I've seen a strange bug. When using expose, I had a license agreement popup because I was mounting omnigraffle's disk image. It was full size and seemed to just get in the way.
Oh, and cmd+d doesn't seem to go to the desktop in save dialog boxes.
That happens to everyone, torifile. Whenever a new window is spawned (not by you clicking on something) in Panther while exposé is running, the new window is full-size. You have to stop exposé for everything to go back to normal.
That happens to everyone, torifile. Whenever a new window is spawned (not by you clicking on something) in Panther while exposé is running, the new window is full-size. You have to stop exposé for everything to go back to normal.
The question is: is it a bug or a feature? Looks to me like it's a bug because it doesn't respond the way you'd expect (clicking on it should exit you out of expose but it doesn't). At least that's how I think of it.
edit: nevermind. It does seem to exit you out of expose. When I did it by accident the first time it didn't. Something isn't quite right with it nonetheless.
This is a develpment related question from another student at my university. Could someone with Panther please find out about or comment on the support or lack thereof for the dl* (eg dlopen) family of routines for dynamically loading code.
This is a develpment related question from another student at my university. Could someone with Panther please find out about or comment on the support or lack thereof for the dl* (eg dlopen) family of routines for dynamically loading code.
Thanks,
Wesley
Whoa. A question that isn't related to the GUI??? WTF is wrong with you?? I'd check, but I don't know how.
I am joining this discussion really late but very early on someone wanted to know if a Finder title bar can be dragged beneath/behind the dock. I can drag it there.
10.3 with Test Update, PowerBook G3 400 [Pismo], 768MB, running 10.3 off an expansion bay hard drive.
Anyone want another guy's opinion on stuff just ask me.
Is it so that when 'user A' has 'application X' running, that this application will load into memory again after user B logs in and starts this 'application X'? Thus having an application multiple times in memory, depending on the number of users using this 'application X'? Or is the running application being "split" among users?
Is it so that when 'user A' has 'application X' running, that this application will load into memory again after user B logs in and starts this 'application X'? Thus having an application multiple times in memory, depending on the number of users using this 'application X'? Or is the running application being "split" among users?
Thanks
Good question. Each app certainly thinks it isn't sharing part of the app's code pages in memory, but with the new scheme for VM introduced with Jaguar, the OS can try and remember what pages a particular user loads on login. If the OS knows that the code pages are reentrant, it could just point each process to the same real page, and the virtual addresses would be different for each process. Also the pages wouldn't need to be paged out, just marked available. Whether it is possible for the OS to obtain that information about the pages, I don't know.
What does Fast User Switching do with dual monitors? I assume both would change since it is really the spanning of one desktop, but I've never seen this.
Comments
Oh, and cmd+d doesn't seem to go to the desktop in save dialog boxes.
Originally posted by Barto
That happens to everyone, torifile. Whenever a new window is spawned (not by you clicking on something) in Panther while exposé is running, the new window is full-size. You have to stop exposé for everything to go back to normal.
The question is: is it a bug or a feature? Looks to me like it's a bug because it doesn't respond the way you'd expect (clicking on it should exit you out of expose but it doesn't). At least that's how I think of it.
edit: nevermind. It does seem to exit you out of expose. When I did it by accident the first time it didn't. Something isn't quite right with it nonetheless.
But I wouldn't necessarily report it unless you have a legal copy
Originally posted by johnq
Just a bug.
But I wouldn't necessarily report it unless you have a legal copy
Of course my copy is lega....err...nevermind.....
Originally posted by nu64man
Two Questions:
Can you close minimized windows from the dock by right-mouse clicking on them?
If a folder/disk icon in the dock, are they spring-loaded?
Thanks
1) you can close downsized windows by right-clickin on the them now
2)no spring loaded Dock yet, rumored to come, only rumored.
Originally posted by Barto
I found a bug! Yay!
http://homepage.mac.com/barto_act/ne...t/whitebar.jpg
It's a good bug, don't you think?
Whoa, that button has a halo. You can tab through buttons in Panther, now?
Originally posted by Dog Almighty
Whoa, that button has a halo. You can tab through buttons in Panther, now?
You also could with Jaguar. It's a matter of preferences.
Thanks,
Wesley
Originally posted by WJMoore
This is a develpment related question from another student at my university. Could someone with Panther please find out about or comment on the support or lack thereof for the dl* (eg dlopen) family of routines for dynamically loading code.
Thanks,
Wesley
Whoa. A question that isn't related to the GUI??? WTF is wrong with you??
Originally posted by Chucker
You also could with Jaguar. It's a matter of preferences.
Really? I'm still on 10.1.5, that's why I hadn't noticed.
10.3 with Test Update, PowerBook G3 400 [Pismo], 768MB, running 10.3 off an expansion bay hard drive.
Anyone want another guy's opinion on stuff just ask me.
Is it so that when 'user A' has 'application X' running, that this application will load into memory again after user B logs in and starts this 'application X'? Thus having an application multiple times in memory, depending on the number of users using this 'application X'? Or is the running application being "split" among users?
Thanks
Originally posted by reactor
Question on "Fast User Switching".
Is it so that when 'user A' has 'application X' running, that this application will load into memory again after user B logs in and starts this 'application X'? Thus having an application multiple times in memory, depending on the number of users using this 'application X'? Or is the running application being "split" among users?
Thanks
Good question. Each app certainly thinks it isn't sharing part of the app's code pages in memory, but with the new scheme for VM introduced with Jaguar, the OS can try and remember what pages a particular user loads on login. If the OS knows that the code pages are reentrant, it could just point each process to the same real page, and the virtual addresses would be different for each process. Also the pages wouldn't need to be paged out, just marked available. Whether it is possible for the OS to obtain that information about the pages, I don't know.
Originally posted by torifile
Whoa. A question that isn't related to the GUI??? WTF is wrong with you??
I'm not entirely sure how to check but if you could send or post the output from these two commands it might help.
man dlfcn
locate dlfcn
Thanks.
WM
Originally posted by WJMoore
I'm not entirely sure how to check but if you could send or post the output from these two commands it might help.
Code:
man dlfcn
locate dlfcn
Thanks.
WM
[minnie:~] torifile% locate dlfcn
locate: no database file /var/db/locate.database.
[minnie:~] torifile% man dlfcn
No manual entry for dlfcn
[minnie:~] torifile%
HTH.
BTW can someone do a screen grab of that?
Originally posted by Reid
Here it is in Mac OS 9
Hmmm, I loved OS 9, but it sure looks like a slide-rule now.