Quote:
Originally Posted by
foljs 
Batch answering mode:
<b>Taking away the Safari tabs on top is a huge loss to many consumers.</b>
Reallly? How?
No loss at all. If you seriously use the web as a research tool, you end up with dozens of Safari windows with dozens of tabs each (yes, something like 300 open tabs in 50 windows).
The visual clutter, and the difficulty of visually identifying windows that the tabs on top create renders Safari useless for serious use.
Had it not been for the hidden preferences in Safari 4 beta, tabs on top would have been the death-knell for use of Safari around here.
Now, it's usable again. However the tab close buttons that require mouse hover to even become visible are an abomination, gratuitous use of visual effects where it impairs function.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
foljs 
<b>Tabs on top was really nice. Especially for 1024x600 displays. You know what I mean.</b>
No. We really don't. What Mac in the last 5 years had a 600 pixel height display?
Referring to Hackintosh NetBooks. Have one myself, since Apple refuses to make a product in that category. But even there I wouldn't want to have tabs on top.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
foljs 
<b>Apple was so upside-down in their Safari 4 priorities that they forgot to keep the Reload/Stop Loading button (those idjits!).</b>
You *do* know that the reload button is there in the right edge of the address bar.
Yes, but I like buttons better. The add bookmarks button which I essentially never use (it's easier to drag a URL right into the bookmark folder in the hierarchy where it should go than to deal with the add button and the drop-down list) is much too prominent, and the stop/reload button overloading I don't like much to begin with, and the new placement is unintuitive and hidden away, unacceptable for the one button I probably use more than any other in Safari.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
foljs 
<b>ZFS on a Mac means your data is protected and you would never run out of disk space. So no need for a Drobo on a Mac!</b>
No, it really doesn't.
It's incredible, but 100% of the comments in this threads are from people that know almost nothing about ZFS, or have only causally used it in some system. Most of them drool over "features" advertised by clueless journalists that know nothing about the actual implementation.
For example:
1) Do you know that ZFS (especially snapshots) CONSUMES DISK SPACE LIKE CRAZY?
Just because a feature is there doesn't mean you have to use it. That's like saying TimeMachine uses disk space like crazy. Sure it does, but it's still efficient use for what it's supposed to do.
The whole point of ZFS snapshots would be e.g. to have a faster more efficient implementation of TimeMachine. There's little point in snapshots on a regular drive, but a TimeMachine volume would benefit (as of course if you have a large storage pool with RAID-like redundancy enabled and thus don't even want to bother with a separate TimeMachine volume, which means in such a case TimeMachine could serve as interface using directly the volume's snapshots for backups.
Also, since Snapshots are copy-on-write, the space consumption is quite efficient.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
foljs 
With over 50% of Mac users on laptops (with only one drive and maybe an external hd), can you really afford to have a hd hungry filesystem?
That presumes you use snapshots. There are however other features that a laptop user would benefit from: ZFS has built-in file system compression, which would allow for more efficient disk use, and further it has optional RAID-like distributed parity, which will protect against data loss when individual blocks go bad (can't help you against catastrophic drive failure, of course, but it's better than nothing, and prevents creeping data corruption)
Quote:
Originally Posted by
foljs 
2) Do you know that ZFS is pretty CPU intensive?
Did you know that even the lowliest of Apple computers is now a multi-core 64-bit CPU with up to 8GB of RAM?
Further, ZFS, like other file system features in the past (HFSX, journaling, ACLs) will show up in Mac OS X Server first (usually still around as a hidden feature in the client version), and then show up with a user-friendly GUI a release later. By the time 10.7 ships, CPU speed and memory consumptions won't even be an issue on NetBooks anymore.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
foljs 
3) Do you know that ZFS needs *A LOT OF MEMORY* and can crash when it runs out?
See above
Quote:
Originally Posted by
foljs 
4) ZFS is expensive for small files.
That's why you can enable file system compression.
Of course, but again, ZFS offers many features, most of them optional, so you can create a pool with whatever features are meaningful in a particular context. Hence ZFS is perfectly scalable from single drive laptop use to server use with several dozens of drives in the storage pool.
And yes, ZFS is still being worked on, at least it was as of a couple of weeks ago, when I talked to one of the software engineers who work on it.
If it's dropped from the initial release then either because Apple wants the legal situation around ZFS to clear up a bit before sticking their neck out to be sued, or because they don't have it quite yet where they want to have it for release. In either case, there's a lot of time till September, and like many other things, Apple has released new features in point releases if they weren't fully ready for initial release.
No need to panic. The iPhone App Store makes more money and is thus more news worthy. Apple is all about staying on message, the message being to focus on where the money comes from. Other stuff just silently shows up or "just works" without much pizzaz.