or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Software › Mac Software › Apple's iLife suite may gain Web tools
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple's iLife suite may gain Web tools - Page 3

post #81 of 111
Quote:
Originally posted by futuretheory9
Sure, but it doesn't always work like that. Business proposals, presentations, etc. that need to be shared and worked on as a team have to live in a editable format. If it was something that was going into final form and never had to touched by anyone other than me, I would just do it in a pro app like indesign.

iWork isn't about heavy creative work as much as it is about easily producing "work-oriented" documents that happen to look great. Unfortunately, "work-oriented" also means collaboration (usually with people that have PCs), Apple allowed for this with a cross-platform solution...so guess what? Windows/Office solutions win.

IME, if you insist on cross-platform editable document formats that Windows users are happy with it always comes back to using Word. I've tried with RTF but Word's RTF support is terrible.

I'm reminded that Apple bought up a company a few years back who's speciality was writing conversion software for Microsoft Office like DataViz do but I can't remember the name of it. We've not seen the outcome of that purchase yet AFAIK.
post #82 of 111
Quote:
Originally posted by aegisdesign
IME, if you insist on cross-platform editable document formats that Windows users are happy with it always comes back to using Word. I've tried with RTF but Word's RTF support is terrible.

I'm reminded that Apple bought up a company a few years back who's speciality was writing conversion software for Microsoft Office like DataViz do but I can't remember the name of it. We've not seen the outcome of that purchase yet AFAIK.

Again, conversion doesn't do anyone any good when working as a team on a document. Windows users aren't happy with word, nearly everyone I know hates it. They just don't have a choice. Give them great tools like pages, keynote, and a spreadsheet app and sales would be huge. Provide a 30-day demo that all those on macs can point windows users to when they want to work with a native iWork file. Windows users will warm up to iWork fast, at version 1 iWork is beats office on nearly every point of comparison.
post #83 of 111
Quote:
Originally posted by Chucker
I guess you should have told Apple, since Finder and iTunes on Intel are Carbon.

They are all being moved to Cocoa.

The Cocoa Runtime for Wintel/Windows Yellow Box like the port to Intel has remained current.

The reason Yellow Box was pulled had nothing to do with technological issues.

Steve wanted to focus on the Consumer and reinvigorate the company there first and foremost. All groups were put on the back burner, including Apple Enterprise Software [NeXT Professional Services--the group I was a member of at the time.]

He gave Carbon too much time to live. The fact Apple has implemented the market products most of the Carbon pundits whined about in 1997 [Adobe, Macromedia, Microsoft] it is quite clear that Apple is positioning itself to dump Carbon.

Now if you were a developer and were working with Cocoa you'd know this already. Join ADC and produce.

When Microsoft releases Vista the frameworks and runtime behind Vista are actually easier to work with, on Apple's end, then was the case with Windows 2k/XP.
post #84 of 111
Quote:
Originally posted by mdriftmeyer
Now if you were a developer and were working with Cocoa you'd know this already. Join ADC and produce.

That's cool, man.

- I am a developer
- I am working with Cocoa
- I am a member of ADC

Next?
post #85 of 111
Quote:
Originally posted by mdriftmeyer
Now if you were a developer and were working with Cocoa

...you would know a lot of Cocoa API calls are simple wrappers that call Carbon code. Get a clue.

Move along, nothing to see here. Just another misguided newbie with a standard free ADC membership and not enough time in the docs.
.
Reply
.
Reply
post #86 of 111
Quote:
Originally posted by Hiro
...you would know a lot of Cocoa API calls are simple wrappers that call Carbon code. Get a clue.

Move along, nothing to see here. Just another misguided newbie with a standard free ADC membership and not enough time in the docs.

No doubt about it, you are a pisser.
post #87 of 111
Quote:
Originally posted by Hiro
...you would know a lot of Cocoa API calls are simple wrappers that call Carbon code. Get a clue.

That's not really important. What's exposed to the outside world is a Cocoa API and the methodology. How they do it is an interesting technical aside but largely irrelevant.

I'm trying not to use the 'mindset' word and failing to find one to express the approach a developer needs to take when choosing Cocoa or Carbon.
post #88 of 111
Quote:
Originally posted by Hiro
...you would know a lot of Cocoa API calls are simple wrappers that call Carbon code. Get a clue.

Move along, nothing to see here. Just another misguided newbie with a standard free ADC membership and not enough time in the docs.

And Carbon API calls are simple wrappers to low-level code which are simple wrappers to even lower-level code. What's your point?

Who cares about Cocoa or even Carbon when you could code assembly, eh?

The only time you should ever code at a lower lower-level is when the top-level APIs just don't cut it for you.
post #89 of 111
Quote:
Originally posted by kim kap sol
And Carbon API calls are simple wrappers to low-level code which are simple wrappers to even lower-level code. What's your point?

That Carbon isn't going anywhere.
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 #90 of 111
Quote:
Originally posted by JLL
That Carbon isn't going anywhere.

That point had already been made...why did he have to repeat it?

Binary, Assembly, C, C++, Java, Swing, Win32 aren't going anywhere either. Did anyone say it was? If people are going to state the obvious, they shouldn't post at all.
post #91 of 111
Has anyone considered that the mention of iWeb may just have been put there to mislead everyone prior to MWSF (and give Dan Wood a few sleepless nights)?

The fact that Apple haven't trademarked iWeb coupled with the number of other businesses that already use the word iWeb makes me a little suspicious. All we have to go on is that one word.
post #92 of 111
Quote:
Originally posted by kim kap sol
That point had already been made...why did he have to repeat it?

Because two post up mdriftmeyer said it was: "it is quite clear that Apple is positioning itself to dump Carbon"
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 #93 of 111
Quote:
Originally posted by JLL
Because two post up mdriftmeyer said it was: "it is quite clear that Apple is positioning itself to dump Carbon"

I don't think he meant it literally: that the Carbon framework would be removed. Probably akin to saying Apple has dumped QuickDraw or OS 9: they're still around and you can still code for OS 9 or use QuickDraw calls in OS X apps, but don't tell Apple or Apple will slap you on the wrist.

Apple definitely made it clear to everyone that if you're going to start a new project on OS X, you should use Cocoa. Apple won't stop you from using Carbon but it doesn't mean it approves that you are.
post #94 of 111
Actually a couple folks on the boards haven't bought into the realities of Cocoa and Carbon. You may have, but they still need to learn. The magical -- Cocoa will fix the performance of app _____, and Carbon is dead tech -- has reared it's head again in at least two threads this week.

I have no issues with what you are saying from a technical point, and especially agree with your last paragraph. Just realize the forum gets new folks who didn't post or lurk here over the first couple years of OS X's existence when the issue was hashed out ad nauseam.
.
Reply
.
Reply
post #95 of 111
Quote:
Originally posted by kim kap sol
I don't think he meant it literally: that the Carbon framework would be removed. Probably akin to saying Apple has dumped QuickDraw or OS 9: they're still around and you can still code for OS 9 or use QuickDraw calls in OS X apps, but don't tell Apple or Apple will slap you on the wrist.

Yes, but there is a huge difference. Apple is telling people to use Cocoa when starting new projects, but QuickDraw is deprecated, and they are telling people to move away from QuickDraw and use Quartz instead.

Apple can remove QuickDraw in 10.5 if they want to. I don't think that Carbon will ever be deprecated as long as Mac OS X exist.
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 #96 of 111
What is carbon (I know it's a type of program) but how does it differ from cocoa?

Also aren't loads of OS X apps in carbon - iLife being one! Wasn't iTunes was easier to port to Windows because it was in carbon - maybe Apple is hedging its bets incase it wants to port more apps?
post #97 of 111
Most iLife apps are Cocoa. iTunes is the only one still left Carbon; iMovie was originally Carbon but moved ont to Cocoa at version... 3?

Finder is Carbon, too. QuickTime Player 6 was Carbon but 7 isn't.

Many commercial apps are Carbon: almost all off Microsoft's and Adobe's, for one.
post #98 of 111
Quote:
Originally posted by MacCrazy
Wasn't iTunes was easier to port to Windows because it was in carbon - maybe Apple is hedging its bets incase it wants to port more apps?

iTunes is still Carbon and it shows. It's a hangover from it's OS9 SoundJam parentage. It needs a complete rewrite if it's to move forward. It's a real pity they didn't go with the Panic/Audion guys as I they are pretty good at embracing new technology instead of sticking with the old and they understand the UI much better than the iTunes team.

Apple would also rather you used Core Foundation now to write cross platform applications...

http://developer.apple.com/corefoundation//

I'd also be surprised if we don't see them push Cocoa as more cross platform in future bearing in mind it's OpenStep parentage.

Carbon IMHO is a dead end for NEW application development. That's not to say Carbon is going anywhere as there is too much legacy code still in use.
post #99 of 111
Quote:
Originally posted by Chucker
Finder is Carbon, too.

Hopefully 10.5 will increase the speed of Finder - it needs a rewrite.
post #100 of 111
Quote:
Originally posted by MacCrazy
Hopefully 10.5 will increase the speed of Finder - it needs a rewrite.

Speed is fine for me since 10.4 bar the problems with networked drives.

What it's lacking is consistency and features and it annoys me that it doesn't save state always.

Plus it should allow uploads on ftp shares and please, please, please fix CD copying so that right-click on a CD and 'Duplicate' actually does something useful - like copy the CD to an image on your desktop or ask you where it should burn a new copy.
post #101 of 111
I can't believe that this thread has gone three pages, mostly devolving into a Carbon vs. Cocoa debate over my Page 1 request for a Cocoa spreadsheet.

In the interest of moving debate along, I hereby recant my request and am now asking Apple to introduce a "modern spreadsheet" on the platform so that small to medium sized businesses can take the Mac seriously again.
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
post #102 of 111
Quote:
Originally posted by Frank777
...and am now asking Apple to introduce a "modern spreadsheet" on the platform so that small to medium sized businesses can take the Mac seriously again.

But they still can with Office: mac.
post #103 of 111
Quote:
Originally posted by kim kap sol
But they still can with Office: mac.

Well this discussion whether Apple should provide
a full featured Office suite or not became a loop
(in this thread).
My daily workflow urges me to use Office Word. EoS.
Funny thing is i even haven't installed Access, when
i am asked to do so in the office installation
process. Powerpoint i haven't either.

Anyway, I think competition is good.
my2cents
" I will not commit anything to memory that I can get from another source . . . "
ALBERT EINSTEIN
Reply
" I will not commit anything to memory that I can get from another source . . . "
ALBERT EINSTEIN
Reply
post #104 of 111
Quote:
Originally posted by Vox Barbara
My daily workflow urges me to use Office Word. EoS.
Funny thing is i even haven't installed Access, when
i am asked to do so in the office installation
process. Powerpoint i haven't either.

You'll never be asked to install Access. There is no Mac version.

IMHO, lack of Access in the Mac version of Office is the one thing that stops the Mac being accepted in mostly Windows based offices as so many small and medium sized businesses use Access derived business systems. I'm sure Microsoft have not provided Access for the Mac deliberately so that it's penetration into the office is held back.
post #105 of 111
Quote:
Originally posted by kim kap sol
But they still can with Office: mac.

True. What I meant to type was home and small businesses, not small to medium.

There are plenty of small businesses that were fine with the AppleWorks feature set and preferred not to pay the Microsoft tax. It's one of the reason many of us switched to the Mac in the first place.

Update: Think Secret says they can't confirm an iWork update at MWSF. I feel ill already!
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
post #106 of 111
Just to get this back on track - Karelia have done what they'd said they'd do and released a beta of their Sandvox website tool today.

It's pretty good with some very nice designs as standard and it generates good code too from what I've seen. It lets even complete novices produce sites with weblogs, photoalbums, movies, rss feeds and such. Still some rough edges - I seemed to have problems with it recognising I'd clicked on the design bar until I'd clicked somewhere else then back. But it is beta software. Very promising. Miles better than RapidWeaver in scope. I guess we're just waiting for Apple now though.

You can download a time limited copy to play with at http://www.karelia.com/?refid=269847
post #107 of 111
Quote:
Originally posted by aegisdesign
You'll never be asked to install Access. There is no Mac version.


Yeah sorry, i confused Exel with Access.
" I will not commit anything to memory that I can get from another source . . . "
ALBERT EINSTEIN
Reply
" I will not commit anything to memory that I can get from another source . . . "
ALBERT EINSTEIN
Reply
post #108 of 111
Quote:
Originally posted by Frank777
Update: Think Secret says they can't confirm an iWork update at MWSF. I feel ill already!

That just means that they do not have the inside scoop that they would like to have right now.
post #109 of 111
Quote:
Originally posted by aegisdesign
AppleWorks costs $79

iLife costs $79

Neither are free. Yes you get them with a new Mac but those aren't free either.

Last time I checked, AppleWorks was only included with those models designated as "consumer" machines. I think I copy came with the mini I bought a few months ago. I know it didn't come with my G5 tower, though.
post #110 of 111
Quote:
Originally posted by melgross
[B]A lot of people don't know that apple owns it. It's under the name of Filemaker Inc.

They do that so when the professional catalogs have the pages for the various products, Filemaker doesn't come up as an Apple product, just Filemaker Inc.

Actually, they do that because a long time ago Apple lost a class-action lawsuit arguing that it was unfair for application software to be branded with the same name as the hardware and OS. So they spun off their application development to a wholly owned subsidiary called Claris. Years later (but still years ago) they reabsorbed all of the Claris' product line except the one that had a large following outside the Mac world and Claris renamed itself after that one (cross-platform and very successful) product.
post #111 of 111
Quote:
Originally posted by gjw
Actually, they do that because a long time ago Apple lost a class-action lawsuit arguing that it was unfair for application software to be branded with the same name as the hardware and OS. So they spun off their application development to a wholly owned subsidiary called Claris. Years later (but still years ago) they reabsorbed all of the Claris' product line except the one that had a large following outside the Mac world and Claris renamed itself after that one (cross-platform and very successful) product.

I remember those days very well. The president of Claris used to come to our MUG meetings to show off new software.

He said that They spun Filemaker off to neutralize its ownership for Windows shops. I believe that.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Mac Software
AppleInsider › Forums › Software › Mac Software › Apple's iLife suite may gain Web tools