or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by PB

Quote: There are many features mostly useful in a professional environment. You can have a look at the corresponding wiki entry for details. As far as the common user is concerned, here are the highlights: protection against data corruption (involving continuous integrity check and automatic repair), very efficient snapshots, vast performance improvements, pooled storage model, encryption. Apple apparently saw the great potential of ZFS and was actively involved in porting...
Great, thank you so much PopinFRESH!
 I have not watched the keynote. For some reason it does not load properly. Since you seem to know, could you describe in a few words how it works and, most importantly, if it is invasive/annoying?
Please guys, stop attacking and calling names other members of the forum because they say something different. This place used to be a very nice forum in the past. Let's make an effort to keep it polite and civilized. It is easy.
 I think the file system can be a great selling point today. It depends on the features. Other file systems (and from what I remember that was the case of ZFS that died suddenly while it was ported to the Mac) can ensure a much higher level of data integrity, bringing other nice features as well. Of course this does not eliminate the need for backups, but securing the user's data in the best possible way should be of prime priority.  Indeed. Apple seems more focused than...
 Well, although I agree generally, no one can predict what the future in personal computing will exactly be. Perhaps, when miniaturization, storage and performance will advance even more, all we will need as a computer will be the equivalent in volume of a matches box, that can be taken away everywhere and just be connected to some display and input devices in order to load a full-fledged operating system. But for now, I also understand that many users settle for tablets...
 This is true for any company wanting to stay alive and thrive. I would not like to see the mini go away. In fact, I was planning to buy one later this year but I am not going to pay these prices for almost 2 years old hardware.
 Indeed, the first Mac OS X iterations made a great use of translucency, where the foreground window was completely opaque and the background ones had translucent title bars. Together with two levels of shadow depth, it helped usability in a very nice way. Now what exactly translucency is supposed to do? If it affects all the windows simultaneously, then it may get in the way and become annoying. Can anyone describe how it works in Yosemite?
 I suppose you mean OS X user. I don't know if there is any relation between the two (age of majority or average age of users - UI design) but I believe that there could be. The UI has to have an appeal for most of the users, current and potential ones. The new interface looks quite juvenile to my eyes. I don't like the color choice as seen in the pictures, but I will hold my judgment until I see the new system in person. And contrary to many people's criticism, I will...
 When the new Mac Pro was announced, I hoped that it would cover a wide range of possibilities from the mini all the way up to the pro. Of course this could put in big trouble the iMac, which had already a new design, so it was unrealistic. It is obvious that the new Mac Pro design has huge potential. Apple could easily use it to fuse the two headless desktop lines. If they will do so or not remains to be seen. But I don't think that they can just drop the mini without...
New Posts  All Forums: