or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Software › Mac OS X › Collection of *confirmed* Panther info.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Collection of *confirmed* Panther info. - Page 4

post #121 of 228
Apple is currently not in the appropriate position to kick customers in the guts; and not giving Panther to millions of iMac/iBook/BW G3 users means deliberately kicking 'em in the balls.
Technology is dominated by two types of people: those who understand what they do not manage, and those who manage what they do not understand. Putts Law
Reply
Technology is dominated by two types of people: those who understand what they do not manage, and those who manage what they do not understand. Putts Law
Reply
post #122 of 228
Thread Starter 
But they just GAVE them a gift. Jaguar is just about everything you could want from an OS.

So I take it by your post costique that you believe they will upgrade their ENTIRE hardware line so that they can put Panther on some rinky dink G3s?
I never get tired of being right all the time... but I do get tired of having to prove it to you again and again.
Reply
I never get tired of being right all the time... but I do get tired of having to prove it to you again and again.
Reply
post #123 of 228
Uh, sorry but Not having Panther workable on a G3 would just be silly. Apple's business sense may be clouded, but it isn't non-existant.

I would believe however that Panther will be even more G4 optimised than Jaguar already is, but not working at all on a G3?

Oi.

--PB
post #124 of 228
Quote:
Originally posted by PosterBoy
Uh, sorry but Not having Panther workable on a G3 would just be silly. Apple's business sense may be clouded, but it isn't non-existant.

OMG! Is this still being discussed!!! Panther WILL work on G3's!!!

.
Former WWDC Watchdog.
Reply
Former WWDC Watchdog.
Reply
post #125 of 228
Quote:
From MOSR
Monday, May 19 2:37 AM

10.3 Panther may not include "Piles"....that's right, although Apple has done research into using the frequently discussed Piles, which are collections of files somewhat like a folder -- a cluster of icons which can be looked at quickly to determine the collection's contents, unlike a folder which has a standardized icon giving no hint as to the contents -- we have been lucky enough to see an early build of Panther that has many new features, some of which are surprising, but there is no support for Piles in the Finder as it stands as of last week's builds.

No kidding!
Quote:
What we saw in the brief few minutes our reporters were allowed to play with Panther is pretty heavily embargoed until more details of Panther become public, but for the time being we can definitely say that Panther is significantly faster across the board than Jaguar (10.2.x) on any system. As with previous releases, the differences are significantly greater on dual-processor systems with modern (Radeon or GeForce) AGP graphics cards....but they are quite noticeable even on the original Bondi Blue iMac G3/233. In all, we got to see Panther in action on seven separate Macs ranging from that iMac to Powerbook G3s and G4s, as well as a dual 1.42GHz PowerMac G4 and a Dual 1.33GHz Xserve. An install was attempted on a PowerMac 9600/200MP which has ran all the previous versions of Mac OS X...and we were surprised to discover that Panther simply would not install -- the installation CD would have a severe kernel panic on boot every time, whereas there was not a single problem with any other of the seven systems we installed Panther upon.

What's the f***in point of telling us this. "We have seen this and that, but sorry - can't tell you about it." And they only had a "few minutes" to play with panther but were allowed to install it on seven systems?? sounds strange
Quote:
More details will be published throughout the week on Panther as well as Apple's use of the PowerPC 970.

Yeah, right!
Quote:
Not only might not the 970 be called a "G5" (Apple may drop the label altogether, calling chips by their names -- new chips in the PPC 750 family from IBM will exceed 1GHz, include 512K-1MB of on-chip L2 cache, and eventually even include a Velocity Engine unit, dropping the Altivec name as Motorola is wiped completely out of Apple's system lineup).....it may show up in Powerbooks a lot sooner than once thought. There's still a chance it might take a little longer than the PowerMacs and Xserves, but the Powerbook will not only move to PowerPC 970 processors very quickly....it may even employ dual PPC 970 processors as well as an impressively updated system architecture in the 17-inch Powerbook as soon as next January.

There's noting in this update form MOSR that havent been discussed on these boards before, and they bring no new wood to the fire. It would have been easier if they have just disappeared altogether. I almost had a wish that their website being down was going to be a permanent thing.
Former WWDC Watchdog.
Reply
Former WWDC Watchdog.
Reply
post #126 of 228
You bumped this falling thread just to yell at the other participants and add nothing substantial?

post #127 of 228
Quote:
Originally posted by Brad
You bumped this falling thread just to yell at the other participants and add nothing substantial?


Eh, sorry going to stand in a corner now.
Former WWDC Watchdog.
Reply
Former WWDC Watchdog.
Reply
post #128 of 228
Someone needs to make a list of probably and possible Panther inclusions.

I'm too lazy to read an ENTIRE thread.

sheesh.
post #129 of 228
LoopRumors post "new" information about panther:

Quote:
Panther details part II

Originally scheduled for May 19-23 in San Jose, the 2003 Worldwide Developers Conference (WWDC) will now be held June 23-27 at San Francisco's Moscone Center. Apple made this change in order to prepare for the next version of its Macintosh operating system, code named "Panther." Panther will mark the third significant upgrade to Mac OS X since its debut. LoopRumors has been hard at work gathering information about the upcoming feline. Here's part two of what we've learned:
[list=a][*]Themes. When Apple introduced OS X to the world, they didn't only retire its predecessor OS 9, they also retired a feature known as themes. These themes were both visual and audible. Sources say we'll see the return of themes with sounds.
[*]User Switching. Unlike Log Out, where the user logs out and all applications quit and documents save, the switching feature allows users to log into their own identity and resume operation with open applications and documents. Talk of user log in with Voice print speech recognition will return to Panther.
[*]More Dock Features. The dock will have smart grouping. Documents from the same program will be grouped together in the Dock.
[*]Piles? Since our last report on Piles, we have heard arguments and reeived evidence that Piles may in fact not be a feature in the new OS. The jury is still out on this feature and time will tell. Piles are definitely being worked on at Apple and development is practically completely refined, but many conflicting reports and some solid evidence that Piles may not see the light of day in Panther.
[*]iChat 2.0. We keep hearing that this will be the best feature to come with Panther. We've already reported on videoconferencing technology and additional features in iChat 2.0, but our sources maintain that iChat will be .
[*]Speed. With most new versions of Macintosh Operating Systems, Apple has touted speed. Panther will be no exception. Speed increase will play a major part of Panther's overall performance, from start-up to system performance, and launching applications.
[*]Safari 1.0. The Safari web browser will be included as golden master. The feedback bug will be eliminated. Support for third party plug-ins will be integrated right into the app.
[*]Mail 2.0. Mail will see some major changes. Among them, better support for HTML and animated graphics. Enhanced anti-spam features and return receipt feature built-in.[/list=a]
Former WWDC Watchdog.
Reply
Former WWDC Watchdog.
Reply
post #130 of 228
[list=a][*]Themes: I dont think themes are all that likely, but it would be cool to have an option were you could turn pinstripes off/on. User definable finder text-size would also be cool. [*]User Switching. I would very much like this feature to become part of panther. Very useful on XP.[*]More Dock Features. Grouping sounds useful, but I hope it's not going to work in the same way grouping in XP does. [*]Piles? Well, time will show. I only think this was a rumor that originated outside of Apple, and is not based on "real" leaks anyway. It sound like a cool feature, at least to impress possible switchers, but if it adds to the user experiense is still to be seen. [*]iChat 2.0. If iChat 2.0 is going to be "the best feature", well then it isn't looking too promising for panther. I hope iChat 2.0 to be cool, but I hope there will be other features that eclipses iChat 2.0. [*]Speed. More of an educated guess than insider information I think. However, speed is good, and I expect panther to do slightly better than jagwyre. Not that it will be all that important with the 970 coming out soon [*]Safari 1.0. This is a given. [*]Mail 2.0. This is also very likely. [/list=a]

Hmm. LoopRumors hasn't exactly brought much new information to us with this update. All this "information" is no more than good guess-work in my book. One would have thought that something completely "new" information would have surfaced by now, but sadly it has not. Well I guess we'll just have to wait and see.
Former WWDC Watchdog.
Reply
Former WWDC Watchdog.
Reply
post #131 of 228
Quote:
Originally posted by NETROMac


Hmm. LoopRumors hasn't exactly brought many new information to us with this update. All this "information" is no more than good guess-work in my book. One would have thought that something completely "new" information would have surfaced by now, but sadly it has not. Well I guess we'll just have to wait and see.

I read both their rumors on Panther and was quite let down. Not really much there in my opinion. The good news is that the looprumors information is rumor.
post #132 of 228
I like surprises. (:
Computer: Cedric
Specs: eMac, 700MHz PowerPC G4, 384MB of RAM, 40GB HD, CD-RW drive, nVidia GeForce 2 MX, Mac OS X 10.1.5/Mac OS 9.2.2
Media: 1800 tunes, 78 photos, 3 movies, no DVD's.
Reply
Computer: Cedric
Specs: eMac, 700MHz PowerPC G4, 384MB of RAM, 40GB HD, CD-RW drive, nVidia GeForce 2 MX, Mac OS X 10.1.5/Mac OS 9.2.2
Media: 1800 tunes, 78 photos, 3 movies, no DVD's.
Reply
post #133 of 228
Quote:
Originally posted by kim kap sol
Why? Apple is clearly moving everything to Cocoa.

Everything like... iTunes? The best iApp out there (IMHO), and it has been and continues to be Carbon. How about Reason or Shake? Both Carbon.

Quote:
Originally posted by kim kap sol
Apple is constantly improving Cocoa...and Carbon is always a few steps behind. The Finder with a Cocoa interface would be in tune with what Apple has been doing in the past year: moving their software to Cocoa.

Nonsense. The most important applications for MacOS X have been, and continue to be, Carbon applications. Photoshop. Illustrator. Word. Office. Excel. PowerPoint. Quark XPress (when it comes out), and the list goes on and on.

Apple has a very vested interest in continuing to improve Carbon, and they have been actively doing just that.

Quote:
Originally posted by kim kap sol
Apple is pushing developers to use Cocoa at this point. Carbon was great for OS 9 apps that needed porting to OS X...but Apple makes it clear that new projects or rewrites should be in Cocoa.

This is not true. Apple is not pushing developers to use Cocoa. Apple is offering developers as many API choices as is reasonably possible.

Quote:
Originally posted by kim kap sol
The Finder is in bad shape. Very bad shape. A rewrite in Cocoa would probably solve LOTS of problems as opposed to trying to heal a fatally wounded Carbon Finder...not because it's Cocoa, but because a rewrite would allow Apple to start fresh with things like a a new filesystem in mind as opposed to tacking it on as a hack to the existing Finder.

This untrue. It would be the worst waste of time imaginable for Apple to rewrite the Finder in Cocoa. iPhoto and iCal are both Cocoa -- they are also both dogs when it comes to performance. Cocoa is an API, not a panacea.

Quote:
Originally posted by kim kap sol
But let's face it folks...Cocoa allows for toolbars, drawers and quite a few neat-o things coming in 10.3 that won't be available to Carbon developers. Carbon and Cocoa may be unifying more and more but Apple says Cocoa should be used from now on, so why not bite the bullet and follow Apple's words of wisdom.

Apple does NOT say this. Indeed, it would be laughed at if they did.
Andrew Welch / el Presidente / Ambrosia Software, Inc.
Carpe Aqua -- Snapz Pro X 2.0.2 for OS X..... Your digital recording device -- WireTap Pro 1.1.0 for OS X
Reply
Andrew Welch / el Presidente / Ambrosia Software, Inc.
Carpe Aqua -- Snapz Pro X 2.0.2 for OS X..... Your digital recording device -- WireTap Pro 1.1.0 for OS X
Reply
post #134 of 228
Quote:
Originally posted by kim kap sol
I'm sick of hearing people saying there are no difference between Carbon and Cocoa. I'm sick of hearing people say that Carbon and Cocoa are merging. They're not...you can have Carbon events in inside a Cocoa app but the two aren't merging.

Cocoa is the future. Carbon will stay but won't get improved.

End of ****ing story.

You are incorrect.
Andrew Welch / el Presidente / Ambrosia Software, Inc.
Carpe Aqua -- Snapz Pro X 2.0.2 for OS X..... Your digital recording device -- WireTap Pro 1.1.0 for OS X
Reply
Andrew Welch / el Presidente / Ambrosia Software, Inc.
Carpe Aqua -- Snapz Pro X 2.0.2 for OS X..... Your digital recording device -- WireTap Pro 1.1.0 for OS X
Reply
post #135 of 228
Quote:
Originally posted by jccbin
When the Cocoa aspects offer improved functionality or performance over the carbon portions of the code, Adobe will switch to Cocoa. It will not happen overnight, but it will happen, I predict.

I'll take that bet. It is not going to happen.
Andrew Welch / el Presidente / Ambrosia Software, Inc.
Carpe Aqua -- Snapz Pro X 2.0.2 for OS X..... Your digital recording device -- WireTap Pro 1.1.0 for OS X
Reply
Andrew Welch / el Presidente / Ambrosia Software, Inc.
Carpe Aqua -- Snapz Pro X 2.0.2 for OS X..... Your digital recording device -- WireTap Pro 1.1.0 for OS X
Reply
post #136 of 228
Quote:
Originally posted by Chucker
11. What's wrong with Grap.app?

Ahh, we need to get you to see the light:

http://www.AmbrosiaSW.com/utilities/snapzprox/

Andrew Welch / el Presidente / Ambrosia Software, Inc.
Carpe Aqua -- Snapz Pro X 2.0.2 for OS X..... Your digital recording device -- WireTap Pro 1.1.0 for OS X
Reply
Andrew Welch / el Presidente / Ambrosia Software, Inc.
Carpe Aqua -- Snapz Pro X 2.0.2 for OS X..... Your digital recording device -- WireTap Pro 1.1.0 for OS X
Reply
post #137 of 228
Quote:
Originally posted by moki
Cocoa is an API, not a panacea.

And a very wonderful one that allows devs to spend less time on the little things.

I'm sorry but iTunes is not 'the best one' (in reference to the best carbon app.) It's poorly threaded, takes awhile to launch and is full of little (unpleasant) surprises. It's a decent app...but if this is the 'the best one', oh boy.

Why would rewriting the Finder be a waste of time? Was rewriting iDVD in Cocoa a waste of time? Was rewriting iMovie in Cocoa a waste of time? Java 1.4.1...oops...waste of time too.

Rewriting allows for things to be rethought out and improved on.

Apple is definitely moving to Cocoa. There are still quite a few apps that haven't moved to Cocoa yet but Apple's getting there.

Cocoa is 'just an API', true...but a damn good one that Apple would rather concentrate their efforts on.

Here...lemme twist your quote around..."It would be the worst waste of time imaginable for Apple to continue improving Carbon when they could continue to improve Cocoa."

I think Apple's biggest nightmare so far is getting both Carbon and Cocoa to look and feel the same. This hasn't happened yet. Maybe 10.3? I doubt it...but I hope *you* can prove me wrong, moki my boy.
post #138 of 228
I can't tell the difference between nib-based carbon and cocoa apps which use the standard interface objects in Jaguar.

Cocoa is much easier for lots of people. Like me. But can you imaging porting Photoshop to cocoa? Or Quark? These are HUGE applications.

There is even advantages to carbon, because if an application is properly optimized carbon can be FASTER than cocoa!

But that's all irrelevant, because you're missing the point. Why should anyone REWRITE anything in cocoa? Carbon is perfectly good from a user's perspective, and unless you're writing something from scratch and are equally fluent in carbon and cocoa programming, in many cases better from a programmer's perspective.

Barto
Self Indulgent Experiments keep me occupied.

rotate zmze pe vizspygmsr minus four
Reply
Self Indulgent Experiments keep me occupied.

rotate zmze pe vizspygmsr minus four
Reply
post #139 of 228
Quote:
Originally posted by kim kap sol
I'm sorry but iTunes is not 'the best one' (in reference to the best carbon app.

He said the best iApp.
JLL

95% percent of the boat is owned by Microsoft, but the 5% Apple controls happens to be the rudder!
Reply
JLL

95% percent of the boat is owned by Microsoft, but the 5% Apple controls happens to be the rudder!
Reply
post #140 of 228
yea but iTunes has had like 5 times more development time than any other iApp. The closest one to iTunes is iMovie, and that was ported to Cocoa (also became a much better app when this was done)
Ranger in training
PMDF
Ashan McNealy
Reply
Ranger in training
PMDF
Ashan McNealy
Reply
post #141 of 228
But it wasn't cocoa that made it a better app interface/feature wise. iMovie 3 a rewrite, which made sense because Apple wanted a radically different and improved application (and presumably the original codebase wasn't flexible enough). Cocoa is great for getting things done fast in many cases and others have that pointed out. However, because of this rewrite it is not optimal speed wise. It will take a few more updates for it to be as optimized as the old carbon version.

Cocoa is good for some things. Carbon is good for some things. Swing is good for some things. Moki's very fond of saying "choices are good", and there's a reason this is so. Because having different ways to program makes X suitable for the development of more stuff.

Barto
Self Indulgent Experiments keep me occupied.

rotate zmze pe vizspygmsr minus four
Reply
Self Indulgent Experiments keep me occupied.

rotate zmze pe vizspygmsr minus four
Reply
post #142 of 228
Quote:
Originally posted by kim kap sol
Why would rewriting the Finder be a waste of time?

Because the Finder has features that were impressive for the early 90's, but not for today. Rewriting the Finder in Cocoa just to make those "Cocoa Finder!!!" folks happy is useless. What needs to be done is to reinvent the file management wheel.

If Apple wanted a Cocoa Finder, why didn't they just go ahead and use the NeXT browser, tweaking it to look more like the Finder? Instead, they took the Mac OS Classic Finder and tweaked it to look more like a NeXT app.
post #143 of 228
Quote:
Because the Finder has features that were impressive for the early 90's, but not for today. Rewriting the Finder in Cocoa just to make those "Cocoa Finder!!!" folks happy is useless. What needs to be done is to reinvent the file management wheel.

Yeah. And exploit that new hardware coming down the pipe. Alot of the current GUI would have been impressive back in the late 90s. But it's merely buffed up in my mind.

Where's the Finder revolution Apple?

Lemon Bon Bon
We do it because Steve Jobs is the supreme defender of the Macintosh faith, someone who led Apple back from the brink of extinction just four years ago. And we do it because his annual keynote is...
Reply
We do it because Steve Jobs is the supreme defender of the Macintosh faith, someone who led Apple back from the brink of extinction just four years ago. And we do it because his annual keynote is...
Reply
post #144 of 228
Quote:
Originally posted by kim kap sol

I think Apple's biggest nightmare so far is getting both Carbon and Cocoa to look and feel the same. This hasn't happened yet. Maybe 10.3? I doubt it...but I hope *you* can prove me wrong, moki my boy.

There is nothing to prove. Some things just are.

I develop software for OS X using Carbon for some projects, Cocoa for others. Your assertions are unfortunate.
Andrew Welch / el Presidente / Ambrosia Software, Inc.
Carpe Aqua -- Snapz Pro X 2.0.2 for OS X..... Your digital recording device -- WireTap Pro 1.1.0 for OS X
Reply
Andrew Welch / el Presidente / Ambrosia Software, Inc.
Carpe Aqua -- Snapz Pro X 2.0.2 for OS X..... Your digital recording device -- WireTap Pro 1.1.0 for OS X
Reply
post #145 of 228
Quote:
Originally posted by Imergingenious
yea but iTunes has had like 5 times more development time than any other iApp. The closest one to iTunes is iMovie, and that was ported to Cocoa (also became a much better app when this was done)

And what of the speed issues in iCal/iPhoto?

Again, Cocoa is not a magic bullet.
Andrew Welch / el Presidente / Ambrosia Software, Inc.
Carpe Aqua -- Snapz Pro X 2.0.2 for OS X..... Your digital recording device -- WireTap Pro 1.1.0 for OS X
Reply
Andrew Welch / el Presidente / Ambrosia Software, Inc.
Carpe Aqua -- Snapz Pro X 2.0.2 for OS X..... Your digital recording device -- WireTap Pro 1.1.0 for OS X
Reply
post #146 of 228
Quote:
Originally posted by moki
And what of the speed issues in iCal/iPhoto?

Again, Cocoa is not a magic bullet.

And what of the speed issues with iTunes, Photoshop, Illustrator, Office and many other ridiculous carbon apps?

If Cocoa is not a magic bullet...what the **** is carbon?

Again, you people are twisting my words...a poorly written Cocoa app exists. A poorly written Carbon exists.

The Cocoa API just offers more for less is what I'm saying...therefore it's better. We'll just have to wait and see what 10.3 will do to close the gap between Carbon and Cocoa...otherwise it'll only widen.

Unless moki has a supar-sekrit 10.3 build, which I doubt, he's in no position to tell Carbon will continue it's evolution at the same speed as Cocoa.
post #147 of 228
im not on the cocoa/magic bullet train, but i do think that apple will be adding more cocoa code to its lineup, and rightly so.

the speed issues are inherent of the nature of the app. try to make an app that can dynamically resize all your photos and scroll through them at lightning speed without any lag. I will pay good money for it. photoshops image browser is not even close, and i thought they were the experts at pro media programs
Ranger in training
PMDF
Ashan McNealy
Reply
Ranger in training
PMDF
Ashan McNealy
Reply
post #148 of 228
Quote:
Originally posted by kim kap sol
The Cocoa API just offers more for less is what I'm saying...therefore it's better. We'll just have to wait and see what 10.3 will do to close the gap between Carbon and Cocoa...otherwise it'll only widen.

Unless moki has a supar-sekrit 10.3 build, which I doubt, he's in no position to tell Carbon will continue it's evolution at the same speed as Cocoa.

One might also say that unless you are a developer with hundreds of thousands of lines of existing code to maintain, you are in no position to state whether moving it to Cocoa makes any sense whatsoever.

Indeed, I can't think of any major applications outside of Apple that made the move from Carbon to Cocoa. You might think there is a good reason for this (which has nothing to do with the viability of the cocoa APIs). Can you name any?

The Cocoa APIs are nice. They also require a *lot* of re-learning in order to utilize them well. Esperanto was nice, but the investment in the English language made transitioning to it not useful. The metric system is undoubtably a superior system or measurement, yet the entrenchment in the US and other countries has made the transition slow at best.

Apple has a very, very strong incentive to keep refining the Carbon APIs: every major third party application uses it. The Carbon and Cocoa APIs are both intended to be permanent APIs that are equal citizens, and indeed there is quite a bit of sharing of code between the two (usually Cocoa calling Carbon, such as for the menus, for QuickTime, etc.)

People should care as much about whether an application is Cocoa or Carbon as they cared whether it was PowerPlant or Toolbox for MacOS 9. Anyone who states that an application should be moved to Cocoa simply for the sake of "making it Cocoa" really just doesn't know what they are talking about.
Andrew Welch / el Presidente / Ambrosia Software, Inc.
Carpe Aqua -- Snapz Pro X 2.0.2 for OS X..... Your digital recording device -- WireTap Pro 1.1.0 for OS X
Reply
Andrew Welch / el Presidente / Ambrosia Software, Inc.
Carpe Aqua -- Snapz Pro X 2.0.2 for OS X..... Your digital recording device -- WireTap Pro 1.1.0 for OS X
Reply
post #149 of 228
Quote:
Originally posted by Imergingenious
the speed issues are inherent of the nature of the app. try to make an app that can dynamically resize all your photos and scroll through them at lightning speed without any lag. I will pay good money for it. photoshops image browser is not even close, and i thought they were the experts at pro media programs

Really? Someone should tell that to the developers or iView Media and iView Media Pro:

http://www.iview-multimedia.com/

This is a very fast program, and it is cross-platform. It handles a large number of images much more adroitly than iPhoto does... and it is a Carbon application.

Use the right tool for the job. Sometimes it will be Carbon. Sometimes it will be Cocoa. Don't tell a construction worker he should be using a hammer when what he really needs is a saw.
Andrew Welch / el Presidente / Ambrosia Software, Inc.
Carpe Aqua -- Snapz Pro X 2.0.2 for OS X..... Your digital recording device -- WireTap Pro 1.1.0 for OS X
Reply
Andrew Welch / el Presidente / Ambrosia Software, Inc.
Carpe Aqua -- Snapz Pro X 2.0.2 for OS X..... Your digital recording device -- WireTap Pro 1.1.0 for OS X
Reply
post #150 of 228
Quote:
Originally posted by moki
Anyone who states that an application should be moved to Cocoa simply for the sake of "making it Cocoa" really just doesn't know what they are talking about.

Nobody made such a statement. Well...at least I didn't.

My statement was very clear ... but anyone who wishes to twist it into a "making it Cocoa for the sake of making it Cocoa" statement can go ahead, but he would be fooling himself.
post #151 of 228
Quote:
Originally posted by moki
Really? Someone should tell that to the developers or iView Media and iView Media Pro:

http://www.iview-multimedia.com/

This is a very fast program, and it is cross-platform. It handles a large number of images much more adroitly than iPhoto does... and it is a Carbon application.

Use the right tool for the job. Sometimes it will be Carbon. Sometimes it will be Cocoa. Don't tell a construction worker he should be using a hammer when what he really needs is a saw.

Indeed. This app is only way to manage thousands of images on the Mac. Fast as hell.

Why is iPhoto so damn slow?
meh
Reply
meh
Reply
post #152 of 228
Quote:
Originally posted by kim kap sol
Nobody made such a statement. Well...at least I didn't.

My statement was very clear ... but anyone who wishes to twist it into a "making it Cocoa for the sake of making it Cocoa" statement can go ahead, but he would be fooling himself.

Enumerate, exactly, what Apple would gain by making the Finder Cocoa, then? (other than throwing away hundreds of thousands of man-hours that are invested in the current Carbon Finder)
Andrew Welch / el Presidente / Ambrosia Software, Inc.
Carpe Aqua -- Snapz Pro X 2.0.2 for OS X..... Your digital recording device -- WireTap Pro 1.1.0 for OS X
Reply
Andrew Welch / el Presidente / Ambrosia Software, Inc.
Carpe Aqua -- Snapz Pro X 2.0.2 for OS X..... Your digital recording device -- WireTap Pro 1.1.0 for OS X
Reply
post #153 of 228
Quote:
Originally posted by moki
Enumerate, exactly, what Apple would gain by making the Finder Cocoa, then? (other than throwing away hundreds of thousands of man-hours that are invested in the current Carbon Finder)

*yawn*

Go read the beginning of this thread.
post #154 of 228
Whether the Cocoa API offers more for less depends on what you want. Frameworks are great at solving problems that they anticipate, and really, really annoying if you find yourself working around or against them. APIs like Carbon work the other way 'round. If nothing else this complementary relationship is the best available argument for Apple keeping both options available: When Cocoa does not offer what you need, use Carbon. And vice versa.

This decision does not have to be made on a per-application basis. Even the fact that this discussion asserts a concrete distinction between a "Cocoa application" and a "Carbon application" essentially misses the point, as the two can be commingled freely. It gets even more interesting than that: If what I have heard is true, then Finder is a proof-of-concept for CodeWarrior's port of PowerPlant to Carbon, and it has improved as PowerPlant has improved. This, too, is critical for Apple, as PowerPlant Mac applications are common. Now that PowerPlant has gone cross-platform, it's become an even more appealing option for developers. So Apple had to make sure it was working well, even though this meant that the Finder would be rather shaky for a while. I digress; the point is that Apple also has to be concerned with the viability of third-party class libraries.

As to the merging of Carbon and Cocoa over CoreFoundation (note: This is not necessarily porting Cocoa to Carbon, it's porting them both to CoreFoundation, and having Cocoa call Carbon when that's the best way to accomplish that), this has been a goal repeatedly stressed by Apple, and which Apple has come closer to achieving with each release of OS X. If you want to postulate that Apple will ditch Carbon, you'll have to argue against the direction Apple has taken since they announced OS X, and you'll have to argue for a reason for Apple to abandon a developer technology, given the effect that would have on their developers (you have to consider that Apple's developer base remembers Apple's woeful history here, this concerns more than just the abstract effect of a platform publisher dropping an API).

The unification of Carbon and Cocoa (and who ever else comes to the party) serves not only to make OS X that much more consistent within itself, but also to reduce Apple's workload: A bug fix in CoreFoundation affects both Carbon and Cocoa.

It's pretty obvious why Apple's doing a lot of application development in Cocoa: They're one company trying to do a lot of things at once; they're developing all-new, more-or-less conventional applications in many cases; and they don't really care about whether the apps run on anything other than Mac OS X. That's about the best case for Cocoa. It does not, however, mean that it's in everyone's interest to do what Apple has done.

Mark my words: Carbon will stick around, Carbon and Cocoa will merge over CoreFoundation, and, combined with the other development environments Apple offers (BSD, Java, AppleScript), it will have just about all of the bases covered as far as developer needs are concerned.
"...within intervention's distance of the embassy." - CvB

Original music:
The Mayflies - Black earth Americana. Now on iTMS!
Becca Sutlive - Iowa Fried Rock 'n Roll - now on iTMS!
Reply
"...within intervention's distance of the embassy." - CvB

Original music:
The Mayflies - Black earth Americana. Now on iTMS!
Becca Sutlive - Iowa Fried Rock 'n Roll - now on iTMS!
Reply
post #155 of 228
I've surmised that iPhoto is slow because (unlike iTunes which begins in the playlist where you left off in most cases) it open in the entire iPhoto library each time you start the app and loads the preview images into a cache all at once, and is constantly dealing with your photos in one huge chunk of cache (in RAM or spilling into swap space). From what I can tell, it's not threaded that much, and it deals with all those little images at once.
post #156 of 228
Apple would move the Finder to Cocoa for two reasons:

1. they want to add various Finder pieces/objects/frameworks to other apps as well as the Finder, and...

2. to speed up future development of the Finder, which of course assumes that building on a Cocoa foundation which is mostly new is faster than building on the established Carbon foundation despite its relative maturity in this specific case.
post #157 of 228
thanks for the link. this looks to be an app worth my money.
Ranger in training
PMDF
Ashan McNealy
Reply
Ranger in training
PMDF
Ashan McNealy
Reply
post #158 of 228
Heres my 2c for Panther features:

a) Full acceleration of 2d drawing on programmable video cards ( that is, DX9 capable cards ).

b) 64bit support for the 970. I think that the key application for 64bit, at release, will be the ability for the kernel to map another machines memory into the address space of an app. That means that a cluster of 970's can run an app across all the machines transparently. The developer would want to write for this case, as accessing memory over a network would be terribly slow. This isnt easily feasible with a 32bit address space.
post #159 of 228
Quote:
Originally posted by kim kap sol
*yawn*

Go read the beginning of this thread.

I read it. You don't know what you're talking about.
Andrew Welch / el Presidente / Ambrosia Software, Inc.
Carpe Aqua -- Snapz Pro X 2.0.2 for OS X..... Your digital recording device -- WireTap Pro 1.1.0 for OS X
Reply
Andrew Welch / el Presidente / Ambrosia Software, Inc.
Carpe Aqua -- Snapz Pro X 2.0.2 for OS X..... Your digital recording device -- WireTap Pro 1.1.0 for OS X
Reply
post #160 of 228
Quote:
Originally posted by moki
I read it. You don't know what you're talking about.

edit: misread your post...

I don't know what I'm talking about?

I hate the current Finder...it's in need of a complete overhaul. It needs speed optimizations, it needs new features, it needs lots of things. I think it would be better for Apple to rewrite the whole thing...wipe the slate clean. And if they're going to rewrite, they might as well rewrite in Cocoa like they've been doing. At least we'll get a consistent toolbar, some drawers (if the need arises), anti-aliased text for text clippings...no need for Cocoa wrappers when adding Cocoa frameworks functionalities to the Finder...etc. etc.

Apple could tack on features and struggle to optimize the current codebase but it doesn't seem to be leading anywhere judging from the 2 big point releases and 15 small point releases.

Maybe I don't know what I'm talking about but...I'm the customer here and if the Finder doesn't improve in 10.3, I may start looking else where.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Mac OS X
AppleInsider › Forums › Software › Mac OS X › Collection of *confirmed* Panther info.