Why is Java better than c#. most people say c# is better

I have entered forums and end up seeing informations on c# being better than java. Pls can any body tell me what makes java better than c#. This days every one i know is now going c#. They are discoraging me to also go c#.
i am quite con fussed. The only thing that keeps me to JAVA is platform independence.

Well, I suppose you can search Google for 'C# vs java' and read an article such as
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_Java_and_C_Sharp.
However arguing which is better is best left as an exercise for developers with a lot of experience in both languages rather than those just starting out (If your just starting out, you will not use the advanced features one has over the other).
I think the market will be evenly split between both languages for quite some time. Ideally, as a professional developer you should know both well so you are more employable. For Java, I suggest getting familiar with The Eclipse IDE since its used by the bulk of Java developers. For C#, I suggest you install Visual Studio Express because its used by the bulk of C# developers (and the express version is free).
I suggest you first learn one or the other very very well and good coding practices before learning the other language to avoid mixing the two somewhat different coding styles.
I suggest learning whichever language your friends are using assuming you communicate with them about programming often (so you can help each other). If instead your on your own, I suggest you learn Java. I think you will have an easier time picking up the Object Oriented philosophy than C# because in my opinion Java is more low level coding and C# is more high level coding (ie, the advanced features it can do a lot for you). You should have a good handle on the low level concepts first. In may opinion, once you know Java well, C# is a lot easier to pick up since they are both object oriented and are very similar object oriented languages.

Similar Messages

  • Why is java slower than C and C++

    Hi Guys:
    I would like to know why Java is slower than C and C++ in terms of compilation speed...
    Does it have to do with the fact that Java compiles to byte code first and then the JVM translates byte code to machine code which your processor can understand. whereas C and C++ compiles directly to machine code...
    Any ideas on that,...let me know..

    It's not necessarily. I would suggest that it always is; whencomparing
    specific tasks.I would suggest that is never is (significantly)
    when non-trivial and non-specialized applicationsare
    involved. Requirements and design always have a
    much greater impact.There's no doubt that the design is the most
    important
    aspect when writing a program, but assuming those
    things
    are equal, the fact is that a c program will be
    faster.Yes, but given the fact that there is almost zero chance that the requirements, design and implementation will be optimal, it means that the real differences between the languages are insignificant compared to the real difference caused by the other factors.
    In the theorectical world C/C++ is faster. In the real world, most of the time, it is not significant.

  • Why is apple selling security software and people say you don't need it

    i got a imac 27 inch late 2013 and people are telling me i dont need security so why are apple selling it then
    http://store.apple.com/uk/product/HC567ZM/A/intego-antivirus-and-security-mac-pr emium-bundle-2013?fnode=000104090a

    Apple Stores sell all sorts of things, including software, that you do not need, but some may want anyway.
    The simple fact is that there are only a very tiny number of threats in the wild for OS X and those are easily avoidable by simply not installing anything you did not purposely set out to (do not enter your admin password to an installer dialogue unless you know exactly what it is for).
    That said, people have been buying anitvirus software for Apple computers since before OS X was even released.  It has never really been needed, but such products have always existed and used by some.
    If you really want it, buy it, but just know that there is no real need for it or purpose to having it.
    Intego is a perfectly legitimate business, and like any software vendor they can arrange to have Apple sell their product.  Apple does not dictate that what they sell meet some intrinsic need or purpose.

  • C7 camera - better than iphone?

    I find my C7 camera rather nice, better than the reviews so say.
    Just wonder what people think - and how does it compare to the iphone camera?

    I think it takes excellent photos myself.
    Regarding the iphone no idea about the quality of camera.People have their own opinions of quality too.
    If  i have helped at all a click on the white star below would be nice thanks.
    Now using the Lumia 1520

  • Upgrading RAM... 4 + 2 GB better than 2 + 2?

    Hi,
    I have a
    MacBook Pro 2.26GHz Intel Core 2 Duo (13-inch DDR3) MB990LL/A Mid-2009
    capable of holding 8 GB of RAM. Right now it only has 2 GB RAM, though I'm not sure if that is 1+1 or just one 2 GB if that makes sense. I don't particularly want to spend the money to get 4+4 for the full 8 GB, but I want more than 4 GB. I was planning on buying 4 GB of RAM and doing it myself along with the 2 GB of RAM I already have (obviously this only works if the 2 GB is in one cell (?)). My question is... because 6 GB of RAM would necessitate a mismatched pair, would it be better just to get 2 + 2 for 4 GB RAM total? Is having a matched pair more important for overall speed and efficiency, or is the sheer number more important?
    Thanks!

    In general, more RAM is better, and matched RAM is better than unmatched.  So 4GB + 2GB is better than 2GB + 2GB, but 2GB + 2GB is better than 4GB + an empty slot.
    However, in your case, if the RAM you have was the original RAM that shipped with the computer, then it is probably 1GB + 1GB.  And while I don't know of any technical reasons you couldn't run 4GB + 1GB, I suspect that the size difference would be very inefficient.  I've seen 2GB + 1GB before, and I have an older MBP with 4GB + 2GB right now....but if the size differential between the two slots is too great, I suspect the MMU will begin to behave unpleasantly.
    So, either get a 2GB + 2GB pair and pay again later to upgrade, or fork out for a 4GB + 4GB pair.  In any case, make sure the RAM is of the same kind (as per Kappy's instructions) and that both sticks are from the same manufacturer.
    And, of course, it's possible I'm wrong and you do have 2GB + empty slot...you can always open it up and look.

  • Why is WAP54G RPT MODE better than WRE54G?

    Hello,
    I have a project to expand a wireless network to another building with two floors.  The proximity is close (literally only 15 feet between the walls), but only clients with great antennas/wifi cards would be able to reach the router in the main building, so I want to expand the wireless signal into the new building.  The new building is two floors high, has no dropped ceiling or other ceiling/wall access, there is no conduit available between buildings, and no feasible way to run a wire, so my only real choice is to expand the signal coverage from the main building to the new building via wifi.  I have read many posts on many different forums covering this topic.  I understand that having multiple WRE54G repeaters has created reliability issues for some people.  Too bad, because these are nice, discrete little units and would be ideal for what I need to do.  I have seen several people recommend WAP54G units in repeater mode (no hardwired connection to the main router) in place of WRE54G units.  What is the difference?  Are they technically doing the same thing, and do you lose bandwidth by half with either unit?  Is it just that the WAP54G has been more reliable?  Not that bandwidth is my most important concern, reliability is my main concern, but I do have to deal with the issue of mounting these high on interior walls.  Does the WRE54G v3 exhibit the same problematic issues that previous versions 1 and 2 did?  I have a WRE54G v3 that I installed, and upgraded the firmware.  I have to admit, setting it up with a WRT54G was problematic, but once it was set up, it hasn't lost its link since (just going on one week now).  I do not have WEP enabled yet, I'm just using MAC address filtering from the WRT54G.  My proposed configuration is:
    WAP54G in main building, just inside the outer wall.
    WRE54G in the 2nd building on the first floor.
    WRE54G in the 2nd building on the second floor.
    Both WRE54G devices would directly connect to the WAP54G, one would not connect through another.  Does anyone see any potential problems?  Also, we have an extra WRT300N that was donated that we were just going to use as a WAP by deconflicting the IP with the router and turning off DHCP.  Any problems using the WRE54G with the WRT300N?
    Thanks in advance to all that reply for your experience and insight.

    Thanks again for your response.  It is not practical to run an Ethernet cable from building one to building two, that's why I'm finding this to be a little extra complicated.  The conduit situation is a total mess and they left no pull-throughs.  Outdoor routing is not an option either.  Thanks for your comment on the umbrella coverage characteristic, I had not heard that before but that will definitely be taken into consideration with our placement of the client-specific WAP.  It's not a simple two-story building - the first floor is longer than the second floor, and the extra large space on the first floor is at one end and is where most of the WAP clients will be located.  We'll be doing a lot of testing.
    After performing more exhaustive research on these devices, I have decided to use the entry-level small business line - like a WAP54GP - because I need to have reliable wireless bridging between buildings one and two.  However, everything I've read about units in this category shows that the N+gr model WG 102 has the same capabilities and performs noticeably better, especially at extended range.  It's just a little more difficult to configure, but most people are very impressed with it.  I purchased a WAP54GP anyway for testing purposes and will be able to compare the two in actual use.

  • Why is hyper-v better than virtualbox?

    We have 4-5 people in a software development environment with access to 4 servers, each with 2 quad-core or dual-core cpu's (core-based, before nehalem), and 8gb or 16gb RAM, so I think we have a good amount of power for virtualization. Total, we have a
    team foundation server, oracle server, web server, 2 virtualization servers, and multiple workstations, some virtualized, some not.
    When we started virtualizing about a year ago, for whatever reason, and although everyone has an MSDN sub, we started using VirtualBox instead of Hyper-V. I'm no expert (and that's why I'm here) but I think they operate at different levels of interaction
    with the hardware, and that VirtualBox is a bad idea for this environment.
    Can someone give some good reasons why we should be using Hyper-V? Also is it possible to convert the virtual machines?
    And then I would like to know if it's okay to also be virtualizing our web server and oracle server, etc. We have only been virtualizing workstations. I think we really need to make good use of virtualization if we are going to be doing it at all.
    Advice welcome also for virtualization best practices, backups, management, infrastructure design, etc. I would like to start with a domain controller, and maybe a Lync server so we can share desktops, etc. Thanks for all input!

    In my opinion Hyper-V is only better if your using Hyper-V to host servers, like Microsoft SharePoint, Active Directory, Sql Server, or even MySql to provide resources.
    If you intend to be using Virtualizatio to develop software, like Working with SharePoint from a developer standpoint, building asp.net web applications, or even doing C++, desktop applications, or Android, Php etc, if you are going to be physically on the
    VM using it as your environment to write code and design, then Oracle VirtualBox is better than Hyper-V.
    With hyper-v your limited to using The Connect console, or Remote Desktop Protocol to see the virtual machine.  The RDP console leaves much to be desired.  It only gives you the option to use all of your monitors or one, it won't do 2 if you have
    3.  I like to use my third monitor to keep my email open, and pdf documentation, or word documents and use the other two monitors for my VM so I can see multiple code windows in Visual Studio at the same time (VS2010).  Oracle handles multi monitors
    so much better.  And if I want to surface an adroid phone through USB to my VM, oracle is the only way to go there, or maybe VMWare, but VirtualBox is free.
    However, Hyper-V is now native to Windows 8 desktop version and windows 8 server version.  And most companies dealing with microsoft products use Hyper-V for their VM's, so from a multi developer environment, it makes sense for us to use Hyper-V with
    windows 8 because all of our servers run on Hyper-V.  If we need to troubleshoot something we can grab a copy of the latest server VM backup and spin it up locally on Hyper-V with windows 8 without having to do any conversions.
    But from a developer standpoint it is really hard for me to leave VirtualBox.  If RDP could work my 2 of my monitors and not all 3 or 4 of them I would have no complaints.  Third part RDP sofware isn't any better, it could never compare to the
    deep integration and speed of windows RDP.  My main issue is, if RDP can do all of my monitors why can't it do just 2 of them, seems like a big thing to leave out in my opinion, it's so frustrating.  It's such an awesome part of windows with such
    a huge annoying handicap.  I've actually thought about just having another computer for my third monitor, like a tablet or something on a stand.  Sure you can SPAN a monitor in Windows so it acts like one monitor and I can tell RDP to go full screen
    but it has a width limit and then I need extra software on the VM to handle the big resolution like 2 screens instead of one.
    My Blog: http://www.thesug.org/Blogs/ryan_mann1/default.aspx Website: Under Construction

  • 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

  • JAVA(Ajax + (SVG or XAML)) is better than JAVA(Swing or SWT)?

    A new startup claims it has invented a process to create reusable Ajax GUI Classes that are better than Java/Swing classes.
    http://cbsdf.com/misc_docs/why-gui-api.htm
    http://cbsdf.com/misc_docs/gui-api-brief.htm
    It has published the innovative process and many examples on the web site and challenging the software community to prove it wrong.
    Any takers?
    It claims the process is very simple any Java developer with some JavaScript experience can validate the process.
    Imagine the implications if they are right, and if it costs less to create a graphics intensive online application than the cost of creating a comparable Java/Swing application?

    Crosspost: http://forum.java.sun.com/thread.jspa?threadID=716694&messageID=4140147

  • HT1771 why did apple erase ichat? its so much better than messages and now I cant video chat with my ichat buddies

    why did apple erase ichat? its so much better than messages and now I cant video chat with my ichat buddies!!!

    HI,
    Apple did not erase iChat.
    Messages in Mountain Lion is iChat +
    The plus bit is the fact you can iMessage iOS devices.
    All the other features that were in iChat are still there.
    If you upgraded Lion to get to Mountain Lion then in System Preferences > Mail, Contacts and Calendars you probably list all the iChat Accounts (Screen Names and IDs).
    You may need to enable them for Messages.
    They should also show up in Messages Menu > Preference > Accounts
    Once those accounts (AIM and Jabber) are Enabled they can be viewed in a Combined Buddy List
    Windows Menu > Buddies (Or using CMD + 1 Keystrokes)
    In the General Section of the Preferences you can Unlink these Buddy lists.
    The Green icons or highlight a Buddy and then using the Buddies Menu or the icons at the Bottom of the Buddy list can be used the same way to start Video or Audio Only chats.
    The iMessage "Account" is only for texting iOS devices or other people using their Apple ID on a Mac in Messages.
    It is an account "in addition to" rather than "taking over from" the services that iChat can join.
    9:22 PM      Thursday; December 6, 2012
    Please, if posting Logs, do not post any Log info after the line "Binary Images for iChat"
      iMac 2.5Ghz 5i 2011 (Mountain Lion 10.8.2)
     G4/1GhzDual MDD (Leopard 10.5.8)
     MacBookPro 2Gb (Snow Leopard 10.6.8)
     Mac OS X (10.6.8),
     Couple of iPhones and an iPad
    "Limit the Logs to the Bits above Binary Images."  No, Seriously

  • Why A is better than B/G for Voice over WLAN

    Hello all,
    Now this post has some questions and statements in that you guys know all about and would like your valued advise and corrections/confirmations on the points.
    Why A is better than B/G for voice:
    B/G is congested, ie BT, Microwaves. Lots of other WLANs etc etc etc - FACT!
    More non-overlapping channels - FACT!
    The scatter and reflection on A is better than B/G. The idea being, the higher the frequency, the better the scatter. Would this be correct?
    Higher frequencies produce better penetration results through walls, I have read. Or is it worse. Cisco say worse in the document "2.4 GHz waveform of 802.11b and 802.11g can pass through many walls. The 5 GHz waveform of 802.11a has approximately half the tendency for a given power to transmit suitable amounts of energy through walls because of its higher frequency" Ref: enterprise mobility guide. I am a little confused on this ?
    A travels thru water and other moisture better than B/G, thus damp walls, wet walls, open areas (lets say between two buildings) would handle A better than B/G?
    The Fresnel Zone (clearance required of an obstacle without degrading signal) is better on the A band due to a small wavelength size. Would this be a major factor for an RF design engineer? Any more technical "dummies guide" to this subject would be good?
    OFDM handles signalling shortcomings like multipath fade better that previous modulations techniques (I know that G 11Mbps and above uses this also). Anyone have an English explanation to why this is? Also, please look at the graphic attached that shows the enterprise mobility guide in chaper 3, the table. What is the difference between the modulation and transmission type as many people refer to DSSS and OFDM as "modulation" I am a little confuse by this table.
    Can anyone give me any more reasons and facts, and clarify any of the points above so when someone comes to me and says, "ahh, just roll out voice on B/G" I can say well this is why not?
    Many thx indeed,
    Ken

    You have some good questions. The main reason why people are moving voice to 802.11a is the fact that there is more congestion in the 2.4GhZ spectrum. For example in a downtown area building. There are so many wifi devices out in the 2.4Ghz along with all the other interference that you get on that spectrum. 802.11a, the 5Ghz is a shorter wavelength, so the more it is susceptible to attenuation. The lower the frequency the better the signal can travel through various materials. Look at cell phones.... they are in the 800mhz or lower spectrum and they have greater distances than higher frequencies. Another reason is that if you have guest access, you have to look at devices you need supported. There might be legacy 802.11b clients or newer clients that only support 802.11b or 802.11g. So now the 5Ghz is open which give you more bandwidth for voice.
    Water is an RF killer no matter if you use 2.4Ghz or 5Ghz.

  • Is java really slower than C++ or is it really small?  I hate people saying

    I keep running into people saying oh Java sucks! Java is so slow. I use to be a hard core C++ fan until I used Java now I love it and I want to defend java, anyone know any resources where it explains that Java really isn't much slower than C++? Or the advantages of Java vs C++?
    Thanks!

    lokie wrote:
    I do know more than one language.
    I know C/C++/Java/MIPS-32 ASM/Rexx
    After programming in all these languages I just found Java being superior in all aspects when it was compared against C++ (other than game programming).How about speed? While the speed difference between Java and C++ has dropped significantly, C++ is a little faster on average. Java can be faster under some circumstances, but this isn't very common (not yet anyway). This brings up a nice aspect of Java: as the JVM is improved, your programs may automatically get faster.
    Garbage collection reduces the amount of time needed to manage memory. On the down-side, garbage collection can cause unpredictable slowdowns, which can be problematic for some applications. Well-written C++ can reduce the amount of time and effort spent managing memory.
    The standard libraries are pretty good and well documented.
    The JVM has been ported to many platforms, making portability a much reduced problem since recompilation isn't needed. JNI can make portability a problem, but this isn't especially common.
    The language is fairly simple and very well documented. Very little about the language is left as "undefined" or "platform-dependent". Language simplicity is a trade-off though.
    Threading and synchronization primitives are part of the language. They may not be advanced, but they're better than nothing.
    C++ certainly has it's strong points as well. Be wary of thinking of yourself as a "fan" of Java.

  • Why is illustrator better than corel?

    hello forumers.
    im an illustrator freak,but my annoying boss wants me to learn corel ;-( ,i need some facts why illustrator is better than corel so i can shove his face in it if possible.
    VIVA illi
    thank you very much.

    Do not, I repeat do not, ask James or Scott or Hans.
    Indeed.
    Only ask Jacob, who is still using a four-version out-of-date copy of Illustrator and who tries to personify it as a female idol.
    If the comparison is to be "fair" (which it clearly will not be, at least from your perspective), it should compare Corel Draw X4 to Illustrator CS3 or CS4. Release dates being what they were, X4 would more legitimately be considered Draw's answer to CS3; since it long predates CS4.
    Talking about earlier versions of either program is not very meaningful, except in the sense of history of development. When I compare the release histories of Draw, FreeHand, Canvas, and Illustrator, Illustrator comes in an often-embarrassing last in terms of features long taken-for-granted in other programs.
    im an illustrator freak,but my annoying boss wants me to learn corel...i need some facts [that] I can shove his face..
    Shove in your boss's face? For presenting you an opportunity to escape fearful dependency upon a single software?
    i need the pros and cons...to outline to him why illustrator is better...
    Why don't you simply welcome this opportunity to actually know something about that which you claim a completely bogus "preference"?
    Were you at all interested in gaining input that would help you help your boss reach a rational and objective decision, you would at least describe something about the kind of work your boss pays you to do. What kind of business employs you? Is the Macintosh platform even relevant to your boss's business market? How large a workgroup is affected by the software choice? What kind of artwork does that workgroup produce? How is it delivered? What are its initial content sources? Who are the end-users of the artwork? In how many different ways is it delivered, and in what formats?
    Yet here you are, soliciting predisposed "why Illustrator is 'better' than Draw" advice from a handful of users who, so far, admit themselves having either no, or practically no, experience with Draw! If that's not blind-leading-the-blind, I don't know what is.
    You are by admission predisposed toward Illustrator, even though you are not at all equipped to say why. Reason is pointless with so irrational a mindset. Since no one responding yet seems to actually know anything about Draw, I will instead offer some ammunition I hope your boss uses to see if you are even objective enough to consider it.
    The following is a just-off-the-top list. Should you actually try to counter it, you should be prepared for more:
    General:
    Lower cost, both initially and in upgrades
    Better support for non-current versions
    Faster performance
    Better support for several vertical-market industries (signage, embroidery, engineering-related)
    More robust CAD and more business-centric import/export formats
    Better multiple page implementation
    Better-organized interface
    Highly-customizable workspace
    Features:
    User-defined drawing scales
    Reliable snaps
    Dimension tools
    Callout tools
    Connector lines
    Flowchart Tools
    No-nonsense, 2D vector face extrusion
    Live shape primitives
    Smart Drawing tools (freehand shape recognition)
    Virtual Segment tool
    Ability to properly cut/crop vector and raster content
    Contour tool (multiple parallels)
    Export selection only
    Barcodes
    Print Merge
    Bundle for Output Bureau
    Scan directly into Draw
    Trim (not merely mask) vector artwork to any path
    Fit Text To Path
    Text stats
    Export artwork as Type 1 font.
    Lens Fills (live details)
    Live Perspective
    Object Data (spreadsheet-formatted database of user-defined object data fields)
    Fillet / Chamfer / Scallop
    User-defined Arrowheads
    Shared Features Better Implemented in Draw:
    Mesh Grads
    Dynamic Guides (with increment snaps)
    Independent control over Snaps for Guides, Grid, Objects, Dynamic Grids
    Property Bar (far more sensible and useable than AI's poorly-designed and buggy Control Panel)
    Status Bar with context-sensitive instructions
    Elastic Mode (vs. AI's Reshape tool)
    Add/remove/line/curve/cusp/symmetrical curve commands properly implemented for all nodes (points) in a selected path
    Logarithmic and Symmetrical spirals
    Macro Recording (vs. AI Actions)
    Envelopes (retract envelope handles without wrecking artwork)
    Old-Saw Arguements Based on Overstatement, if not Myths:
    Adobe's cross-app "integration" is more hype than substantive advantage.
    Illustrator's text handing is worst among Adobe apps and worst-of-class among its direct competitors.
    Draw opens and creates PDFs just fine.
    Claims of AI superiority regarding importing of raster images is practically immaterial. In fact, Corel Draw's interaction with Corel PhotoPaint is at least as "smooth and seamless" as AI/PS, if not more so.
    Using vector artwork created in Draw (or any other mainstream Bezier drawing program) in page-layout programs is no more difficult than using AI. This stuff has been being done for decades.
    Again, this is just a beginning. You do yourself a huge disservice by declaring (let alone attempting to defend) a "preference" to the only choice with which you have experience (and evidently only beginning experience at that). That's true regardless of which program you claim to "favor." How can one, with any trace of intellectual honesty, claim to have a "favorite" of anything--when one has no exposure to any of the considered alternatives?
    Since you already have Illustrator, you should absolutely welcome your Boss's willingness to provide you a current copy of Corel Draw. Here's an opportunity for you--at no personal cost--to actually learn something about another program; to potentially have some clue as to what you're talking about when you claim to "prefer" one over the other; to benefit from knowing more than one particular tool, and to overcome the fear of learning your way around more than one offering among similar programs. For all you know, you may be arguing against the program you would actually end up preferring.
    I could also build a bullet list of better-than-Draw AI features. It would not be as long as its opposite. Nor would the AI-favoring listings be as broadly practical.
    Fact is, anyone can build a bullet list to favor any of them. (Just look at the sides of the boxes, or each vendor's self-serving "competitive comparisons" on their respective websites.) Fact is, all of them are really rather mediocre; mostly 20+ years-old technology.
    You really should have no axe to grind in this, unless you can state something specific to your work that strongly favors the relatively few functional advantages of AI.
    JET

  • Everyone told me final cut is better than Premiere... why is nothing simple

    Final cut pro users, please help!
    I've just spent a fortune on a brand new mac and final cut Pro 7 on the recommendation of countless people. After reading a lot of forums and web pages and many hours of wasted time I've installed Windows XP on my Mac and my old copy of adobe premiere 2.0 - this actually works!
    Maybe I'm just new and don't understand it yet, but here are my main problems.
    1. Even after installing codecs that now (Eventually!) run all the MPEG and AVI files in Quick time, once the video goes into FCP it cannot render it. Every piece of advice on the internet about using AVI says "Convert them to MOV files separately and then import them". But why?!? why can't I just get a codec that will handle the files in FCP? Why must I spend hours converting my whole library so that I can even start editing?
    2. Once converted to MP4 (Outside of FCP) I still find I have to manually render everything... everytime I cut up video in the timeline or add filters or transitions I have to re-render those clips. In Premiere it automatically renders any changes you make so you can watch back the changes straight away. Is there a way to set this up on FCP so it renders each time I make an edit?
    All this amounts to is that using FCP takes WAY longer to do anything than with Premiere. Can anyone tell me how to fix the problems? I've been an expert PC user for 10+ years, but I'm stumped by the Mac, please help!
    Thanks!

    If you have lots and lots of different codecs to deal with, and you want to edit them all in their current state without converting, then get the application that does that for you. FCP is NOT that application. It, like Avid, is designed to work with specific codecs in real time. FCP has a long list, but nothing you listed is on it. What you see in the EASY SETUPS is what you need to have.
    Adobe Premiere, Sony Vegas, Edius...those are designed to deal with multiple codecs in their native form. But they too might have some issues because, simply put, not every codec is designed to be editable.
    Saying that "FCP is better than Premeire," that has to be qualified. Better at WHAT? Because Premiere is better when it comes to certain workflows, and FCP is better at others. Then Avid comes along and it the best thing for even other workflows. For your specific needs, no, FCP is not better. Premiere is.
    It's like saying a hammer is better than a screwdriver. Well, if you have to put a nail into wood, yes it is. But then if you have a screw, a hammer is not the best thing, and will make a mess of things.
    Shane

  • 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 :) 

Maybe you are looking for