The Mac Sucks!

Microsoft and the Record Labels Sweeten the Zune Marketplace Deal

Thu, 20 Nov 2008 18:52:44 -0500

Microsoft has upped the ante for players in the digital music distribution market. Zune Pass subscribers have always been allowed to download as much music as they want and play it on their PC/Zune as long as their subscription is current, but Microsoft and the record labels have negotiated a "sweetener" for Zune. In addition to the "unlimited" subscription content, you'll be allowed to keep 10 songs each month (i.e., if your subscription lapses, they remain playable).

Ars Technica reports that, "As a result, the value of the $15 [monthly] Zune Pass has gotten a whole lot better. Assuming that you will want to keep 10 songs every month and a typical download track is worth $1, then you're only paying $5 to have unlimited access to the Zune Marketplace. This is certainly a step up from most other subscription models out there right now." I'd have to agree. Most other subscription models don't offer free songs.

This places the Zune Marketplace well above iTunes on my personal "value meter". I can usually find at least one album each month that I'd like to own. With iTunes, I'd be spending $10-15 a month to get that album. During said month, I could listen to that album and any other album I'd previously purchased. That's all. With the Zune Marketplace, my $15 would not only get me that album, but also "unlimited play" access to pretty much everything else that's available through the Zune Marketplace. My Zune could always be full of music, some of which I own, much of which I'm more or less "renting", for approximately the price of a single CD at retail. For someone like me, who likes to listen to lots of different artists and comedians, this is a fantastic deal.

On the other hand, if you can't find 10 tracks a month that you'd like to add to your collection, or at least listen to without adding to your collection, then iTunes would certainly come out cheaper since it doesn't cost anything until you buy a track or video.

I'm forced to agree with Ars Technica that these changes in the Zune Marketplace are unlikely to sway many, if any, customers to the Zune from iTunes and the iPod. But as they also point out, "The key measure of these changes may not be in how many people switch from

A Vista "Learning Experience"

Thu, 20 Nov 2008 18:08:56 -0500

Since this site IS about platform neutrality, it's appropriate that I share some bad (and good) experiences with Microsoft Windows Vista with you...

Tuesday evening, I fired up my Windows Vista PC to play some music for me while I worked with the Mac that's part of my "Adventures in Mac-Land" project. (That made more sense to me than copying the music over to the Mac to play it, since the Mac's not mine.) I noticed that Windows was complaining that it had updates for me to apply. It has been a very long time since I rebooted that machine, so I decided to go ahead and apply the updates. The system rebooted, I logged in, plugged in a USB flash drive to get a couple of files off it, and received yet-another prompt about updates that needed to be applied. (Like I said, it had been a long time since I'd last rebooted the thing.)

I applied this last round of updates, updated the antivirus definitions, and rebooted. Vista complained that it couldn't find one of the files it needed to boot properly, and stopped dead. Thinking it might be just an aberration, I hit the reset switch. No good. I booted from the installation DVD and tried the repair function, which also didn't resolve the problem.

I copied the files I cared about from the boot disk to another drive (I've got about 8 drives in the machine, so that was no big deal) and reformatted the boot disk. I ran the Vista installer to get the 64-bit version of the OS loaded (where previously I'd installed the 32-bit version for compatibility with an older RAID card). At the end of the installation, it rebooted and gave me the same error it had earlier. I was not, as you could imagine, terribly amused.

At this point, I remembered something that hasn't dawned on me in a long time... The BIOS on my PC's motherboard has a built-in limitation that extends from a built-in feature. The machine can be booted from a CD, an IDE boot disk, a SATA disk, a floppy, or a USB drive. Which one it tries to boot from depends on what you've selected in the BIOS. Unfortunately, the BIOS seems to have only a limited number of "spaces" to keep track of the "potentially bootable" disks. When it finds more disks than it has room for, it appears to "bump" some of the disks out of the boot list in favor of the disks it finds later in the process.

Thus, when I plugged in that USB drive to copy files off it earlier, I gave it "one too many" potentially-bootable devices to look at. As a result, it bumped my actual boot disk off the list in favor of the recently-inserted USB drive. That meant Vista was looking in the wrong place for its boot files, and subsequently not finding them. When I removed the USB drive from the hub and rebooted, the machine came up normally (since the BIOS boot order list was now what it should be). That little bit of "user error" meant that I had wiped and reinstalled Windows Vista without actually needing to do so.

Although I won't deny that it's a real pain in the backside to download and install the 64-bit drivers, reinstall my applications, reconfigure my preferences, etc., there's been a good side to all this. It may be my imagination, but the 64-bit version of Vista feels a LOT snappier than the 32-bit version did on my hardware. Applications are launching quickly, windows and menus snap open instantly, and it just feels faster. Of course, some of that could be due to the reinstallation itself, which essentially cleans up the Registry, reorganizes the files on the disk, etc. So I'm almost glad I forgot to remove that USB drive when I rebooted. (While I do NOT blame this problem on Windows Vista, as it's a hardware/firmware limitation, it does suck that the BIOS manufacturer didn't foresee the potential problem and build in safeguards.)

If nothing else, it's at least a "learning experience" (said with some sarcasm).

Microsoft Says IE 8 Won't Be Done Until 2009

Thu, 20 Nov 2008 17:45:19 -0500

According to an article by Ina Fried on Download.com, Microsoft has announced that it won't be finished with Internet Explorer 8 until 2009. They plan to offer one more public test version of IE 8 before releasing the final version. That public test version is expected to be released in the first quarter of 2009, meaning that Microsoft will miss its goal of finishing IE 8 in 2008.

It's good to see that Microsoft is taking its time getting IE 8 to market, which implies that they're taking the extra time to squash bugs and collect user feedback. (In fact, Fried makes a note of this at the end of the article, saying that Microsoft's "Hachamovitch also called on technical users to download the current beta 2 version and let Microsoft know how that goes.") I suppose that's the advantage of working on a product that doesn't (at least directly) generate revenue for Microsoft...

Should Google Mobile Be Banned from the App Store?

Thu, 20 Nov 2008 17:36:27 -0500

CNet once again seems to be stirring the fires of Apple controversy with its revelation that the new Google Mobile application for the iPhone breaks App Store rules, yet hasn't been banned (unlike many other applications from much smaller developers). From the outside, it certainly appears that there aren't well-defined, published, and rigidly followed guidelines for what iPhone applications can and can't do.

As Tom Krazit reports on CNet, "If Google wasn't Google, there's a fair chance that its new mobile application for the iPhone wouldn't be allowed in the App Store. That's because Google Mobile is tapping into iPhone technology that is supposed to be off-limits to third-party developers, according to research done by Daring Fireball's John Gruber and Ars Technica's Erica Sadun." Later in the article, he reports that "further research done by Sadun shows that Google is actually going beyond its use of unpublished APIs in the Google Mobile application to call on so-called 'private' frameworks that are supposedly off-limits to anyone but Apple, an offense that can result in banishment from the App Store."

Krazit concludes that the App Store approval process doesn't make sense, that applications which don't violate any published guidelines are denied, while others that violate the rules "sail through". As a result, "if you play by the rules of the developer program, your application won't be able to compete against those created by developers who violate the rules and get away with it because either Apple missed the violation or because they are politically connected industry titans." This is described by John Gruber as a "rigged" system, if developers are forced to play by the rules but Google is allowed to use private APIs just because they're Google.

Krazit's article also makes a number of other points about Apple and the App Store that are worth reading and thinking about. For me, the most intriguing thought expressed in the article was this: "So it's not hard to believe that Apple is simply overwhelmed and does not have the manpower to comb through each application to make sure that it is toeing the line. However, that was the main selling point for Apple's strategy to completely control iPhone application distribution; that it would be able to prevent poorly written or insecure applications from poisoning the iPhone by vetting every single application."

Is it Time for Apple to Dump FairPlay DRM?

Thu, 20 Nov 2008 17:19:40 -0500

According to a post on CNet, iTunes customers are angry with Apple over copy protection measures used in iTunes content. "Some Mac users are teed off that they are getting error messages saying the iTunes movie they rented or bought can't be played on their display because it is not HDCP (High Digital Content Protection) authorized. And some people are complaining they are only able to play certain standard definition iTunes content on their laptop or via an HDMI connection," says CNet's Elinor Mills.

While I'm sure Apple didn't unilaterally decide to include and activate HDCP technology in OS X (i.e., I'm sure the content providers asked for it), it seems that the implementation has surprised many Mac users. Regardless, it's pushing some to beg Apple CEO Steve Jobs to "set the music free". CNet's Greg Sandoval says DRM (Digital Rights Management) doesn't fit in with the Apple image and is starting to make iTunes "look stodgier than that 'PC guy' you're always mocking in your commercials."

Apple seems to be very committed to its DRM. They recently threatened the "iPodHash" project that they were breaking the DMCA laws by continuing to try to reverse-engineer the "hash" used to protect the iPod's internal music database file. They weren't trying to remove DRM from iPod content, just gain access to the database used in the device so that they could build an open source synchronization application to talk to the devices.

It will be interesting to see if Apple continues to pursue the path of DRM or if they renegotiate their deals with the major music industry publishers. As Sandoval points out, the same labels whose iTunes content is protected with DRM are selling unprotected MP3 content on Amazon.com, the Zune Marketplace, and more.

Adventures in Mac-Land, Part 5 - Rediscovering Scrivener

Thu, 20 Nov 2008 00:41:02 -0500

In high school, I read a Herman Melville story called "Bartleby, the Scrivener: A Story of Wall-street" about a fellow employed in the pre-copy-machine days to make exact copies of legal documents for attorneys (a "scrivener"). The story stands out in my memory because I took away from it something very different than my teacher intended. When she read the story, my teacher came away from it feeling sorry for poor Bartleby, whose health had deteriorated such that he could no longer work, and whose employment was terminated by the story's end. When I read it, I saw a freeloader who got lazy and stopped doing his job, still expecting to be paid. After all, when approached to do work, Bartleby didn't say, "I'm sorry, my eyes and hands hurt too much." He said, "I prefer not to." The teacher said that in all her years of teaching, I was the first person not to take pity on Bartleby, and to interpret the story the way I did. I took a sort of perverse pride in that, and still do. But I digress...

It's somehow fitting that I find myself years later looking at a software tool for writers called "Scrivener". Produced by Literature & Latte, this program purports to help writers collect, organize, and use their creative ideas in a minimally-structured environment. I'd first heard about Scrivener several months ago when a Mac-fanatic writer/friend told me that he found it to be one of the best writing tools he'd ever used. I forget his exact words, but they were along the lines of "This software is designed almost exactly for the way I write." High praise, to be sure.

Lately, I've been bitten by the creative bug. The bug usually gnaws at my subconscious until I finally produce something creative that I'm satisfied with (as much as any writer or creative person is ever really "satisfied" with their work). I have an inkling that the bug won't be satisfied this time until I've written a short story or novella of some kind. I'd kind of forgotten about Scrivener until Connor Byrne of Apple Eclectic was kind enough to provide me with a link to the developer's web site. Last night, I downloaded the software and installed it. Over the last couple of evenings I've gone through the very informative tutorial.

I can see where Scrivener would be very useful. It allows writers to collect "research" (which can consist of text, images, QuickTime movies, etc.) related to a writing project within the tool. As the writer's project begins to take shape, the writer places notes in the "draft" area of the product. Scrivener includes an outliner and a virtual "corkboard" to help the writer turn the rough notes into a storyboard and put some actual structure to the work in progress. When it's all done, the writer can output the initial draft from Scrivener and import it into another application for layout, additional editing, etc.

For the last several years, I've had an idea for short story I want to write. Perhaps this would be a good field test for Scrivener...

That's all I have to share for tonight. I was tired and not feeling terribly well when I got home from work this evening, so I really didn't spend much time with the Mac (or Windows) at all.

HP Releases First Consumer Multi-touch Laptop

Wed, 19 Nov 2008 18:17:24 -0500

Last year, Dell released the Latitude XT, an enterprise laptop PC with multi-touch functionality similar to that used in the iPhone. On Wednesday, HP unveiled the TouchSmart tx2, the first "consumer" laptop to feature multi-touch functionality.

As CNet reports, "How did HP accomplish this feat, when Microsoft won't add multitouch functionality until it releases Windows 7? By partnering with an Israeli company called N-trig." The tx2 reportedly looks like a standard convertible tablet PC, and is priced at $1,149 and up. At the low end, the device features a 2.1 GHz AMD Turion X2 CPU, 3GB of RAM, a 250GB hard drive, ATI HD3200 graphics, and 32-bit Vista Home Premium.

I'm inclined to agree with CNet's Matt Elliott when he says, "Personally, I've never understood the draw of a tablet outside, perhaps, a few specific occupations that require the use of specific software and where one lacks of a desk -- say, insurance agents in the field or medical professionals moving from one patient to the next. For me, nothing is a more efficient input device than a QWERTY keyboard, along with a mouse or touch pad." But hey, to each his (or her) own.

Still, I wish HP (and Dell) success with their multitouch devices, and am curious to see what response (if any) comes from Cupertino.

Spansion Seeks to Block Importing of Flash-memory-based Products

Wed, 19 Nov 2008 18:03:10 -0500

A company named "Spansion" recently filed a lawsuit against flash memory manufacturer Samsung, claiming that Samsung has violated their patents. The lawsuit names not only Samsung but companies that use Samsung components, including Apple, Sony, and Lenovo. They're putting pressure on Samsung to settle by reportedly petitioning the government to block the import of products that contain the allegedly infringing technology. What kind of a business is Spansion? I don't know much about them, but the San Francisco Business Times article linked above says, "The company bought Saifun Semiconductor earlier this year and added that company's patents to its own, hoping to set up a licensing business using its intellectual property." That sounds like a kind way of saying this company is a "patent troller" which buys up other companies and their intellectual property if they think there's a chance they can win a lawsuit alleging patent infringement or a similar claim. Could be a bad day for consumers if Spansion succeeds in blocking the importation of Samsung flash-based products.

Did Microsoft "Fear" Mac OS X?

Wed, 19 Nov 2008 17:03:54 -0500

According to Computerworld's Gregg Keizer, internal emails from Microsoft that were released as part of the "Vista Capable" lawsuit that's underway showed Microsoft "feared" a Mac versus Vista comparison back in 2005. This claim is based on what was said in a Wall Street Journal column by Walter Mossberg. In the column, Mossberg suggested that if you were thinking about what computer to buy for Vista, you should buy a Mac instead. Mossberg's argument was that OS X Tiger (the then-available release) contained much of what Vista was reportedly going to have, and was more secure than Windows XP.

Based on what is quoted in the Computerworld article, I think it's a little bit of a stretch to say that Microsoft "feared" comparisons between Tiger and Vista. They were, however, understandably concerned that a columnist for a well-known and well-respected publication (the Wall Street Journal) was suggesting that a Mac was a better product than a Windows Vista PC (at a time when you couldn't BUY a Windows Vista PC to compare it to). If a New York Times writer published a story blasting OS X, suggesting that Mac users should switch to Windows or Linux, I'd expect similar emails to fly around Cupertino as Apple executives questioned one another on how the writer reached that conclusion. Would I look at those emails and say Apple "feared" Linux or Windows? No. I would if the context indicated they did, but I don't see that kind of indication in the Microsoft quotes presented. (Perhaps elsewhere in the emails there IS an indication of fear, but Keizer didn't provide any quotes that imply fear to me. All I see are executives attempting to sort out how to deal with negative, and from their perspective untrue, comments about their product.)

Much of the ensuing Microsoft conversation is about how they need to communicate the value of Vista to consumers so that articles like Mossberg's aren't given undue credence by readers.
For example, the emails indicate that Microsoft saw one of the values of Vista being that it can "run on a very wide-ranging set of systems from the minimally capable to the incredibly capable. Apple doesn't do that." As I interpret the comment, they're right. Apple has always positioned the Mac as a "premium" offering, perhaps to justify premium pricing. They generally don't try to do low-end computers. (Even the Mac Mini, Apple's lowest-end machine, isn't exactly "Wal-Mart PC" priced.) Windows and Linux, by comparison, do support a wider range of hardware (not just brands and makes/models, but chronologically older hardware). Whether that's a good or bad thing depends on your perspective.

Microsoft wouldn't enjoy the market dominance it does if it ignored alternatives to Windows, and didn't give thought to how to position itself against them. I'm sure executives at Microsoft pay close attention to OS X, Linux, and even the "niche" OS players out there. But being aware of your competition and positioning your product within the market aren't signs of "fear" any more than Apple's "Mac vs. PC" ads imply that Apple is scared of Windows.

Microsoft Drops OneCare to Develop Free Product

Wed, 19 Nov 2008 13:16:00 -0500

CNet claims that Microsoft's Live OneCare anti-malware solution changed the Windows antivirus landscape, generally for the better, by putting the antivirus vendors on their toes and making them develop more comprehensive products at better prices. Maybe they're right, I don't know.

More interesting than this is the news that Microsoft is planning to release a free antivirus, anti-malware product for Windows in 2009. As CNet claims, this is likely to change the antivirus landscape yet again, since Microsoft's technology is being compared to the industry's best.

I think this is the right move for Microsoft, though it probably screws over those who actually paid for OneCare in the past to some degree. To be as effective as possible, anti-malware protection really should be coming from the operating system vendor. The operating system vendor would seem to be in the best position to identify potential weak points and protect them, and to ensure that the operating system integrates well with the anti-malware code.

It will probably also have a further downward effect on pricing for commercial antivirus solutions, which is good for the consumer (though not so good for the vendors). This, in turn, should help more people deploy effective antivirus software and result in a more-secure "Windows world" overall.

I'm an optimist, I know, but I agree with CNet that this should be a good thing in the end.

Snow Leopard to Arrive in January?

Wed, 19 Nov 2008 13:01:58 -0500

According to CNet, an Apple executive was quoted at a UNIX conference as saying that OS X Snow Leopard 10.6 would be released in the first quarter of 2009. The author of the CNet article goes on to suggest that "first quarter" might actually mean the MacWorld conference on January 5, 2009. After having to delay 10.5 for iPhone work, I doubt Apple will openly declare a precise release date for Snow Leopard yet, but it wouldn't surprise me if they at least announce a release date at MacWorld. The real question is, if Apple delivers on its promise to include mostly "fixes" in Snow Leopard and no significant new features, will people bother to buy it?

Psystar's Claim of an Apple "Monopoly" Dismissed

Wed, 19 Nov 2008 12:49:49 -0500

Apple has scored a minor victory in its case against Mac clone maker Psystar. When Apple sued Psystar, alleging a variety of legal issues, Psystar sued back on the grounds that Apple has a monopoly on systems that run Mac OS X. The judge in the case reportedly said that the Apple control of the Mac market isn't a monopoly, and dismissed that charge in Psystar's suit. While this is certainly an unfortunate turn of events for Psystar, it doesn't necessarily mean that Apple has won the entire case. There is still ample room for Psystar to achieve some sort of victory that allows them to continue making and selling Mac clones.

Another Example of Inconsistent iPhone App Store Banning

Mon, 17 Nov 2008 18:56:41 -0500

The Register has reported yet-another case of an unusual application ban by Apple's App Store for the iPhone. Developer return7 has previously submitted (and had approved) to the App Store several versions of its CastCatcher Internet radio software. When it recently submitted a relatively minor update to the software, Apple refused to include it in the App Store because it "used excessive amounts of bandwidth" on the carrier's network. The previous version, which uses the same amount of bandwidth, is still there and can still be obtained.

Further, there are several other apps in the store that use comparable amounts of bandwidth, yet none of them has been banned. As the article indicates, "you can still buy all sorts of other internet radio apps from the iPhone App store, including Pandora, AOL Radio, Tuner, FStream, WunderRadio, and the list goes on." This makes the banning of CastCatcher rather odd.

In putting itself in the position of censor, and relying on human beings to perform the censoring, Apple is setting itself up for repeated complaints of this type. Hopefully, they're working behind the scenes to develop some documented common-sense guidelines on what iPhone applications can and cannot do. That may mitigate some of this.

Richard Stallman on Open Source, Free Software, and Other Topics

Mon, 17 Nov 2008 17:04:45 -0500

Australia's PC Authority magazine published an interesting interview with free software advocate Richard Stallman. In it, Stallman talks about the difference between "free software" and "open source software", OpenOffice.org, Firefox, the Asus Eee PC, and some related topics. It's an interesting read, if for no other reason than to see Stallman's thought processes in action.

He states that to be truly called "free" the software must meet four basic criteria:

The user is permitted to run the program as they wish.
The user may study the source code and change it, making the program do what they wish it to do.
The user may redistribute exact copies when they wish.
The user may distribute copies of their modified versions when they wish.

Any software that doesn't meet these criteria, Stallman says, isn't truly "free". As you might guess, Stallman is against any software that doesn't meet these criteria, including open source software.

According to the interview, someone gave Stallman an Asus Eee PC as a gift, but he refused to use it because it required him to agree to a software license. I found it amusing that his solution to the problem was: "I asked someone to install a free GNU/Linux distro so the machine could be used." I'm amused not because Stallman stuck to his guns, which I respect, but that he had to ask someone else to install Linux on it. What, he couldn't boot it up from a GNU/Linux CD (that doesn't have a EULA) himself? Or does he simply refuse to touch anything that has proprietary software on it? Either way, odd.

I guess my own opinion on free, open source, and proprietary software is this... It would be nice if all software was free, or at least open source. However, I also respect the right of the programmer to determine how best to benefit from the software they've created, just as I respect an author's right to distribute their written work, or a musician's right to distribute their music, or that of any other creative person. If you believe that releasing your work as free software is the way to go, that's fine by me. After all, you created it. If you want to release it as open source and retain certain rights as the creator, I'm OK with that, too. And as someone who's worked for software companies, I also respect the right to adopt a business model that allows you to control your work the way you want to.

Similarly, what I'd really like to see is that when a peripheral manufacturer decides that supporting the drivers for a given device is no longer worthwhile, that they release the source code for those drivers. While I think it's perfectly reasonable for a manufacturer to stop releasing updated drivers for a device they haven't manufactured for several years, I also think it's reasonable for the customer to want to still be able to use it. Releasing driver source code could start a whole cottage industry of maintaining drivers for old, but still viable, hardware.

Adventures in Mac-Land, Part 4

Sun, 16 Nov 2008 14:24:44 -0500

This weekend, I decided to focus on Apple's "iLife" applications (iDVD, iMovie, iPhoto, and iWeb). I know iTunes is included in there, too, but since I don't own an Apple iPod or iPhone I think a lot of the best functionality of iTunes is going to be lost on me, so I'm not going to spend time with it yet.

Impressions of iDVD

iDVD's purpose in life is to allow Mac users to produce DVDs from their digital video files. At a high level, the Mac user selects a menu template for the DVD, picks out the video clips to be included on the disk, sets up the menus, and burns the disc. This is approximately the same workflow that any PC DVD authoring software uses, so picking up iDVD wasn't difficult after using Windows software that does the same thing.

iDVD offers a number of different menu templates, all of which feature some kind of animation. While some of the consumer-grade DVD authoring tools on Windows offer animated menus, they usually only offer a few in amongst a much larger array of non-animated templates. iDVD menu templates include:

Revolution: As the name suggests, this features a revolving image of the user's choice with revolving titles of the user's choice moving around it. It has sort of a "Hollywood opening credits" feel and I can understand why iDVD empowers some Mac users to feel that they're creating commercial-quality DVDs.
Sunflower: Clearly designed for parents who are making DVDs about their kids, it features a large rotating sunflower with a user-selected image in the middle, moving clouds in the sky in the background, and an animated opening sequence. I can't imagine myself ever using this.
Modern: This is a fairly professional looking template with a minimalist design.
Vintage Vinyl: This features an image of a rotating record album on an old-style record player next to a stack of record albums that are shown being plopped down next to the player. This is another I can't imagine using, but I'm sure people do.
Center Stage: Features a 3D-skewed image of the user's choice, reflecting on a surface below it. It has a minimalist, but professional, look about it.
Soft Frame: This takes a user-selected image on the left side of the frame and displays a menu on the right side. It's another minimal but professional-looking template.

There are approximately 95 themes/templates in all. Some are suited to a very specific purpose, such as a wedding video, vacation video, or holiday video, while others are more generic. One thing they all share in common is an Apple logo in the lower-right corner of the template. Personally, I find that as annoying as the little station-identification logos the networks put on their television programming. I suspect Mac users don't, as it serves as a "badge of honor" (as in, "I did this on my Mac") and a subtle advertisement for Apple (as in "this is what a Mac can do").

Thinking about iDVD as a potential "switcher" from Windows might, I decided to see how well it handled digital video files I had on hand. As it happens, I've got about 200GB of digital video lying around. This includes shows I recorded using my now-dead analog video capture board, movies I captured from my old VHS tapes, and newer digital video from a variety of sources. Having a wealth of different video formats and sources available to me to play with, I wanted to find out how compatible iDVD would be with video files of various types.

Old VHS Movie captured and converted to DivX AVI format on Windows: iDVD accepted the file but produced blank video from it. After installation of a DivX codec, however, this was no longer an issue.
FLV (Flash video) file downloaded from an online service: iDVD reported that it didn't understand this format and couldn't include it in the DVD.
MOV (QuickTime movie) downloaded from the web: iDVD had no trouble with this file, which reportedly originally came from a Mac. (Not that I expected it would.)
MP4 (MPEG4) files downloaded from the web: iDVD accepted these without complaint, which is to be expected since QuickTime on the Mac works with MPEG4 files.
MPG (MPEG2) files captured from analog video on Windows: iDVD reported that it didn't understand this format and couldn't include it in the DVD. After converting the files from MPG to DivX AVI using the free ffmpeg software, I was able to import them. I noted that Apple does offer an MPEG2 codec, but it's not free.
Xvid AVI files: iDVD imported the file but the video came out blank on the DVD. After installing DivX for OS X, it imported without a problem.
Television episode encoded in Real Video movie format (.rmvb): iDVD didn't recognize this as a video file even after RealPlayer was installed, though RealPlayer could play it on OS X.
AVI file of World of Warcraft footage captured using FRAPS and an unknown codec: iDVD recognized it as video but it imported into iDVD as a blank frame with audio only.

As on Windows, once the appropriate codecs (compress/decompression programs) were installed on OS X, it was possible to work with all the video formats I previously used on Windows - with one exception (and that might have worked if I'd known which codec was used to create it). Finding and installing the appropriate codecs was approximately the same difficulty level as for Windows. The Mac did nothing to warn the user that it didn't have a way to decode some of the AVI files, which is something I've seen Windows do before.

In terms of creating a DVD from compatible video files, iDVD is comparable to the tools I use on Windows. The basic workflow is to select a desired template/appearance for the menus, select the video files to include on the disc, and start the encoding/burning process. That same workflow is how iDVD operates.

The encoding process on OS X was approximately real-time. That is, a 30-minute video file was encoded for DVD by the 2.0 GHz Mac in approximately 30 minutes. That, too, is comparable to Windows.

I should point out that the software I normally use on Windows includes an MPEG-2 codec, so the purchase of a codec is unnecessary on Windows, unlike OS X. Since we're only talking about a $20 outlay, that's a minor nit to pick, but worth mentioning because it's an issue you have with the Mac that you don't with Windows.

In terms of the look of the menus, I would agree that they're at least as good as those I've gotten from Windows applications, if not better. The amount of animation in many of iDVD's menu templates ("themes") is greater than in a couple of the Windows applications I've used.

For ease of use, I found iDVD to be comparable (i.e., not especially easier or harder) to use than the Windows DVD authoring packages I've used. I imagine that an inexperienced computer user would get a little nicer looking menus out of iDVD than a typical PC application, but otherwise there's no significant difference that I could see.

Looking at iMovie

I actually had to read the help and manual for iMovie, as I didn't find it as intuitive as the Windows software I've been using for the last several years. After reading it, it didn't take long to be able to open and edit movie files with iMovie.

There was one thing that really surprised me about iMovie. Although I was able to import a variety of different video files into iDVD, only the MPEG-4 (.mp4) file I tested with would actually be usable as-is with iMovie. In order to use any of the other video files I brought over from Windows, I would have had to convert them into a format iMovie liked. According to the help system, it likes MPEG-4, MPEG-2, and DV formats. That may be true, but it didn't want to open the MPEG-2 (.mpg) files I brought over from Windows. If I was making a permanent switch from Windows to the Mac, I think the limited number of video formats imported by iMovie would be frustrating to me, since nearly all of my 200GB of existing video files would not be a format it is willing to open... and quality is nearly always lost in any format conversion with video.

Aside from that, iMovie offers about a dozen different transition types and title styles. It also allows importing of iTunes and iPhoto content into iMovie, which could (for instance) allow you to create a movie from your still photos and set that movie to any tune in your music collection. While my PC video editing software doesn't integrate with any photo management or music management software, it does provide the same functionality from my photo and music collections, so this is nothing that revolutionary.

That's about all I can say for iMovie. It's accessible, does what it is intended to do, and offers a reasonable number of transitions and effects.

Browsing iWeb

My web sites use a content management system called Movable Type. In order to change the appearance of the site, I need to change the "Style" and layout information in Movable Type's preferences. To make any kind of radical change, I need to perform surgery on the HTML and CSS files Movable Type uses. For web editing needs, iWeb is therefore close to useless. But I realize I'm not the typical person building their first web site. For them, this would help build a decent-looking web site relatively easily.

Much like the Apple logo appearing in the menus on iDVD, Apple includes a "Made on a Mac" logo a the bottom of iWeb-created pages by default. Fortunately, this is something you can remove if you don't want your site to feature an unpaid advertisement for Apple.

Aside from that, it's an impressive web editing tool, provided (as I noted earlier) that you don't use a content management system that it would have to integrate with. I was able to fiddle around with the sample pages and get some nice-looking results that I'm not sure I could do with any of the commercial Windows web editors. (Then again, I've not used a higher-end editor on Windows other than the open source Kompozer and Nvu, which aren't really competitors to iWeb.)

iPhoto

I'm pretty much a novice when it comes to photo editing, so I'm a good test case for iPhoto (unlike the rest of iLife). I know enough with The Gimp to be able to do some basic masking and how to combine images from multiple photos into one, but no one's going to look at my work and confuse it with a true professional's.

For basic photo manipulation, like correcting under or over-exposure, sorting out color problems, and bringing out hidden details, iPhoto is very nice. I was able to get results I was reasonably happy with after only a little fiddling around. It can't replace PhotoShop or The Gimp, because it doesn't seem to have the more-advanced functionality, but for basic photo cleanup and organization, it's a nice tool. Would it convince me to ditch my Windows (or Linux) PC? Not really.

In Conclusion

On the one hand, I understand why Apple is proud of iLife. It makes video editing, DVD authoring, digital photo cleanup, and web page creation relatively accessible to a typical computer user. The templates included with each product allow for even the most amateurish content to be presented with a professional-looking style.

On the other hand, as someone who's experienced with digital video, DVD authoring, and web site management, they're very basic tools. Once you get beyond the desire to just place your existing content in the provided templates, the iLife applications are going to feel "limiting". For instance, if you wanted to create your own Themes in iDVD, there doesn't appear to be a feature for that. The same is true for iMovie in that you won't be creating your own transitions or title styles. And of course in iWeb you have to start with an existing template, although there is a bit more freedom to muck about with the page layouts.