You need resolution independence for what now? Do you have a 300dpi or even 200dpi display? Do you have a graphics card that can drive this? Hell we don't even have a processor that can drive this sorta thing.
This is about 2 years off on my list.
This really doesn't present much of a challange to any graphics card on the market today, as long as it has 64MB RAM. Graphics aren't challanged by any 2D work anymore. It's the 3D functions that present problems.
you don't need a 200 or 300 dpi monitor for this to be a problem. My Sony 24" at 1920 x 1200 has text in the finder that is too small already for many people. you can increase that size now, but the result is clumsy, at best. The problem is far worse with most anything else. Many times magnification just isn't a good solution. A systemwide solution is needed.
TRhe processing power for this is no greater than what is needed now. Once a size is selected, there is nothing special that the system has to do. No different than what we have now.
1) that resolution is 16:10. The 15-inch PowerBook, however, is 3:2 (or 15:10).
So? It wasn't a 1:1 mapping he was pointing out.
Quote:
2) You can't exactly use a higher resolution on a TFT than the one it was designed for, unless you want to fake the user into thinking there's higher detail than there actually is.
and he said that if a 15" display had a 2560x1600 resolution, it'd be 200dpi, and he is right.
Quote:
3) If you're suggesting for Apple to offer this much higher resolution during a redesign, you're being unrealistic. Even if Apple were to consider doing that, they would be heavily hindered by the fact that there are most likely no current panels of this extreme density. If someone were to produce them (or if one existed), it would be at outrageous prices that people would not be willing to pay for a laptop.
and he pointed out that 150dpi panels exist today at the 15" size, and that resolution independent displays would be a near requirement for that size anyway. Have you seen Windows on those laptops, it's stupid.
Quote:
I don't see 200 ppi happening any time soon.
In an Apple laptop? No.
Elsewhere? Yes, indeed we already have it. I believe that Nokia's Linux based tablet is around 200dpi.
Quote:
It very much is, although the 128 MB of VRAM a PowerBook currently has are certainly enough to handle that resolution while maintaining QE, Q2DE and GPU-accel'd CI/CV.
A 2560x1600 display takes up 16MB of memory. 128MB of VRAM for such a display would be the same as driving a 4MB display with 32MB of VRAM. I'm sure Mac Minis are driven further all the time.
Woohoo! A new finder! Just what we need, Apple re-designing everything again! More UI inconsistencies! More bloated software, spinning beachballs, wasted space, inconsistent usage, lots of glitz to make demos look good, removal of one UI element to add another one, for no reason then the sake of change (you know, the way they tossed the useful toolbar in System Preferences and replaced it with the near useless search box).
I actually though that toolbar was pointless, and I prefer the System Preferences the way they are in Tiger.
When the hell is Apple going to FIX the slooooooow down of their OS on my dang dual 2ghz G5 instead of bloating their os with useless crap that makes even the most simple of tasks tedious! Like freaking opening windows and applications! C'mon!!
You must have screwed something with your finder, or are used to Cray computers
You're thinking in terms of VGA. For DVI, calculating this is a more complicated matter. And as I said, a lot of VRAM will be required to drive QE (for window compositing acceleration), Q2DE (for actual drawing acceleration, especially when we're talking about resolution independence!) and CI/CV.
Every kind of change will always be unappealing to some. That's life. For instance I really, really like Spotlight in System Preferences. But not everyone has to like what I like.
That's fine. But why did they lose the toolbar? They could've kept both.
Quote:
However, if you're assuming the new Finder will throw out all the good and familiar, I suspect you're wrong. I think it will be like the current Finder, but improved. Which is needed! Less buggy, LESS bloated and wasteful... and MORE--not less--consistent. These are the benefits of rewriting the Finder. The bloat and beachballs you fear are more likely to result from NOT re-doing the Finder.
Well, I guess my concept of bloat is different then yours. In my eyes, bloat is what you get when you add more functionality to an existing product. It gets larger and larger. Plus, the fact that you're adding more or less implies you're not rewriting what's there. I doubt they'd keep the same finder interface and say "Hey, let's just rework all the underpinnings!", because someone's going to say "What? You want to rewrite a bunch of code so what you get is what we already have?".
Rewriting also doesn't make it more consistent (and more consistent with what?). Its more likely that it would be less consistent (hell, the rewrote mail and now its less consistent then the other OS X apps then before).
Oh, and while re-writing might get rid of bloat or beachballs from existing non-optimized code, it also then leads to, get this, more bugs, not less. Because the code would have to be retested from the ground up, not where the finder is now. So, who knows, you could be talking more beachballs waiting for the buggy code to get fixed.
Oh, and to say they'll add more to the current finder, I'd believe that if it wasn't for the fact that when they 'improved' the system preferences, they actually took out useful (for me, at least) functionality. I used to keep highly used system preferences up there (network, .mac, user, windowshade, etc) for easy access. Now its always a game of "Find the icon". Sorry, I guess I just never got in the habit of typing in 4 characters to find something that should be a click away.
1) that resolution is 16:10. The 15-inch PowerBook, however, is 3:2 (or 15:10).
He didn't mean literally that specific shape--he meant that the GPU in a current PB has the power to drive a high number of pixels like that.
Quote:
2) You can't exactly use a higher resolution on a TFT than the one it was designed for, unless you want to fake the user into thinking there's higher detail than there actually is.
Yes, you can.
This isn't about changing resolutions like a CRT does (or like faking it on an LCD). If that's what you're talking about, this is different. This is a res-independent UI. Fully scalable.
An analogy: you may be talking about making a 1400-pixel LCD "think" it has 2800 pixels (just an example). Bad idea--you're right. But that's not res-independence. Res-independence is when the screen is always native 1400 and knows it.... but the 28 point fonts are all 9 point. The 64-pixel icons are all 32. The 20-pixel menu bar is now 10. All automatic and completely system-wide. EVERYTHING scalable by a percent. Want everything 25% smaller, or 25% larger, then you see it now? You can--at full sharpness. You give up detail to gain workspace, or vice versa. To any degree you choose, at any time you wish to change it.
It's a simple percentage slide, and it's in Tiger now (but hidden). Once the OS is ready with the higher-res bitmaps (window buttons etc) to make it look CLEAN, it can be enabled. That might wait for Leopard.
Quote:
3) If you're suggesting for Apple to offer this much higher resolution during a redesign, you're being unrealistic.
I agree (and he probably didn't mean that literally either). But you could have the equivalent WORKSPACE even with the current screen unit. Fewer pixels but more windows: everything would be at a smaller pixel size. A useful option to have for certain tasks, as I mentioned above. AND that means no more pixels for the GPU to push than we have today.
200-300 DPI is ONE reason to need a scalable UI. In future. But there other reasons right now. And Leopard (aka 10.5) might well take us from 2007 to 2009 or something, after all.
That's fine. But why did they lose the toolbar? They could've kept both.
I can see that detail is a pet peeve of yours Understood. I have some of my own!
But that detail doesn't mean you shouldn't want Apple to make other changes. Some of them you WILL like
And you certainly shouldn't want Apple not to re-work the Finder. It truly needs that. Rather, you should want them to re-work it in a GOOD way. Despite the loss of that toolbar you liked in Prefs, Apple does do MANY good things with software.
Quote:
Well, I guess my concept of bloat is different then yours. In my eyes, bloat is what you get when you add more functionality to an existing product. It gets larger and larger. Plus, the fact that you're adding more or less implies you're not rewriting what's there.
Agreed. That's why they SHOULD re-write what's there. (And software will always gain features and get bigger over time. It's not ALWAYS wrong to add functionality--and people who don't want it can stick with the old version.)
Quote:
I doubt they'd keep the same finder interface and say "Hey, let's just rework all the underpinnings!", because someone's going to say "What? You want to rewrite a bunch of code so what you get is what we already have?".
Well, yes--that is done all the time. Something works well on the surface but is buggy underneath, so you re-write it. Sometimes that becomes necessary, and the Finder is old enough to have reached that stage. The result is something that is "the same" in some ways. And improved in others.
The re-done Finder won't be identical, but I'm sure it won't throw out everything that's familiar either. Some things work great about the Finder and will still be with us. How different will the next Finder be? We don't know. On the surface it may be very similar, just more stable. With nicely-integrated new features added that you can use or not as you see fit. Or it may be time for a bigger change. Like when Column View (which I love) arrived from NeXT.
And even if they kept the old Finder like you want, it wouldn't stay identical. It's not perfect, and will evolve. No matter what. Change will come. New features will come. So, they may as well simplify and optimize it by going Cocoa in the process.
Quote:
Rewriting also doesn't make it more consistent (and more consistent with what?). Its more likely that it would be less consistent (hell, the rewrote mail and now its less consistent then the other OS X apps then before).
I agree here too. We're into MY pet peeves now I like having "document-centric" apps be white, and "self-contained" apps be metal (a pattern Apple has begun moving toward). But I do NOT like having 4 different kinds of metal, and 4 different kinds of toolbar. Tiger Mail is a good example. It's great in some ways, but what's with the unique button style never seen anywhere else?
Rewriting does NOT mean more UI consistency.
The reason I believe more UI consistency is coming is because of the res-independent UI. See above. Apple is re-drawing ALL the UI graphics, by necessity. That's a chance to make them consistent, and failing to do so only multiplies their work.
The variety of different themes they have tried bewilders me, but I believe they will pick from among them and settle on a single direction (or two--I'm OK with that). iTunes 5 is probably a hint of things to come.
Quote:
Oh, and while re-writing might get rid of bloat or beachballs from existing non-optimized code, it also then leads to, get this, more bugs, not less. Because the code would have to be retested from the ground up, not where the finder is now.
By that logic, all old software should always be kept and never re-worked, "just in case" they do an incompetent job with the new version. But there WILL always be new software. You don't have to buy it, but software WILL continue to be written. And yes, it will need testing, and nothing will ever be 100% bug-free.
Quote:
I used to keep highly used system preferences up there (network, .mac, user, windowshade, etc) for easy access. Now its always a game of "Find the icon". Sorry, I guess I just never got in the habit of typing in 4 characters to find something that should be a click away.
There's your pet peeve again You don't have to type 4 characters, but you do have to click twice now (or use the menu) to get to one pane from another. I don't mind, but I can appreciate that you liked the old way. Nothing wrong with that.
I may have good news: I think you can still run the OLD style prefs toolbar in Tiger if you wish. Search online--I'm pretty sure there's a hack that does just what you want.
Just don't assume, because ONE change Apple made wasn't ideal for your habits, that ALL future changes by Apple will be mistakes. I expect that 10.5 will actually bring some good things.
I guess I like to "Think Different" with my camera choice (Pentax), much as I do with my computer choice (Mac). 8)
I have to admit that they are doing things "The Apple Way."
They have a small market share, so they are coming out with unique products.
I really like this new lens. No one else has anything like it. (from steves-digicams. (no link to the lens)
"Pentax Announces First Pentax DA Fish-Eye Lens
Golden, CO...PENTAX Imaging Company has announced the smc PENTAX DA FISH-EYE 10-17mm F3.5-4.5 ED [IF] lens. Designed exclusively for use with the PENTAX line of digital SLRs, this interchangeable lens offers fish-eye (180° diagonal angle of view at a focal length of 10mm) to super wide-angle performance in a single unit.
Mounted on the PENTAX *ist D series of digital SLRs, the new PENTAX lens will capture fish-eye imagery with a 180 degree angle of view and a focal length of 10mm as well as super wide-angle performance that allows photographer to make use of dramatic angles-of- view resulting from slight changes in focal length. This super wide-angle capability also will capture images with an expanded perspective including creative deformation of subjects and sharp pan focus that extends throughout the entire frame.
The image circle of this new lens will match the image recording area (23.5mm x 15.7mm) of the *ist D series to ensure precise optical performance ideally suited to the camera's digital imaging characteristics. The smc PENTAX DA FISH-EYE 10-17mm F3.5-4.5 ED [IF] lens design also features lightweight, compact dimensions compared with 35mm format, SLR interchangeable lenses with equivalent specifications.
The new lens will ship in January 2006 with an anticipated price of $579.95 US."
Spotlight Search really does have to be fixed NOW.
It's been getting better. It wasn't usable for me until 10.4.3 brought a much needed speed boost and ability to type without it going off searching on every key.
It still annoys me I can't command-tab to the results window. And not having a command-f for non spotlight indexed data is stupid. But it's now quite usable, even on bigger disks.
Add a boolean search and I'd be happier.
The Finder got quite a few fixes in 10.4 like it now updating if you change something in a terminal. It's still slow. It still hangs too often on remote access. It still has dumb ftp/dav support. It still never seems to remember window placements and settings. It's much nicer if you run the iridium theme to remove the metal. The dumb noises they added in 10.4 are annoying.
If they remove column view I'll be terribly annoyed though. That and sprung folders are to me the best ideas going.
It's been getting better. It wasn't usable for me until 10.4.3 brought a much needed speed boost and ability to type without it going off searching on every key.
It still annoys me I can't command-tab to the results window. And not having a command-f for non spotlight indexed data is stupid. But it's now quite usable, even on bigger disks.
Add a boolean search and I'd be happier.
The Finder got quite a few fixes in 10.4 like it now updating if you change something in a terminal. It's still slow. It still hangs too often on remote access. It still has dumb ftp/dav support. It still never seems to remember window placements and settings. It's much nicer if you run the iridium theme to remove the metal. The dumb noises they added in 10.4 are annoying.
If they remove column view I'll be terribly annoyed though. That and sprung folders are to me the best ideas going.
Spotlight controls almost every aspect of the search process now, and it can be frustrating.
I deal with lots of video and pic files. If I add one to a folder, and then type the name in the search box, more often than not, the little circle just keeps turning around. sometimes a beachball comes up for several seconds to a minute. If I then tab back to the original column in the folder, I can find it manually. This is definitely wrong. Sometimes it will find files - but not the one I searched on! Sometimes it will find the first thing I look for, but later it can't find anything. It's annoying that it won't wait until I've finished typing, because if it finds something, it won't continue after more letters or numbers are typed in, even though that damned circle is spinning around.
Not that all of this this is worse than before, but it is supposed to be better.
Speaking of raw, does anyone know how it's implemented in OS X? I wonder if third parties could develop raw plug-ins to add support for new cameras.
I always thought that different camera manufacturers had different specs for RAW images, so nothing is actually compatible with their respective format until they choose to make it so.
I remember reading that Nikon had finally agreed to let Adobe take a peek at their RAW format so that Photoshop can recognize their RAW format without plug-ins from Nikon.
I'm pretty curious about this myself, as I want to start shooting just in RAW.
When will Apple fix the bug where icons don't snap to grid on the desktop properly? My 15 inch PB can only fit 32 icons on the desktop when it should be able to hold twice this number, because the columns are twice as far apart as they should be. I know lots of other people are having this problem too, and it is exremely annoying. The desktop is the most visible feature of the whole operating system. If they can't even fix this, what chance do they really have at selling people on OS X.
I always thought that different camera manufacturers had different specs for RAW images, so nothing is actually compatible with their respective format until they choose to make it so.
That's mostly correct, but most camera makers are idiots and don't give specs to anyone so what ends up happening is that Dave Coffin reverse-engineers the format for every new camera and releases code for it. Thus even if Apple doesn't support a particular camera's raw format, third parties could figure it out and write the code... if Apple allows it.
Comments
Originally posted by webmail
You need resolution independence for what now? Do you have a 300dpi or even 200dpi display? Do you have a graphics card that can drive this? Hell we don't even have a processor that can drive this sorta thing.
This is about 2 years off on my list.
This really doesn't present much of a challange to any graphics card on the market today, as long as it has 64MB RAM. Graphics aren't challanged by any 2D work anymore. It's the 3D functions that present problems.
you don't need a 200 or 300 dpi monitor for this to be a problem. My Sony 24" at 1920 x 1200 has text in the finder that is too small already for many people. you can increase that size now, but the result is clumsy, at best. The problem is far worse with most anything else. Many times magnification just isn't a good solution. A systemwide solution is needed.
TRhe processing power for this is no greater than what is needed now. Once a size is selected, there is nothing special that the system has to do. No different than what we have now.
Originally posted by nagromme
http://developer.apple.com/releaseno...pendentUI.html [/B]
I remember reading that at the time it came out. It was well distributed, but I forgot all about it.
Apple had that out well before current cpu's and graphics boards. It shows that power is not a limitation for implementation.
Originally posted by bikertwin
Any rumors of new camera support, such as Pentax raw?
10.4.4 is supposed to have an increased level of support, but as to which cameras?
I've heard that they intend to support all D-SLR's at some point.
Remember though, that Canon and Nikon account for 90% of the sales of such cameras. So support reflects that.
Originally posted by Chucker
[B]Which is 101 ppi.
Um, there's a few problems with that.
1) that resolution is 16:10. The 15-inch PowerBook, however, is 3:2 (or 15:10).
So? It wasn't a 1:1 mapping he was pointing out.
2) You can't exactly use a higher resolution on a TFT than the one it was designed for, unless you want to fake the user into thinking there's higher detail than there actually is.
and he said that if a 15" display had a 2560x1600 resolution, it'd be 200dpi, and he is right.
3) If you're suggesting for Apple to offer this much higher resolution during a redesign, you're being unrealistic. Even if Apple were to consider doing that, they would be heavily hindered by the fact that there are most likely no current panels of this extreme density. If someone were to produce them (or if one existed), it would be at outrageous prices that people would not be willing to pay for a laptop.
and he pointed out that 150dpi panels exist today at the 15" size, and that resolution independent displays would be a near requirement for that size anyway. Have you seen Windows on those laptops, it's stupid.
I don't see 200 ppi happening any time soon.
In an Apple laptop? No.
Elsewhere? Yes, indeed we already have it. I believe that Nokia's Linux based tablet is around 200dpi.
It very much is, although the 128 MB of VRAM a PowerBook currently has are certainly enough to handle that resolution while maintaining QE, Q2DE and GPU-accel'd CI/CV.
A 2560x1600 display takes up 16MB of memory. 128MB of VRAM for such a display would be the same as driving a 4MB display with 32MB of VRAM. I'm sure Mac Minis are driven further all the time.
Originally posted by Louzer
Woohoo! A new finder! Just what we need, Apple re-designing everything again! More UI inconsistencies! More bloated software, spinning beachballs, wasted space, inconsistent usage, lots of glitz to make demos look good, removal of one UI element to add another one, for no reason then the sake of change (you know, the way they tossed the useful toolbar in System Preferences and replaced it with the near useless search box).
I actually though that toolbar was pointless, and I prefer the System Preferences the way they are in Tiger.
Originally posted by BEatMaKeR
I DON'T CARE!
When the hell is Apple going to FIX the slooooooow down of their OS on my dang dual 2ghz G5 instead of bloating their os with useless crap that makes even the most simple of tasks tedious! Like freaking opening windows and applications! C'mon!!
You must have screwed something with your finder, or are used to Cray computers
Originally posted by Hattig
A 2560x1600 display takes up 16MB of memory.
You're thinking in terms of VGA. For DVI, calculating this is a more complicated matter. And as I said, a lot of VRAM will be required to drive QE (for window compositing acceleration), Q2DE (for actual drawing acceleration, especially when we're talking about resolution independence!) and CI/CV.
Originally posted by nagromme
Every kind of change will always be unappealing to some. That's life. For instance I really, really like Spotlight in System Preferences. But not everyone has to like what I like.
That's fine. But why did they lose the toolbar? They could've kept both.
However, if you're assuming the new Finder will throw out all the good and familiar, I suspect you're wrong. I think it will be like the current Finder, but improved. Which is needed! Less buggy, LESS bloated and wasteful... and MORE--not less--consistent. These are the benefits of rewriting the Finder. The bloat and beachballs you fear are more likely to result from NOT re-doing the Finder.
Well, I guess my concept of bloat is different then yours. In my eyes, bloat is what you get when you add more functionality to an existing product. It gets larger and larger. Plus, the fact that you're adding more or less implies you're not rewriting what's there. I doubt they'd keep the same finder interface and say "Hey, let's just rework all the underpinnings!", because someone's going to say "What? You want to rewrite a bunch of code so what you get is what we already have?".
Rewriting also doesn't make it more consistent (and more consistent with what?). Its more likely that it would be less consistent (hell, the rewrote mail and now its less consistent then the other OS X apps then before).
Oh, and while re-writing might get rid of bloat or beachballs from existing non-optimized code, it also then leads to, get this, more bugs, not less. Because the code would have to be retested from the ground up, not where the finder is now. So, who knows, you could be talking more beachballs waiting for the buggy code to get fixed.
Oh, and to say they'll add more to the current finder, I'd believe that if it wasn't for the fact that when they 'improved' the system preferences, they actually took out useful (for me, at least) functionality. I used to keep highly used system preferences up there (network, .mac, user, windowshade, etc) for easy access. Now its always a game of "Find the icon". Sorry, I guess I just never got in the habit of typing in 4 characters to find something that should be a click away.
Originally posted by Chucker
Um, there's a few problems with that.
1) that resolution is 16:10. The 15-inch PowerBook, however, is 3:2 (or 15:10).
He didn't mean literally that specific shape--he meant that the GPU in a current PB has the power to drive a high number of pixels like that.
2) You can't exactly use a higher resolution on a TFT than the one it was designed for, unless you want to fake the user into thinking there's higher detail than there actually is.
Yes, you can.
This isn't about changing resolutions like a CRT does (or like faking it on an LCD). If that's what you're talking about, this is different. This is a res-independent UI. Fully scalable.
An analogy: you may be talking about making a 1400-pixel LCD "think" it has 2800 pixels (just an example). Bad idea--you're right. But that's not res-independence. Res-independence is when the screen is always native 1400 and knows it.... but the 28 point fonts are all 9 point. The 64-pixel icons are all 32. The 20-pixel menu bar is now 10. All automatic and completely system-wide. EVERYTHING scalable by a percent. Want everything 25% smaller, or 25% larger, then you see it now? You can--at full sharpness. You give up detail to gain workspace, or vice versa. To any degree you choose, at any time you wish to change it.
It's a simple percentage slide, and it's in Tiger now (but hidden). Once the OS is ready with the higher-res bitmaps (window buttons etc) to make it look CLEAN, it can be enabled. That might wait for Leopard.
3) If you're suggesting for Apple to offer this much higher resolution during a redesign, you're being unrealistic.
I agree (and he probably didn't mean that literally either). But you could have the equivalent WORKSPACE even with the current screen unit. Fewer pixels but more windows: everything would be at a smaller pixel size. A useful option to have for certain tasks, as I mentioned above. AND that means no more pixels for the GPU to push than we have today.
200-300 DPI is ONE reason to need a scalable UI. In future. But there other reasons right now. And Leopard (aka 10.5) might well take us from 2007 to 2009 or something, after all.
Originally posted by Louzer
That's fine. But why did they lose the toolbar? They could've kept both.
I can see that detail is a pet peeve of yours
But that detail doesn't mean you shouldn't want Apple to make other changes. Some of them you WILL like
And you certainly shouldn't want Apple not to re-work the Finder. It truly needs that. Rather, you should want them to re-work it in a GOOD way. Despite the loss of that toolbar you liked in Prefs, Apple does do MANY good things with software.
Well, I guess my concept of bloat is different then yours. In my eyes, bloat is what you get when you add more functionality to an existing product. It gets larger and larger. Plus, the fact that you're adding more or less implies you're not rewriting what's there.
Agreed. That's why they SHOULD re-write what's there. (And software will always gain features and get bigger over time. It's not ALWAYS wrong to add functionality--and people who don't want it can stick with the old version.)
I doubt they'd keep the same finder interface and say "Hey, let's just rework all the underpinnings!", because someone's going to say "What? You want to rewrite a bunch of code so what you get is what we already have?".
Well, yes--that is done all the time. Something works well on the surface but is buggy underneath, so you re-write it. Sometimes that becomes necessary, and the Finder is old enough to have reached that stage. The result is something that is "the same" in some ways. And improved in others.
The re-done Finder won't be identical, but I'm sure it won't throw out everything that's familiar either. Some things work great about the Finder and will still be with us. How different will the next Finder be? We don't know. On the surface it may be very similar, just more stable. With nicely-integrated new features added that you can use or not as you see fit. Or it may be time for a bigger change. Like when Column View (which I love) arrived from NeXT.
And even if they kept the old Finder like you want, it wouldn't stay identical. It's not perfect, and will evolve. No matter what. Change will come. New features will come. So, they may as well simplify and optimize it by going Cocoa in the process.
Rewriting also doesn't make it more consistent (and more consistent with what?). Its more likely that it would be less consistent (hell, the rewrote mail and now its less consistent then the other OS X apps then before).
I agree here too. We're into MY pet peeves now
Rewriting does NOT mean more UI consistency.
The reason I believe more UI consistency is coming is because of the res-independent UI. See above. Apple is re-drawing ALL the UI graphics, by necessity. That's a chance to make them consistent, and failing to do so only multiplies their work.
The variety of different themes they have tried bewilders me, but I believe they will pick from among them and settle on a single direction (or two--I'm OK with that). iTunes 5 is probably a hint of things to come.
Oh, and while re-writing might get rid of bloat or beachballs from existing non-optimized code, it also then leads to, get this, more bugs, not less. Because the code would have to be retested from the ground up, not where the finder is now.
By that logic, all old software should always be kept and never re-worked, "just in case" they do an incompetent job with the new version. But there WILL always be new software. You don't have to buy it, but software WILL continue to be written. And yes, it will need testing, and nothing will ever be 100% bug-free.
I used to keep highly used system preferences up there (network, .mac, user, windowshade, etc) for easy access. Now its always a game of "Find the icon". Sorry, I guess I just never got in the habit of typing in 4 characters to find something that should be a click away.
There's your pet peeve again
I may have good news: I think you can still run the OLD style prefs toolbar in Tiger if you wish. Search online--I'm pretty sure there's a hack that does just what you want.
Just don't assume, because ONE change Apple made wasn't ideal for your habits, that ALL future changes by Apple will be mistakes. I expect that 10.5 will actually bring some good things.
Originally posted by melgross
10.4.4 is supposed to have an increased level of support, but as to which cameras?
I've heard that they intend to support all D-SLR's at some point.
Remember though, that Canon and Nikon account for 90% of the sales of such cameras. So support reflects that.
I guess I like to "Think Different" with my camera choice (Pentax), much as I do with my computer choice (Mac). 8)
Originally posted by bikertwin
I guess I like to "Think Different" with my camera choice (Pentax), much as I do with my computer choice (Mac). 8)
I have to admit that they are doing things "The Apple Way."
They have a small market share, so they are coming out with unique products.
I really like this new lens. No one else has anything like it. (from steves-digicams. (no link to the lens)
"Pentax Announces First Pentax DA Fish-Eye Lens
Golden, CO...PENTAX Imaging Company has announced the smc PENTAX DA FISH-EYE 10-17mm F3.5-4.5 ED [IF] lens. Designed exclusively for use with the PENTAX line of digital SLRs, this interchangeable lens offers fish-eye (180° diagonal angle of view at a focal length of 10mm) to super wide-angle performance in a single unit.
Mounted on the PENTAX *ist D series of digital SLRs, the new PENTAX lens will capture fish-eye imagery with a 180 degree angle of view and a focal length of 10mm as well as super wide-angle performance that allows photographer to make use of dramatic angles-of- view resulting from slight changes in focal length. This super wide-angle capability also will capture images with an expanded perspective including creative deformation of subjects and sharp pan focus that extends throughout the entire frame.
The image circle of this new lens will match the image recording area (23.5mm x 15.7mm) of the *ist D series to ensure precise optical performance ideally suited to the camera's digital imaging characteristics. The smc PENTAX DA FISH-EYE 10-17mm F3.5-4.5 ED [IF] lens design also features lightweight, compact dimensions compared with 35mm format, SLR interchangeable lenses with equivalent specifications.
The new lens will ship in January 2006 with an anticipated price of $579.95 US."
For what it is, the price isn't high.
Originally posted by melgross
Spotlight Search really does have to be fixed NOW.
It's been getting better. It wasn't usable for me until 10.4.3 brought a much needed speed boost and ability to type without it going off searching on every key.
It still annoys me I can't command-tab to the results window. And not having a command-f for non spotlight indexed data is stupid. But it's now quite usable, even on bigger disks.
Add a boolean search and I'd be happier.
The Finder got quite a few fixes in 10.4 like it now updating if you change something in a terminal. It's still slow. It still hangs too often on remote access. It still has dumb ftp/dav support. It still never seems to remember window placements and settings. It's much nicer if you run the iridium theme to remove the metal. The dumb noises they added in 10.4 are annoying.
If they remove column view I'll be terribly annoyed though. That and sprung folders are to me the best ideas going.
Originally posted by aegisdesign
It's been getting better. It wasn't usable for me until 10.4.3 brought a much needed speed boost and ability to type without it going off searching on every key.
It still annoys me I can't command-tab to the results window. And not having a command-f for non spotlight indexed data is stupid. But it's now quite usable, even on bigger disks.
Add a boolean search and I'd be happier.
The Finder got quite a few fixes in 10.4 like it now updating if you change something in a terminal. It's still slow. It still hangs too often on remote access. It still has dumb ftp/dav support. It still never seems to remember window placements and settings. It's much nicer if you run the iridium theme to remove the metal. The dumb noises they added in 10.4 are annoying.
If they remove column view I'll be terribly annoyed though. That and sprung folders are to me the best ideas going.
Spotlight controls almost every aspect of the search process now, and it can be frustrating.
I deal with lots of video and pic files. If I add one to a folder, and then type the name in the search box, more often than not, the little circle just keeps turning around. sometimes a beachball comes up for several seconds to a minute. If I then tab back to the original column in the folder, I can find it manually. This is definitely wrong. Sometimes it will find files - but not the one I searched on! Sometimes it will find the first thing I look for, but later it can't find anything. It's annoying that it won't wait until I've finished typing, because if it finds something, it won't continue after more letters or numbers are typed in, even though that damned circle is spinning around.
Not that all of this this is worse than before, but it is supposed to be better.
Originally posted by Gates_of_Hell
It?s a good job you don?t use Windows?otherwise, you could be in for a very long wait?
Yep... I have used it daily for the past 12+ years. I am still waiting for Microsoft to fix the bugs in Winders.
Originally posted by wmf
Speaking of raw, does anyone know how it's implemented in OS X? I wonder if third parties could develop raw plug-ins to add support for new cameras.
I always thought that different camera manufacturers had different specs for RAW images, so nothing is actually compatible with their respective format until they choose to make it so.
I remember reading that Nikon had finally agreed to let Adobe take a peek at their RAW format so that Photoshop can recognize their RAW format without plug-ins from Nikon.
I'm pretty curious about this myself, as I want to start shooting just in RAW.
Originally posted by Gene Clean
I always thought that different camera manufacturers had different specs for RAW images, so nothing is actually compatible with their respective format until they choose to make it so.
That's mostly correct, but most camera makers are idiots and don't give specs to anyone so what ends up happening is that Dave Coffin reverse-engineers the format for every new camera and releases code for it. Thus even if Apple doesn't support a particular camera's raw format, third parties could figure it out and write the code... if Apple allows it.