Apple's Leopard has its eye on Redmond

123468

Comments

  • Reply 101 of 144
    emig647emig647 Posts: 2,455member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by hmurchison

    Thank God for the iPod because without it I don't know where Apple would be.



    I think they'd be just where they were before the iPod... maybe a little better with this intel transition.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 102 of 144
    Quote:

    Originally posted by hmurchison

    Apple's competing with Microsoft regardless of what Steve says. If Dell died tomorrow that would not mean an Apple victory it would simply mean more sales for HP, Lenovo, Acer and Sony amongst others.





    True. What I meant was that Apple is a hardware company. It exists to sell Macs, not copies of Tiger or Leopard. Therefore, the market importance of OS X is to be what Apple has that beats a regular PC. Apple is competing against Windows only because the other OEMs use it.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 103 of 144
    benroethigbenroethig Posts: 2,782member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by ZachPruckowski

    True. What I meant was that Apple is a hardware company. It exists to sell Macs, not copies of Tiger or Leopard. Therefore, the market importance of OS X is to be what Apple has that beats a regular PC. Apple is competing against Windows only because the other OEMs use it.



    Apple isn't in the same market segment as the other OEMs. Apple cannot and shouldn't play for the same commodity dollars that Dell and HP get. Their machines are not designed to play there. Mac OS X, however, is in the same market segment as Windows.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 104 of 144
    kcmackcmac Posts: 1,051member
    I don't care whether they compete with MS or Dell.



    The iPod pushed Apple along at a time when they needed some zing, both financially and public relations wise. Now with the intel processor and the new hardware, Apple will start hauling the money away by the truck loads. Just wait until the MacPros come out, Adobe gets their crap together, their media center goes full swing, Leopard arrives, etc. I think this quarter will show what most of us know now. The MacBook is selling like hotcakes and will start to push non-iPod hardware to the top.



    The iPod will look like an accessory in a couple years time. (Well, that new rumored non-touch video thing could keep this ball rolling...)



    I don't buy Apples products to try and make them number one. I buy them because I like them. And I think they are just now hitting stride.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 105 of 144
    Quote:

    Originally posted by BenRoethig

    Apple isn't in the same market segment as the other OEMs. Apple cannot and shouldn't play for the same commodity dollars that Dell and HP get. Their machines are not designed to play there. Mac OS X, however, is in the same market segment as Windows.



    I'm not talking about competing for the $400 computers market, I mean the $800-1500 home computer market. Everytime someone says "well, Dell is $200 cheaper", Apple guys hit back with "yeah, but iLife, OS X, security, TCO" etc.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 106 of 144
    benroethigbenroethig Posts: 2,782member
    I'm not talking about $200-400 PCs. I'm talking about computers in general. While most mac users may believe that the imac is some kind of evolution of a PC tower, the truth is that they are completely different animals for different users. The PC is going to give you expandability that the iMac never can. The iMac is going to give the user a lot of power, but simplicity at the same time.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 107 of 144
    How many home users actually do expansion? I mean, unless someone is a serious game player, they probably won't be upgrading much. A typical family which uses Office, IE, and e-mail isn't going to be popping another video card or HDD into their computer. To a home user, the expandibility of a PC tower is not that important. It matters to you and I, and most of the people on this board, and most of the people on digg or slashdot, but most computer users don't give a darn.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 108 of 144
    kickahakickaha Posts: 8,760member
    Bingo. The vast majority of 'expandable' PCs are never expanded, and simply chucked en masse, and replaced with completely new boxes.



    The number of people who manually upgrade their boxes is small, and the percentage as compared to the general marketplace is shrinking daily.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 109 of 144
    trobertstroberts Posts: 702member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by aegisdesign

    Why would you want GNUStep to learn Obective-C/Cocoa when you've MacOSX already ?



    I do not want to use GNUstep to learn Objective-C/Cocoa, I want to learn GNUstep in addition to Cocoa. The desktop look is what got me interested in learning GNUstep but there are benefits to porting an OS X (Cocoa) app to GNUstep like:



    1 - learning what frameworks/APIs are common, which ones are not, and how to work around the differences.

    2 - learning how to manually make/build an application

    3 - get exposure to linux (Gentoo in my case) since FreeBSD is not fully functional on the PPC and GNUstep is not supported on OpenBSD, which does support PPC.

    4 - exposure to and a better understaning of open source since only OS X apps get installed on my Tiger.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 110 of 144
    turnwriteturnwrite Posts: 372member
    But wait, about this "resolution independence."



    I have a hopelessly outdated iBook that maxes out at 800x600, so this feature really interests me....



    How exactly would this work? What could you do with it?



    And also, does Vista have this feature? I had heard that but I'm not sure.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 111 of 144
    aquaticaquatic Posts: 5,602member
    Quote:

    One of the rumored features is said to be OS-level integration of a geographical mapping technology, similar to Microsoft's Virtual Earth. In recent months, Microsoft has made several acquisitions aimed at bolstering its Virtual Earth division, including a buyout of Vexcel Corp.



    Pff, they're prolly going to add that to Sherlock huh.



    Apple is trying, or tried, to replace the Internet with Sherlock. Sorry. Won't work. I haven't even opened Sherlock. Ever. I think I threw it away. Fuck map directions. Thats' why people bookmark Google or Yahoo maps. What a waste of money. I doubt that.



    Besides I'll have ESRI ArcGIS ArcMap on my Parellels soon! 8) Sure wish someone would make a Mac GIS program.



    edit: I wouldn't mind tabs in Finder. I wonder if they'll ever add them. Or integrate Safari and the Finder. Half joking on that last one.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 112 of 144
    kim kap solkim kap sol Posts: 2,987member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by turnwrite

    But wait, about this "resolution independence."



    I have a hopelessly outdated iBook that maxes out at 800x600, so this feature really interests me....



    How exactly would this work? What could you do with it?



    And also, does Vista have this feature? I had heard that but I'm not sure.




    Not much...resolution independence will generally become more useful as the physical area of the screen remains the same and as resolution increase.



    The Mac OS X GUI as we know it today only shrinks as screen resolution increases because the screen can display more pixels on a certain fixed physical area and the OS simply isn't aware of the fact that the physical area is the same since the icons are fixed sizes, the menu bar is a fixed size, the window title bars are fixed sizes, etc.



    Resolution independence simply allows on-screen objects to be dynamically resizable so that you don't need to squint at smaller icons, smaller menu bars, smaller title bars, etc.



    So res independence will only get more interesting in the future as screen resolution increases. You could still use it on your iBook to, say, make the on-screen objects bigger so you can see them at a distance...I suppose you could also make on-screen objects smaller...but you'd lose some details.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 113 of 144
    turnwriteturnwrite Posts: 372member
    Thanks for explaining.



    Okay, so it sounds like I could just resize some objects onscreen to make them smaller and fit more.



    For instance, the app I use the most is Adobe InDesign, and it's hell on an 800x600 resolution. It sounds like it'd be possible to resize some things to make it all fit. You're right though, I would lose some detail...



    Hm. I saw a demonstration video of this feature in Vista and they were running Calculator at three different resolutions in 3 windows all next to each other. So if you can make stuff bigger, you should be able to make it smaller too.



    Right?



    I'm definitely getting Leopard.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 114 of 144
    chuckerchucker Posts: 5,089member
    Since you're specifically mentioning calculator, I might as well use that as an example.



    Here's Calculator's window and its menu bar at 1.00 / 72 dpi (no positive or negative scaling):











    Here's the same at 2.00 / 144 dpi (scaled to double its size):











    And finally, 0.5, or half the size:











    You'll notice all sorts of weird display anomalies in those screenshots, which is a large part of the reason this feature isn't officially enabled yet. Also, the window screenshots have your post in the background for comparison (the size of the background browser window doesn't change).
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 115 of 144
    josa92josa92 Posts: 193member
    are you all blind?



    the link to the shots says that they are 100% fake. Photoshopped. DOne up. Fake.



    goshes.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 116 of 144
    chuckerchucker Posts: 5,089member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by josa92

    are you all blind?



    the link to the shots says that they are 100% fake. Photoshopped. DOne up. Fake.



    goshes.



    Are you blind?



    No recent post talks about those shots any more. In fact, various posts explicitly state that those shots have been confirmed as fake.



    goshes.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 117 of 144
    turnwriteturnwrite Posts: 372member
    I see your point, that the feature isn't perfect, the windows look blotchy, and it really isn't meant to help low-end screens, but uber high end ones. Yet I still don't see why it COULDN'T be used to give more screen real estate on an 800x600 screen.



    If I were to do the same thing you did with the Calculator with ALL windows, wouldn't it be the equivalent of having a 1024x764 screen on an 800x600 one? I mean, what is the difference; everything on the screen is the same size as it'd be with a larger screen res!



    Even if the windows look a little warped, it's just a little. Your example shrinking the calculator didn't look too bad to me...



    Although I suppose it'd be annoying to have to manually open some dialog box and change the screen res on every single individual window.



    But you'd think that Apple would realize the potential that this has for people with older machines, and have some sort of "Virtual Screen Resolution" thing in System Preferences that automatically shrinks all windows by a certain degree.



    Or am I just babbling nonsense?
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 118 of 144
    chuckerchucker Posts: 5,089member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by turnwrite

    Yet I still don't see why it COULDN'T be used to give more screen real estate on an 800x600 screen.



    It could. I don't disagree with that.



    Quote:

    Although I suppose it'd be annoying to have to manually open some dialog box and change the screen res on every single individual window.



    You wouldn't; you can set that globally.



    It's a perfectly fine solution, if you can deal with the quality decrease. I never said otherwise.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 119 of 144
    turnwriteturnwrite Posts: 372member
    Really?



    You can set that globally?



    You're using the developer version of this feature that shipped with Tiger, right? So you can globally set the decrease/increase resolution size for all windows using this developer thing in Tiger?
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 120 of 144
    chuckerchucker Posts: 5,089member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by turnwrite

    Really?



    You can set that globally?



    Yep! Obviously, not all applications respect the setting properly, and there's lots of weird drawing bugs, some caused by OS X and some caused by application-specific problems. But:



    Quote:

    You're using the developer version of this feature that shipped with Tiger, right?



    I'm using Quartz Debug, a developer utility that ships with Xcode Tools. It has a slider that lets you go from scale factor 0.5 all the way to 3.0. This change affects applications that launch afterwards; you cannot "live-change" this value. (Currently running applications will continue to use the previous scale factor.)



    So, you can change the factor, then reboot or even just log out and back in, and? tada.



    Quote:

    So you can globally set the decrease/increase resolution size for all windows using this developer thing in Tiger?



    Yes, that's right. There's an awful lot of bugs with this right now, however (mainly in terms of how things are displayed; behaviour is mostly perfectly fine). It's not ready for prime time.



    But the technology is there, and developers are encouraged to start adjusting their applications to it.



    Here's a screenshot of the entire system running with scale factor 0.5:







    This is not a fake, or a customization, or photoshopped to clean thing sup or whatever. It's a live system shot, with the only modification being the scale factor.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
Sign In or Register to comment.