Skip to main content

iPhoto vs. Movie Maker?

I read this post on PresentationZen and was left wondering after viewing the output (very nice slideshow by the way), what does this have that Movie Maker doesn't?

I have been doing identical types of movies with Windows Movie Maker for the past two years. But now the real differences start coming out. It should be easy but Anil hits it on the head. Microsoft seems to enjoy making things difficult. I had to install SQL Express for a client. Was that an experience. Thankfully, Rick noted that you have to turn ON Remote connections and even then, it was a mess of too many clicks. At least I didn't have to restart it.

But also the name makes all the difference. Microsoft's naming conventions kill me. I can never find Internet Explorer 7 Beta in my Add Programs control panel. Why not? Is it called Microsoft Internet Explorer 7? How about just Internet Explorer 7 - no it's called Windows Internet Explorer 7. Which is weird - because when I run it - it says Internet Explorer.

I could go on and on.

So what tool would you rather use? One called iPhoto or one called Windows Movie Maker. I use Windows - I get the fact that a program I'm using is going to work under Windows - why put it into the title?

I guess it fits with the "Live" option as well. Everything from Microsoft used to say Microsoft, then Windows, then MSN and now Live.

Apple on the other hand just puts an "i" in front of everything. Maybe MS should just put a "w" instead - although trying to explain how to pronounce wMovie might be tricky!

Go figure.

Comments

Anonymous said…
Um, I'm sure you meant iMovie instead of iPhoto, right?
August 20, 2006 at 5:45 PM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Elevating Project Specifications with Three Insightful ChatGPT Prompts

For developers and testers, ChatGPT, the freely accessible tool from OpenAI, is game-changing. If you want to learn a new programming language, ask for samples or have it convert your existing code. This can be done in Visual Studio Code (using GitHub CoPilot) or directly in the ChatGPT app or web site.  If you’re a tester, ChatGPT can write a test spec or actual test code (if you use Jest or Cypress) based on existing code, copied and pasted into the input area. But ChatGPT can be of huge value for analysts (whether system or business) who need to validate their needs. There’s often a disconnect between developers and analysts. Analysts complain that developers don’t build what they asked for or ask too many questions. Developers complain that analysts haven’t thought of obvious things. In these situations, ChatGPT can be a great intermediary. At its worst, it forces you to think about and then discount obvious issues. At best, it clarifies the needs into documented requirements. ...
Post a Comment
Read more

Respect

Respect is something humans give to each other through personal connection. It’s the bond that forms when we recognize something—or someone—as significant, relatable, or worthy of care. This connection doesn’t have to be limited to people. There was an  article  recently that described the differing attitudes towards AI tools such as ChatGPT and Google Gemini (formerly Bard). Some people treat them like a standard search while others form a sort of personal relationship — being courteous, saying “please” and “thank you”. Occasionally, people share extra details unrelated to their question, like, ‘I’m going to a wedding. What flower goes well with a tuxedo?’ Does an AI “care” how you respond to it? Of course not — it reflects the patterns it’s trained on. Yet our interaction shapes how these tools evolve, and that influence is something we should take seriously. Most of us have all expressed frustration when an AI “hallucinates”. Real or not, the larger issue is that we have hi...
Post a Comment
Read more

When A Machine Starts To Care

“Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.” Arthur C. Clarke (1962)  I first used that quote when I was starting out in the tech industry. Back then, it was a way to illustrate just how fast and powerful computers had become. Querying large datasets in seconds felt magical—at least to those who didn’t build them.  Today, we’re facing something even more extraordinary. Large Language Models (LLMs) can now carry on conversations that approach human-level fluency. Clarke’s quote applies again. And just as importantly, many researchers argue that LLMs meet—or at least brush up against—the criteria of the Turing Test.  We tend to criticize LLMs for their “hallucinations,” their sometimes-confident inaccuracies. But let’s be honest: we also complain when our friends misremember facts or recount things inaccurately. This doesn’t excuse LLMs—it simply highlights that the behavior isn’t entirely alien. In some ways, it mirrors our own cognitive limits....
Post a Comment
Read more