Switch comparison

Hi folks
I currently have a network for a client that needs re design. the customer are currently using unmanaged Netgear switches. their current network topology consists of two leased lines both being routed by two cisco routers (1 1800 & 1 800). the client would like to upgrade their network which contains 3 switches in different buildings linked by fibre. due to the business only having 40 employees i am thinking of going with a SB switch but im not sure which one. what are the differences between the 500 series and the 300 series and how much impact am i going to have with running SB switches with enterprise equipment.
the reason i ask this is that i have not used the small business products before and want to know they can work successfully with enterprise products to carry voice, video and data
Regards P Lawrence

Hi P.,
In this case I'd definitely consider the SB switches, but only the new series of course (SF/SG 200, 300, 500).
For basic needs, like VLAN, L2 QoS, basic security (like 802.1x), IGMP snooping, RSTP, etc. you can go with the 200 series.
If you need advanced L3 functions like static routing, L3 packet filtering, L3 QoS, advanced security, etc. than your bet would be the 300 series.
As per the 500 series it is not yet available and its major advance over the 300 series is the dedicated hardware stack port, and MVR feature.
As per management they all support IPv6, SNMP R/W, all have a very good web GUI, text based configuration files, TFTP provisioning. The 300 and 500 series will have full CLI.
Hope this helps sheding some light on it, let me know if you have further question.
Cheers,
Zsolt

Similar Messages

Cisco Vs HP switches comparison ( IDF environment Switches)

Hi,
Do anyone having switch comparison for Cisco and HP. I’d like to know how it compares to the Cisco models we use in the IDF environment in terms of features, reliability, cost, and environmental tolerance.
Please share some documents, charts, link etc . Thanks
Regards,
Manoj

Have a look at the following link showing the Cisco switches offer in excess of 100 features not supported by "comparable" HP switches:
https://supportforums.cisco.com/document/12093521/stub
Also, read the blog showing that Cisco products are even priced lower than HP in spite of the advantages:
http://blogs.cisco.com/smallbusiness/wow-i-had-no-idea-cisco-had-these-products/
Cisco 300 and 500 Series is far superior to HP - it's not even close.

Rosewill Switch Comparison Chart

As of 10:45 this morning (8/21/2015), the RNX-AC1200UB USB Wi-Fi Adapter is the Number One New Release on Amazon! Grab one here before they're all gone! http://tinyurl.com/qx3c36v
This topic first appeared in the Spiceworks Community

Just now heard from a friend that gartner/some market research analyst groups have the comparison report with them. If anybody have access to such paid memebership , can you pls help me out by searching .
Cheers
Ranjeesh

Dot1x authentication - Switch 3650 / Polycom phone 430

Hi,
I have a switch 3650 with the IP base image IOS 12.2(25) SEE3, a polycom phone SoundPoint IP 430 SIP, A radius server IAS 2003 and a Windows XP PC.
I enabled the windows XP pc for wired authentication ( started the service Wired AutoConfig, added the registry entries AuthMode, SupplicantMode, choose Enable IEEE 802.1x authenticaiton with PEAP, then secured password EAP-MSCHAP-v2.
I configured the RADIUS server for ethernet authentication and domain users. In the profile I choose Eap, mschap v2
The port configuration of the switch is as following:
Switch#sh run int fa0/1
Building configuration...
Current configuration : 590 bytes
interface FastEthernet0/1
switchport access vlan 121
switchport mode access
switchport voice vlan 155
switchport priority extend trust
service-policy input QoS-Policy-LAN
speed 100
duplex full
spanning-tree portfast
end
I configured the switch as the following:
switch(config)#dot1x system-auth-control
Under the interface configuration mode:
switch(config-if)#dot1x port-control auto
switch(config-if)#dot1x pae authenticator
switch(config-if)#dot1x host-mode multi-host
I plugged the PC directly into the switch port, I got that additional credentials are required for the PC to connect to the network, So I put my username and password for windows and was successfully authenticated.
Then I plugged the PC to the phone( Polycom 430) and the phone into the switch port. the network card appears as attempting to authenticate but it doesn't prompt, and I am not able to access the network, neither I am able to use the phone.( the problem that the authentication packets sent from the PC do not reach the switch, as I see in the debug dot1x (on the switch) comparison when I was connecting the PC alone and when I connected the PC&Phone, the client ID trying to authenticate is different in each case. I will put the debug for both down, when it connects and when it was unable to connect)
I tried dot1x host-mode single-host
I did many changes , one time with single-host and then with multi-host: ( each time , I tried to disable/enable Network card of the PC, and make a phone call in order generate traffic)
First added dot1x mac-auth-bypass - disconnected and reconnected -- didn't work(neither phone , nor PC)
Second in addition to First , i added dot1x control-direction in   --- didn't work (neither phone , nor PC).
Then I removed both these settings and I set:
dot1x guest-vlan 155 where 155 is the voice vlan
dot1x auth-fail vlan 155
Nothing was working
Then I added these 2 records, in addition to the dot1x mac-auth-bypass, nothing was working.
In the attachment, I marked with blue font, where I saw the ClientID, After that state-machine record that shows the client ID, I saw that the debug output of the debug changed
CDP is enabled on both the phone and the switch, and when I use show cdp , i see the phone connected to the port.
Thanks
Sayed

I run a test that I run was making the duplex to half on all switches/phone/PC,
I brought a small switch, connected to the the cisco 3650 with the port configuration
and I did two more tests:
test1,
     dot1x port-control auto
     dot1x authenticator pae
     dot1x host-mode multi-host
the PC authenticated successfully and I was able to to access the network as well as to make phone calls.
Test2.
     dot1x port-control auto
     dot1x authenticator pae
     dot1x host-mode single-host
The PC was able to authenticate and access the network but the phone was not able.
The problem that I am thinking is that the phone wants to try to authenticate, and doesn't let the authentication of the PC to pass.
I hope somebody can help me, regarding this problem
Thanks

CFScript Switch

I need help in writing the correct Switch statement in
CFScript.
Is this the right way?
I'm not sure with the Len(DRCode), should I put " " ot just
Len(DRCode)
The case is using ""
Digits="Len(DRCode)";
switch(Digits)
case "6":
getOrderNo= "0" & DRCode;
break;
case "7":
getOrderNo= DRCode;
break;
}

alecken wrote:
> I need help in writing the correct Switch statement in
CFScript.
> Is this the right way?
> I'm not sure with the Len(DRCode), should I put " " ot
just Len(DRCode)
> The case is using ""
>
> Digits="Len(DRCode)";
> switch(Digits)
> {
> case "6":
> {
> getOrderNo= "0" & DRCode;
> break;
> }
> case "7":
> {
> getOrderNo= DRCode;
> break;
> }
> }
>
No quotes.
switch(len(DRCode))
OR
Digits = len(DRCode);
switch(Digits)
Otherwise you are comparing the string 'len(DRCode)' to the
string '6'
and string '7' which is never going to match. You want to
compare the
result of the len(DRCode) function to the strings '6' and
'7'.
That is why the case statements use quotes. In its heart, a
switch
comparison is a string comparison. Keep this in mind, because
it can
have subtle implications to ones comparison logic.

Switch statement - str and ch comparisons

Hi everyone,
As usual lectures are a fat load of good when it comes to explaining anything, can't seem to get this working no matter how much I look over it.
Basically i'm having trouble looking at a string, determining what is at character three in the string, and then responding by saying what it is (for this I used an if statement in the switch, i'm kinda noob so I can't think of any other way and don't particularly want to change it if it can be helped).
The only problem i'm getting is it says "char cannot be dereferrenced" and points to this piece of code -- third.equals("a") || third.equals("e") ...and so on.
I have included the code for you to see...
thx in advance :)
/*Program offering users
*a switch statement choice
import java.util.*;
public class Switch
     public static void main (String[] args)
     Scanner kybd = new Scanner(System.in);
     System.out.println("Please enter a string");
     String input = kybd.nextLine();
     System.out.println("---Choose an option---");
     System.out.println("\n" + "1. Work out how many characters the word is");
     System.out.println("2. Display the first character");
     System.out.println("3. Display the last character");
     System.out.println("4. If longer than 3 chracters, is the 3rd a vowel or digit?");
     int choice = kybd.nextInt();
     int length = input.length();
     char third = input.charAt(2);
          switch(choice)
          case 1:
          System.out.println("The length of the phrase is: " + length);
          break;
          case 2:
          char firstLetter = input.charAt(0);
          System.out.println("The first letter is: " + firstLetter);
          break;
          case 3:
          char lastLetter = input.charAt(length-1);
          System.out.println("The last letter is: " + lastLetter);
          break;
          case 4:
          if (third.equals("a"))
          System.out.println("Third character is a vowel: " + third);
          else
               if (third.equals("0"))
               System.out.println("Third character is a digit: " + third);
               else
               System.out.println("That is neither a vowel or digit");
          break;
          default:
          System.out.println("That is not an acceptable choice");
}

Cheers mate, knew it had to be something obvious.
You would think they would teach us a bit more about ch comparisons before asking us to do it...there's no reference anywhere in lectures to that simple thing.
Thx for your help.

How to do comparison on fields in Switch in bpm?

Hi,
I have a switch step in bpm to check the condition if the Qunatity for each line items of PO from the OrderResponse xml match with the quantity for each line ltems of PO in OrderCreate xml, I checked the MultLine checkbox for the field Quantity in Xpath in expression editor, so the switch can handle comparsions for multiline items line by line, which is fine, but it only seems to do the comparsion based on the sequence of the line item, if I have LineItem 10, quantity 20 in the first row and LineItem 20, Quantity 30 in the second row from OrderCreate message , and LineItem 20, Quantity 30 in the first row and LineItem10, quantity 20 in the second row from the OrderResponse message, logically they are same, just in different format, however, switch in bpm compares line by line in the order, anybody have any suggestions on how to do the comparison based on LineItem number? Or have similar examples?
Thanks,
Hy

Hi,
you can compare both much easier in a mapping
(either in a java mapping - this way you'll be able to handle
all lines as you wish) or you can try to compare them with message mapping
and then just post the result to a target message and use the result from
the target message in your switch step
Regards,
michal

CS5.5 Gripes/CS6 Wish List (from the perspective of an FCP switcher)

I have been a Final Cut Pro user for more than 10 years (starting with version 1.2 on a 500 MHz G4). Final Cut Pro X is a disaster, but that’s a well-covered topic for a different forum. After experimenting with Premiere Pro CS5.5 for a few months, I am ready to make the switch for all of my future projects.
I make a living editing video. I don’t, however, work for a big company, and I don’t have a lot of money to spend on third-party software or hardware. Much of my work is shot on DSLRs and delivered online. That may put me in the category of “pro-sumer” to some, but I wouldn’t be making the switch if I didn’t require a more professional alternative to FCPX to do my job.
I also don’t think “pro” has to be synonymous with clunky and ugly. (I’m looking at you, Avid.) When Final Cut was young, it was fun, intuitive, and sturdy. It became a robust, professional NLE over time. I think Premiere Pro is on that path now.
I like the look, the feel, and the functionality of CS5.5. It’s not quite Apple-slick, but it’s very much at home on a Mac. Overall, it’s an upgrade to FCP7 and a very strong alternative to FCPX. I have high hopes for CS6.
But this is not a comprehensive review. It is just a list of negatives: my gripes, wishes, and personal preferences. My list of positives would be much longer, but my concern right now is with CS6 and the improvements that I hope it delivers. As I am new to Premiere, it's quite possible that I am mistaken about certain functionalities or lack thereof, but I thoroughly researched each point in the help docs and forums before posting this.
My primary system is a 3.2 GHz iMac 21” (2010) with 8 GB RAM, 512MB VRAM (ATI Radeon HD), running Mac OS X 10.7 with external Firewire 800 drives and a DisplayPort-to-HDMI external display.
MAJOR ISSUES
Hardware acceleration support for ATI GPUs
There are rumors that Apple will be switching back to nVidia, but all recent iMacs have ATI and only ATI cards.
Background rendering (or at least improved rendering options)
Background rendering is probably FCPX’s most impressive feature and Adobe needs to catch up. However, even if true background rending can’t be achieved, there should be an auto-render option (after a set idle time), partial rendering (if you cancel a render, keep everything that has been rendered up until that point), and more render options (e.g. render all and render selected). Regarding that last point, I think the whole work area concept should be dropped. It makes sense for other apps, particularly for animation, but it just gets in the way of more important timeline functions while offering little functionality beyond being a clumsy way to control the area to be rendered. At the very least, have a way to hide it.
Full-screen preview
Maximizing the program frame just isn’t the same (although the grave accent key function may be reason enough to switch to Premiere). Full-screen preview isn’t just a nifty function for demo-ing sequences. It’s a big part of the way I work.
DisplayPort/Thunderbolt out to HDMI
It may be that a third-party card is required for proper color correction on an external display, but there’s no reason this feature shouldn’t exist.
Thumbnail images/show frames bug
This one drives me crazy. I’ve tested this on 3 different Mac systems with various hardware configurations. Thumbnail images in the bins and frame images in the timeline seem to be recreated every time a project is opened, even though the thumbnail image files in the media cache folder don’t actually appear to get rewritten. It’s as if there is no cache at all (even for the most recently viewed bins and timelines segments). It can’t be an intentional functionality for saving hard drive space because the cache files continue to take up more and more space.
Open multiple projects simultaneously
I know that you can cut and paste between projects but being able to open multiple projects at the same time is a very useful feature of FCP7.
Magic Mouse/Magic Trackpad scrolling
Premiere Pro is a cross-platform system and impressively so, but there need to be a few Mac-specific interface adjustments, the most important of which is support for the Magic Mouse and Magic Trackpad scrolling. I use a Magic Mouse. (It’s an irritating device sometimes, but once you get used to it, it’s hard to live without it.) When I’m in a window, I expect a flick up or down to scroll up or down -- in every situation, every time, including the timeline. Unless I stop using all other Mac apps, I will never get accustomed to the timeline suddenly flying left or right when I want to scroll up or down. Also, here’s a chance for Adobe to fix a problem that FCP7 shared: When you scroll up or down in the effect control window using the mouse, the drop-down effect controls sometimes twirl all over the place if the mouse happens to float over them. As it is, it very easy to throw settings into random disarray without even realizing it just by scrolling through the pane.
The timeline: selection indication, icons, and general improvements
It is very difficult to discern at a glance what, if anything, is selected in the timeline. Transitions always look selected! Audio tracks should be a different color or otherwise more distinct. There should be an option to show frames only without any text. The icons for track options are small, crowded, and ugly. Some of the editing icons are too similar, namely edit and ripple edit, although the excellent status bar at the bottom of the application goes a long way towards making up for this. Simply put, the timeline could use some polish. Don’t be afraid to steal from Apple on this one. Keep the tracks; just make it easier on the eyes!
Conforming audio
The ability of CS5.5 to work natively with DSLR footage is awesome, but it’s not fully DSLR native if it has to pre-render a major component of the footage before it can play, even if it’s just the audio.
Media loading
When launching a project, it can take a long time for all the media in the project to “load” as tracked in the status bar. I’m sure there’s a reason for this, but since the program is able to determine which source media files are missing before this step (and gives you the option to reconnect them), what is it doing and why must it load every clip in the project, even those not in use by any sequences?
Page up/page down and arrow key commands
For starters, the current page up/page down key functions should take the CTI to the next cut in the sequence, not the next cut in the track that happens to be targeted, which can be way down timeline. In FCP7, I frequently navigated cut to cut with the up and down arrow keys. I’ve avoided customizing the keyboard commands to match FCP7 -- I would rather endure some hardship and learn the proper Adobe commands -- but this one is flat-out backwards. The page up/down keys should page through the timeline (left to right and right to left), while the up and down arrow keys should take over the clip to clip function (assuming the targeted track issue is fixed). Currently, the down arrow takes you to the very end of the timeline, a function already duplicated by and better suited for the “end” key.
Bin management and clip relationships
Deleting an item from a bin should not delete it from the timeline, but this is part of a bigger problem, which is the whole master file versus instance versus subclip versus dup clip thing. There aren’t any good indicators regarding the relationships of these clips, and there are few ways to adjust them. If clips are going to be connected, then they should be fully connected. For instance, changing the name of a clip in the bin should change it in the timeline. Adding an effect or trimming should affect the corresponding clips between bin and timeline. Otherwise, the clips should just be completely separate instances. I haven’t been able to find an option to turn a clip into an independent instance, although I have to think it exists. Also, editing an instance of a title does change every other instance of that title throughout the sequence. I would prefer to be able to edit them separately without having to duplicate them in the title editor.
Bin effects
Related to the above, it should be possible to add effects to clips in bins or keep effects on clips added to bin from timeline. It would also be nice to be able to group effects together in bins for a specific project. The effects window is better suited for global collections.
Clearer visual indicators that a clip has been adjusted in the effect controls panel
Even with the effects panel visible, you have to take a close look to see if there have been any adjustments to the standard settings. An indicator on the clip in the timeline itself would be useful.
Snapping should include the CTI
It should also include the blade tool, although the Cmd-K option to cut at the CTI position does make this less of an issue.
Smoother scrubbing
Scrubbing is pretty awful. While this is understandable with native footage, FCPX somehow manages to make this silky smooth at full resolution.
Color correction shape mask and better color correction in general
Simplify the primary functions of the 3-way color correction effect. Keep all the rarely used adjustments out of the way. I use Magic Bullet for some purpose, but I’ve always done most of my color correction within FCP. Put the most common adjustments front and center (or up top, as it may be). The highlights/mid-tone/shadows drop-down is inconsistent in what controls it pertains to.
FCPX’s color correction is actually one of its more underrated features. The way it allows you to layer corrections is dead-simple yet as powerful as anything in FCP7 or Premiere. Stick with the 3 wheels, but rely less on hard to control tonal ranges and add simple keyframe-able shape masks for secondary color correction.
Better support for shared media access
AVID is king in this arena and Adobe needs to improve. It should be possible for multiple editors to safely work on the same project files and share media over a server.
MINOR ISSUES
More vertically compact playback/edit control area in source and program panes
Make room for either a taller timeline or bigger previews. The virtual scrubber and shuttle controls are the nifty things you drag with the mouse the first time you ever use an NLE and never touch again.
Larger icons in icon view
Remember size and position of bin windows
Playback resolution setting indicator
There should be an always-visible indicator of the playback res setting in the preview pane that’s easy to adjust without right-clicking.
Better markers for sequences and clips
Include colors and more keyboard shortcut control.
Clip sliding with keyboard commands
“Opt-,” (that’s Option-comma) should cause a clip collision, not overwrite. Either that, or “,” and “.” should slide, while “Opt-,” should overwrite. Opt-arrow should only extend an adjoining clip if in the middle of two clips. Basically, this whole arrangement should be re-thought.
Project browser should auto refresh/sort.
Option-drag on a Mac should always be copy, not move.
Copy is currently command-drag in the project browser.
Stop auto-save from interrupting adjustments in timeline.
Ideally, the auto-save should just be a background function, but it should at least wait until you’re not in the middle of dragging something.
Add ability to select a cut directly and add default transition.
CTI control
If you move the CTI while it’s in play mode, it should continue to play from that spot after you release the mouse, not stop there.
Show number of frames being adjusted during keyframe adjustments.
Enable/disable specific effect parameters/keyframes.
Clearing an effect should clear keyframes as well.
Or have an option to clear both.
Position controls
There should be a preference to make the default position 0.0 x 0.0 (as opposed to 50% of whatever the resolution happens to be), and include a reset button.
Through-edit indicator in timeline
And a quick way to join clips, such as a right-click menu option.
Border controls for images
Auto save location preference and functionality
In FCP7 I set the number of auto saves to keep to the maximum of 100 and Premiere can go even higher. I have always used this feature as an additional backup and archive system, which has come in very handy. Those files add up, however. So, I prefer to auto-save to an external drive. Also, auto saves in Premiere continue to occur whenever there are unsaved changes. This means that if you make a small adjustment and then leave Premiere for a while, it will keep auto saving the same iteration, which is not only inefficient but leads to my next point….
Tame the bouncing dock icon on auto save
While using other apps, there’s no need for the dock icon to bounce every time Premiere performs an auto save.
More/clearer control over cache locations
There should also be an option to reset the cache/render file locations to their defaults.
Export source range
When exporting, remember the last-used setting of the export source range (or just dump the whole work area thing as I previously suggested). It’s too easy to cut off a portion of the video when the export defaults back to the work area every time.
Larger timecode display
After spending hours and hours editing, the current timecode for clips and sequences is something you want to be able to track without squinting. Use the letters h,m,s and f instead of colons.
Simple slug
Creating a black matte works okay, but it involves a few extra steps.
Snapping toggle
FCP allows you to quickly toggle snapping while dragging a clip. Upon releasing the clip, the snap toggle returns to its original state. Premiere could use this fucntion, but I suggest something simpler. Holding down the “S” key should always turn snapping on regardless of toggle state, while releasing it returns it to however it was set before.
Ability to dock the audio meters along top
I like to give my timeline as much horizontal space as possible. I’ve noticed a lot of users keep the toolbar up there, myself included. I think it would be a good place horizontally aligned audio meters as well.
More detailed tool tips or hover explanations in preferences
For example: The options regarding XMP data should make it clear that the original files will be modified by Premiere. This caused me problems in other applications. (After researching these settings, I understand that various Adobe applications use this information to share resources, but it’s still very unclear what the specific benefits are or what functions are lost without this option.)
More detailed support documents
The online support documents on the Adobe site very good. They are nicely arranged and easy to search, but they could be more detailed and offer fuller explanations. (Peruse the support forums and you will discover all kinds of debates that could have been easily cleared up with one concise line in a help document.)
Icons and button design
Icons and buttons are often too small, too similar, and too crowded throughout the interface. Take some style tips from Apple on this one.
NEW FEATURE WISH LIST
Footage auto-analysis: shot recognition, color correction, and color match
If only Apple had just added these features and others to the FCP7 framework. Adobe can do it better though, by using smart folders in addition to the traditional bins that we know and trust (anything besides those dreadful iMovie-style “events”).
Effect previews
In the 64-bit era, there has to be a quicker way to preview effects.
Ability to render in alternate formats
Namely ProRes or DNxHD. This would save me considerable time on exports by allowing me to select the “use preview files” option.
PluralEyes functionality
Okay, I suppose I should just purchase PluralEyes...again.
Many, many more effects!
How about starting with the missing vignette effect? Just because an app is “pro” doesn’t mean you should have to custom build every effect.
Many, many more looks!
Will most of them be cheesy looks I would never touch? Sure...but give me some templates to play with before I tweak the look down to my exact specifications.
More speed!
FCPX, for all its flaws, blazes on any modern Mac. This probably comes back to hardware acceleration, but while Premiere Pro on a Mac isn’t slow, it doesn’t blow you away.

You hit the nail on the head, Peter.
I recently started giving Premiere Pro CS5 a try, and was shocked by the amount of bugs and usability issues. I'm not even going as deep as you in the features, but the most glaring evidence of the lousy interface is that timecode offset bubble that appears everytime you move a clip in the timeline... the bugger appears just under your mouse pointer and won't go away, so if you try to just move a clip down a track quickly, and let go of the button ONTO the bubble, it acts as an obstacle and your drag/drop fails ! seriously, Adobe... don't tell me nobody has stumbled upon this one during beta-testing ?
Ditto on the autosave that basicly interrupts anything you're doing. No background saving in 2011 ? At first it bothered me to no end so I disabled the autosave. And then a few hours later, Premiere crashed, and didn't even try to recover my work. I lost 2 hours of intricate work. I put autosave back on, and learned to endure the constant, annoying save dialog. And it's not like the save process is instant... even the simplest of projects takes 5 to 10 seconds to save... on an SSD... come on... let me work already...
Of course, a headache-inducing implementation wouldn't be complete if the autosave didn't trigger even 30 seconds after a manual save. If I choose an interval of 5 minutes, just autosave 5 minutes after a manual save !
In thumbnail view, you can reorder the clips manually. It's all fine, but you can't reorder them by name or date or length, unless you switch to list view and of course, lose the thumbnails.
Dragging and dropping a clip in thumbnail view is a chore, because the palette doesn't scroll when the mouse reaches the edge. You know, when you want to move something at the top all the way to the bottom... so you have to drag, let go, scroll one screen, drag, let go, scroll one screen... it's a joke. Even the timeline can do it. Heck, it's a software standard, nowadays.
Renaming a clip and pressing ENTER takes you back to... the top of the folder !?! How many times I've renamed files that were at the end of the thumbnail view, and for each clip, I had to scroll back down. Time waster.
Want to locate a clip from the timeline, in the project ? the locate function takes you to the folder. But not to the file, you have to navigate towards it manually.
Ditto on the up/down arrows. I haven't found a way to jump from cut to cut like in FCP7. How often do I need to jump to the starting/ending points ? much less often than jumping to a nearby cut.
How come I can't reorder filters in the effects pane ? sorry, I can actually reorder the filters... provided I take them from the bottom and move them up. Moving effects down doesn't work. It's driving me crazy.
Conforming happens more or less anytime. Without reason. And even if the Media Cache is already full of conformed files.
When moving the boundaries of the work area, no timecode/offset appears. You need to let go of the button and THEN hover, then you'll know the exact time/duration.
Try scrolling up in the timeline, it scrolls to the left (which is stupid, it should scroll up). Now scroll up on the tabs of a palette : they scroll to the right !?!
Can't select an active track. Direct consequence : copy-pasting a clip overlaps anything that's on track 1. Say I want to duplicate clips on the same track... I can't do it.
Copy-pasting between projects doesn't keep the transitions, only the order of the clips.
Have you tried doing a frame freeze on a reversed clip and setting proper in/out points for the freeze ? Good luck.
"Duplicate" command, when you right click on a thumbnail, is way too far from the cut/copy/paste commands at the top, even though they're quite related.
The other day I transcoded footage with different audio parameters. Just the audio had changed. Upon opening the project, Premiere wanted me to locate the files, which I did. And it failed miserably. Instead, I opened the project ignoring the missing files, and then re-linked them. I pointed Premiere at the first missing file, and had to confirm the replacement. Premiere saw all the other missing files in that folder, and began prompting me FOR EACH SINGLE FILE !!! two hundred and forty three of them, precisely. Can't I have a "yes to all" button in 2012 ? and why does the relinking work inside the project and not when you open a project ?
That was just from 3 days with Premiere Pro CS5. I still can't believe it. Just to think people bashed Final Cut Pro X, praising Premiere in comparison... Sorry, but they both have serious issues. And Premiere doesn't even have the excuse of novelty.

I've Made the Switch (from iWeb) & Lived to Tell About It.

I've gotten a lot of help and useful information from this forum over the years and I will certainly miss it. I've just completed a 2 month transition where I've migrated my site from iWeb/Mobile Me to a new site made in RapidWeaver and hosted by Host Excellence. I figured I'd write a little (or a lot) about my experience, to give some others an idea of what they've got to look forward too. Hopefully it will arm you with some things to do and look out for. While I am describing RapidWeaver here, a lot of this process will be the same no matter what new software you use. I started off being pretty happy with what I had going in iWeb and not being thrilled at all about making the switch. Now I am so glad I made the switch and I am far happier about the new site than I was with the old one. BTW: the new sites address is: http://grillinsmokin.net . Feel free to visit. I think you'll quickly notice some things you simple can't do in iWeb. This isn't a knock against iWeb. I was very happy with iWeb and had no plans to switch. Where it hasn't been developed actively for four years now, it has been left behind somewhat.
To begin at the beginning: I've had a site made with iWeb since January of 2006 called Grillin' & Smokin' that combined my love of outdoor cooking and photography. Over the years it had grown rather large, with 375 photo entry pages and 230 blog pages. The Domain file was around 1.4 GB. This was not something I ever wanted to have to recreate from scratch. However losing MobileMe as a host was taking away Value Added features like the Hit Counter, Slide Show, Blog Comments, Blog Search etc. The handwriting is on the wall for iWeb too. I might have gone on using iWeb, but between losing key features and the fact iWeb was starting to show it's age, it was time for me to move on. Just before the iCloud announcement this Spring, I began researching website building software. I looked at their features, working methodology, themes, plug-ins and extensions. I download trial versions of the software where it was available as well as some of the themes or plugins I might be using. I gotta tell you, at first I was very frustrated and upset, because I was not finding anything that had the ease of use of iWeb and looked like it was going to be able to recreate the appearance of my original site. It appeared to be a series of compromises. I'd like the features of one package but I hated the themes available for that software. Another looked promising but isn't being upgraded regularly. My biggest frustration was some of the iWeb page types just don't exist in other packages. For example the Album Pages where multiple Photo Pages can be grouped and displayed, don't have a direct equivalent in any other package I saw. As part of my discovery process I read reviews of the various packages, including head to head comparisons of some of them. I also visited their discussion forums. After doing this for 3 weeks I "settled" on RapidWeaver. It was under active development; had a thriving developer community turning out a wide variety of add ons, plug-ins and themes; had an active user community & had lots of help resources available. The web pages it produced were standards compliant and you could get nice effects without resorting to Flash. I think the biggest selling point was all of the add-ons-kind of the same advantage the iPhone has with it's App Store.
Once I bought RapidWeaver & a 3rd Party theme, I tried the demo versions of some of the plug-ins and made sample versions of my page types from iWeb in RapidWeaver. I wanted to have a process in place, before I started mass production on the site. You really do need to do some of this homework in advance to avoid unpleasant surprises. The biggest minus I'd turned up about RapidWeaver (RW from this point on) is it didn't handle big sites well at all. The equivalent of the iWeb Domain file is the RapidWeaver Sandwich file or RWSW file. Once the RWSW file reaches 100MB or so you can get crashes or hangs uploading your site. Now 100 MB doesn't sound like much particularly when I was talking about a 1.4GB iWeb Domain File for my site, but RW doesn't include the photos in the RWSW file. Still I knew I was going to have to divide my site across several RWSW files. Initially the plan was to divide it into 3 sites: The main landing pages was one RWSW file and is the site reached by the url for the site. I was going to have a second RWSW file for my blogs and a third for my photos. Ultimately I ended up dividing the photos into 3 RWSW files. These extra files are hosted on sub-domians whose name goes in front of the main domain (http://sub-domain.main-domain.com). This meant some extra setup for me with my web-host, although they made the setup for the 4 sub-domains very easy and they were free. If you have a huge site and will need to split it, you'll want to check with your prospective web host if they charge extra for hosting additional sub-domains. For small iWebs sites this is not an issue-you have one RWSW file and one web address, just like you do now. My having sub-domains also meant more work linking files together across sites. RapidWeaver has something called an Offsite Page which helped with some of this, but having to split my sites up was the biggest PITA for me about the whole process. But knowing about this going in was better than finding out at the end when I tried to upload a single massive site. If you have a small site, the setup for uploading it is as straight forward as iWeb. RW has a built in FTP uploader or you can publish to file and use an FTP client like CyberDuck.
Once I had my site organization in place and had experimented with best practices for recreating each iWeb page type in RW, it was time to begin. I've gotta tell you when I started out I was not a happy camper. I liked the iWeb way of doing things about 70 percent of the time vs 30 percent for RW. At the end of the first week I told myself I have to move on and give up on the past. I was no longer going to be using iWeb and the sooner I embraced the RW way of doing things, the better off I'd be. At this early point it was still hard to see down the road to the end results. No matter what new package you buy, you should try to go with the flow and learn a new way of working. You'll be happier and less frustrated in the end. In my case after having gone through the entire process now, I've ended up changing my opinion. Now that I've gone through the entire process, I like the RapidWeaver way of doing things about 95 percent of the time and 5% for iWeb. That 5 percent is mostly the large site issue I've described. As I began working I was able to reuse much of the text from my iWeb blog in RW. I did have to paste it in as unformatted and reformat it in RW. My pictures were well organized in Aperture which also helped speed the process. One of the things I did is automate some of the tedious repetitious tasks. I created Quickeys macros to do things for me when ever possible. For example I could go to a particular photo page in iWeb and select the first caption. I would then trigger a macro that asked how many captions are on this page. It would then select the caption in iWeb, copy it, switch to RW and paste it in place and repeat XX times. If you know Quickeys or Applescript (I am guessing) there are plenty of opportunities to put it to good use.
RW present a different way of working than you are used to in iWeb and you'll just need to get used to it. What I am describing here would be true of any of the other packages I looked at too. First off it isn't WYSIWYG while you are editing. You are working with fairly basic looking text with few clues as to what the real page looks like. You switch to a preview mode to see what the page looks like in a browser. At first blush iWeb seems to win here. But what I soon realized is RW allows you to mix regular text and pictures together with html snippets right in the same text box. This makes adding counters or badges easy. Plus you can use HTML formatting for things like Titles occurring through your page. Instead of increasing the font size, making the text bold and changing its color, you can simply say this is Heading style 2 or 5 and this happens automatically per the predefined style. Better yet if you change a style everything on that one page or the entire site (your choice) inherits that change. So by working in a non-WYSIWYG mode you gain some long term. advantages over how iWeb works. The same is true with positioning. In iWeb it is fast and easy to place things on a page right down to the pixel. RW just doesn't give you that type of precision and next to splitting my site, layout was my biggest frustration with RW. At least to start. But there is a good reason for this "lack of precision" that may not be apparent until you view the site in a browser. When iWeb came out, you really didn't zoom your browser. iWeb uses Absolute Positioning where it uses anchored boxes for everything, whereas RW uses Relative Positioning. Objects with anchored text or picture boxes like iWeb start having problems if you zoom in or out more than one step. Text starts over flowing other text because the text boxes are anchored by one point. Pages just start looking scary if you try to zoom in or out too much. RW is looking at items relative positions and their relationships with one another. So initially you aren't placing the objects in the same way, it is more like eyeballing things in a way. But when viewed in a web browser you can zoom in or out to your heart's content. So what seems at first like a big disadvantage at first for RW, is actually a HUGE advantage.
This is why you need to go with the flow and try to embrace the new way of working. I mentioned earlier that I wasn't able to find a page type that was equivalent to the iWeb album page. I was able to use a very flexible plug-in for RW called stacks, which allows you to create various single and multi-column or multi-row layouts using empty stacks. You then populate the empty stacks with content, pictures text etc. These pages were not like iWeb albums where you nest the Photo Album Pages in the Album page and they create a skimmable preview and an automatic link to the album. Once I actually started making these new "Album" Pages in RW I realized I was gaining as much or more than I was loosing. The skimmable preview pictures was eyecandy I could live without. Nice touch, not essential. I never liked the way the preview picture shown on the Album page was the first photo in the Photo album. You couldn't change this. Now that I am placing my own photo on the Album page, I could use any picture and make it any size I wanted too. In iWeb the Album Caption was the name of the Photo Page. If this name was too long the caption didn't go to a second line, it got cut off. Any link in RW can have a description added to the link which is what you see in the yellow box when you hover your mouse over the item being linked. I used to hide text boxes links under the pictures on the Albums page for SEO and navigation help. So yes now I have to manually link the Album picture to the Photo Page, but I am no longer creating a hidden text box with a link that I have to remember to move when I add pages to the album. So once again my first impression was wrong. Advantage RW.
Another advantage to RW is any page type can have a sidebar. You can easily add favicons and site logos. You can easily add metadata to any page and customized the names of the path to your pages. The Themes can be more powerful and customizable too. About one week into the process I was begining to really go with the flow and see this new way of working had far more advantages for me than disadvantages.
By the time I finished my new RW site, my iWeb site was looking tired and dated. My biggest and most pleasant surprises were saved until the end. Any kind of SEO was a PITA with iWeb. You had to embed snippets on each page with a code from HaloScan or Google Analytics. Problem was, iWeb erased any such HTML code while you were uploading. So you then had to use a regular expression in the text box ("HaloScan goes here"), upload your site and replace the regular expression with the actual code using a 3rd party tool. Oh and don't do that on any blog page where you are using the built in Apple commenting system because the comments will disappear. I also had problems where the new comment badge would not show up for weeks or months after a comment was made. It was getting so the things I had to do AFTER I uploaded my site to MobileMe were taking longer than uploading the site. Once the site was recreated, it was time to add blog comments, a guestbook, a contact form, Google Analytics, and publish a site map. In my iWeb-influenced mind, I was saving the fussy PITA things for last. I was dead wrong. Unlike what you go through with iWeb, it couldn't have been been easier in RW:
-Blog Comments: Set up an account with the provider. Then I had to go into the page setup in RW for my blog page and click on a popup menu of comment providers & select Discus. If your provider isn't listed you paste some HTML code from the provider into a dialogue box provided by RW for the blog page. In my case it was simpler, just set Discus in the popup menu. Now instead of the iWeb badge showing me new posts (and only when it was in the mood), I now get an email.
-Google Analytics: Set up an account with Google. Go to the Stats area in the RW side bar, click on Configure, paste in your code from Google and you are good to go. You can monitor your Google analytics stats right from within RapidWeaver. (Also works this way for GoSquared Live Stats).
-Guestbook: Same as iWeb. You add a page with an HTML snippet from your Guestbook provider in an iFrame.
-Contact Form: This is a RW page type which masks your email address from the spambots by transferring the information to an invisible and inaccessible page within your site. This page then emails you the information.
-Full Site Search: This doesn't exist in iWeb. You can search your blogs right now, but this is one of the features you lose when MobileMe shuts down. By adding an inexpensive Plug in called RapidSearch Pro I enable full site search. You set up a MySQL server for your site. Host Excellence walked me through the 4-Step Process via a well written Help File. You then control what pages are indexed via your sitemap.xml file. You let RapidSearch Pro index your site and you are good to go.
-SiteMap: There is a simple SiteMap generation feature built into RW 5. There are third party tools for doing this for iWeb. I purchased an inexpensive RW plug in called SiteMap plus that not only generates the sitemap.xml file, it allows you to customize what pages get searched and at what frequency. This ties into what is searched via RapidSearch Pro. This plug-in also generates a visible and customizable sitemap page to help your site's users find their way around. Another bonus of being hosted off Mobile Me is when I went to add my sites to my Google account they had already been indexed. It seemed like they never crawled MobileMe unless you told them you wanted them to look at your site.
Link Checking: This doesn't exist in iWeb. I bought another inexpensive plug-in called Link Inspector for RW. It checks all of your internal and external links and generates a report showing the status of all links. This was just what the doctor ordered for my large site. I will run it periodically to make sure external links are still working and that I haven't broken any internal links.
My site was pretty much wrapped up on Monday August 8th. I just had to add in Blog Comments, Google Analytics, the Guestbook, Full Site Search and the Site Map. I figured I would go public on Tuesday or Wednesday. To my great pleasure these 5 items took all of 2 hours to get set up and working. This was a nice touch after 2 months of hard work.
So there you have it. This is the process I went through converting my site over to RapidWeaver. Your mileage may vary. I am not pushing RapidWeaver for everyone. You have to find what program is the right fit for you. You may find staying with iWeb on a new host is the right fit for you. You need to decide if you can live with the features you lose once you aren't hosted on Mobile Me. For me there was great pain, but in the end there was a lot of gain too. I do like my new site and I feel it will serve me well for years to come. Good luck to all of you in whatever path you choose. Lastly thanks one last time to the helpful folks around here
Jim
http://grillinsmokin.net
Message was edited by: Jim Mahoney

Thanks Roddy. I agree with your take on some of the other software you mentioned, at least from the perspective of having dabbled with demo versions of some of the others. I will add that with Sandvox I felt a little nervous about it. Kind of almost like the software was a "hobby" effort a la the first gen Apple TV.
I also agree with some of your points regarding RapidWeaver. But now that I've built my rather large (for a hobbyist site) website with it I will have to respectfully disagree about it being at the same level as iWeb, or as you put it: a sideways move. While iWeb can be made to do things it was never originally meant to do, there are many places it simply can't go that RapidWeaver can. I was often hitting the limits of what you could do in iWeb, whereas with RapidWeaver, with one exception, I didn't feel like I was running up against any limits yet. The exception is it's lack of ability to handle large sites well. That was almost the deal breaker for me. I find it unexplainable that a software package with all kinds of add-ons helping you make more ambitious sites, can't handle those same sites in a single file. This was almost a deal-breaker for me. For folks who have small to medium sized iWeb sites this isn't a concern. There are also ways to warehouse images on the server to keep file size down, but this gets more complex than many folks coming from iWeb would want to do. Me splitting my site up the way I did was more work than I wanted to do.I almost bagged the whole thing and was close to just taking the old site down.
Now if we were to fantasize for a minute I can think of a way where I could also say iWeb to RapiWeaver is a sideways move: While I don't think iWeb '09 is the equal to RapidWeaver 5, I'd bet that iWeb 11 or the oft rumored iWeb Pro might have been. I kept hoping that Apple would keep pushing the limits of what iWeb could do and add in some missing features and head down the HTML 5 road.
I will conditionally agree on your saying that the shopping list for RapidWeaver can be substantial. I will qualify that by saying: Depending on what you are doing with it, your shopping list for RapidWeaver can be substantial. With one exception, I do think the base package of RapidWeaver is fairly priced. I think the basic Stacks functionality and a few basic stacks should be part of RapidWeaver. The more esoteric stacks can be pay as you go. When iLife 11 was announced without a an update to iWeb, I did some preliminary pricing and I was rather discouraged at the total. This spring I got more serious about things and repriced RapidWeaver and add-ons. After trying out various themes and plug-ins, I was able to sharpen my pencil and reduce the cost of entry considerably. One of the things that helped is the theme I bought had a couple features built into it. It had a nice lightbox type slideshow for photo pages and animated banners/headers capabilities built in. This saved me the expense of several additional plug-ins. Also while I have a blog, I don't consider myself a blogger. I was able to use the built in blog page and I don't feel limited by it at all. Some of the other ad-ons I bought: such as the link checker, site wide search and a more sophisticated sitemap generator were items I added because I could tell I would want to keep the site going long term. Those 3 plug-ins did that a a low price. I didn't think they needed to be built in.
But everyone's mileage may vary. RapidWeaver or any other web design program isn't right for every iWeb user. It all depends on personal needs, abilities and budgets. I'm just glad I can get back to posting to the site and not recreating it.
Jim

How to preserve special characters in dynamic textfield for text comparison?

The problem is as follows:
Since I mostly develop for multiple languages I am forced to have dynamic textfields in my buttons which contain three lines (to account for the differnt text.lengths in different languages).
I then populate the textfields with strings out of an array or xml and use the textfields contents later in my button class to execute different code depending on the textfields content.
This works fine as long as I don`t use any special characters, like for example "\n".
var labels:Array = ["\nLABEL1","LABEL\n\n2"];
switch (e.currentTarget.txt.text)
                case labels[0]:
                    doSomething();
                    break;
                case labels[1]:
                    doSomethingElse();
                    break;
shows the right thing in the button label (breaks the text were I want it)
but stops to work
(with htmlText & <br> its the same)
my workaround for the moment is to use filler spaces,
var labels:Array = ["                   LABEL1","LABEL                                                                        2"];
but that`s obviously ugly to setUp and requires a lot of trial/error to get it right for all languages.
Any ideas how to bypass that?

Bad habits die hard ;-)
Weird enough spelling the problem out and getting this response from you cleared my head and I finally got an easy solution.
I simply attach a dynamic property to the movieclip, copy the array contents into them and instead of using the text-property for comparison I compare the MovieClips fresh created spectext property.
Voila: Now I can be lazy without too much of a bad conscience.

Switch Statement again

I am new to Java and am trying to learn how to use and understand the nuances involved in using the Switch statment.
Yesterday, I received tremendous help, As a result, I am closer to understanding the switch statement and how it works.
My program is designed to use 5 different input boxes. These represent a total for quizzes, homework assignments, 2 midterms, and a final exam.
These are casted to double; then, they are added together and divided by five to obtain an average (the student's GPA). The GPA is then going to assigned a grade depending up the range in the If then statement.
I intend on using a message box to inform the user of the GPA and another followed by another message box to show them their grade.
I would like to incorporate the switch statement (so I can learn how to use it) to show them their grade.
I know the code needs tweaking but this is what I have so far:
import javax.swing.JOptionPane;
public class Switchgrade{
//declaration of class
public static void main(String args[])
//declaration of main
String midone; String midtwo; String quiz; String homework; //declares variables to hold the grades, quiz and homework scores
String last;
double one; //first midterm
double two; //second midterm
double three;double four; double five; //final, quiz and homework scores
double average; //GPA
char a; char b; char c; char d; char f;char grade;
midone = JOptionPane.showInputDialog("Please enter the first midterm"); //first score to add
one = Double.parseDouble(midone);
midtwo = JOptionPane.showInputDialog("please enter second midterm"); //second midterm to add
two = Double.parseDouble(midtwo);
last = JOptionPane.showInputDialog("please enter final exam score");//final exam score to add
three = Double.parseDouble(last);
quiz = JOptionPane.showInputDialog("please enter quiz score");//quiz score to add
four = Double.parseDouble(quiz);
homework= JOptionPane.showInputDialog("please enter homework score");//homework score to add
five = Double.parseDouble(homework);
average = (one + two+ three + four + five)/5; //average of all five scores
if(average >= 90)
grade = 'a';
else
if(average >= 80 )
grade = 'b';
switch (grade)
case a:
JOptionPane.showMessageDialog(null,"The total of all your scores is " + b+"\nYour final grade is an A");
break;
default:
JOptionPane.showMessageDialog(null,"Sorry, you received a grade of " + b + ". \nYou failed.");
break;
System.exit(0);
}//end of main
}//end of class
As you can see, I am only using two grades, just so I can learn to use it. However, when I go to compile this, I get this error message:
constant expression required: case a:, with the ^ under the a.
What does this error message me and how do I fix this.
Thanks in advance for your help.

case a:is trying to use a variable with the name "a" for the comparison. This is illegal in java
what you want is
case 'a':this will do a comparison against the char value 'a'

Switching between scripts in Advanced actions very slow on Mac OS X

Hi,
I've been experiencing a problem with Captivate taking an inordinate amount of time (approx 30-40 seconds) to switch between scripts in the Advanced Actions window. This happens incrementally as create/duplicate scripts and switch from one to the other. After switching about 4 to 5 times, the wait extends to 30-40 seconds. The rest of Captivate is unaffected, i.e. no delay issues when adding statements to a script, or working with other features in Captivate. I called Adobe Support but they said it is the first time they heard about this issue, although they seemed to suggest that Captivate is "slower" on the Mac. For comparison's sake, and to check if there was anything wrong with the project file itself, I tried using a trial version on a PC running Windows XP (using the same project file) and I experienced no issues, and switching between scripts remained constantly quick even after several hours working on a project.
This particular project requires a lot of scripting and this issue has ground my productivity down to a halt having to wait 30-40seconds just to switch between scripts. Adobe suggesting "removing programs" from the Mac to speed up affairs, but I don't think there is anything wrong with the machine as it runs other Adobe software, like InDesign, Photoshop and Acrobat without any issues. In addition, while the switching is being processed, OS X doesn't hang. I am perfectly able to switch to other applications, or load new ones, which indicates that Captivate is not hogging all the resources.
I was wondering if anyone else has experienced this issue before, and if so if a solution/workaround has been identified?
Thanks!

Hi,
I've been experiencing a problem with Captivate taking an inordinate amount of time (approx 30-40 seconds) to switch between scripts in the Advanced Actions window. This happens incrementally as create/duplicate scripts and switch from one to the other. After switching about 4 to 5 times, the wait extends to 30-40 seconds. The rest of Captivate is unaffected, i.e. no delay issues when adding statements to a script, or working with other features in Captivate. I called Adobe Support but they said it is the first time they heard about this issue, although they seemed to suggest that Captivate is "slower" on the Mac. For comparison's sake, and to check if there was anything wrong with the project file itself, I tried using a trial version on a PC running Windows XP (using the same project file) and I experienced no issues, and switching between scripts remained constantly quick even after several hours working on a project.
This particular project requires a lot of scripting and this issue has ground my productivity down to a halt having to wait 30-40seconds just to switch between scripts. Adobe suggesting "removing programs" from the Mac to speed up affairs, but I don't think there is anything wrong with the machine as it runs other Adobe software, like InDesign, Photoshop and Acrobat without any issues. In addition, while the switching is being processed, OS X doesn't hang. I am perfectly able to switch to other applications, or load new ones, which indicates that Captivate is not hogging all the resources.
I was wondering if anyone else has experienced this issue before, and if so if a solution/workaround has been identified?
Thanks!

Switch from Quad G5 to MacBook Pro??

I use my Quad G5 for semi-pro photo work - Nikon Raw images processed in Aperture. Due to space and mobility issues, I am considering moving from the Quad G5 to a 17" MacBook Pro C2D. Along with the photo work, I use the Quad for correspondence (MS-Office suite), record keeping, and on-line research.
I use a Lacie 500GB external drive for storage, so the 160GB drive on the MBP C2D is not an issue.
I know it's early in the life of the MBP C2D - but by chance has anyone made a similar move; i.e., switching from a Quad G5 to a MBP C2D? If so, what were your observations - pro and con? My PowerBook G4 is a very nice machine, but it can't handle Aperture. I would like the mobility of the PowerBook, combined with the power of the Quad G5.
Thanks for any thoughts and observations.
Leo
Quad, 4.5Gb RAM; PowerBook 1.5Ghz G4, 2Gb RAM; Dual 1Ghz G4, 1.5Gb RAM Mac OS X (10.4.8) Nikon D200; Nikon D200; Nikon D70s

I agree there would be a bigger performance gap between the MBP and mac pro.. but seeing as you are asking about the G5 quad, not the mac pro which is a quad xeon, the fastest new MBP actually comes off pretty well in the comparison. my MBP 17" is a new core 2 duo one, and I was surprised at how much faster it is than the dual G5 I have. I expected it to be maybe a tiny bit more capable, but it's actually well and truly faster. real time audio plug ins that I use in logic indicate a far lower CPU usage than the same thing on the dual G5.
also, earlier this year I was at an apple briefing (for audio pros) so we had a comparison station set up with a quad G5 vs the first MBP that had come out. they had the same big project running on both machines, in logic, using a lot of CPU and RAM intensive live plug ins playing an orchestral arrangement synced to a DV res H264 video file, all running off the internal drive. the quad G5 showed a little less CPU use, but only just the tiniest amount less.
anyway this is not the same as someone giving you impressions from aperture, but it was a good way of seeing that these machines are up there in performance.
honestly the biggest concern you should have is about the screens on the MBPs. lots of people are reporting that the quality is hit and miss, and I agree. it looks to me like apple have done some cost cutting and are shipping lower quality screens on these machines than in the top of the range powerbooks of the past. I knew there had to have been a tradeoff what with the laptops being so cost competitive today. the machine I just received is great, but the screen definitely has brighter areas, like the backlighting is not totally consistent across the whole display. maybe it will settle down, but if I were a user that depends on accurate colour, contrast and brightness, I'd be on the phone to apple demanding some answers and a replacement.

Strings in a switch?

I would like to give my switch-statement a string, but that does not seem to work, is it possible in any way?
public void test(String str) {
switch(str){
   case "Green":{
              System.out.println("The color is green");}
   case "Blue":{
              System.out.println("The color is blue");}
}

Java should supports String in a switch statement; however, it should not supports Object (as pointed out in previous reply). Only problem i see is the implementation. Since String is an Object, then wouldn't swicth (obj) works as well. THe compiler would not catch this..but runtime can (if the implementation check to make sure the object is an instance of a String). and frankly, i don't wnt to do a try..catch on a switch statement to catch runtime error...The main purpose of a switch(String) is to make the code more readable.
I think this is the reason Java exclude String in the switch statement. If you include String, then you must include Object...but how do we compare object? by equals(), hashcode(), reference, or toString().equals(toString())? from the look of it, any comparison is valid..which is the problem because there must be one uniform comparison everyone must agree with to make it work. unfortunately, we know not everyone will agree on which is the best way to perform the comparison.
still..it would be nice to do switch(myString)

Just switched from Tiger to Leopard, please advise on Parallels or VmWare

Hi all, I just made the switch to a new Macbook Pro (From a macbook) and thus also the switch to Leopard. I am having difficulty understanding the differences between Parallels and VmWare.
Primarily I frequently hear that Parallels does not play nice with Bootcamp under Leopard. I am hoping to explain my usage and get some assistance in deciding. I should also say that I HAVE parallels 2.5 and that was what I used with Tiger.
My main problem under that application was the inability to have windows access USB on the fly. I.e the only way parallels could use usb was by clicking it at Vitual machine start-up. Once done I could not toggle back to have OSX have USB access without shutting down the VM.
My use:
I need to be able to easily swap files between my VM (which will be XP) and OSX. I never had a problem with this, but now I am reading that Parallels 3.0 and VmWare have specific "share" folders. I am not sure how this differers from my old drag and drop method that I used before. Can anyone explain?
Another concern of mine is how taxing it seems Parallels 2.5 is on the system itself. It seems to require great resources at the cost of battery life. I had read that VmWare required far less resources. At the time VmWare was being compared to Parallels 2.5. Have things changed in 3.0? Do VmWare less resources also result in lower system performance?
Third I would love hot swappable access to USB. Is this an option on either? If not which handles USB the best? My USB uses are: Printer, USB flash key, USB connection to digital camera for downloading.
I really appreciate your time in reading this and any help I receive. Also if anyone has any good comparison links it would be greatly appreciated. I have been unsuccessful in finding any do to my not entirely understanding the VM lingo, as well as running into comparisons between "non-current" versions of these softwares.
Thank you again.
Kalel

I run both Parallels 3 and VMWare 1.1.1 on a MacBook Pro 17" with 4g of memory running Mac OS X 10.5.1. There are some differences between the two. Parallels has the best integration with Mac OS X. Disk folders are easily shared meaning that you can mount your Mac folders directly in Windows. Windows sees them as remote disks and will move files back and forth. You can also directly open a document in a Mac folder in a Windows application. VMWare provides a similar capability but it is harder (more steps) to set up. You can cut and paste between the two environments. Select text in a Mac application and paste into Windows or the other way around. VMWare takes advantage of the dull CPUs in the PowerBook and allows Windows to use both. Parallels uses only a single CPU--at least I've never been able to find a way to use both. I ran Windows XP under Parallels and had no problems with it at all. Lately I've been running Vista Business addition under VMWare and it is working. I did see a review (don't remember the source) that stated Parallels was better for Windows XP and VMWare was better for Vista. From my experience I agree. So far I have had no problems with USB device on either VM.
Parallels 3 is much improved over Parallels version 2 and if you have not tried it you should give it a try.
My only real complaint is having to lock up 40 g of my hard drive to hold the file with the Windows disk in it. I would really like to see the VM vendors find a way to use the Mac file system without the need to emulate a Windows hard drive.

Switch comparison

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for