comp.sys.mac.advocacy

On Apr 5, 1:57=A0am, Mitch wrote:
> In article
> <0d568710-272a-45f8-9866-367dcf896...@q39g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, ed
>
> wrote:
> > > > There is no "per app" volume
> > > > control in OS X
> > > Can you explain why there should be?
>
> > it's nice to be able to control the volume of an app based on how much
> > priority / how little you want it to intrude, even if it doesn't have
> > it's own volume control. =A0obviously apple (and others)agrees, which is=

> > why apps like itunes have their own volume control- vista allows you
> > to change volume (or turn off sounds) for apps w/out their own volume
> > control, or limit the level for apps that do.
>
> Right -- but you were just claiming Mac OS doesn't have that.
> Now you show that it does, exactly where it matters.

mitch, i think you coming back to threads after MONTHS screws with
your memory- i did NOT claim that at all- i (correctly) claimed that
the mac os doesn't do that at an os level, and EXPLICITLY stated it
has to be handled at the app level.

> Are you claiming it's an advantage in apps where sound does NOT matter,
> and therefore Windows is better than Mac because it permits a control
> where no one needs it?

apps where 'sound does not matter' often still produces sounds- beeps,
alerts, etc- it's nice to be able to control that.

> > > > In addition, Frontrow is miles behind Media Center.
> > > How?
> > > Declaration without reasoning is meaningless.
>
> > they both have nice interfaces, are easy to use, but front row
> > basically has a subset of frontrow's functionality.
>
> If you are talking about the TV recording, I understand.
> If you mean that Microsoft put in image editing features, I disagree.
> Just because they are there doesn't mean they should be, or are good
> for what they do.
> But do you see why a couple of features different should not be
> described as 'miles behind?'

i'll remember that when you talk features about why vista is behind os
x. :D

> > > > Apple TV is miles behind XBOX 360 with XBOX Live.
> > > How?
>
> > well, for one, you can buy and rent videos directly from it...
> > including in HD.
>
> Assuming that is even a relevant feature for many users, (especially
> considering the enormous number of methods for getting video already!)
> would that one feature seriously put a competitor 'miles behind?'

well, it was enough of a feature that it was the main update w/ apple
tv 2.0, eh? :D

and how many features do you need to be behind on before you think
something's 'miles behind'? :D