, the ALU 24" is very attractive; OTOH,
I have no performance complaints with my white 2.16 GHz Core 2 Duo -- and it
was $600 less than my 24" ALU reject.
Looby

ATI Radeon HD 4870 not better than the Nvidea Geforce 120?

I bought av new ATI Radeon HD 4870 card to my MacPro. But are wery disappointed. My old NVIDIA GeForce GT 120 performes almost better than ATI. I ran Cinebench test and this is the results:
*NVIDIA GeForce*
Rendering (Single CPU): 3225 CB-CPU
Rendering (Multiple CPU): 18880 CB-CPU
Multiprocessor Speedup: 5.85
Shading (OpenGL Standard): 6107 CB-GFX
*ATI Radeon HD 4870*
Rendering (Single CPU): 3218 CB-CPU
Rendering (Multiple CPU): 18852 CB-CPU
Multiprocessor Speedup: 5.86
Shading (OpenGL Standard): 5846 CB-GFX
I also ran the Photoshop Actiontest from www.retouchartists.com on a large .tiff file, and my ATI Radeon used 1,10,2 and NVidea used 1,09,4. That is almost 1 second better for the old card.
Apple says that the ATI 4870 card performs 2x better than the Nvidea 120. That is not my experience!

Hello,
I currently have a 2008 3.0Ghz Harpertown mac pro and I am trying to figure out what to do here. I just purchased the 24 inch cinema display, but yet I have a nice 1GB 4870 ati radeon I got off ebay. Its more powerful than the Apple version, but lacks the mini-display port.
Currently, I have the ATI RADEON 2600 XT connected, though inactive, while my 4870 is active.
So, should I just get the Nvidia GT 120 and keep my 1GB 4870, or should I get rid of the 4870 I have and just buy Apple's? Either way, the GT 120 works in a 2008 mac pro despite what Apple says on their site that it only works in 2009 mac pros.

When transferring volumes to a new drive, is a cloning app better than the finder?

When transferring volumes to a new drive, is a cloning app better than the finder?
I’m adding a new (bigger) external hard drive. I have created five partions on it as the old drive has. Is it, better, faster, more accurate, etc. to use an app, or just drag and drop the folders on to the new partitions. The sofware I have are; TechTool6, Drive Genius3 & SuperDuper. Two of the partitons have a Mac OS on them. The others just have files.
Thanks,
Larry

If the drive is to be functional as a boot drive then cloning is the better approach as it will grab all hidden configuration files and preserve the file access permissions properly; however, if you are setting up a data drive then the Finder's copy options should be adequate. To ensure file permissions are properly attributed to the copied files, select them and press Command-C to copy, followed by Shift-Option-Command-V to paste the items in the new location and preserve their file attributes (you may need to authenticate when copying them in this manner). If you do not need to preserve permissions then a basic drag-and-drop copy should suffice.

IMovie capture quality better than anything FCP can offer for consumer DV?

As a newbie to FCP, I have not found Capture, sequence, and export settings that is equal to or better than what iMovie 08 can create. Prior to this, I've been using iMovie 08 which is extremely user friendly. Just plug in the fire wire connections and it auto detects only one setting for DV. I am not sure what format it captures in but it does a good job. When I export out of iMovie 08 I use "using Quicktime" and choose the Uncompressed 8-bit NTSC method. The result is a decent, non-interlaced looking .mov file.
The first time I tried to capture with FCP I chose the easy setup, where I would capture in the NTSC DV, sequence would be NTSC DV and export using the current settings in quicktime. The result was an interlaced and lowered quality vid.
I have also tried the following combinations with no success with quality comparisons w/ iMovie 08:
capt: NTSC dv, seq: NTSC DV, progressive exp: Uncompressed 8-bit
capt: Uncompressed 8-bit, seq: Uncompressed 8-Bit exp: Uncompressed 8-bit
This last one came close, but still iMovie 08 was better.
My assumption is that FCP would contain the settings to duplicate or even out perform iMovie's export quality for consumer video dv. I viewed iMovie as little brother and FCP as big brother. Shouldn't FCP produce equal to or better quality than iMovie 08? And what are the settings for this?
Thanks

Thank you for clearing up my confusion. How is my export from iMovie 08, using "Uncompressed 8-bit" coming out progressive (I see no interlaced, odd/even scan lines)? Is this export dropping lines/information? If so, uncompressed is not an appropriate name for the export.
I understand what you are saying about "getting quality back" on export. My initial question was comparing the quality of an iMovie 08 export vs. FCP export and having the problem of a lowered output from the FCP export.
If anyone has the time, would they try a short experiment:
1. From your DV source, camera or deck connect to your computer
Capture a short clip via iMovie 08 a short clip in standard 4:3.
Export using Quicktime, Uncompressed 8-bit setting
2. From your DV source, camera or deck, connect to your computer.
Capture the same short clip to FCP using Easy set up for NTSC DV. Export with current settings.
3. Compare the two.

TS1398 problem in wifi range i use my phone my rume but i think china mobile is working better than iphone ......

problem in wifi range i use my phone my rume but i think china mobile is working better than iphone ......

I don't understand what you are asking here. Can you try and ask again?

PP CS5/5.5 chroma key better than AE CS4?

Hi everyone.
I think I read somewhere a while back that the chroma key in PP CS5/5.5 is better than AE CS4's Keylight. In fact, the PP effect may be an improved Keylight , but I can't recall this for certain.
Can anyone verify this?
Thx.
Paul

I've keyed with the same camera for a couple of years now, and it's got a pretty narrow band in which greens are easily keyed. DVCPRO HD is not well-reputed for its handling of greens, or at least as a result of it's use with an older 1/3" sensor. I've gotten the best results with the exposure on the screen at about 50-60IRE, but that's just in my scenarios. Most of my material is recorded to P2 cards (though I did one long shoot with OnLo and a green screen), but the footage encoding is the same--it's all DVCPRO HD. I've got some stuff that I did recently that keyed like buttah with Ultra--I literally had a solid key in 20 seconds with just picking the background color and tweaking a couple parameters.
So, since "brightly lit" and "lower lit" are subjective terms, it's hard to give you any specific recommendations other than to try to stick in a particular exposure range. All I know is that when your green screen footage is evenly lit and at mid-range exposure, Ultra does a pretty good job with minimal effort.

Why Annyconecct is better than vpn client ?

why anyconnect is better than cisco vpn client ?
what is its advangatges ?
i think that both are remoteaccess vpn .
why its better ?

The other thing is that, Cisco does not support traditional VPN on Windows 8.X. I have run in to lots of issues trying to install Cisco VPN client on Windows 8.x clients.. it sometimes work and sometimes it needs registry hacks etc.. really painful setup for the network engineer. So Anyconnect is preffered.
Also, since SSL uses port 443/SSL by default, it does not need any ALG (Application Layer Gateway) functionality in remote end user's routers to operate, and will simply work with normal PAT which is always on.. with traditional IPSec VPN, since it uses ESP, you need to have AGL turned on on the user's GW router (this is normally called IPSec VPN pass through mode) and this sometimes doesn't work the way you want specially on the older residential routers. When this happens you really don't have any other option for those users.. and your only response would be "Sorry your router does not support this kind of VPN or your router does something strange with the VPN so Please upgrade your router" which is something the normal residential user don't want to hear.. and something you want to tell them..
So SSL VPN is the way to go..
please rate helpful posts :)

Is the reception of iPhone 5c better than 5s.

Was advised at a Telstra store that the reception of the iPhone 5s was worse than that of the 5c. Am thinking of upgrading from 4s.
Has anyone experienced this?

Not sure about the 5C but the 5S is hugely worse than the 4S for data. And tethering is a dead loss in poor signal areas where it would work reliably with the 4S.
However it's not that simple - the 5S voice call performance seems BETTER than the 4S. I did a 45 minute call yesterday during a drive through several known blackspots where my 4S and indeed other non-Apple phones reliably drop the call, and not only did the 5S maintain the call but I didn't even have any dropped audio at all.
But despite the audio being solid I couldn't get ANY data out of it at all - and yes it was on 3G so should have been able to do voice and data simultaneously.
So my guess is a serious bug in the firmware or baseband around data handling rather than inherently poorer hardware in the 5S. Or at least that's what I hope as one wouldn't expect a newer phone to be worse than the previous model especially after the bizarre mess of the iPhone 4 and antennagate!

What's better than Illustrator?

I've been using Illustrator for many years and several versions. My usage is nominal and occasional/once a week, and I don't get very sophisticated for my needs, so it has been OK so far. I do not do commercial work but know Ai is the "de-facto std".
But I read this forum often and see many criticisms of Ai and I do have occasional issues with Illy with tools and UI....just not as easy or robust as it could/should be...cumbersome at times.
I see JET and others here make great use of Illy but also criticize (justifiably) it for not being as good as other vector tools.
I know there are competitors, Inkscape is free, others less costly than Illy; and seemingly better/easier/faster to use...at least for some things.
So my question: What is better than Illustrator (I'm using CS5) and why? What can they do better than Ai? Is it worth having a second program and learning (tho I suspect the learning curve should be easy as they do similar things but have different GUI). Or replacing Illy with something?
Pro's/Con's that would make one make the effort to try/use something else? I don't even know what out there is better than Illy. I've searched www and got a few hints but nothing very significant.
Am I wasting my time looking?
Your feedback welcomed to help me decide whether to explore/trial other programs.

I see JET and others here...criticize (justifiably) it for not being as good as other vector tools.
I can't speak for "and others", but since I'm the only one you mention by name:
If you've already deemed the criticism justifiable, then you must already know what that criticism says. When I criticize Illustrator, I don't just say "Illustrator is crap" and leave it at that, unsupported. I'm careful to explain myself with facts pertinent to the context of the discussion. I actually own and know how to use the other programs to which I compare. I've often posted lists of comparitive features.
I've always used my real name here and sign all my posts with my initials. So finding my comments is not difficult.
I know there are competitors, Inkscape is free, others less costly than Illy; and seemingly better/easier/faster to use...at least for some things. So my question: What is better than Illustrator (I'm using CS5) and why? What can they do better than Ai?
Didn't you just answer your own question? Other than the broadly general things you just mentioned, what program do you want to compare, and for doing what? Surely you're not asking someone to do an exhaustive feature-by-feature comparison between Illustrator and all similar programs in this one thread?
All you've said about what you use Illustrator for is that your use is nominal, occasional, unsophisticated, and non-commerical. Mine isn't. Commerical graphics has been my livelihood for over 40 years. Vector-based illustration is both a speciality and a passion.
I...knowAi is the "de-facto std"
"Defacto standard" is self-fulfilling. It's effectively equivalent to saying "More people use Illustrator because more people use Illustrator."
So what? More people ride Vespa scooters than KTM motorcycles. But which one would you call "professional quality"? You can use either one to pick up a gallon of orange juice at the corner store. But if you enter an enduro, the KTM will get the job done with alot less stress.
The myth is that most software buyers choose the best. That's as naive as the faith that most voters do.
Illustrator has been slothfully resting on its "defacto standard" haunches since the dark ages (AKA the 80s). "Defacto standard" be hanged.
I do have occasional issues with Illy with tools and UI....just not as easy or robust as it could/should be...cumbersome at times.
Okay. What issues? State something specific and users actually familiar with other programs can compare.
This is the 21st century. There's really little new under the sun here. A 2D drawing program is just an interface pasted on top of mostly the same old geometric functionality. The competitive advantage goes to the offering that best (easy) and most fully (robust) empowers the user. The multiplication of easy and robust yields elegance. That's a term I've never applied to Illustrator. Illustrator is one of the oldest of the bunch, lounging under the sun for so long it's at risk of skin cancer. Yet it still fails to provide basic functionality users of other drawing programs have taken for granted for decades.
Examples that may be germane to your casual, non-commerical use? Try these things in Illustrator:
Star Tool: Draw a star. Now change the number of points it has.
Arc Tool: Draw 36 degrees of a circular arc.
Label that star with a dimension.
Distribute a group of different objects along a curve.
Uniformly space Blend steps along a non-uniform curve.
Attach a Blend to a closed path and have the first/last instances properly positioned.
Knife Tool: Cut across an open unfilled path.
Connect a text label to an object that stays connected when you move it.
Paste a simple graphic into a text string so that it flows with the text.
Perform a Find/Replace on carriage returns.
Round Corners: Apply it to an accute or obtuse angle and have it actually yield the radius you specify.
Crop a raster image.
Rotate something. Go back later and find out what its rotation angle is.
Pathfinders: Use them without wrecking existing fills/strokes.
I could go on (and have). How long a list do you want? All the features/functions associated with the above basic operations (and many more) are substandard, half-baked, or even non-existent in Illustrator. This is "professional"-grade software? No, it's largely consumerish rubbish sold at exhorbitant prices just because it's the "defacto standard."
Is it worth having a second program and learning...
Obviously, it is to me (and a third, and a fourth, and...). As I've said many times in this forum, I don't know how anyone can legitimately claim to compare two programs if they've only got workaday familiarity with one.
As with any other endeavor, the more drawing programs you're comfortable with, the less arduous it is to pick up another, because you tend to pick up on the underlying principles involved, as opposed to just becomming habituated to a particular program's command locations and procedures by rote.
But you've been using AI for "many years" and find it to be "OK". So if you're happy with it, use it.
I have a cheap, consumerish Ryobi table saw and it's "OK." But I didn't pay a professional-grade price for it, either. And I'm sure not going to write glorious reviews on it, call it "professional," and get all fearfully brand-loyal defensive about it if someone dares suggest I might ought to learn to use a different one. My use of it, like yours, is merely occasional. But I also presently need to build a TV cabinet, and I'm dreading it. If I were to open a cabinet shop, I'd be much more discriminating, and would do my own homework to make an informed decision.
Or replacing Illy with something?
One doesn't have to "replace." There's nothing any more wrong with using more than one 2D drawing program than there is with using more than one 3D modeling program, or raster imaging program, or page layout program, or word processor, or video edting program, or....
Pro's/Con's that would make one make the effort to try/use something else?
That depends on what one is doing with it. Not knowing that, I can again only offer generalities that matter to me: If you've only ever used one program of a particulat kind, you're rather in the dark regarding functionality that you may be missing that may be important to you. (Second-degree ignorance: You don't know what you don't know.) If you're mission-dependent upon that one program, you're also kind of captive to the whims and agenda of its vendor.
That very well may not matter to you, given your nominal, occasional, unsophisticated, and non-commerical use. And if so, that's fine.
I don't even know what out there is better than Illy. I've searched www and got a few hints but nothing very significant.
But you just said you've been reading a bunch of posts here which mention other programs.
Am I wasting my time looking?
Only you can answer that about your time. Time is all any of us have.
Your feedback welcomed to help me decide whether to explore/trial other programs.
No offense, but frankly it sounds like you're just not motivated enough to do your own homework. If you are sufficiently motivated, visit the websites of other drawing program vendors. Read the features lists. Dowload the demos, read the documentation, and try them out. Visit the programs' user forums. Or, if it's really not that important to you, don't.
If you've got questions about specific functionality and/or specific programs, be more specific about what you do (or want to do).
JET

Is the external isight better than the internal?

I have a macbook, but I am considering purchasing an external isight as well. I know the external has auto focus (I do not believe the internal does) but I am more interested in color. Does the external have better color and low-light picture? Is the same 1/4 inch chip from the external used in the internal, or is the internal a lessor chip?
I enjoy the macbooks isight, but I would like to make some movies with iMovie. The internal is not overly impressive with it's colors when doing this. Sharpness is also not excellent, it seems the external will definitly improve upon this.
Any input is greatly appreciated. I would really like to hear from owners of both cameras who could possibly compare and contrast these two.
Kalel

Hi Kalel,
I agree with Eddie. I have an external mounted on my G5 at the office and an internal on an Intel iMac at home. If nothing else, the ability to reposition makes the external the hands down winner.
Personally, I believe the external records ambient light better than the internal, but I have different lighting situations at both locations.
Both the internal and external have autofocus.
One of the best additions you can get for either one is a program called iGlasses. I has been mentioned many times in this forum with plenty of user comments.
Good Luck
John

Mx:TabBar is better than s:TabBar

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for