Apple places full-screen QT, ZFS, more hidden features in Leopard

2

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 47
    Yawn. What's "Leopard"?



  • Reply 22 of 47
    djpadzdjpadz Posts: 37member
    Quote:

    You can, just create a new, empty message, and enter the phone number as the username. Type your message and it goes off as a SMS text message.



    Well, kind of... That's sending SMS through an AOL gateway. You can, however, send SMS through your (supported) cell phone by using Address Book. My guess is that they're saying that iChat will support direct SMS through the cell phone now.
  • Reply 23 of 47
    hmurchisonhmurchison Posts: 12,273member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post


    Yawn. What's "Leopard"?







    I think it's a dog of some kind
  • Reply 24 of 47
    I haven't tested this theory, but it looks like Apple has some sort of wiki caching server... Wiki searches within the new dictionary app come up "spotlight-fast".



    Also of note... Disk Utility now supports partition magic-like features... Resizing system partitions, and even resizing disk images.
  • Reply 25 of 47
    To avoid confusion... Apple is not using the Oxford English Dictionary (OED) rather the New Oxford American Dictionary (NOAD2) that is available online: http://www.oxfordamericandictionary.com .
  • Reply 26 of 47
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by meelash View Post


    Google Talk already uses Jabber, no? I use my Google Talk account with iChat right now.



    I was going to write the same thing - I too am using Google Talk in iChat right now.
  • Reply 27 of 47
    mstonemstone Posts: 11,510member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by krankerz View Post


    You can, just create a new, empty message, and enter the phone number as the username. Type your message and it goes off as a SMS text message.



    I've done this but it is not that reliable. Many times if the recipient replies, you don't get it. Sometimes you do at first but then it fails the second time. Just my experience sending txt to a Verizon phone.
  • Reply 28 of 47
    MarvinMarvin Posts: 14,228moderator
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by sandor View Post


    have you ever seen/read the MPEG-LA's licensing scheme? higher volume does NOT equal drastically lower cost for MPEG-2 licensing.



    So do free open source projects violate this licensing? I figure they could use an open source solution.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by louzer


    I just assumed he meant 'without' the MPEG license, which is extra anyway (its not part of pro, is it, I thought it was on top of it).



    I was meaning inclusive but sure if it cost apple too much then it could easily just be the pro features. Lots of people just need a quick movie clip editor.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by MacGregor


    I don't know much about it, but I assume that even if it is set up to be "read only" that means that "write" is also one line of code away.



    Not quite. If it was that simple, we'd have had NTFS write ages ago and we're still not getting it in leopard by the looks of it.



    They already have ZFS write but you have to download the extension separate from the developer site.



    I personally think it will be ready in time because we still have a while to go but whether they choose to include it is a different matter.
  • Reply 29 of 47
    tbagginstbaggins Posts: 2,306member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post


    Yawn. What's "Leopard"?







    It's this cool new operating system that Microsoft will be trying to copy... ahem, is relying on for their OS R&D.



    Expect to see it on your PC in 2009.



    .
  • Reply 30 of 47
    solipsismsolipsism Posts: 25,726member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Louzer View Post


    What??? Full-screen video? That can't be possible? I was under the impression that this was such a hard and functioanlly challenging task to perform that ir required lots of development time and effort, and, thus, a small charge of $30 to purchase this. Does this mean that OS X is going to cost $30 more this year?



    QT Pro has a great many capabilities past fullscreen. It really doesn't get the create it deserves. Perhaps with the QQT being given fullscreen capabilities people will finally see QT Pro for what it really is.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Bacillus View Post


    Make the Oxford English Dictionary (OED) the base for the app...and skip the wiki BS.



    And how much would Leopard be then? Not to mention the several GB of space required for all the data.





    Quote:
    Originally Posted by melgross View Post


    He's a Wilco clone.









    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Matthew Yohe View Post


    I haven't tested this theory, but it looks like Apple has some sort of wiki caching server... Wiki searches within the new dictionary app come up "spotlight-fast".



    Leopard Server has a built in Wiki.





    Quote:
    Originally Posted by thadgarrison View Post


    I was going to write the same thing - I too am using Google Talk in iChat right now.



    But will be an easier configuration through a Google Talk option, instead of using Jabber? I'm surprised that we haven't seen a Yahoo Messnger option in the new Leopard builds.
  • Reply 31 of 47
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by solipsism


    Leopard Server has a built in Wiki.



    I'm talking about the wiki lookup in the Leopard client. The speed at which it searches wikipedia articles (obviously not articles that have been included in the leopard install) are blazing fast. What I was implying was that leopard may be touching an Apple based caching server to provide instant search results to my client. I will monitor what connections my computer makes tonight when searching.
  • Reply 32 of 47
    mrparetmrparet Posts: 18member
    The reason Apple is building in full-screen support in the regular (free) version of Quicktime is because you can view QT files in full screen with Quick Look in Leopard. There's no point in charging $30 for it since that feature is part of Leopard.
  • Reply 33 of 47
    jeffdmjeffdm Posts: 12,946member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by solipsism View Post


    QT Pro has a great many capabilities past fullscreen. It really doesn't get the create it deserves. Perhaps with the QQT being given fullscreen capabilities people will finally see QT Pro for what it really is.



    Quicktime Pro is a fine app, but holding full screen hostage as a "Pro" feature seemed to cheapen its perception, it's a basic playback feature that's out of place when packaged solely with non-playback features. The people that wanted full screen don't necessarily need to record, edit or encode video in the ways QTPro offers, it was a distraction that blinded people to the actual good things offered by QTPro. I understand that encoding licences cost money, but full screen does not.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by mrparet View Post


    The reason Apple is building in full-screen support in the regular (free) version of Quicktime is because you can view QT files in full screen with Quick Look in Leopard. There's no point in charging $30 for it since that feature is part of Leopard.



    I don't think there ever was any point to charging $30 for the feature.
  • Reply 34 of 47
    solipsismsolipsism Posts: 25,726member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by mrparet View Post


    The reason Apple is building in full-screen support in the regular (free) version of Quicktime is because you can view QT files in full screen with Quick Look in Leopard. There's no point in charging $30 for it since that feature is part of Leopard.



    Apple could have easily kept Quicklook from going fullscreen. Only allowing it to do so once QT Pro was activated.
  • Reply 35 of 47
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 31,780member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post


    I don't think there ever was any point to charging $30 for the feature.



    I do. Apple is paying license fees for several of the codecs in there, as well as their own development costs.



    But, the full screen feature should have been broken out long ago.
  • Reply 36 of 47
    louzerlouzer Posts: 1,054member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by solipsism View Post


    QT Pro has a great many capabilities past fullscreen. It really doesn't get the create it deserves. Perhaps with the QQT being given fullscreen capabilities people will finally see QT Pro for what it really is.



    Yes, but that's what happens when you give away something for free, and then turn around later and say "Sorry, but these simplistic and 'basic' options are now only available to you if you get QT Pro, which, BTW, contains lots of other features you will probably never use" (sorry, but not that many people do video editing or modification or other 'tweaking').



    BTW, they also removed the "save movie file" option and made it QTPro, for no apparent reason except as a money grab for those who wanted this feature.
  • Reply 37 of 47
    slewisslewis Posts: 2,080member
    Null.
  • Reply 38 of 47
    louzerlouzer Posts: 1,054member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by MacGregor View Post


    Oh, yeah.. back to ZFS....



    I don't know much about it, but I assume that even if it is set up to be "read only" that means that "write" is also one line of code away.



    Most of the file system is related to writing. It certainly isn't just "Hey, change that line to be 'enable_write = true;" and you're done. All of the features and capabilities of the file system have to be ported and supported by the OS. It doesn't just magically work. And most of the features are write-related (snapshots, for example, need to be made when the write is done, and that's not done on the HD itself, but in the file system code run by the OS). As was mentioned before, we still don't have write access to NTFS volumes.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by MacGregor View Post


    With hardware and software differences between OSes of competing platforms becoming less significant and even between version upgrades of the same OSes, Apple needs to be cutting edge with this kind of technology - as with the Core technologies.



    Make life easier on developers and more elegant for consumers and more reliable for businesses and Apple will continue to improve market share incrementally. Then when enough evolutionary steps are made under the hood, the occasional revolutionary product can be released - a la iPhone.



    This is the underlying strategy that Microsoft is either too large or too arrogant to really adopt. They would rather add stuff willy-nilly and buy their way out of dead ends, than embody a culture of innovation at the DNA level of corporate culture.



    Students of business and technology .... pay attention.



    Not true. MS has tried (and succeeded in certain areas) to do the same things apple has done. DirectX is a prime example of that, as is the .Net framework. They've also tried new file systems and such.



    Their problem lies more in either biting off more than they can chew, or pre-announcing everything and then getting bit in the ass when it doesn't work. (See, Apple's policy of never talking about anything has its advantages, you have no idea of all the stuff they've tried and failed at).



    Oh, and please keep in mind that Apple also is known for buying themselves out of dead-ends (take OS X to save Copland/Gershwin, for example) and that ZFS isn't theirs to begin with, its Sun's. Also, Apple has been known to stick with their ideas far longer then they should out of arrogance or whatever. Who's brilliant idea was the ADC connector again? Or going PCI-X instead of PCI-Express, initially? Or, when going to new tech, they just throw out the current tech at the same time. No need for backward compatibility in Apple's world (which, BTW, doesn't sit well with business folks).
  • Reply 39 of 47
    hmurchisonhmurchison Posts: 12,273member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Louzer View Post


    Oh, and please keep in mind that Apple also is known for buying themselves out of dead-ends (take OS X to save Copland/Gershwin, for example) and that ZFS isn't theirs to begin with, its Sun's. Also, Apple has been known to stick with their ideas far longer then they should out of arrogance or whatever. Who's brilliant idea was the ADC connector again? Or going PCI-X instead of PCI-Express, initially? Or, when going to new tech, they just throw out the current tech at the same time. No need for backward compatibility in Apple's world (which, BTW, doesn't sit well with business folks).



    True...Apple learned quickly with Copland that backwards compatibility has a price. Apple today seems to be clever and knowing how to mix their own homegrown technology with Open Source technologies to great benefit.



    ADC was a brilliant idea from Apple's standpoint. It eliminated clutter and locked some into Apple monitors. I think the idea is sound but monitors grew large and ate up too much power.



    PCI-X was a more mature technology than PCI-Express. You could easily get a PCI-X RAID or other high end card but PCI-Express took a while to hit the market and frankly provided somewhat of a dubious value in the beginning.



    Apple supports backwards compatibility when it makes sense. Since they aren't competing with other Macintosh vendors like the clone days thay don't have to toss in immature product/features into their lineup until the market is ready. Well that's the goal.



    ZFS write will come when its ready. Fullscreen video playback will be an integral part of Leopard. Apple is no longer dependent on the trivial revenue opportunities. The iPhone will bring in Billions...it's time for them to stop focusing on the pennies and start focusing on the dollars.
  • Reply 40 of 47
    aegisdesignaegisdesign Posts: 2,914member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Matthew Yohe View Post


    To avoid confusion... Apple is not using the Oxford English Dictionary (OED) rather the New Oxford American Dictionary (NOAD2) that is available online: http://www.oxfordamericandictionary.com .



    That's an important distinction I wish they'd fix for us proper English speakers.





    Quote:
    Originally Posted by thadgarrison View Post


    I was going to write the same thing - I too am using Google Talk in iChat right now.



    Does Voice work in it or just IM? Last I checked it was IM only.



    I use Gizmo myself - proper SIP voice calls (supports Asterisk even) and now it also supports Jabber, AIM and most importantly for Europeans or indeed anyone outside the USA, MSN. Almost everybody uses MSN outside the USA.



    I'd go back to iChat in a heartbeat though if it did SIP and MSN.
Sign In or Register to comment.