iPod Touch 4G, 10.6.8. Doesn't work for me at all, followed the procedure including the 5.1.1 apple firmware restore, always get "Recovery Completed. If you want to retry jailbreaking, unplug your device and plug it back in." I've now attempted this whole process at least five times with no luck. Perhaps I am not 133t enough...
Also, what's up with forcing the window on top of everything else? Lame.
Note that the 1.4.x builds are all betas, these aren't considered stable releases by Dropbox. I don't know why they aren't labeled "Beta". In any case the autoupdate only updates to stable builds, so when a 1.4.x build is declared stable, it will be pushed.
Something seems broken in 9.0.23 with TIFF files. First off, it takes ~30 secs on a 2GHz Core Duo to save a 600 dpi scan of a 6x8" source - this is the time the program takes while displaying "Processing TIFF". Secondly, it appears to randomly decide what bit depth to use; sometimes setting it to 1 bit/pixel will save a grayscale TIFF, setting it explicitly 8 bit gray will generate a bitmap. Very bizarre.
The program doesn't output PNG so this is the only lossless format available, except for "RAW" which seems to be identical to TIFF. Dunno what's going on here, but it's not good.
Fastest overall browser on OS X at this point in time. On the Peacemaker benchmark, it is Chrome/Opera/Safari/FF 4b12, with Chrome scoring almost twice as high as FF, and 25% higher than Opera. Usage bears this out - Chrome is fast.
However, with the power comes the curse. Chrome is also the biggest hog, with it ballooning to over 1GB in real memory footprint after a day or so of use. I actually started this comparison because I had tired of the memory leaks in the FF4 betas. Because of its multi-process nature, it isn't easy to see how much memory Chrome uses, you have to add it up manually, and I was shocked actually, since I was convinced FF4 would win that easily. It is the 2nd biggest consumer of memory, but usually about half of Chrome. Safari is the most memory efficient of the four, with Opera a close second.
All that said - Google's whole attitude towards the browser is even more annoying than Microsoft's. My main beef is there is no way to uninstall or even disable the updater, you have to have skills with launchd that the average user won't have. The user configurability is also limited compared to Firefox and esp. Opera. It's clearly intended to have a very simplified user interface.
Finally, for me, Firefox' extension interface and ecosystem still is the big winner of the four, Chrome's ad/script blocking capability is still inferior to FF (as is the case with both Safari and Opera). Arguably, if you are happy using Chrome, that doesn't matter to you by definition of course. I haven't inspected Chrome's upstream data feed (if any) and have no real belief that Google is using the clickstream data any more than the dozens of existing ad networks, but since Google is in the business of selling advertising, I would assume that they do collect data via the browser, as you clearly agree to if you accept the EULA.
Summary: Faster than all hell, major RAM hog, not as configurable as competitors.
Competition is good, Google has clearly set a high bar for performance, hopefully their competitors will respond. I well remember the days of when IE (-_-), Netscape, and little iCab were the only choices we had, having 4 major cross-platform browsers is a Good Thing.
So, GC 7's biggest issue is the existence of GC 6, which is without a doubt the best all in one image handling program on the Mac, and has been for years. I certainly appreciate the upgrade to an all Cocoa-based app, which needed to happen, but to say that GC 7 is at feature parity with GC 6 is misleading at best. While I have all respect for Herr Lemke for undertaking this huge project solo, the fact of the matter is that GC 7 is in "Google Beta" without actually saying so. My only issue with this is that this, again, is at best misleading.
Case in point and my current biggest peeve with GC 7 is Browser-generated thumbnails. GC 6 has an option to generate the thumbnails on the fly while previewing the files in the Browser. GC 7 does not. You can select individual files and create a preview thumbnail, but this is pretty much useless in a bulk image handling program. I am sure that it will be added in the future, but as of today, I fall back to GC 6 for handling folders with large numbers of images without preview thumbnails.
[Version 7.1]
There are currently no troubleshooting comments by this member.
Please login or create a new MacUpdate Member account to use this feature
Absinthe
dachkater reviewed on 25 May 2012
Also, what's up with forcing the window on top of everything else? Lame.
1 star for not bricking my unit.
+3
Dropbox
Now you know.
Monthly
+2
VueScan
The program doesn't output PNG so this is the only lossless format available, except for "RAW" which seems to be identical to TIFF. Dunno what's going on here, but it's not good.
+3
Google Chrome
dachkater reviewed on 08 Mar 2011
However, with the power comes the curse. Chrome is also the biggest hog, with it ballooning to over 1GB in real memory footprint after a day or so of use. I actually started this comparison because I had tired of the memory leaks in the FF4 betas. Because of its multi-process nature, it isn't easy to see how much memory Chrome uses, you have to add it up manually, and I was shocked actually, since I was convinced FF4 would win that easily. It is the 2nd biggest consumer of memory, but usually about half of Chrome. Safari is the most memory efficient of the four, with Opera a close second.
All that said - Google's whole attitude towards the browser is even more annoying than Microsoft's. My main beef is there is no way to uninstall or even disable the updater, you have to have skills with launchd that the average user won't have. The user configurability is also limited compared to Firefox and esp. Opera. It's clearly intended to have a very simplified user interface.
Finally, for me, Firefox' extension interface and ecosystem still is the big winner of the four, Chrome's ad/script blocking capability is still inferior to FF (as is the case with both Safari and Opera). Arguably, if you are happy using Chrome, that doesn't matter to you by definition of course. I haven't inspected Chrome's upstream data feed (if any) and have no real belief that Google is using the clickstream data any more than the dozens of existing ad networks, but since Google is in the business of selling advertising, I would assume that they do collect data via the browser, as you clearly agree to if you accept the EULA.
Summary: Faster than all hell, major RAM hog, not as configurable as competitors.
Competition is good, Google has clearly set a high bar for performance, hopefully their competitors will respond. I well remember the days of when IE (-_-), Netscape, and little iCab were the only choices we had, having 4 major cross-platform browsers is a Good Thing.
+1
GraphicConverter
dachkater reviewed on 31 Jan 2011
Case in point and my current biggest peeve with GC 7 is Browser-generated thumbnails. GC 6 has an option to generate the thumbnails on the fly while previewing the files in the Browser. GC 7 does not. You can select individual files and create a preview thumbnail, but this is pretty much useless in a bulk image handling program. I am sure that it will be added in the future, but as of today, I fall back to GC 6 for handling folders with large numbers of images without preview thumbnails.